Respect us or we’ll smash your art
Hey don’t forget, if that smelly guy grabs your jacket, give him your cashmere sweater too. If somebody belts you in the face, say thank you. Forgive people seventy times seven. Be generous, and more than generous. Like those super-nice people who worry about art works.
Christians have warned of a backlash of art world vandalism, following a decision to halt a private prosecution of a Gateshead gallery which exhibited a statue of Jesus with an erection…Christian Emily Mapfuwa…said the show…was offensive to her faith and instructed her lawyers to seek a private prosecution against the gallery…Mapfuwa’s supporters warned [the CPS decision] could lead some people to destroy similar art works. Her solicitor Michael Phillips said: “Although it is right to say that there was no actual disorder, there was potentially such disorder, which was evidenced to the CPS in the witness statements provided. In particular one witness felt like smashing the object. The decision is simply not in accordance with the facts and is unsustainable.”
Ah. Christian Emily Mapfuwa was offended so she instructed her lawyers to seek a private prosecution against the gallery; a witness felt like smashing the object, therefore the gallery was guilty of creating a risk of disorder. So…any time anyone is ‘offended’ by something, if a witness can be found to testify to feeling like smashing the object, it will then become the case that the ‘offensive’ something is at fault. Then no one anywhere will ever be allowed to say anything ever. Sounds promising.
Christian Voice national director Stephen Green said…”[T]here were those at the Baltic Centre who wanted to take matters into their own hands and I have warned Anita Zabludowicz that her statue will not survive being put on public display again. If the CPS wanted to give the green light to blasphemous art their decision may paradoxically have the opposite effect. With the threat of destruction hanging over it, the Zabludowicz statue is now locked away by its wealthy owners and is unlikely to see the light of day again. The same will go for any other blasphemous works of so-called art. Put simply, Christians won’t tolerate insults to Jesus Christ. However, I do hope that the art world will discover some respect for Christian religious beliefs and for the person of Jesus Christ.”
To put it another way, the CPS wanted to go on allowing free expression in the usual way and Stephen Green and other Christians are determined to use threats of violence to prevent that. ‘Respect’ is unlikely to be what the art world will be discovering more of as a result.
Mediawatchwatch, from whom I lifted this story, has pungent commentary.
We’re righteously angry but we’re not violent. But if we don’t get our own way we know people who are, and it will be all your fault.
I think I’ve heard that line of reasoning before.
ET and Mickey Mouse, who are fancy fictional characters also have their nobs sticking out – so why is Mapfuwa being selective in this matter. It should also be pointed out that the nob sticking out on the figurine of Jesus looks very disproportionate to the length of the body.
I never knew that robes of the kind which Jesus is wearing had flies?!
You live and you learn.
I wonder what these people would think of a rapist’s plea that he entered her house and raped her because she was wearing a provocatively short dress.
I guess Mr Green et al have learnt some lessons from the shameful media and political responses to the attacks on the Danish cartoons etc.
OTOH, the purpose of the artwork is transgressive – ie to step beyond ‘boundaries’ as provocation. Why allocate criticism entirely to the mouthy ones who are stupid enough to fall into the artist’s trap?
CP, no kidding, the artist’s trap – so you know for a fact provocation is the point of the work of art?, Or you mean it when you define this work of art as mere artwork?
Perchance you have more wisdom even so pray tell: whom should we allocate our criticism to. I for one would not like to be guilty of leaving guilty artists or so uncriticized. Before you know it they make a statue of Jesus or so with a hard-on to symbolize the fact he was out to create a testosterone-dominated church. We wouldn’t want to allow that because we all know for a fact that it is impossible for Jesus to get excited let alone to be responsible for what’s been done in his name (if it’s bad, as anything good obviously is thanks to a typically asexual male like him).
Marie-Therese O’ Loughlin: “ET and Mickey Mouse, who are fancy fictional characters”
Just like Jesus. ;-)
JoB: “so you know for a fact provocation is the point of the work of art?”
The phalluses do modify the play of positive and negative forms and defamiliarise the icons, but to be honest I think the artist is at least going for “transgressive”.
Which should be fine in an open society. There are thousands of buildings across the country with pictures and sculptures of Jesus in but I haven’t go bonkers and start smashing things up as a result. Possibly I’m doing something wrong, but I don’t think so.
Transgressive isn’t part of my standard vocabulary – neither are phallus and/or defamiliarize – so I looked it up: it’s not a synonym for provocation. Given it is not – I decided not to look up those other words.
In summary: provocation is bad, feeling provoked is not sufficient evidence for being provoked.
“provocation is bad, feeling provoked is not sufficient evidence for being provoked.”
