What is your opinion of the controversial art exhibit depicting the Virgin Mary in Elephant Dung at The Brooklyn Museum?

Censorship is a touchy subject in the arts and entertainment world. So when New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani said that the Brooklyn Museum of Arts should have its funding pulled and thrown out of city-owned land for allowing a controversial showcase to be displayed, tempers were ignited. Still, the question came up: Where can the line be drawn?

In the October issue of Cafe Contemplations, our celebrities go after the head of the Mayor, saying some strong things about censorship. But it's not just a freedom love fest. Some ridicule the Brooklyn Museum display and wonder if it could be considered art at all. Take a look. Their perspectives might just give you the basis for a good argument the next time the subject comes up.

Michael Bechtel
Ah, yes. Censorship. Whether it be in the form of music, art or reading material. Whereas I don't always agree with the content, we do have the right to express ourselves as long as it does not interfere with someone else's rights. In the specific case you mention in your question about "a painting of the Virgin Mary covered in elephant dung", I may not like it, but it is the artists right to make it, same as it is my right to write lyrics about whatever topic I see fit. The problem with the "Censorship" part of this is two-fold.
First, the more it is sensationalized, the more people will want to see it because of the controversy. Second, to censor it is taking away my rights as an adult to choose what I find offensive. My main feeling is that I don't want a politician, religious fanatic, Philly fanatic or any other person telling me I can't read, listen to or enjoy a video, book, music style or any other thing that is my personal choice to do. Usually the person doing the "offensive" project is found to be doing it to gain publicity anyway, such as in the case of Marilyn Manson, Twisted Sister, Alice Cooper, Motley Crue, as well as many others.

Bruce Campbell
The line must simply be drawn with regard to marketing. I feel that anything creative should be allowed, given that there has been no human suffering involved, but that marketers should make it plain to folks coming to see the "art," what is involved. Having made several unrated films, I feel that I should be allowed to do so, as long as we don't try to lure audiences under false pretenses.

Kin Eagle
The line is drawn in the mind of the beholder. Constitutionally, I believe, the museum should have the right to display the exhibit, although certainly guidelines and qualifiers should be made public (a "rating system" may be tantamount to censorship, but people should be educated prior to exposure). There seems to be a feeling of wholesomeness attached to an exhibition featured in a museum, and clearly this is not the case here.
I certainly do not consider much of this exhibit to be artwork, and would not be pleased to see my tax dollars funding it. I don't find it offensive to Catholics by the way -- I find it offensive to human beings.
Nonetheless, the ACLU has a winning case arguing the principle of this issue, and the unfortunate reality is that they should.
It is up to us not as curio seekers but as caring sensitive people to voice our disdain by simply not showing up at functions such as these, but history has proven that to be a lofty goal. Something to strive for!

Ralph Covert
When determining the quality or tastefulness of art, one needs to first define the terms and standards the art is being judged on. The purpose of the work, and the purpose of the evaluation. The medieval composers of religious music (the Gregorians and others like them) believed that using thirds and sixths in harmony was too sexy, secular and vulgar, and that the flatted fifth was one of the secret names of Satan. (Their Latin name for it translates as the interval of the devil.) Clearly, then, tastefulness in art is a fluid and relative property.
Quality is also subjective. The many sub-genres of music each have their own standards by which the quality of their music is evaluated. Are Mozart symphonies of less quality because they do not allow the improvisation of jazz? Can a speed metal song be effectively evaluated with the aesthetic standards of folk music, or reggae, or Tuvan throat singing as practiced by Tibetan monks? The answer, in all these cases, is no because quality is also a fluid and relative property. In the case of this specific incident, the piece of art in question is intended to be a provocative social gesture. Clearly, by the response, the artist has succeeded. Is it tasteful? Again, compared to what. A Beatles song is more tasteful, and dropping napalm on a baby is far less tasteful. Of course, no-one has yet tried to call my second example art, but it does exist within the same real-world social milieu of the art work, and as such is part of the broader continuum of taste that a socially-provocative piece of art exists.

