Playing with fire
The brouhaha over the controversial art exhibit entitled, “Kulô” continues to rage despite the decision by the Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP) to close down the exhibit and the resignation of an executive of the state-run cultural center.
The artists behind the exhibit decried the decision calling it a failure on the part of the CCP “to uphold artistic freedom in the face of pressure from religious groups.” To recall, Catholic Church officials and lay groups denounced “Kulô,” in particular, the works of Mideo Cruz, for debasing religious symbols that are core to the faith of Catholics.
Cruz’ “Poleteismo” had one sculpture of Jesus Christ portrayed as Mickey Mouse. The rest of his work was a mishmash of Catholic images with pictures of celebrities, commercial products and images of cartoon characters, condoms, rosaries and a wooden penis. A wall full of religious pictures, including a poster of Jesus Christ with a phallic symbol conveyed messages about idolatry and abuse of power, according to the artist. Catholics, however, maintain that his work blasphemed God.
I’m myself a Catholic, but I’m afraid those who denounced Mideo Cruz and called for the withdrawal of “Kulô” played into the hands of the artist. His work does not even come close to the work of serious artists like my friend, Boy Kiamco, but now Cruz and his art have become the talk of the town.
Lawyer Raul Pangalangan (“Freedom for the Thought We Hate,” PDI, Aug. 11) hit the nail on the head when he said that while Cruz may have blasphemed, we can only boycott him and not suppress his work. Freedom of expression is guaranteed by the Constitution under the Bill of Rights.
The point that a person’s civil rights come with the same amount of responsibility maybe argued till kingdom come but at the end of the day, we cannot prevent people from “playing with fire.” This was precisely the point of Bishop Domenico Mogavero in October last year when a gallery in Solemi City in Rome featured the works of Sicilian artist Giuseppe Veneziano. His painting that depicted the Virgin Mary with a child Hitler in her arms immediately caught the attention of the media and Church officials.
“The Madonna of the Third Reich” went on display in the heartland of the Catholic faith but the incident caused hardly a ripple except that a news reporter pressed the bishop for his reactions. Perhaps the curious reporter expected the Catholic Church would call for censorship, which could be a noteworthy angle if pitted against the artist’s defense of artistic freedom. Instead, the newsman heard quite a mouthful from the bishop.
Bishop Mogavero said he was “neither upset nor worried by the punches to the stomach dealt by single artists and those who hold them in esteem.”
According to the bishop, Veneziano commits a “very serious wrong” against victims of Nazism, an “ideology that trampled man’s dignity and his values”. The Italian cleric wondered “what could be accomplished through a work of art that makes a joke of Nazism, an ideology that trampled man.”
Despite his wounded feelings, the bishop clarified he was not asking “for censorship of the work in defense of values,” but he offered a word of caution by saying that “making such an idea pass for a joke is a risky operation, because… you don’t play with fire.”
To be sure, the works of Cruz and Veneziano are not the only times that Catholic symbols are depicted as art to poke fun or humiliate Catholicism.
In April this year, Catholics all over the world were jolted from Easter celebration upon hearing that Jamaica’s leading newspaper published a 10-foot sculpture depicting Christ’s naked body and exposed genitalia.
The front page material elicited a “mild” response from Kingston Archbishop Donald J. Reece who said the photos and accompanying article were “in poor taste for the commemoration of the holiest day for Christians.”
“For the life of me I cannot begin to fathom the Observer’s rationale for a full three-page exposition of Christ’s naked body with reference to the sacrosanct belief of the Eucharist,” the Jamaican archbishop wrote in a letter to the editor of the Jamaican Observer.
The furor over the Jamaican newspaper’s decision to feature the work of artist Laura Facey supposedly in support of the arts runs parallel to the position of the CCP in defending “Kulô,” but what does it say about art that disrespects values? I guess that does not count much with artists whose overweening desire to be recognized is the only thing that matters, never mind values and decency. As Ms. Facey herself opined, “If you don’t create a stir, then what’s the point of doing the work?”
Ah, so that is the point, one might say, but only if he was born yesterday.
As Christians, we are horrified and outraged by the blasphemous art but there’s a more effective and appropriate way to deal with rubbish art.
On “The Madonna of the Third Reich,” Fr. Bruno Fasani, diocesan spokesman in Verona, Italy said such art was disrespectful and when one witnesses such a piece, instead of seeing the genius of the artist, he sees only a “banal profiteer of provocation.”
Like Bishop Mogavero, Fr. Fasani did not ask for the removal of the painting. Instead, he proposed that the work “remain in its post because those who count more on scandal than their own artistic qualities deserve only one payment: disinterest and silence.”
