Offensive art in class? A poll-- esp. for Christians

In My Humble Opinion
1

I’ve been working on putting together lectures, and in discussing recent art trends I wanted to address the 90’s culture wars and such. I was going to show Andres Serrano’s “Piss Christ” which was at the center of a big famous debate around that time-- a huge NEA funding argument in congress and all that. While looking for images, though, I hit some educational pages that linked to it, with huge disclaimers about “you are not required to view this image if you feel it may offend you”, etc. I’d like to think my students are adult enough to deal in context, but. . .?

I’m not religious and I have a bad sense of judging the lines that must not be crossed in terms of belief and have no clue whether a Christian university student would take offense, so I wanted to ask especially Christians from the various points of the spectrum to weigh in. If the thing (here’s a link – NSFW if you work at the American Family Association) were shown in your university art history lecture, would you be peeved, write angry letters, or what? What about some of the more vivid Mapplethorpe stuff? On a scale of 1-10 how much would being ‘forced’ to view this make you grumpy?
(Atheists-- some of you may roll your eyes at my bothering to ask this question-- I don’t care. I’m with you, but don’t poo in here. I may very well show the thing despite whatever reaction, but I want to know what I might expect.)

2

Do you mind clarifying “Christian university student”? Does it mean university student who is Christian, or do you lecture at a Christian university?

3

You know, if I didn’t know what the image you linked to was called, and why it was called that, I wouldn’t see anything even potentially offensive about it.

(I haven’t the foggiest idea what the “more vivid Mapplethorpe stuff” is, so I don’t know how offensive I’d find it.)

In the context of a class on recent art trends, I’d be fairly willing to look at images that were controversial and potentially offensive. I’d appreciate it if you gave a little warning in advance–you know, mention the class before the controversial stuff that you will be showing/discussing potentially offensive art in class the next week. If you think it’s appropriate or desirable, you could offer students an alternative project–say write a two page reflection on some text only descriptions of the culture wars of the 90’s.

But mostly, I think if you use a little common sense, and introduce things properly, you can get people like me to be more curious than offended.

(Of course, I’m weird. I am Christian, but I’m not particularily easy to offend. I have had friends who were offended by almost any mention of bodily functions, and others who refused to watch even PG -13 movies. And while offended isn’t quite the word, I would probably not be interested in viewing such controversial art in the context of an art gallery–or that anatomically correct chocolate Jesus which was being discussed recently in Cafe Society-- I would not be offended in the context of an Art History class.)

On a scale of one to ten, I’d probably be about a 3 or 4. But I don’t think I’d be mad at you, the instructor. And I certainly wouldn’t be mad at the university for your actions.

4

(Students who are Christian-- I teach at a big research one government-run monster)

5

Speaking as a pretty consistently right-wing Catholic…

Would I be offended by your class? I dunno. Context means a great deal. If you’re doing a presentation in which controversies over subject matter is the primary topic, then there’s no way to avoid displaying some works that are widely considered offensive. That’s just the nature of the topic.

Fact is, a very conservative, religious teacher who wanted to do a presentation about “Piss Christ” or Mapplethorpe’s erotica would probably have to risk offending his audience by showing some graphic images. That can’t be helped. When the subject matter calls for it, sometimes a teacher has to risk offending people.

But in this case, the risk for you does NOT lie with the subject matter itself. IF your presentation is even-handed, you probably won’t get any flak from the audience just for showing a slide of “Piss Christ” or of a naked Karen Finley covered in chocolate syrup. Mature people are capable of looking at disturbing or offensive images, provided they believe the lecturer is being dispassionate and objective, and has an educational purpose in mind.

The tone of your presentation is key. Which of these is closer to your planned approach:

  1. "Over the past few decades, several different works of art have caused great outrage, leading to angry protests and even boycotts. Let’s look at some of the works that have provoked such a reaction, and let’s discuss…

    a) Was the outrage justified?
    b) Did the artist INTEND to be offensive, or did peop,e completely misunderstand his message?
    c) What is the proper response, if and when you feel your values have been offended?"

  2. “Wacko conservative Christians keep trying to squash artistic creativity. Here are some of the works of art that REALLY got their goat! Can you believe those neanderthals wanted to censor this? Wha ta bunch of fascistic assholes!”

