institutions

This page considers blasphemy, sacrilege and cultural institutions.

It covers -

• 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.

  next page  (online)