Forum Topic

Gilbert and  George

My wife is a Friend of the Royal Academy. A card recently dropped through our letter box, with their publication, offering two prints by the ineffable pair at £1.200 each - framed and signed.  All well and good for those who admire these two posturers, but what outrages me is that one of them is a parody of Jesus and the Cross, with a hint of the crown of thorns on their heads.  I am not a Christian, nor even agnostic, but an atheist, and my outrage centres on this mockery of the soft target of Christianity instead of risking, perhaps, a fatwa by taking the piss out of Islam.Anyone any views?

William Hosking ● 6699d5 Comments

I don't think the provocative use of religious imagery has much to do with satire nor is there much pretence of any message as such. It is really just a button an attempt to get a response. The mainstream Churches have long since realised that making any statement on issues like this only gives column inches to the 'artists' which is what they want. People wanting to generate controversy now have to rely on fringe organisations like Christian Voice to be a rent-a-quote for them.The issue of the Sikh play I think was slightly more complicated. The point of the protesters, who were non-violent, was that the first and only representation of Sikhism on the British stage was an extremely negative one. In addition it was in a Council Tax Payer subsidised theatre and many Sikhs in Birmingham were asking why should their taxes be used in this way. Obviously threats against the playwright were unacceptable but I think the case of the mainstream protestors had some merit. On the other hand if they had just ignored the play it would have been watched by an handful of the writer's friends and closed fairly quickly.

Paul Corcoran ● 6699d

To take up Frances's points.  I entirely agree that all religions should be able to face up to satire and mockery.  It is just that in our pusillanimous media all religions are fair game except Islam, and why?  Because Islam is unforgiving to criticism, and just plain dangerous to satirise - see the cartoons.  And not only Islam, but Sikhism too if you remember the play that was forced off the stage in the face of threats to the life of the woman playwright.  Christianity is a soft touch, so it doesn't matter what you say to offend the millions of Christians as they are a safe target.As to G & G - 'nuff said!

William Hosking ● 6699d

A great deal of the so-called art produced by this pair of twits is Christ-based.  They seem to have a problem with Him.The present day art world considers the likes of Tracey Emin and Gilbert & George as geniuses/genii? Come back, Van Gogh & Co., all is forgiven.

Ann S. Allridge ● 6699d

Brian Sewell in the Standard wrote a very interesting article on this pair recently. He sees no artistic merit in their work whatsoever and I think he is spot on.Basically they have recycled the same kind of images over and over to create a brand and then sought controversy by initially the use of obscene language, then references to bodily fluids and now disrespectful use of religious (but not as you say Islamic) images. This is really just a strategem to gain column inches rather than any real artistic endeavour. They are more part of the PR industry than the art community. The really sad thing is that presumably some people actually pay £1,200 for a print and that the Royal Academy has demeaned itself by trying to push this stuff. I think they have a pernicious impact on art as a whole as it is such an obvious con as it gives weight to the argument that modern art in general is bogus.

Paul Corcoran ● 6699d

I think either you're pro the idea that people have the right to challenge religion or you're not.  You can't then pick and choose which religions are ripe for challenge and which aren't.  It also seems to me be better and healthier if people question and scrutinize and satirise their own religion and cultural context first, before starting on those they may not even understand. If religious beliefs, particularly those that have been corrupted or which are extremist, were moderated from within their supporting societies, wouldn't that be better.

Frances McAllister ● 6699d