A Blast from the Past: “Blasphemous Art in Brooklyn Stirs Controversy”

Last updated on: February 21, 2020 at 11:09 pm by Dan Peterson

A Blast from the Past: “Blasphemous Art in Brooklyn Stirs Controversy” 2020-02-21T23:09:05-07:00 Dan Peterson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Sunset at the Brooklyn Museum (Wikimedia Commons public domain photo)

I published this little item in the Provo Daily Herald back on 20 October 1999. Considerable history has come and gone since then. For example, Rudy Giuliani became “America’s Mayor” a little less than two years later amid the catastrophes of 9-11 and, since then, has become a national embarrassment:

Blasphemous Art in Brooklyn Stirs Controversy

Religious controversies about art are hardly new. Michelangelo’s depiction of nude figures on the Sistine Chapel caused a scandal; so, presumably, did Akhenaton’s eccentric innovations in ancient Egypt. Some iconoclastic religions find blasphemous the very act of creating religious art. Until recently the most notorious modern case of artistic blasphemy was Andres Serrano’s vulgarly titled 1989 depiction of a crucifix immersed in a jar of urine. (Would the art critics who praised Serrano’s work have been equally enthralled with a depiction of the corpse of Martin Luther King, similarly submerged and titled?)

An artistic and religious controversy at New York’s Brooklyn Museum has again brought this issue to the forefront of public attention. The museum is currently displaying Chris Ofili’s “Holy Virgin Mary,” an abstract portrait studded with preserved animal genitals and elephant dung. Naturally, Catholics and many others have found this offensive, blasphemous, and without artistic merit. New York mayor Rudy Giuliani has threatened to cut seven million dollars of museum funding if the portrait is not removed. Supporters of the artist and the museum have denounced his threat, claiming it violates constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech.

But does government refusal to fund a particular work of art deny freedom of speech? In reality, for every artist the government subsidizes in some way, hundreds receive no subsidy. Since its resources are limited while the amount of potential art is essentially unlimited, government must necessarily choose which artists to subsidize and which not to subsidize.

Who, then, decides which specific art works receive these limited government subsidies? Should such decisions be left exclusively to museum directors and the art establishment? Do their unique skills and insights allow them to transcend the need for public scrutiny or accountability? There is, in fact, no consensus in the art establishment as to what constitutes art, let alone what constitutes “good” art. One prominent national art museum recently displayed the following three masterpieces: a canvas painted completely black, a string of light bulbs hung on a wall, and a circle of stones on the floor. That such nonsense can pass among museum directors for serious art suggests legitimate grounds (at least) for outsiders to question their aesthetic judgment.

A government subsidy means taxpayers are patronizing the art. If a patron asked an artist to paint a naturalistic portrait of his daughter in her wedding dress, and the artist returned with an abstract nude painting of the bride smeared with elephant dung, it is doubtful that the patron would pay the artist. And he would have every right not to do so. He bears no constitutional obligation to pay. Unless one is willing to argue that the patron of a work of art should have no say about the type and quality of art produced, the people whose government patronizes art with their taxes should likewise be allowed to decide which specific art should receive subsidies.

But the Brooklyn controversy raises another equally important issue—a religious one. The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This means, first, that the government may not create state-sponsored religions (as are found, for example, in many European countries). Second, if the government does patronize religion, it should give all faiths equal treatment. Thus, when the government provides chaplains for the armed services, it allows clergy of all religions to serve.

As a corollary to these two ideas, it seems clear that government should not be involved in attacking the beliefs of any particular religion. To do so implicitly establishes those religions not critiqued as superior to the religion that is. For the state to sponsor art that, by Roman Catholic standards, is clearly blasphemous, is to establish non-Catholic religions as superior to Catholicism. Thus, Mayor Giuliani has it exactly right: “You don’t have a [First Amendment] right to government subsidy for desecrating somebody else’s religion.”

While the First Amendment clearly states that the government cannot prevent blasphemous art from being created, sold, or exhibited, it seems equally clear that government should not be involved in subsidizing blasphemous art. If it does so, it is implicitly (and illegitimately) establishing certain religious ideas as superior to others.

Previous Post

February 21, 2020

"The Hermit and the Cat"

Next Post

February 22, 2020 "Who Is Leaving the Church?" (Part One)

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 March 2014 August 2013 February 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who was the Roman emperor when Jesus was born?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Tiberius Julius Caesar Nero Augustus