Rick Denzien
People get so focused on the medium instead of the message. Who cares what material the artist uses in creating the message anyway? I think that the New York City mayoral establishment actually is a major investor of the art exhibit. Therefore they want to promote the art in the best way possible.
What better way for people to learn about the art, than with a major press splash over how the Catholics are getting attached in the art? They are cool to know how to best promote the exhibit. They most likely own stock in the elephant dung concession too. Smart guys. Corner the market and make some dung cash too.
And ... it is just like the U.S. Senate to poke their big fat big brother f---ing nose in something that they could never understand or know anything about. They just use this kind of press to cover up something evil and corrupt that they are doing. Mean while, our drinking water is poison, we still depend on oil for everything and they think nukes are a cheap source of electrical power ... Y2K? The Day You Pay

Halley DeVestern, The Halley De Vestern Band
Listen. The painting in question happens to be titled "Virgin Mary"... it is not simply a religious icon smeared with feces. The artist isn't slamming anyone's religion. Poop is a legitimate artistic medium (hey, every infant I know uses it!). At any rate, if the government is willing to sponsor artists and museums and such, it must be tolerant of whatever the artist has to say. If not, then government should leave art alone.
Anyway, Guiliani and his statements have done nothing but draw massive crowds of paying art patrons to the underestimated Brooklyn Museum. As a proud Brooklynite and major fan of the Museum, I say, "Thanks, Rudy!"

Cat Hall from Dissonance
I don't see it as a challenge between art and tastelessness. It is expression, pure and simple. Freedom of speech, man … that's what it's all about. If you don't want to see it, don't go to the exhibit. People said the same thing about Maplethorpe. People say the same thing about Marilyn Manson. Censorship sucks.

Shane Inwood
Personal choice. You should not be stopped from doing anything that doesn't infringe on others rights. If you don't like it, don't look at it.

Jeff Janeczko, The Quiet Room
I believe that the question should be "who draws the line between art and plain tastelessness?"
We experience art as individuals and should therefore draw our own line. The governments responsibility is to protect us from what may harm us, not what may offend us. I was outraged when I heard this story on NPR. Giuliani is entitled to his own opinion, but he's trying to force his opinion on others. One has to wonder if Stalin was one of his role models. This is clearly a blatant violation of the first amendment. If he wishes to support the museum through funding, he should do it for the sake of art, not for the sake of censorship. I cannot believe he would even presume to think otherwise. It never ceases to amaze me how our beloved leaders take office, vowing to uphold the constitution only to turn around and defy it

Bill Leverty
I believe that the line cannot be drawn because one person's threshold for obscenity is always going to be different from another's. I'd like to add that I am a Christian, and the idea of elephant dung on the Virgin Mary is repulsive, but I live in a free society where I am free to go or NOT go to see this piece of crap. God bless this guy who calls himself an artist.

Mike Merz
Giuliani is playing political games at the expense of artists. If there even is a line to be drawn between art and tastelessness -- and I'm not sure there even is one -- it's far beyond this situation. The true offense is that the U.S. Government continues to use non-issues like this as a smoke screen to distract the public while the world's wealth is handed over to warmongers and multinational corporations.

Jeff Miller of Simon Apple
Personally, I find it very offensive. But I also don't feel my views/opinions/values should "legislate" another person's "expression." Unfortunately, in a "free" society, there will always be people pushing the envelope ... crossing the line of art, into tastelessness. Even so, I don't feel someone should police that...everyone has a different "line" which should not be imposed on others.
My problem is more with the Museum for displaying it. They surely realized a vast majority of people would find this offensive and/or tasteless... is this a cheap publicity stunt for the Museum? Although, I'd have to grudgingly support their right to display it. If everyone in a free society had simple "common decency," it would be Utopian. Unfortunately, that will never happen.

