There was a discussion on the radio this morning concerning a panel discussion on the role of art in the aftermath of the shooting of the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris. The one line that stuck with me from the discussion was along the lines of defending someone's right to express themselves even when that expression runs completely contrary to what you consider proper and decent.
The discussion went all over the place, from artists needing a sense of responsibility in their work so that they do not shock and shut down the audience they are trying to reach through acknowledging that it is the extreme edges of personal expression, those things that are done to shock and provoke, that bring about real conversations.
In the case of Charlie Hebdo, what they did to shock and provoke, what brought a deadly response, was universally agreed upon as wrong and abhorrent. But it was also acknowledged that many people find their satirical work to be wrong and abhorrent-though not to the point of murder.
It does not take too much imagination on my part to think of a situation where I, as a pastor and faith leader, would be criticized as two-faced for 1. condemning an artistic presentation that I considered to be inappropriate, grotesque, or disgusting while 2. speaking my heart that the artist still has the freedom to express themselves in this way.
Maybe this simply goes to the question of what art is. Yes, like defining 'art' is a simple question. It comes down to a theology of judgment for me. The day that I decide it is up to me to judge what should be expressed and what should not be expressed is the day I have stepped into Jesus' shoes. And I cannot imagine a more arrogant moment than that.
And that frees me to be passionate in my love or hatred for the art that I have the privilege of being exposed to.
No comments:
Post a Comment