There's been a lot of controversy recently surrounding cartoonists who have decided to draw pictures of the prophet Mohammed - and the sometimes violent reaction from devout Muslims who consider such portrayals a form of blasphemy. Here's the short version: The creators of the ever-irreverent South Park received death threats after irreverently portraying Mohammed. In response, cartoonist Molly Norris decided to organize a day when cartoonists all over the internet would draw pictures of Mohammed to protest what they see as a suppression of their right to free speech. Death threats and controversy coninue to this day.
Now, I'm seriously torn on this issue. On the one hand, I'm a fairly devout Mormon (how observant I am may be up for debate, but I try), and I have similar religious observances that I feel are too sacred to make fun of. I get upset when I hear of people sneaking cameras into temple ceremonies and posting the videos online - almost to the point where I'm personally insulted.
At the same time, though, I'm very much opposed to censorship (an appropriate topic, considering it's Banned Books Week). I feel that a work of art - a book, a painting, or whatever - should be experienced as its creator intended. I had this conversation with a friend the other day: If I want to watch A Clockwork Orange, I had better be prepared to watch a woman get beaten to death with an oversized statue of a phallus. Yeah, that scene is shocking and violent, but that's part of the point. If I find that type of thing too offensive to watch, I'd better find a different movie, because I don't really want to watch A Clockwork Orange.
But is it art? I mean, do these cartoonists and illustrators really NEED to draw some depiction of Mohammed to make their point, or are they just shaking up a beehive to hear the buzzing? Is it a point that even needs to be made? Yes, TECHNICALLY, in this country, people have the right to say what they want, but we still discourage the idle usage of terms like "fag" and "nigger" because those words do more harm than good.
Except... well, the book The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn uses the word "nigger" a lot, but within a historical context that works to undermine both the negative power of that one word and the racist attitudes of the time - at least, that was the idea.
So, yeah, I'm really of two minds on this issue. Personally, I wouldn't draw the prophet Mohammed, nor would I encourage others to do so, because I feel that would be disrespectful and rude.
Should other people have to fear for their lives for WANTING to draw Mohammed?
No.
SHOULD they draw Mohammed?
I'd say no. But who am I to tell them they can'?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
You probably already know about this, but thought it was appropriate to mention given your post:
http://www.broadwayworld.com/article/South_Park_Creators_THE_BOOK_OF_MORMON_Musical_Heads_to_Broadway_in_March_2011_20100414
I totally got/get your point regarding “experiencing as the artist intended.” I agree with you. Do I need to hear swear words and racial slurs? No. Does it fulfill the artists vision if I don’t? No. Do I choose to put those things in my forms of art? No. Do I judge others for doing it? No. Very interesting, thanks for the thought-provoking entry.
In a different direction, we live in the “gimme” generation. And what do I want society to “gimme?” A means of entertainment in the arts that is acceptable to my standards. If the artist won’t give it to me, I’ll change it to what fits. Yes, that completely alters the vision of the creator.
If you removed “Shoeless Joe” from Damn Yankees, you’d miss that Gloria actually wants to help the team and Joe, hence missing a whole arc of her story, but if you don’t like song and dance numbers, then you’d enjoy the show more without it. And let’s face it – it’s all about self-gratification with entertainment these days, isn’t it?
HOLY CRAP, South Park Creators team up with Avenue Q co-creator and Composer....this is the best day of my life. I must travel to broadway and see this!!!
Post a Comment