![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
Chris Ofili is a young English painter of African descent whose work tends to shock people because of his unconventional use of elephant dung in the composition of his paintings. He says that he tries to incorporate his African heritage into his work and the elephant dung is simply a reflection of that attempt. His style of painting incorporates layers of different painting techniques with collages and three dimensional elements. The painting that caused a furor in New York City was one of the Virgin Mary depicted with elephant dung on her breast and cutouts of genitalia from pornographic magazines floating in the background. According to Sean Redmond who is associated with the Brooklyn Museum of Art, "Ofili used elephant dung [on the painting Holy Virgin Mary] because it's an African fertility symbol (since it's copious and a good fertilizer) giving Virgin Mary the aspects of a fertility goddess and playing on the fact that her Catholic iconography is derived from that of Roman, non-virgin fertility goddesses. One can argue that the criticism directed at this work is marked by an unwillingness to see objects, such as dung or icons, through the eyes of another culture." The person of the Virgin Mary is recognized by Catholics as the Mother of Jesus Christ and, therefore, holds a position of reverence in the Catholic Church. Mayor Guiliani of New York City led the vocal opposition to the exhibit saying that the painting and the exhibit insulted Catholics by disrespecting that which they held dear. According to the Mayor, the visual arts are not protected by the First Amendment and do not fall under the freedom of speech clause. A brief filed in his behalf before the U.S. Supreme Court stated that " An exhibition of paintings is not as communicative as speech, literature or live entertainment, and the artists' constitutional interest is thus minimal." The Mayor and many others who protested the exhibition assert that tax funded cultural institutions such as the Brooklyn Museum of Art should be made to conform to decency standards set by commissions overseeing any institution which receives public funds. This, of course, is controversial to some. "When government actively fosters a marketplace of ideas by providing funding to the arts, it may not exercise certain artistic visions simply because public officials dislike them," wrote the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) and the NYCLU (New York Civil Liberties Union) in their response to the New York controversy. According to Mr. Redmond, it is interesting to note that Ofili's painting did not cause any uproar in England whereas a painting made up of children's hand prints and depicting a notorious pedophile did. That painting, however, toured the United States without any uproar. What
do you think? Is censorship ever appropriate? Do individuals
have the right to "say" whatever they wish even if in doing so
they offend someone else? Think of such examples as the one
involving Chris Ofili. Think of music lyrics which may be offensive,
movies and television programs which may shock, online pornography which
is disturbing, etc. As you can see the question of censorship is
not a simple one. |
|