Thoughts on a controversial painting

Currently on display at the Brooklyn Museum of Art is "The Holy Virgin Mary," a painting of the Blessed Mother that includes a wad of elephant dung and images of pudenda from pornography magazines.

Its display has prompted praise and outrage, demonstrations of support and protest, ringing endorsements of the First Amendment and threats to remove public funding from the museum. It also prompts these musings:

* Catholics who salute New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani for opposing the exhibition should remember that he is also opposed to a ban on partial-birth abortions. If he wants to be a real hero to Catholics, he should work to end such atrocities. Giuliani is expected to run for Senator Daniel Moynihan's U.S. Senate seat; Senator Moynihan is a pro-abortion Democrat who nonetheless voted for a federal ban on partial-birth abortion, calling the procedure too close to infanticide to support.

* Approaching difficult works of art, one must always ask about the artist's intent. Was it to denigrate Mary? A British Catholic of Nigerian descent, Chris Ofili says that he wanted to present an African image of Our Lady, hence the use of dung, which he says is an African symbol of fertility, one that he has included in other creations. Artists are hyper-sensitive to the meaning and power of symbols, so Mr. Ofili can hardly be surprised that Catholics don't equate animal feces with gold, frankincense and myrrh.

* Even if we grant the artist's idiosyncratic interpretation of his unusual symbol, his addition of clippings of women's genitals from porno magazines is disconcerting, to say the least. He said that he wanted to echo sexualized images of Mary from past ages. Exactly what paintings and sculptures has Mr. Ofili been looking at? The last time we checked, there was nothing sexual about the Pieta.

* The Brooklyn Museum of Art advertised its exhibition with a "health warning" that the art could "cause...vomiting." Is the museum proud of such a claim? Can it cite other works of art -- from the sculptures of ancient Greece to Andy Warhol's tomato soup cans -- that induced people to puke? Art once caused viewers to "ooh" and "aah." Does the Brooklyn Museum believe it has advanced culture by inspiring people to "urp"?

* Some supporters of the museum cry censorship while trying to impose it themselves on people who object to the art and public funding of it. This contradiction was neatly summed up by one national radio talk show host who said that people opposed to the painting should just "shut up." So much for freedom of speech.

* Mr. Ofili has the right to paint what he wants. Viewers have a right to say that the result is inferior or offensive. Public officials have a right -- a duty -- to question how public money is spent, including by museums that routinely reject artworks as not suitable for display.

The painting never would have been hung if the dung-laden and pudenda-dotted image showed Sojourner Truth, Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi or some contemporary woman -- Hillary Clinton, say -- instead of the Mother of Jesus. What that says about the Brooklyn Museum of Art is obvious.

(10-07-99)

[[In-content Ad]]