It's not hard to upset close-minded people -- especially when those people are religious nuts. Any attempt to try and make them think about their beliefs will be met with outrage, and very possibly criminal actions. That's what has happened at the University of Dallas.
The University of Dallas was exhibiting the artwork of students from Murray State University in Kentucky. Murray State had previously exhibited the artwork of University of Dallas students. But one piece of art from Murray State created a furor on the Dallas campus.
Joanna Gianulis had done a print depicting the Virgin Mary as a stripper. She said she didn't mean to offend anyone and didn't even know the University was a Catholic school. She said she was trying to question perceptions of saints and sinners.
Gianulis said, "How do we know that an exotic dancer is sinful? What if she has the best intentions and strives only to help those in need? Many single mothers are in this position and that is another reason why I chose to reference the Virgin Mary, because she was another woman who was in a tough position and probably received much criticism because of it."
I must applaud the faculty and administration on the Dallas campus for trying to maintain an atmosphere of academic freedom and allowing the exhibit to be displayed without censoring it.
But some of the students were much more close-minded. Instead of provoking thought, the work outraged them. And at least one student crossed the line into criminal behavior (and sin).
The exhibit began on February 8th, and it was discovered on February 14th that the print had been stolen. It has not been recovered. Once again, a religious nut has stepped forward to embarrass the state of Texas.
Ms. Gianulis did not have a picture of the print, but this is how she describes it:
"The work is a black and white woodcut relief print depicting a scantily clad stripper wearing a veil and holding a rosary. Other details in the work are scrolls saying 'Sinner or Saint?' in Spanish and referencing the Virgin [of] Guadalupe, and also a snake, some white lilies, a pair of scales, and also a small image of a bar of soap opposite a bottle marked 'xxx.' "
Top-right of this blog pages states: "This blog does not accept bigoted or racist comments."
ReplyDeleteIn your first sentence, you use the term "religious nuts". That is not a bigoted comment?
My guess is that this "artist" was after a bit of free publicity and knew that her "art" would offend Catholics. I'm sure her next work will depict Rosa Parks as a stripper and will be exibited at one of our historically black universities.
ReplyDeleteThree observations:
ReplyDelete1) The art of the past was intended to evoke; since about the second half of the twentieth century, much of this so-called "art" serves only to provoke. When I look at the paintings of Rembrandt or Da Vinci, I'm inspired; when I look at the photographs of Andres Serrano or Robert Mapplethope, I want to take a shower.
2) I share anonymous's tongue-in-cheek speculation about the subject matter of Ms. Gianulis's next "work of art." I remember back in the 80's, the movie "The Last Temptation of Christ" was critically acclaimed despite its blasphemous and inaccurate treatment of Jesus. Yet no one would have even considered producing "The Last Temptation of Martin Luther King," even though there would have been more historical evidence to support it.
3) When Christians are subjected to crucifixes immersed in urine and paintings of the Virgin Mary adorned with elephant dung or portraying her as a stripper, the faithful express outrage, but little else happens. But should a cartoonist satirize the Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) or a school teacher innocently name a teddy bear after him, there's rioting in the streets and death threats.
No laws should be broken regardles of whether it's christianity or another religion.
ReplyDeleteThe theft was wrong.
Damn - can't spell "regardless".
ReplyDeleteyou can't spell 'closed-minded' either.
ReplyDelete...or 'provocative'.
ReplyDeleteCan I just say:
ReplyDeleteI know this girl personally, and I know that her intentions were exactly how she stated them. I've had the opportunity to look at alot of her work, and I know also from her demeanor that she is not "attention seeking" or was purposely trying to offend people.
She's a very intelligent, talented, hard-working artist. It is unfortunate that so many people could not read her work as it should've been read.