|
medpundit |
||
 |
 |
|
Sunday, April 01, 2007As this Christian author notes, the outcry is misguided. A chocolate crucified Christ, even if crucified naked, as as was the practice of the Romans, isn't offensive. Even if the intent of the exhibit was to give offense, it just doesn't carry it off. The point of the whole narrative of the crucifixion is the humiliation and degradation of God by man - humiliation and degradation that was repaid with eternal love and forgiveness. The more an artist tries to degrade it, the more it proves the point. I have hanging in my office a print of the crucifixion done in a Cubist style. I bought it at a rest stop in West Virginia that specializes in selling products of West Virginia craftsmen. I was drawn to it by the obvious suffering of the figure and the stained-glass look that the Cubism gave it. It wasn't until I got it home that I noticed the title handwritten very carefully by the artist - "Crucifiction." Maybe the artist can't spell, but if it was intentional, the joke was on the artist. The power of the image still holds, and that's what matters. posted by Sydney on 4/01/2007 02:04:00 PM 3 comments 3 Comments:The modern art folks tend to miss the point frequently. I cannot think of any group more obtuse to meaning of Christian symbolism. This Bill Donahue seems to be a professional greivance monger who is riding the pendulum effect. He is starting to gain influence now because for years elite opinion made it almost obligatory to mock Christianity while leaning over backwards to avoid offending Islam. Rather than be straightforward about Islam, elites have decided to deplore all perceived religious offense. It would have been better if they had treated Islam the way they have treated Christianity.
People like Donahue see that being thin-skinned and grievance-seeking works for Muslims*, so it's no surprise that Donahue would start using the tactic. |
|