If it’s the former, feel free to display all the controversial art you want. If it’s the latter, don’t act surprised or hurt if your audience is offended.

Here’s an idea- your audience probably ALREADY knows (or thinks it knows) what to expect from you. Surprise them. Sure, show “Piss Christ,” or that dung-covered portrait of the Virgin Mary- but you should also make a point of including some pieces that will make the Left-wingers in your audience uncomfortable.

Why not include that portrait of Chicago mayor Harold Washington in drag? The portrait that had black Chicagoans up in arms?

Find some anti-semitic art or some homophobic stories.

Better yet, why don’t you display all the anti-Muslim cartoons from that Danish periodical?

If your presentation serves only to reinforce smug feelings of superiority, you’ve wasted your time. I think you have an obligation to show EVERYONE in the audience something that will outrage them, and get each of them to wonder what the proper response is to offensive art.

6

Teaching art without insulting someone is just good manners.

Any wise parent would tell their child that religion and politics are not topics for discussion in a polite society. The same rules that apply at a dinner party go double in a classroom environment. Students should not be expected to pay to be insulted.

If there any question regarding artistic license than substitute someone you love and respect for the image to see it from the proper perspective.

7

I’m with Astorian, content is everything in if I would be offended. If you are teaching on on the culture wars, I would expect Piss Christ and The Holy Virgin, but I would also expect both sides to be treated respectfully. If you are going to mock the Christians for being offended, then yes I would be offened.

8

“Any wise parent would tell their child that religion and politics are not topics for discussion in a polite society.”? Your university must have a very interesting list of departments.

So I see that it is indeed possible that what I see as pretty innocuous can be apparently might inflammatory, even in a classroom setting. Perhaps I’ll just use the other examples and leave that one out-- it’s about public art/ commission drama, and not about specifically offensive art. Richard Serra it is! I do admit that I see the Serrano as pretty innocuous but would be too chicken to show the Danish cartoons in class (of course that would be way off the original topic).

(astorian: we’ve been looking at sexist and racist art all term, hah (it’s a Western art survey, after all; meanwhile Christian art has been getting more than its fair share of respect; I’m not being defensive, but I wanted to clarify that this isn’t Dr Capybara’s big atheist-homo-pinko-lovin’ enviro-Trotskyite-NAMBLA art survey)).

9

How the heck is somebody supposed to teach an art history class without mentioning religion or politics?!? Most medieval and Renaissance art is religious; most art, in all eras, is political in one way or another. I’m no expert on art history, but I don’t see any way to apply your “dinner party rules” without eviscerating large chunks of the syllabus.

In any case, people come to dinner parties for an evening of congenial conversation with friends; they come to college to be challenged and informed. The two situations are not analogous. The classroom is not supposed to be a place where students are protected from exposure to anything they may find offensive. That’s not part of the deal. It’s a place where they SHOULD be exposed to works, ideas, and perspectives that may make them uncomfortable, offended, or fighting mad – I’d argue that an education that does not do this from time to time has failed the student on some level, at least if these are college students we’re talking about.

I think you should just go ahead and show the images, and as long as you present them in a mature and even-handed way, I can’t imagine too many students would have a problem with it.

10

I went to a public university and none of my professors interjected their reiligious or political thoughts in class. That’s not what they’re paid to do. The closest thing I had to a teacher who flung opinion from his ass was a math teacher who thought it necessary to demean his students. A group of us went to the Dean and he was gone the next semester.

The Danish cartoons were social comentary in a newspaper, not art. They were no different than commentaries regarding the KKK. Again, not art.

11

looks at the floor dejectedly

leaves class

12

That’s what I wanted to hear. If this is really an educational exercise, if this is really a dispassionate exploration of how the art world sometimes collides with religious sensitivitiies, then go for it. Show whatever you think is germane to the subject matter.

13

I’m going to agree with astorian – even though I’m a pretty consistently left-wing non-Catholic.

If I’m told you’re going to discuss controversial art, and all you show is art directed at one particular group, I’d find myself asking what your agenda really is, not what the artist’s is.

You can’t tell me that the NEA catalog doesn’t have something in it to offend almost everyone.

