Over the past decade, there has been a dramatic increase in the amount of political correctness and censorship in order to accommodate an inflow of immigrants from regions such as Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. These areas have great cultural differences to Australia, the US, Britain, Canada and the North-West areas of Europe, however these are the destinations of choice for these immigrants.
Many of these immigrants are practicing religions such as Islam, and as such, have strict religious views that they feel they must adhere to. One of these views is to not eat pork, to abstain from alcohol, to pray towards Mecca, and to refrain from artistic depictions of the Prophet Mohammed.
When Jyllands-Posten, a Danish newspaper, printed twelve cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed, there was a significant response from both the Muslim community and the sensitive Left. Riots occurred, and death threats were issued against the cartoonists, as well as the editors of Jyllands-Posten. This reaction was well over the top of the offence originally caused by the printing of the cartoons, as these riots occurred long after the original cartoons were printed, having only occurred after another three, more offensive, cartoons were published in a different forum.
Which leads me to the question, what is the appropriate response to offensive artwork? Is it to threaten death? Is it to burn cars? Is it to burn buildings? Is it to write a letter of complaint to the person who displays the artwork? Is it to write a letter to the person who distributes the artwork? Is it to lay charges against someone who does something that is deemed offensive?
It is my view that the appropriate response to offensive artwork is very much a product of the way a person was raised. In many parts of the world, Muslim children are raised to take offence to any slight against their Prophet, and often react in a violent fashion. Burning cars, buildings and homes doesn’t seem to be a very effective way to deal with offensive artwork, but rather a way to ensure that your religion loses any respect that it has garnered.
But rather than burn things, perhaps the Christian and Jewish communities have a far better take on this situation.
In 1989, Andres Serrano created what he described as an artwork named “Piss Christ”, which was a photograph of a crucifix in a glass of Serrano’s urine. It is an artwork which is offensive to a great many Christians, but also applauded by many atheists and many on the Left. However, the way the Christians dealt with the offense they felt against Jesus is far different to any reaction of Muslims against offense they feel against Mohammed.
The Christian response to “Piss Christ” was to:
- Protest the $15,000 grant given to Serrano for producing the work;
- Request that the artwork not be displayed in public; and
- In the case of Catholic archbishop of Melbourne Dr. George Pell, seek court-ordered injunctions to prevent the photograph from being displayed in the National Gallery of Victoria.
Not a single person was threatened with death, not a single car was burnt, and not a single threat was issued against the artist. In the case of “Piss Christ”, the artist was well aware that his artwork would cause offence, and was notified about it. His life wasn’t threatened, and he wasn’t harmed in any way.
So… d’you reckon a few people need to grow up and relax a bit when it comes to offensive artwork?
Like this:
Like Loading...