Mic: In 1999, artist Chris Ofili put on display in New York City a painting he made depicting the Virgin Mary as part of an exhibition called Sensation. The work, "The Holy Virgin Mary," is a riot of tropical color that plays toward none of the usual cliches of Western Christian imagery. Mary's skin is dark and her lips wide and red. Her robe is open to bare one breast, which is represented by a piece of dried elephant dung that Ofili had appropriated. Looking closer, it's apparent that the image itself is made up of collaged pornography.
5 comments:
So I think everyone agrees that what happened in Paris is a terrible tragedy, and that nobody is arguing that that event was beneficial to anybody. However, I have heard some arguments, arguments that are based in good faith, as to why Charlie Hebdo should not have lampooned religious icons from any faith the way it has, and why the magazine should discontinue it's satire. I have to respectfully and whole heartedly disagree with those arguments, and I think this article does a good job summing up why. Art has a way of starting a conversation, and the shocking nature of some art is a way to start that one conversation that nobody seems to want to have. It is our jobs as citizens of the world, but especially as creators and analysts of art, a job we have chosen and bestowed upon ourselves, to try and understand the art created in our world in a reasonable and rational fashion. The article said it best, "When art shocks, when it offends or profanes, the proper response is not lashing out in anger but asking yourself why it's offensive and what its supposed trespasses against the sacred mean." This is important, because as soon as you let fear, or anger, or irrationality to limit yourself or other artists you shut down a potential conversation. Whether the conversation is good or bad, insensitive or prophetic, doesn't matter. The medium of art is a peaceful conduit for those conversations to begin, and that act is, and should always be, an innate right.
This article opened my eyes to a new way of looking at the Charlie Hebdo attacks.
As dramaturgs, we are taught (or if not directly taught, socially encouraged) to instantly take the offense side when cultural stereotypes come into play, in art or in life. This gut-reaction to offensive material is not without reason: It's our job to be aware of when a project we are working on could alienate a particular subset of our potential audience, or to anticipate if our production might garner a bad reputation due to an offensive choice. When I learned that the Charlie Hebdo comics were perpetuating offensive Islamic stereotypes, I did not want to support the publication. Though the shooting was a horrible tragedy, I felt angry that the world would stand behind a publication without considering the ideas Charlie Hebdo appeared to support. After reading this, I can better appreciate the value of offensive art: "when art shocks, when it offends or profanes, the proper response is not lashing out in anger but asking yourself why it's offensive and what its supposed trespasses against the sacred mean." "In mourning the tragedy, let us not forget that Charlie Hebdo was shocking, obscene and offensive because the world is." Well-said. After all, everyone's interpretation of what is offensive is different, so shouldn't we explore that difference? At the same time, I do hope that we can find a way to support free speech without turning the rhetoric around this event into an anti-Islam debate.
“Charlie Hebdo was shocking, obscene and offensive because the world is." This sentence sums up the world we live in. The world is a horrible place at times; it’s disgusting and brutal. For all the reports we hear on the news of an attack or a rape or a bombing, there’s another dozen of the same happening in another place. Art has always been made to evoke a thought or a feeling or fulfill a need to express ideas about the environment of the artist. How then can so many people be disgusted by an expression of the world around us? Humanity is too willing to ignore what goes on in its back yard as long as it isn't presented with a harsh image of how the world is. There has always been brutality in art and culture. In the past things have been so horrible it was accepted as normal. These new generations are trying to eradicate “offensive” art from the public eye in a vain attempt to minimize the brutality in the world. They’re aiming at the wrong target.
As Arthur Goldhammer stated, art is made to “undermine the sacred”. The shock value that art creates often is met with a negative reaction from the audience, because, I think, of our own unwillingness to question our values and beliefs. Art in this way is meant as a method of statement, of forcing someone out of their comfort zone of secure knowledge and into a world of doubt, and thus creating conversation. As the article states, something that we consider sacred should be the things we question the most. Art has to provoke, to create conversation and cultural understanding. As in the extreme case of Charlie Hebdo, artists have to stand by what they create as a method of provoking and questioning. Artists standing tall about what they do is reflected in the reactions of fellow satirical artists, as the article points out that the reaction to the tragedy has spurred a movement towards increased creation, a movement for more speech rather than less.
The truly horrifying thing about critics and art observers today is how little they know, or are willing to learn about what they are seeing. Their first reaction is visceral - and many art pieces seek to evoke such a response - but they never interact with the art to elevate their visceral and primal rejection to an intellectual level of understanding and growth. Art in modern times has become a passive exercise where mere observation is the accepted form of interaction. People are not called or compelled to process what they see, which enables these inflamed responses to beget violent actions.
I really appreciate this particular article's understanding that no matter the action taken against art, art will continue to do what it does best: respond. No problem should ever require a loss of life to make it "matter", or to cause people to address it and discuss it and understand it. But I take comfort in knowing that the world is finally understanding the difference between observing a piece of art, and truly knowing a piece of art. The line between the two is chameleon, and gray at best, but the difference costs lives.
Post a Comment