The Holy Virgin Mary-- Appropriateness of Art content

I went to hear a guest speaker, Dr. Richard Howells, last month. The topic he spoke on was Controversy, Art, and Power. I decided to go because the topic interests me and, due to this interest, I decided to write a paper for my Interp class (section: Art in Society) about appropriateness of the content of art, so I thought Dr. Howells might provide some useful information that I could use in my paper. I had never heard of him before, but Howells turned out to be from King’s College in London. I could tell he was very informed and his presentation went very well, and I did enjoy it. He discussed various examples (some more pertinent to England, others more pertinent to the US) of art—from literature to paintings, music, plays, and photographs—that was deemed inappropriate in one way or another. These pieces of art received various treatment; most of the art was ridiculed, some were confronted with hesitation or refusal to be displayed, and others were outright censored—some attempts were legal, others were via vandalism. Among the many examples (including a Sex Pistols performance, a novel entitled Lady Chatterly’s Lover, and the photograph “Piss Christ”) I chose “The Holy Virgin Mary” to use as a case study in my paper.

“The Holy Virgin Mary” is a painting by Chris Ofili in 1976. The piece to be displayed as part of an exhibit called “Sensation” at the Brooklyn Museum in 1999 (the exhibit was comprised of pieces done by young British artist, all from the Saatchi collection). The piece depicted “a black African Mary surrounded by images from blaxploitation movies and close-ups of female genitalia cut from pornographic magazines, and elephant dung. These were formed into shapes reminiscent of the cherubim and seraphim commonly depicted in images of the Immaculate conception and the Assumption of Mary.” The (needless to say) unconventional portrayal lead to much controversy, including a lawsuit between mayor Rudy Giuliani and the Brooklyn Museum of Art. In the end, the museum won and the painting was allowed to be shown in the exhibit. For some people, though, this was not a satisfactory outcome. A retired teacher by the name of Dennis Heiner (a 72 year old Christian man) defaced the painting by smuggling paint into the museum. He threw white paint onto Ofili’s work and “proceeded to smear the paint over the canvas.” The painting was able to be restored, however, so no lasting damage was done to the piece.

I was really intrigued by this and all the other examples that Dr. Howells provided. It’s really incredible to think of the lengths to which people will go when they feel offended. While I feel that art should not be censored and that artists should have the right to produce and display all of their art (regardless of its ‘appropriateness’), I also feel that people should have the right to not feel uncomfortable about what art they perceive. People cannot choose or control what offends them, they are simply offended. I think, then, that perhaps people should have proper warning before viewing an art piece that may be ‘inappropriate.’ This can better be accomplished if art pieces are displayed in proper contexts, such as in museums and galleries as opposed to places where passersby may unintentionally view the piece (Ron English, for example, illegally apprehends billboards and displays his controversial art in places where any person walking or driving by can see them). In the case of “The Holy Virgin Mary,” I believe that Ofili had the right to produce the piece and that the piece had a right to be displayed in a museum and that no wrong was done, especially because the piece was displayed in an exhibit entitled “Sensation.” Obviously the works in an exhibit, so accurately named, would likely cause some people to feel uncomfortable, so they were given a sufficient amount of warning before viewing the piece (or any of the other works therein).