Art, religion and censorship. (Roundtable).

AN INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RELIGION and art existed before the creation of modern religious systems: the very origins of art can perhaps be traced back to primitive ritual. With the recognition of the power of images, however, comes the desire to control those images. Once the biggest patron of the arts, the Catholic church has also regularly condemned art that it perceived to challenge its doctrine. More recently, conservative religious organizations have been leading participants in the "Culture Wars," vigilantly monitoring and publicly attacking art that uses religious symbols in unorthodox ways.

Many of the artists whose names define the cultural battles in the last decade of the 20th century--Robert Mapplethorpe, Andres Serrano, Joel-Peter Witkin, Karen Finley, Terrence McNally, Robert Gober--were brought up Catholic; some are still practicing Catholics. The power of religious imagery is not lost on these artists. It deeply informs their work. But they are 20th century artists at the tail-end of a more than 100-year-old art tradition that questions accepted values and tests cultural boundaries.

Who, after all, owns religious imagery? Can an artist use religious imagery in ways that institutionalized religions do not approve of?. And, finally, what purposes do attacks on art serve?

When we speak of respect for a diversity of beliefs, we sometimes forget that our beliefs frequently clash. And, because religious groups also form strong political constituencies, beliefs can have powerful political uses. All too often, people are most easily united in opposition to something they hate. And a painting or a play can be easy to hate, as you never have to see it. The fact that Chris Ofili, in his mixed-media work, The Holy Virgin Mary, was approaching the Virgin with religious respect and re-creating her in full glory for another cultural tradition was not politically useful. It was much easier to raise adrenaline levels by simply saying, "dung-smeared Madonna." Who cares that there is no smeared dung on Ofili's work? Works of art are open to many interpretations; they only acquire meaning while interacting with an audience. Some people could well see Renee Cox's nude figure in the center of her recreation of the Last Supper as a personal attack on their views, others would rejoice to see a black woman in that revered position. Attacks on art, unfortunately, too often reduce complex and ambiguous works to simple sound bites.

Yes, images are powerful, yes, they can be subversive of pieties, and yes, they can transgress the boundaries set by tradition. But, before we decide to hate, let us try to understand what we hate, and perhaps see the use of religious imagery as testimony of its continuous relevance and richness, rather than as a single- (and simple-) minded attempt at offense.

SVETLANA MINTCHEVA Arts Advocacy Coordinator, National Coalition Against Censorship