Ever since the first paint brush was put to canvas, there has been a contentious push-and-pull between an artists right to free expression and good taste.
This dilemma reared its head in Colorado early this month when a Loveland art museum exhibited a mural that included what many viewers perceived as an image of Jesus engaged in a sexual act. Pornography! many declared. Blasphemy! decried others. The artwork was so offensive to one Christian woman that she destroyed the piece with a sledgehammer. She was arrested and charged with a misdemeanor.
The argument ensued, that while the artist has the right to express himself, does the museum have the right to decline to exhibit the art? And if the museum has that right, then it isnt it fair to criticize the museum for choosing to display the offensive artwork in the first place?
The question of art and taste is now raging in Israel.
Artist Noam Braslavsky created a life-size wax sculpture of former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon lying comatose in a hospital bed. Sharon has been in a coma since suffering a massive stroke in January, 2006. An exhibit featuring the sculpture opened Monday at a Tel Aviv gallery.
The artist calls the controversial sculpture an allegory about Israels precarious state of existence which he says is hanging between the heavens and the earth.
The allegory is internally consistent. It can be argued that Israel, like Ariel Sharon, is neither thriving peacefully nor throwing in the towel. From an artistic point of view, the piece is relevant and thought-provoking and Braslavsky was well within his rights to create it.
Taste is another question. The three-dimensional, life-size replica of the ailing and once esteemed prime minister and military hero is disturbing and an affront to his dignity. Critics in Israel are saying the artist could have found a more tasteful way to express his concerns about his country.
The fact remains that Braslavsky has the right to express these concerns, even if sensibilities are offended, and it should be noted that he certainly would not have the same right if he were in any of the countries surrounding Israel in the Middle East.
Comparing this to the Loveland scenario, those offended by the sculpture can and should direct their objections to the gallery which chose to accept the controversial piece for exhibit, even though the gallery, as a private business which is also protected by the freedom of expression, has the right to do so.
Back to Noam Braslavskys intended message: Is Israel is hanging between the heaven and the earth? Unlike Ariel Sharon, who will die one day, Israel lives under Prophetic promise. Israel can fight the forces that threaten to destroy her and emerge from her figurative coma. Meanwhile, she continues to thrive in uncounted technological, scholarly, religious and military realms, which many countries around the world envy her for.
Copyright © 2010 by the Intermountain Jewish News
