institutions

This page considers blasphemy, sacrilege and cultural institutions.

It covers -

• introduction
• protocols
• practice

     introduction

Elizabeth Coleman & Maria Fernandes-Dias in 'Lines in the Sand' (Negotiating The Sacred II, 2008) reached the stunning conclusion that "Legal permissibility and moral acceptability are different" before announcing that -

art continues to provide the transgressive space for
subverting dominant ideological discourses. However, despite their emancipatory power, artists and their art occupy a liminal space wherein the contemporary socio-political climate of hegemonically-induced extremism and increased communal and religious sensitivity and intolerance, limit individual freedom of expression. Artistic articulation of individual conviction without the intention to offend can still potentially cause unrest. In a world that is becoming increasingly pluralistic and multicultural, it is necessary to step beyond the simplistic assertion that free speech should override religious sensitivities and to facilitate a discourse that will encourage a negotiation of definitions of blasphemy or sacrilege and a sensitisation of religious sensibilities, and limit the abusive deployment of freedom of expression. Artistic sophistication and layering of meaning with its 'virtues' of ambiguity, openness, and indeterminacy that prevent a single, blatant and overt interpretation of a creation as sacrilegious or blasphemous, presents one such means of reconciling potential conflict. Enabling and creating an environment of tolerance that is conducive to intellectual debate and not offence, is yet another. Respect for the religious and cultural sentiments of others is of the utmost importance, for, it is only in a society that respects difference that a forum for negotiation can evolve and the lines in the sand can fade.

A sceptic might of course respond that lines in the sand, unlike many of those on paper, generally do not fade (although they can be washed away by blood).

Not everyone sees blasphemy as a focus for an academic seminar about "emancipatory power", the "liminal space" or the "contemporary socio-political climate of hegemonically-induced extremism". It is unsurprising that enthusiasts of different persuasions have sought to gain media attention (for their causes or merely for themselves), reinforce the identity of communities and claim legitimacy through disagreements about the activity of cultural institutions, ie art galleries, museums, archives and libraries.

Some individuals and advocacy groups have claimed to 'take a stand', promote free speech, raise consciousness or free the unenlightened through exemplary displays of 'controversial' contemporary art or other works. That ethos has been embraced by some institutions, typically those that are small, self-consciously avant garde and not primarily dependent on funding by the state or large corporations (given the tendency of major funders to withdraw support if protests are sufficiently noisy).

Other groups have sought to deter planned exhibitions through lobbying, threats of disruption or even litigation (such as that in the Piss Christ case in Australia) to force the removal of allegedly offensive items from public display or from access by students and other readers.

On occasion that agitation has gone further, with demands that institutions purge their collections - displayed or merely secreted in the stacks - of offensive material, with failure to do so being characterised as ethno-religious discrimination, tacit institutional endorsement of hatespeech or an expression of the 'whiteness of law'.

Some of the disagreement reflects differing perceptions of art and/or of the role of institutions. Curators and many visitors to art galleries, for example, may value particular sculptures, prints, paintings, video works, former reliquaries and other items for aesthetic qualities that are largely divorced from spiritual values. Some may view those works as historical artifacts, postcards from a vanished culture with which the viewer has no strong connection. That characterisation might offend people who are comfortable seeing the material culture of other faiths displayed as art or ethnographic objects but consider that the material culture associated with their belief system should not be exhibited in a secular environment, ie should be seen in a temple or church but not in a display case in a museum.

Others may recognise that the works might give offence but consider that tolerance of offence is a key attribute of a culturally pluralist society, with content thus not being quarantined on the basis that someone might dislike the way in which a religious figure is depicted or the mere notion of depiction.

Some of the disagreement also reflects perceptions that cultural institutions are 'soft targets', more readily disrupted than for example broadcasting networks, courts, welfare systems or other entities that express and reinforce the hegemony supposedly antithetical to particular belief systems (eg commercial television in Australia that ignores concerns in some Muslim communities regarding female clothing).

     protocols

There are no definitive international or Australian protocols on the handling by institutions of content that is claimed to be blasphemous or sacrilegious. Some nations have developed broad guidelines on the treatment of 'sensitive' works in particular categories (eg Australian Indigenous content). Many responses appear to be ad hoc and opportunistic.

     practice

Institutional responses have varied considerably.

Some institutions have asserted their independence and legitimacy, on occasion blustering and backing down (with withdrawal of an item from display or cancellation of an exhibition) after meeting vociferous - albeit largely unrepresentative - criticism. Others have taken a 'critics be damned' stance, sometimes using a media campaign or new/existing links with particular communities to address criticism.

Some have quarantined the allegedly offensive content, with books for example being withdrawn from open library shelves and art works being housed in special areas demarcated with the equivalent of an 'adult content' or health warning. Some institutions have sequestered 'problematical' items, including Australian Indigenous works, in areas that are ostensibly only accessible to their staff or to a handful of scholars who agree to observe particular protocols on publication and who meet particular requirements (eg are not female).

Some institutions, as noted in the discussion of book censorship elsewhere on this site, have responded to criticism by sending items from the shelves to the shredder or landfill. The fall of the Shah reportedly saw the new authorities in Iran discreetly place some high-value works on the international market, with items of a lower cash value being defaced or burnt, often in public ceremonies. The Taliban's period of power in Afghanistan after the collapse of the Soviet proxy government was similarly marked by a purge of art and antiquities museums, along with the execution of curators and museum administrators.

  next page  (online)