14

You said in your first post that no one should discuss religion or politics in the classroom, which is not the same as “flinging opinion from one’s ass.” I would assume that your university had a political science department, and probably a religious studies department as well.

(I’d also argue that professors’ political views are going to infuse their teaching, regardless of whether that’s what they’re paid to do, given a broad enough definition of what counts as politics. When I draw up a syllabus, I’m making any number of decisions that can be construed as political: Whose voices are going to predominate in this classroom – is it going to be lecture or discussion? Do I want to teach only traditional, canonical texts or bring in some lesser-known works by writers from a broader variety of backgrounds? Do I use the term “Renaissance” or “early modern”? Professors who talk openly about their own politics are, often, simply making the thinking behind these decisions explicit when it would otherwise go unnoticed and unquestioned.)

15

“Topics of discussion” does not equal “interjecting religious and political beliefs.” I tried to ask this question as neutrally as possible, attempting to be sensitive to the beliefs of others, and I sure didn’t want SDMB Wars of Religion part 27. I thought it was clear that the exercise wasn’t in Christian-bashing, and that there were several things to be discussed that had zero to do with Christianity, but the eagerness of some to jump to that conclusion. . . well. I suppose there’s no helping it.
Thanks for the input.

16

Even if I’m not personally offended.

No, the art itself probably wouldn’t offend me. (And if it does, so what? I don’t have to like every piece of art that shows up.) But a professor’s attitude might. I wouldn’t want to have to defend my religion in an art class, and I shouldn’t have to. (Defending my sense of offense is another thing). I also shouldn’t have to answer for other Christians either, either by being forced speak for them, to come to their defense, or to publically condemn them. (A student can explain the sides of the debate and take up either side, personally defending their own views, without doing those things.)

I also don’t remember having to be warned about images in art by the time I was in college. Especially in an art history class.

For the record, I’m Protestant, politically left-of-center.

17

It also strikes me that sometimes avoiding controversial works gives them more power. Better to show them and discuss them, and let the students decide how objectionable the art is, than to say “Today we are going to talk about artwork so offensive I can’t show it to you in class”.

(At the risk of using a silly example, I’m thinking of the world of Harry Potter, when Dumbledore chooses to say Voldemort rather than avoid the name.)

18

I’m a Christian. A pretty liberal one. And I love “Piss Christ”. I think it’s a beautiful photograph. And theologically quite orthodox.

Andrew Hudgins wrote a fantastic poem about the photograph. My favorite part:

19

I am having a hard time believing **Magiver ** is really talking about expectations for a college classroom. As pointed out, there are whole departments of nothing but religion and politics. Further, most social sciences need to at least address their application to religion and/or politics to cover the subject matter. And where would humanities, like literature or theatre, be if we just removed all religious or political content?–no more Paradise Lost or Julius Caesar.

No sense dragging religion and politics into accounting, statistics or foreign language, IMHO. But in the humanities and social sciences they are part of what students are there to learn to think critically about.

I think the OP has gotten some great advice. If you are talking about the '90s culture wars, show the art that was controversial in the 1990s. If students will be writing reaction papers, be aware that a student who is a Christian might find his Christianity relevant to his reaction to controversial art portraying Christ. Just make sure you allow for the possibility for someone to make a credible argument that some portrayals of Christ aren’t art. You don’t necessarily have to agree, but don’t come across as one of those “Liberal Indoctrination Patrol” professors.

Here’s an interesting idea for an approach to a reaction paper. Have students compare and contrast either 2 attacks on a controversial piece of art, or 2 defenses of it. Have them talk about the types of arguments each makes and which arguments they find convincing.

20

Boy, I sure can’t find it now, but I remember reading a piece about Piss Christ in ArtNews in which Serrano (who grew up Catholic) talked to some officials in the Church about the piece (prior to its being shown, I think) and had their approval. Something about conserving body fluids.

Obviously his work is important. While you’re at it, it seems like you might as well discuss the elephant in the room.

Re: Mapplethorpe, it was interesting to me that in conservative Cincinnati (one of the cities where officials tried like hell to yank the show), attendance was sky-high. They waited in line. People like to make up their own minds.