Get your Jesus on

Stuff has an interesting story about an Austrian church that displayed art featuring a homoerotic last supper.

You can smell the controversy already, right?

One of the things that always amuses me about these sorts of controversies is the assumption that religious figures would never had had any kind of sex. Of itself, sex is a beautiful thing, and I find it hard to believe that anyone seriously thought that a little masturbation or fornication would seriously condemn them. Then again, I am totally a heretic anyway, and my opinions on this matter are hardly likely to convince the faithful.

I also find it amusing that people get so worked up about dividing the world into unsubtle categories of “good” and “bad” based on the teachings of a man who preached that you should be loving and tolerant towards those in your community. It’s like fighting for pacifism. Regardless of whether Jesus ever enjoyed the intimate company of men, he was certainly not the type to condone hatred of people just because they choose to have sex in a slightly different way than you do.

Advertisements

3 Responses

  1. I am sure however, that you will not find it amusing – heretic or not – at gratuitious offense, for the sake of making a quick buck or quick name for oneself. Even if the subject matter is one you also like to criticise, being silly in ones criticism is surely not “cricket” in your book..?

  2. Of course I don’t find gratuitous offence amusing- but that assumes that I know that this piece of art was intended that way. Sex is often metaphorical rather than literal in art and it’s possible that the point of sex in this instance wasn’t just for shock value.

    Of course it’s LIKELY that it was given the tendency of some artists to just go for as much attention as possible, indiscriminate of what kind of attention it is, and then say “Aha! We’ve provoked a reaction.” There’s a reason that kind of artist says “provoked” 😉

    If there’s some sort of legitimate statement in the work- for instance about homosexual paedophilia in the church- then I can probably live with it as a form of artistic statement. My problem is more that people object to the work on bad grounds- ie. sex and homosexuality- neither of which ought to be viewed as bad, EVEN in such controversial contexts as religious figures.

  3. “EVEN in such controversial contexts as religious figures.”
    …and that is the part where we disagree.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: