A recent art show at the Brooklyn Museum of Art featured a work depicting the Virgin Mary with elephant dung glued to her breast. Although many would object to this I find it very flattering. Elephant dung is great -I always have some glued to my breast. Elephant dung is probably some of the best quality dung I have ever glued to my breast. Many say the exhibition is an offense to the Catholic Church. I believe Chris Ofili, the artist, is honoring the Virgin Mary by using the best dung possible in his “dung-brooch.”
New York City Mayor Rudolph Guiliani reacted to the show by saying that he would cut all $7 million in city funding if the show proceeded. The museum has filed suit claiming infringement upon their first amendment rights. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Hillary Clinton, most likely to be Guiliani’s rival for a senate seat, defended the museum’s actions.
The problem with the situation is that many of the people involved got involved for personal incentives rather than actual concern over either the show or attacks on it. The museum, suffering from a lack of income in the past few years, may have hosted the show to gain publicity and increase the number of visitors. Mayor Guiliani, on the other hand, and Mrs. Clinton, have sought to put a spin on the issue in an attempt to sympathize with their respective future voters.
All of this may be obvious in the news coverage of the issue, what is not obvious is what anyone really thinks about the “art” in dispute. Why is it offensive? Why is it art? Why dung? Why the Virgin Mary? Why do I keep asking rhetorical questions?
Dung on canvas can just be dung on canvas, it doesn’t have to be offensive. This is not the Virgin Mary this is a painting of the Virgin Mary. But on the other hand, dung ain’t that pretty. Does it really constitute art? You don’t usually see people walking around in a manure field with espressos saying, “Well, that one really came out well. It has a very good texture to it. Quite good symmetry too. Really, Bessie’s works are seminal in the field.”
I guess I don’t really want to say whether the exhibit is offensive or not, people can decide for themselves. What I do want to say is that not everything in this issue is exactly as it appears. Not all of the persons involved are being honest in their intentions, although this may not be apparent at first sight. Maybe Guiliani’s bid for votes or the Brooklyn Museum of Art’s ploy for money is more offensive than elephant dung. Whatever the case, people should spend more time thinking about an issue before they form an opinion.
