Looking for trouble
03 Sep 2008
Seeking offence, as Christians have done in the case of Terence Koh’s Jesus statue, is the tactic of the vindictive and the bullying, writes Padraig Reidy
Many of us have been in the situation at some point, whether at school, on the street, or in the wrong pub at the wrong time. Minding our business, when out of nowhere come the dread words: ‘What you lookin’ at?’ (or variations thereof).
There is, of course, no proper answer to this: there’s not supposed to be. It’s an overture, not a question. And only if you’re lucky will you escape before the curtain comes up on Act One of the ultraviolence.
The implication of ‘what you lookin’ at?’ is that you’re the one who started it. You’re the one who caused the initial offence, and the offence was so great that it had to be met with a swift and sweeping response, i.e. a fist (or glass, if you’re very unlucky) in the face. Your fault, because you caused the offence. It’s a calculated, nasty mentality, beloved of bullies for time immemorial.
Of course, bullies take many forms, and present their bullying in many ways. Step forward Emily Mapfuwa and her backers, the Christian Legal Centre, who have launched a civil suit against the Baltic gallery in Gateshead after it exhibited Chinese artist Terence Koh’s plaster Jesus, complete with comedy erection. Mapfuwa sought out the offence, and then ‘reacted’ in an extreme manner.
Mapfuwa alleges that the statuette outrages public decency and causes harassment, alarm and distress to the public. This might have been true if the tiny Messiah had stepped down from its plinth and begun marauding about the North East, sneaking up on old ladies and shouting in their ears. But that’s not what happened. The piece stayed in the gallery, alongside equally tumescent pals Mickey Mouse and ET, where interested parties could examine him, and the uninterested, or even the appalled, could look away. Mapfuwa chose not to turn away, and not even to register her upset with a letter, but instead to bully the gallery through the courts.
The plaintiff claims that the artist would never have depicted Muhammad in such a way. And they may have a point. But not for the reasons they think. Koh’s exhibition subverted icons: Jesus, ET, Mickey Mouse. Representations of Jesus have been a part of global culture for the best part of 2,000 years. Artistically, if one’s aim is to poke fun at the iconic, it would be utterly pointless to stick an erect penis on a statue of Muhammad, simply because there is almost no such thing as a statue of Muhammad. There is no image to subvert. Think about it: what does Jesus look like? We’ll all come up with pretty much an identical image. What does Muhammad look like? I have absolutely no idea. I can try to imagine something, as can you, but your image of Muhammad will probably be different from mine. In such circumstances, lacking the icon, Koh’s joke doesn’t work.
This of course, isn’t the logic at play in Mapfuwa and the Christian Legal Centre’s complaint: the rationale they are reaching for is the bully’s other great excuse: a bigger boy made me do it. Now that Sikhs and Muslim groups have found some sympathy in calling for censorship, Christian groups feel emboldened in doing the same. Not since the passing of Mary Whitehouse has the religious right been so confident in its right to stifle debate, literature and art. As is the case with all bullies, eventually we’ll have to stand up to them.
« Struggling to be heard • TV station chief ordered to leave Iran »
9 Comments so far
Marijana
I wasn’t raised with religion but I understand why Christians find this offensive rather than humorous. The whole tone of this article is that it’s Christians who are looking to bully people. Sorry, but any artist who mocks or desecrates that which is sacred to someone else is the one picking a fight. Fair enough to argue that a statue like this fosters discussion or it must be protected as free speech, but don’t lie about which party is the aggressor.
Clearly, the “artist” has made public a work guaranteed to provoke and Padraig Reidy has jumped in to demand, “What you lookin’ at?” Reidy seems to be the one seeking offence here. Doesn’t Emily Mapfuwa have a right to free expression as well? The courts will sort it in the end.
David T
In almost all the cases involving blasphemy-like complaints, those who have found themselves in conflict with religious groups have something important to say.
The MoToons were commissioned as a comment on the travails of an author who had written a ‘lives of the holy’ book about Mohammed, but who couldn’t get it illustrated for fear of violent attack orchestrated by clerical fascist groups.
