The reactionary movement to the restrictions on the freedom of expression has taken different forms and attracted its own limited amount (if we really want to navel gaze) of controversial moments. J’accuse came under-fire when we took the opportunity to highlight the relative futility of certain modes of protest in today’s day and ager – particularly with regards to the over-reliance on facebook clicks and petitions and on the resorting to the over-worked medium of marches in Valletta.
Our criticism was particularly harsh (and provocative) because this ‘anti-oppression & police-state‘ movement does not (and should not) concern a bunch of University students. At least it does not only concern them. The whole aspirant artistic and intellectual non-fraternity is also deep in the muck and our criticism was also a direct result of the disappointment registered seeing the paucity of reactionary ideas. This led to the usual pooh-poohing of bloggers who can only write “something clever” on their blog rather than march up Republic Street waving megaphones.
We also asked “who cares?” as this is a genuine worry that comes up time and time again. It is stronger in the case of art than in the case of politics for example for art does not even have a monopoly on 90% of the nation who look upon politics as another way to vent their cultural genetic tendency towards fanaticism. The worry is that not many people do and that the weakness of the challenge to the development of a police state is also due to the fact that so long as the people get the “panem et circenses” that they are used to then they will not protest if Virgil and Horace are locked up for obscenity.
One of the summer events last month in Luxembourg was an adaptation of a Nick Hornby short story called “Nipple Jesus“. The blurb on the agenda magazine described it as follows:
Via a monologue (sometimes humorous) given by a security guard whose duty it is to guard a museum work of art judged to be scandalous, a number of essential questions on the function of art and what should or should not be shown are raised.
Unfortunately the play was shown in Luxembourgish so I could not attend that particular performance but I did google the short story on the net. Now I do have some qualms about the copyright nature of the material but on the other hand the story is too good to be lost. You may find it in pdf version at this blog called “Tainted Canvas“. This is definitely school textbook material (yes with all the “fucks” and two “cunts” thrown in for good measure). The controversial painting in question is a huge mosaic depicting the suffering Christ on the Cross (with emphasis on the suffering). The twist (and this is no spoiler) is that the mosaic is made of many photos of women’s nipples (“bizla” in Maltese).
Follow Dave the bouncer’s reasoning throughout the story and draw you own conclusions. I loved it. One of my favourite extracts is the bit where the bouncer reflects on the second wave of visitors – those who have come expressly to criticise the work of art having read about it (and having been provoked into not liking it) by the media circus.
Nothing much happened at first. A steady stream of people came in and looked, and a couple of them sort of clucked, but what’s really clever about the picture is that you have to get close up to get offended, because if you stand at the back of the room you can’t see anything apart from the face of Christ. So it makes the cluckers look like right plonkers, because they have to go and shove their nose up against the painting to see the nipples, and so you end up thinking they’re perverts. You know, first they have to ignore the sign on the door telling them not to go in, and then they have to walk the length of the room, and they go, “Oh, disgusting.” So they’re really looking out for it.
Magic. Read it. Now.
- Image via Wikipedia
Blurb by Maskenada for the Luxembourgish performance:
Related articles by Zemanta
- Playboy Jesus (unreasonablefaith.com)
- Britney Spears’ Nipples are Business as Usual (thesuperficial.com)
