Whom Can Art Offend - Essay Example

Whom can art offend? Art is a form of communication that represents the society in its various aspects. Art can be applied to support certain elements of the society that are deemed socially acceptable, while at the same time it can be applied towards ridiculing some aspects of the society that are deemed inappropriate. Further, art can be applied to give the society a voice where the voice has been denied by those who are in a position of authority. The Degenerate Art Exhibition is one of the art applications that were meant to give the society a voice where the leadership in Germany had confiscated the art space in the country, by terming such art as “degenerate” and thus establishing policies that would restrict the use of modern art in Germany1. This art exhibition was organized by Adolf Ziegler, and it was attended by over three million people, who were involved in viewing different artwork exhibitions. Despite this exhibition being a response to the restriction of the application of modern art in Germany, the exhibition was able to meet its objective of popularizing the modern art that Germany was prohibiting. In this respect, art can be offensive to some part of the society, based on the content of artwork that is being displayed, which the society might consider to be offensive, or to be against the acceptable social moral values2. Thus, while the Degenerate Art Exhibition could have been offensive to the German government and some of the German population that was opposed to the modern art principles, the Islamic world has been offended by several art applications throughout the modern history. The Islam world has considered some form of art, both print and visual, as offensive to the ideals and values that the Muslims holds dear. "The Innocence of Mohammed" is one of such films that was developed and aired in America, directed by Sam Bacile, which then became highly controversial due to its anti-Prophet Muhammad d and anti-Islam sentiments and contents3. The release of the film caused the Islamic world to protest against its allowed viewership, considering that the film was ridiculing the very fundamental Muslim principles that the religion regards critical. In response to the release of the film in 2012, protests sparked in different Muslim nations, such as Egypt, Syria and Libya, where the protesters were involved in “burning the USA flag and also attacking the USA diplomats” to those countries4. The protests were far more violent in Libya, where the protesters burnt down the USA consulate in the country and also killed one of the USA diplomats. The director of the film declared that he considered Islam as a cancer, and thus the film was intended to make a political statement, while at the same time expose the negative attributes that are associated with the Islamic faith5. The major problem that is associated with the film is that it has sought to show Prophet Muhammad as a fraud, while at the same time depicting his Muslim followers as fools. Considering the fact that Prophet Muhammad is a highly revered religious symbol in the Muslim world, mostly respected for being the source of esteemed Islamic religious practices and also the holy book of Quran, the film is disparaging and offensive to the Muslim world, to say the least6. Prophet Muhammad is made to come out as both an adulterer and a murderer in the film "The Innocence of Mohammed"7. The film does not only depict Prophet Muhammad as a fraud, but also associates the Prophet with sexual violations and indecent sexual acts that are injurious to the character of the Prophet Muhammad as well as injurious to the believers of the Islamic faith. It is due to the controversy that was sparked by this film, that the US judiciary was forced to intervene and declare the content of the film unsuitable. The two major themes that are featured in the film is that Prophet Muhammad is a fake and that the Quran is a made up book, which serves to “tear down the fabric of the Islamic faith”, owing to the fact that both the Quran and the Prophet Muhammad are the most important symbols as far as the Muslim religion is concerned8. Thus, despite the fact that the film “The Innocence of Muslims,” is a presentation of the artwork that seeks to represent a certain perspective of the society, it has emerged to be highly injurious to the Islamic faith and to the rest of the society that also respect diverse religions. The other art offense that has characterized ridiculing and mockery of the Islamic faith was the Muhammad cartoons that were published in the Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, in the September of 20059. While the original intention or the publication of these cartoons was to establish a dialogue over the Islamic faith, its content eventually came out as offensive to the Islamic world. There has been claims that no attempt to elicit a discussion of the principles of the Islamic faith that does not spark controversy or even a crisis. However, even though there might be a need to create a dialogue that would see the fundamentals of the Islamic faith discussed by persons of interest, it is offensive when the channels that are applied to elicit such discussions occur in the form of art content that mocks and ridicules the fundamental symbols and principles of the Islamic faith, such as the Prophet Muhammad and his teachings10. Therefore, following the publication of the ‘Muhammad cartoons’, the Muslims in Denmark rioted over the mockery of their faith, and eventually the rioting was picked up by the rest of the Muslim nations throughout the world, as a step towards stopping the non-Islamic world from mocking the Islamic faith. While Prophet Muhammad stands as a very important symbol of the Islamic faith, it has been considered blasphemous to make any picture of the Prophets, leave alone to make mocking pictures that ridicule the role that prophet Muhammad played in the establishment of the Islamic faith11. For this reason, the ‘Muhammad cartoons’ became offensive to the whole of the Muslim world, since the cartoons represented the mockery of their most important and representative symbol of their faith and religious practices. The satirical publications of the ‘Muhammad cartoons’ did not only spark controversy in the Muslim world, but also in the non-Muslim nations, since the satirical and mocking publications also “created inter-governmental tensions” between the Islamic and the non-Islamic nations12. Despite the fact that the publication of such cartoons could be regarded an element of exercising free speech and the practicing of the freedom of conscience, it requires that such freedoms should be restricted to content that would not be offensive and injurious to the rest of the society that may not be sharing the same perspective with the person expressing the freedoms. The controversy sparked by the publication of the ‘Muhammad cartoons’ was a high-level discussion on the freedom of the media and the responsibility of the media to guard against racism and religious profiling. The United Nations declared the ‘Muhammad cartoons’ inappropriate, while the European Union defended the publication of the cartoons as an essential element of the freedom of the press, which cannot be compromised. The Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse and torture is yet another artwork that has been offensive to the Muslim community globally, since it was a media release that showed the “Muslim prisoners in Iraq being tortured” and exposed to severe inhumane treatments that were unimaginable13. The artwork took the form of pictures and photographs of the prisoners being tortured while naked, both sexually and through physical assault, while at the same time being exposed to the wrath of the military dogs for intimidation and humiliation. The fact that such images were released as an attempt to indicate the form of inhuman torture that the prisoners were undergoing and thus challenge the rest of the world and the relevant authorities to act by stopping the inhuman torture cannot be disputed. However, the overall outcome of this form of art display has been to shame and horrify the Islamic world, which was forced to see the Islamic detainees being subjected to conduct and torture that is a taboo for the Muslims14. The pictures of the prisoners being tortured did not only reveal the nudity of the prisoners, but also other anti-Islamic practices such as sodomy that the prisoners were forced to undergo as part of their torture. Thus, the overall effect of this form of art was to elicit anger reactions throughout the Muslim world, which was forced to encounter scenes that are not allowed in the Islamic faith, and the consequence was the charging of the US soldiers that were involved in perpetrating these heinous acts. However, despite the fact that the necessary action was taken in order to mitigate the suffering of the Abu Ghraib prisoners in the hands of the torture handlers, the display of the pictures has remained a “shame and great offense to the Muslim world”15. Bibliography 1. Kimmelman, Michael. The Art Hitler Hated (The New York Review of Books, 2014) 25–26. 2. Hallowell, Billy. “This Is the Anti-Muhammad Movie That Sparked Deadly Islamist Protests in Egypt & Libya Yesterday”. (The Blaze, Sep. 12, 2012). 3. Ammitzboll, Pernille and Vidino, Lorenzo. “After the Danish Cartoon Controversy”. (Middle East Quarterly, 2007) 3-11. 4. Clemens, Michael. The Secrets of Abu Ghraib Revealed: American Soldiers on Trial (Dulles, Virginia: Potomac Books, 2010). Read More