Op-Ed: Religious art, or how to annoy everybody

Buy an ad on DigitalJournal.com

The paintings were contending for the Blake Prize, a religious art award.

The Daily Telegraph managed to put together an article in the midst of a rather unseemly local catfight. The artists have defended their works in what could be called the predictable mode, citing media coverage of terrorism for the Al Qaeda pinup and an intention to be “provocative” for the Virgin Mary piece.

A spokesman for The Uniting Church, which runs the award, and chair of the Blake Society, defended its validity on various grounds, somehow including an interesting comment that “the Christian community doesn’t look at art a great deal”. As a defence, it was interesting as much for what can be considered to be a defence, as for its content.

It was a microcosm of some of the nastier issues in modern art. Iconoclasm, or Iconoperversion, if you prefer, isn’t exactly new. Modern art has apparently insisted on its right to tread on spiritual toes, whenever the mood strikes it. For a spiritual/cerebral medium, art has yet to show as much interest in aspiration as denigration.

Currently, there’s almost certainly a reactionary element in Christianity-bashing. Many people do react negatively to insistent religiosity, particularly when pumped out through so many mediums, 24/7/365. I, for one, am heartily sick of any inference that anyone has any right to tell me what I should believe. I happen to think that’s my business.

However- I’m equally sick of artistic double standards, and abuse masquerading as art, in any form. If it’s not OK for them to infringe on our beliefs, it’s not OK for us to try to disenfranchise people’s religious rights by defamation.

Art claims the right to free expression, on any subject it can fit onto any medium. Fine, free speech by any means.

It’s a matter of opinion, though, whether such invaluable objects as Piss Christ and the cartoon of Mohammed qualify as free anything, except maybe a free lunch for "artistic" parasites. One of the common historical components of persecution of anyone is the abuse of religious symbols. If anything, they're a symptom of anti-freedom for others.

The Nazis used it, the Lenin-Stalin era Soviet Union used it. The Inquisition used a conceptual version of defining heretical thought, essentially creating an image of heresy, much like modern propaganda. Same pattern: identify a target, abuse those associated. If you can do it in pictures, it just makes it worse.

Modern art has now made a meal ticket out of “controversy” which invariably seems to include an attack on someone or something. Religion is an easy target, all you need to do is be a bit naughty, fiddle around with an iconic image, get a publicist, and someone will pay you six or seven figures for the result. The howls of protest will also get you all the coverage you need.

One thing clear about “sacrilegious” art is that talent isn’t much of an issue. The cartoon of Mohammed was easily at the bottom of the bottom standard for pen and ink. The pieces in this article, as art, are conventional standard art student stuff. No novelty in technique, or anything much else, only new as a different irritant. (Also a marketing technique: create an itch, someone will scratch.)

I could think of a counter piece to these pseudo-artistic freeloaders. A cow, wearing a beret, with easel, brushes and canvas, amid a scene containing images from places like Darfur, and other holiday destinations, painting one of these bits of gallery-graffiti.

Sort of a reality check.

Art isn’t a right to abuse other people on principle. Opinions, fine. If you want to criticize modern religion, using modern art, why nothing topical? Osama’s topical, but in context, he’s been rewound 2000 years. There are plenty of actual topics. How about theocratic tyranny in so many places? Or are we all a bit too scared of litigation? Strange, given the amount of money some of these bits of décor sell for these days. These guys can afford lawyers.

You want art, get something with meaning beyond a bank statement, or cheap shots at beliefs. There's plenty of real art around.