Athée Canadien
The Art of Blasphemy
By Joe
While I’m generally opposed to being needlessly insulting to religious people, I, never the less, support criticism of religion. And one of the ways this can be done, and sometimes to even greater effect than any rational argument, is via art.
Our modern culture is so centered around the visual with TV, Movies and now the Internet, its no surprise that images can be used to great effect, to enlighten and offend.
At a time when the clergy are being held to account for various lustful misdeeds, I think its very appropriate to remind people that they are human, and as such should be subject to the same laws as other human beings. We see corruption in government, big business, and in the church, and all should be held accountable, to the same human laws.
Priests and Nuns are human and therefore sexual beings, and as such we shouldn’t pretend they are not(nor should the church, but silly rules about celibacy is another issue) and let them get away with criminal activities.
Is it blasphemy, sure. Do artists have a right to do it, yessir. Do people who are offended have a right to protest and boycott, absolutely. Criticism should always be a two way street.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Joe on February 21, 2012 at 7:57 am, and is filed under Christianity. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed. |
Comments are closed.
about 2 months ago
‘the Francisco Franco Foundation . . . called the show a “a virulent and morbid attack on the Catholic religion.”‘
This statement show that most Catholics know very little about the Catholic religion. The female medieval mystics had visions of their Lord and Creator, which were at times erotic and intimate, and reflected their environment and popular culture. See Hildegard of Bingen, Mechthild of Magdeburg, and Julian of Norwich.
about 2 months ago
“Is it blasphemy, sure.”
That seems to be your opinion. Did LaBruce intend to be blasphemous? Maybe he is using art to record his twenty-first century religious visions.
about 2 months ago
You’re right, I suppose it could have been a religious vision…
But then again, coming from a guy who wrote and directed a gay-zombie-porno… my reason tells me, he was probably looking to offend. Just my opinion, tho…heheh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Labruce
about 2 months ago
Correction: I have not seen the film, so I may have misrepresented it. Zombie movie purists no doubt might dispute its ‘zombie’ status, and make the distinction between that genre, and movies, like: LA Zombie, which are about mentally ill people who think they are space-zombies and thus commit necrophilic acts in hopes of raising the dead.
My bad.
about 2 months ago
Of course, giving the exhibit the title “Obscenity” doesn’t help. However, despite the gay-zombie-porno, which was probably not viewed by as many people as the art show, my point still stands.
about 2 months ago
“It’s okay if it’s art” seems a rather wishy-washy and subjectively slippery way to excuse some types of offensive media, but not others. Why is LaBruce’s sexy nun photo given the artistic exemption, but not some nastily clever turn of phrase used by a blog commenter about the Pope’s IQ? Words can be art, too, after all, and insults, done properly, can be pure poetry.
about 2 months ago
My assessment of the art was entirely subjective. I stated why I thought it had merit…. over and above the merely insulting. Social comment, in my view is far superior to self-indulgent ad hominem. Even some ad hominem can be justified… most however… is not, for a variety of reasons.
about 2 months ago
Pointing out the absurdity/evil of religion, then going on to berate the religious for being stupid/unscrupulous enough to go along with it is social commentary. It is no different from calling government officials incompetent/corrupt for carrying out some ridiculous/hypocritical policy… or pointing out the sexual nature of the clergy then going on to sexualize them. If it’s okay to sexualize clergy to make a point about their hypocrisy about their sexual nature, then it should also be okay to ridicule/demonize religious people to make a point about their ignorance/denial of the silly/abhorrent nature of their belief system. Art doesn’t need to be pleasant, and it doesn’t need to be explicitly labeled art, or formally sanctioned in a recognized exhibition setting.
Given all that, it would seem to me that even an obscenity-laced comment on an atheist blog has as much right to be called artful social commentary as LaBruce’s work. It may be self-indulgent, but so what? LaBruce’s work may just be a cynically calculated cash grab to line his pockets. That shouldn’t devalue it’s artistic merit, should it? I would also point out that the authors of such comments would – justifiably – cry foul at your characterization of their aggressiveness as “needless”; after all, such a judgement could also be made against LaBruce’s work as well, in calling its sexualized nature as “needless” if the goal is to point out the hypocrisy in the clergy’s stance on sex – LaBruce could have just politely pointed out the hypocrisy in a way that would not have offended the clergy, just like I’m sure you’d say anyone making a “needlessly” aggressive criticism of the religious could make the same point in a more a polite way. What makes LaBruce’s insults “needed” (or at least, not “needless”), as opposed to a random blog commenter’s?
It all really boils down to a simple question: why, exactly, do you think that LaBruce’s sexualization of the clergy is not “needless”, “unjustified” or “merely insulting”, yet confrontational atheists’ insulting characterizations of the religious could be?
about 2 months ago
I’d have to say that most ‘atheist insults’ tend to be of the ‘monkey flinging its poo at a wall, to see if it sticks’. While there are very few insults….. that are clever, witty and on point… Hitchen’s was a master of this… those are of the rare variety.
Mostly however, it is selfindulgent in the sense that it’s mostly random insults with very little real purpose behind them, beyond ad hominem… the poo flinging. And no, I don’t think poo flinging is art.
Labruces art may be little more than this, but I think it has relevance because it addresses a very real issue in the catholic church, namely the sex hypocrisy issue, and more specifically the homosexual issue, and its also timely considering the sex abuse issue and priests. I don’t think all of Labruces work, even in this case, is ‘good’ art necessarily. But it does at least on the surface appear relevant and on point.