Bob Mithoff
The First Amendment is one of the finest things about this great land. It is what it is and it need not be altered. As far as I'm concerned, this artist can cover anything he wants with any kind of dung available and thus express his true being. Totally fine with me. I do however take exception to being forced to pay for this. It should never have been funded with my money in the first place, and as far as I'm concerned, the Mayor should pull funding. Free expression is terrific. So is free enterprise. If it really is a universal expression, then people tend to purchase art and include it in their environment. I create art for a living without having to force anyone at gunpoint (ref: the IRS) to pay for it. So why should the rules be any different in this case?

Rose Polenzani
I don't think someone who doesn't take their art seriously would have put "Mary in poop" anywhere but in their own back yard. If someone displays a piece they've created, or actually manages to get the work included in the Brooklyn Museum of Art, they are saying that it's ART, or at least that it's a statement or real political or social relevance. I'm willing to take it on their word. I keep my Mary nice and clean, by the way.

David Michael Ross
I saw a guy on TV who wrote a book about hate crimes, in the aftermath of Columbine. He was saying that there shouldn't be any laws against "hate crimes" per se, elaborating that they don't accomplish anything, and that if there is hate in America, it is an emotional/psychological entity, and should be dealt with in kind.
I agree with him, and the logical extension of this philosophy is that it also doesn't make any sense to pass laws designed to protect people's sensitivity to specific stimuli.
If somebody is offended by the exhibition, there are numerous ways of expressing their discontent without trying to pass laws protecting their beliefs. I assume the U.S. Senate resolution fell short of enacting legislation against the exhibition. To do so would have opened the door for an endless stream of offended citizens.
Before I did anything in retaliation, I would try to find out what the artist was trying to express. I would also try to find out what other images were on the canvas. I would want to see the piece in question. I certainly wouldn't shoot from the hip, assuming the artist was being abusive. And, eventually, the best thing would be to try to come to terms. It is quite likely that any attempt to suppress the artist or his work would result in other artists rallying around him.
I might be offended by something of that sort, too. And I might speak out against it. And I might even try to get even if there was a legal way of doing so. But I wouldn't go screeching to the government to protect my cherished beliefs. Personally, I think there are plenty of examples of tasteless art, movies and music which the public has seen fit to ignore. Most often it seems difficult to separate the tasteless aspects
of these examples from the tasteful ones. People with religious interests should be prepared to be treated as proponents of an arbitrary lifestyle. Freedom should prevail.

Alan Roubik
Three words: Demeaning, degrading and offensive. If words such as these enter your mind for even a second, then it is clearly unacceptable to support these self proclaimed "artists." Shock factor doesn't equate to talent. Common decency and respect is crucial to the peaceful coexistence of the human race. Don't they get it? Or do they even care?

Stu Schulman
Everyone has their own opinions and we know what opinions are similar to....elephant dung....that's right!

Phadrah Torelle
Anything covered in excrement has a good chance of offending the majority especially when it deliberately desecrates something which is considered to be 'holy' to a large group of people.
Obviously the thing would have to smell pretty bad too. 'Artwork' like this is juvenile at best - the artist should give it to his mother to put on her fridge alongside his finger paintings from kindergarten ... or perhaps this is the artist's attempt to reconcile his love/hate relationship with his mother ... maybe he sees his mother as 'the mother of God', which would make him deity, which would mean he can do whatever he likes ... at least until he is snapped out of his delusion on Judgment Day when he has to explain his actions to 'the real deal' ...

David Wilson
Quite simply, beyond an attempt to see how far boundaries can be pushed, I see little or no value in calling something like the painting mentioned "art." My question is not whether they should continue to fund this with tax-payers money, or evict it, but more pointedly, who is responsible for deciding who is, and who is not, worthy of display?
This isn't social commentary, nor is it (in probability) a commentary on religious or moral issues. It is someone trying for a quick shock - and getting it -- and in my mind this in no way qualifies it as significant enough for such exposure. I'm both disappointed in the government for considering censorship, and the museum and those who call themselves proponents of "the arts," supporting this particular piece in the first place.