I disagree with the first clause JoB. Provocation is a legitimate purpose for art. Art is not artlessly innocent, and no reason artists should refrain.
Criticism of negative reponses to the art should not be artlessly innocent either. ‘Piss Christ’ is known throughout the art world, and anyone wanting media exposure knows what kind of thing to do for it. Any artist, especially a conceptual artist like this one, knows what readings different audiences may make, and intends them to do so. Why should the religous person speaking of his offendedness be a punchbag for the self-righteous, when his response must be read as part of the artist’s intention?
CP,
First of all, the religious person may speak of his offendedness: threaten to destroy or otherwise censor is the one thing we’re upset about.
Secondly, again, how do you come to be in such omniscience about the artist’s intention. True, it’s not the pinnacle of inventiveness to use Jesus in art – nevertheless, why should one hold in a perfectly good piece of art in a genre of some tradition just because ‘you do know people are going to be offended’.
Finally, what if it is intended? It is still no provocation. & yes, we can go on & on about the meaning of the word; but it’s clear to me that the word has a necessary connotation of bad (intent to cause a violent response) & thus is out of place here.
I am married to a conceptual artist, I know how the system works. It is no provocation? In the restricted sense of of ‘intended to cause a violent response’, I agree actual interpersonal violence is probably not the intent.
But vandalism against the work itself… its within the range of possible responses to be considered. NOTE I am not saying its justified, just that a reasonable person(whether or not remaining on the Clapham omnibus) would consider hostile and condemnatory speech and threats of or actual damage to the work as quite likely, if the piece was publicised.
CP, I don’t doubt you know ‘the system’ but the question is how do you know the intention of this specific artist.
Somebody killing the artist is also in the range of possible responses (so is blowing people up on an omnibus) but I do not think the scale of possible, or even likely, responses has anything to do with ‘an artist’s trap’, & all with those responding.
(to be clear – maybe it’s lousy, maybe it is intended as a provocation, maybe it should be fought in court, but none of the maybe’s you turned into facts – failing that your assessment is a pre-emptive strike against art with such a content)
I think one should never overlook in these circumstances the self-satisfied joy that artists get from deliberately choosing to piss people off. That, however, I can take as it comes. What bothers me is the unfettered willingness of state bureaucracies [and rich bastards] to pay them for it. I just find that incomprehensible. Especially as, if asked, all these artists would no doubt declare themselves to be at the very bleeding edge of the fight for social justice. Is there a more profound organised hypocrisy than the market for ‘transgressive’ art?
And what pisses me off even more is knowing that every reactionary saloon-bar poujadiste in the country agrees with me. Bastards!
Why shouldn’t artists attempt to piss people off?
The fact that the artist saw and exposed the true colours of these Christian fundamentalists should hardly get them off the hook for their opposition to free speech.
Their reaction has vindicated the artist’s belief that pissing them off was a worthwhile exercise.
“Criticism of negative reponses to the art should not be artlessly innocent either.”
“Negative responses” – what a mealymouthed euphemism. What I’m criticizing is not criticism or dislike, it is 1) attempted prosecution and 2) threats of violence.
Jackob it pisses me off and I am not a christian,are there no limits to poor taste?Dave I agree with you!
Actually please, excuse me wasting your time by replying, it is too pathetic to be worth being disagreeable about.
JoB – “Transgressive isn’t part of my standard vocabulary – neither are phallus and/or defamiliarize”
Oh you don’t speak artbollocks?
“Transgressive” means “naively illustrating an obsession of art theorists”.
“Phallus” means “apparently some people still take Freud seriously”.
“Defamiliarize” means “yes the room looks the same but I have transformed it. Who do I invoice?”.
At least as far as I can make out.
ChrisPer – Getting would-be theocrats to self-identify has more immediate social value than pickling a shark.
Personally, I enjoy shark. With chips. If you can find a literal ‘would-be-theocrat’ in that hapless lot, you should certainly feel free to enjoy their self-identification.
“Self-identify” then probably means “I always feel I’m right & I know that is probably wrong.”
“Pickling a shark” maybe means “I have a tendency to be annoyed with the easy way for an artist to get in the news & therefore object to what I’d normally agree with because this artist is like many others a lazy mediahorny artist.”
So – when some wittering cleric comes on BBC R4 on ‘Thought for the Day’ and I am driven with an overwhelming urge to punch him in the mouth it is his fault? Can’t be all bad then…
Thats fair enough too. Wittering is provocation in and of itself, and as the Russian tank driver said in Prague after 1968, ‘They’re all fascists anyway.’
[…] was looking through things earlier today and found an old post that is reminiscent of recent events. (You can’t be reminiscent of something that happened […]