Manchester England, England.
Across the Atlantic sea…
[/flashback]
I appreciate RobRoy’s attempt to get back on-track, but the original question was about the apparent similarity between the two cases: both involving symbolism that some people see in a positive light (art/heroic heritage) and other people see in a negative light (dung paired with a sacred image/shameful heritage of slavery) and both receiving support of some kind from the government. The question isn’t whether it’s good art of bad, or whether the dung is splattered or arranged artistically.
Nailed to the wall of a public museum, both images will be offensive to many of the visitors. The Virgin Mary with pornography and dung is the much more offensive image, as children, the Pope and a bunch of Amish women might be in town to check out some art. The Flag isn’t outright offensive - the colors and shapes will not disturb anyone. What’s offensive is what it has come to represent to some Americans.
Flying the Pornographic Dung Virgin over the Albany Statehouse would be totally insane, as that particular piece of “art” represents no heritage or American lives lost. As I have said here before, the Flag is a matter for SC citizens to deal with - it is not inherently offensive and it’s entirely a matter of interpretation and perspective. If we do not like what it represents we do not have to visit that State.
Yet to be reconciled with the reality of the dark for a moment, I go on wandering from dream to dream.
To some extent it is. If I took a “standard” (for want of a better word) picture of the BVM and splattered dung all over it, the meaning would be totally different from what Chris Ofili has actually done. That could only really be a deliberate attempt to upset Catholics / Christians / the Church / whoever.