The Kirkup “Gay News” case – the last successful prosecution – was an ok-ish poem which was important because it highlighted the arguably homoerotic nature of the Jesus story, played on the dual meaning of the concept of ‘passion’, and implicitly contrasted Christ’s crucifixion with the persecution of gay men at a time when Christians were actively involved in that persecution.
A similar argument might be made in relation to the ‘piss Christ’. It was quite beautiful as well.
Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses isn’t blasphemous at all, I think, and didn’t really intend to be. It is essentially a novel about what it is like to have, or lack faith: rather than a novel about whether or not Mohammed’s wife was a prostitute. All these offensive sequences are nightmares of one of the characters: and are obviously not commentaries on the Quran.
I’m not really sure what the work that is the source of present controversy is all about, and why Jesus and Micky Mouse have erections.
That’s not to say that if people want to put penii on iconic figures, they shouldn’t, or that they should be prosecuted or otherwise restrained or censored, and so on.
However, I’d be hard pressed to find an extraneous justification – beyond opposing censorship, which is sufficient – for opposing Mapfuwa. As it is, the whole affair seems to have done little but afford the woman the opportunity to make a statement about the ease of mocking Christianity.
She has a point: one which it is a pity she is using the law to amplify.
pete woodhouse
emily mapfuwa’s right to expression has nothing to do with this, she can express herself quite freely and statues of jesus with a boner make no difference to that whatsoever. the issue here is that ms mapfuwa is attempting (thro the courts) to curtail mr koh’s freedom of expression.
SarahN.
Emily Mapfuwa is exercising her right to be protected by law from harassment, outrages to decency, and distress. She is the victim here.
She is not seeking to curtail Mr. Koh’s freedom of expression – he can make his ridiculous no-talent crap in his garden shed if he wishes. She, however, should be able to visit a publicly-funded art gallery without having her rights violated.
Brian McCluskey
There was a warning at the entrance of this exhibition saying that some people may well find some of the exhibits offensive. If a person chooses to go in regardless of having been warned about the contents beforehand then they have no right whatsoever to prosecute for alleged offense afterwards. That’s what’s ridiculous about this case.
Ophelia Benson
Emily Mapfuwa is the victim here? So Terence Koh broke into her house and tied her to a chair and taped her eyelids open and then forced her to stare at the Jesus statue? That aspect of the case seems to have been badly under-reported!
Craig Marshall
I’m fairly sure no one has the the ‘right’ to not be offended by something in an art gallery. Any such offence is at least as much in the eye of the beholder as in the mind of the creator. Consider how many people who, visiting the same gallery, were not offended by the same statue. It is quite a leap from being offended to claiming you have a right to not be harassed or having your decency outraged.
john
Koh did not depict mohammed because he would become a marked man along with the gallery owner and anyone remotely connected with the gallery. It is not because there is no image of mohammed. There are many images of mohammed like the one on the US supreme court or the famous cartoons of mohammed, you know the cartoons you did not re-publish in your website for fear of offending muslims (unlike the offensive image of Jesus you have on this blog). Also note that Koh made fun of just one religion. If he was an equal opportunity offender, he would at least have had more credibility…. I guess Koh had to choose between credibility and not having a note knifed to his chest.
The irony here is that deep down inside Padraig, you are as irrational as the people who censor. You have a set of beliefs which must not be made fun of. Take for example if Koh targeted homosexuals and they got all pissed off. I am sure Padraig would be all for censorship then. Making fun of muslims is also a no no for liberal ideologues (something they have in common with muslim fundamentalists). That is why Theo Van Gogh was accused in this magazine of abusing his right to free speech when he made Submission. Theo provoked christianity but he had the balls to provoke muslims too unlike Index on Censorship and Koh. Look at Padraig’s writing in the blog ‘sense and sensitivity’ and contrast that with this blog. There he is all understanding and hoping Random House will publish Jewel of Medina and here he is sticking it to Mapfuwa.
John Morton
You call this sh1t art?
What is wrong with you people?
Grow up and get a life.