Citing legal scholar Leonard Levy, Plate
discusses the functioning of blasphemy
to maintain morality and social cohesion. He writes: “Blasphemy and the
accusation of blasphemy, is a culturally symbolic marker that helps defines
societies and religious traditions, as well as provide identities for people in
terms of gender, race, class, and sexuality. Some seemingly blasphemous images
are ignored or overlooked by the masses, while religious and political
authorities exploit other seemingly tame images. Oftentimes, those with the
most authority, politically or religiously, win the battle. But not always.”
(S.B. Plate, Blasphemy:Art
That Offends, 2006, p. 27).
Visual representations of the religious that imagine the
divine, for example Christ, Mary, or the saints, as non-gender conforming or
sexualized, are condemned as blasphemy. Formerly in the United States,
blasphemy was a criminal offense. Looked at historically, there are two dimensions of blasphemy. One form of blasphemy was offering an alternative
understanding of a dogma. For example, denying the divinity of Christ and
characterizing Jesus as merely human, was an example of criminal blasphemy in
the United States during the seventeenth century. Another form of
blasphemy was insulting or cursing the divine. Today, the United States
no longer has blasphemy laws on the books. The same is not true in all
countries. For example, Great Britain recently struggled with maintaining a
blasphemy statute which would only have protected Christians. A number of
Islamic countries also have laws on blasphemy.
When queer artists attempt to offer LGBTQ imaging of the
divine, there is often public uproar that is usually organized by small groups
of right wing, conservative Christians. Even when photographs or
paintings are displayed in art venues, such as galleries or museums, this sort
of reaction occurs. While conservative religious groups or individuals no longer have recourse to blasphemy laws, they exert political and social pressure to shut down these alternative imaginings that are friendly to LGBTQ
individuals. To make religion more inclusive and welcome to queer
individuals, as a society and as members of religious communities, we must make
the space for alternative ways of imaging the divine in the same way that
we create new, more nuanced and critical interpretations of sacred
scriptures. Text and image are both important expressions of religion and
play important roles in spiritual practice. We cannot let cries of
blasphemy repress new visual representations.
Some useful resources on this issue include Steven Dubin’s
“Arresting
Images: Impolitic Art and Uncivil Actions.” Dubin’s monograph
includes several chapters on the cultural wars and the arts in the U.S. Many of
these skirmishes involved LGBTQ issues and gay or lesbian artists.
Interestingly, some of these involved both gay and religious issues.
Kittredge Cherry’s “Art that Dares”
offers images of Jesus as a gay man as well as Christ as a female. The
twentieth century artists that Cherry documents offer interesting alternative
Christian images that are important in building religious communities that are
LGBTQ welcoming and inclusive. Cherry's blog, Jesus in Love, offers numerous examples of
queer religious imagery as well as reports of conflicts around such art.
Looking at the connection between blasphemy and contemporary art
controversies, S. Brent Plate offers an overview that includes many images
involving Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Plate’s richly illustrated
monograph, “Blasphemy: Art
that Offends,” is another useful resource.
No comments:
Post a Comment