It has happened again: the world has demonstrated more sense than “the religious.”
Art galleries are generally not known for their conservative stances. Some of them in certain locales have shown themselves devoid of common sense and decency by displaying the works of Mapplethorpe and others who blasphemed God and religion (there used to be laws against that kind of thing). So, imagine how pleasantly surprised some of us were to read that an offensive art exhibit had been closed! Perhaps it was the fact that it was a gallery that concentrates on art relating to the Bible that made the difference. The Dallas Morning News reported this unusual event on July 9th:
The Biblical Arts Center said it has canceled an exhibit by internationally known artist Edward Knippers after a test audience reacted negatively to the abundant nudity and one painting’s anti–abortion theme (33A).
More than 40 of the center’s usual patrons were given a chance to preview the “Infinity and Grace” show; apparently they were negatively impressed because after the viewing the exhibit was deemed inappropriate. One wonders why no one could make that determination beforehand. Nevertheless, the thirty–painting exhibit was closed; the co–director acknowledged: “This is the first time we’ve had to do this.”
What was so offensive? Knippers paints the subjects in his Biblical scenes, including Christ, in the nude. His work had been displayed at the center previously three years ago, along with the following warning:
“The artist believes that illustrating the biblical account without the specifics of period dress shows our common humanity” (33A).
Say what? What kind of philosophy is this? Imagine movies made with such an assumption. Edith Head would have been jobless. Who would want to see Spartacus, Excalibur, or Braveheart with all the cast members undressed? The fashions of the day have always been important details in movies such as Chariots of Fire, The Great Gatsby, or Pride and Prejudice.
What kind of perverted imagination wants to show Christ and His disciples naked as Jesus washes their feet? Artists have always had to conjure up what Jesus looked like since there are no pictures or descriptions. Now Knippers has taken it upon himself to supply much more than the faces of Biblical characters. The painting most protested, however, was not for this presumptuous license.
One of the paintings that inspired strong feelings was Massacre of the Innocent, an interpretation of King Herod’s declaration that all newborns in Israel be killed. …members of the test audience interpreted the work as an anti–abortion statement (35A).
What would cause this kind of reaction? Could it be that some of the patrons had seen pictures of aborted babies, and the deaths of small children after birth looked remarkably similar? How ironic that this “highbrow” crowd could tolerate the absurd nudity in the paintings but rejected to what might be construed as a pro–life message. What a strange society we live in!
The Exhibit Is Shown
Two months after the Biblical Arts Center decided not to show Knippers’ paintings another location was selected. Now who would be so bold as to display all this nudity: some nightclub, a humanistic society, or the ACLU (now that would be a dilemma for them: should they championing nudity or protest the Bible)? No, the Trinity Presbyterian Church and the Center for the Visual Arts, both here in Denton, volunteered to host this exhibit. “Heroes and villains often are depicted without so much as a fig leaf,” according to The Dallas Morning News of September 16th (1G). Such facts apparently do not cause the Presbyterians to blush.
The Rationale
One art historian commented that “these are not irreligious paintings.” Oh, really? Perhaps some have only read as far Genesis 2:25: “And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.” Actually, all that changed after sin entered the world. Nakedness on the part of human beings now is regarded as a shame by God (Gen. 9:21-23; Rev. 3:18).
Knippers (an Episcopalian) protests that he is not trying to be sensational.
“I’m trying to make people face their own humanity in its fullness,” he said. “We don’t come before God dressed in our Sunday best. God sees us as we are. The best metaphor for that is the nude body.”
Is this explanation supposed to be on the level? Any time someone wants to face his own humanity, all he or she needs to do is check a mirror!! Most people no longer come before God in their Sunday best–even on Sunday. But it is scarcely news that God sees us as we are: “And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give an account” (Heb. 4:13). God’s ability to examine us goes far beyond our skin. He knows our hearts and our thoughts (Gen. 6:5). The artist may think nudity symbolizes that Divine look into our souls, but the fact that a metaphor may fit in certain respects does not prove the appropriateness of it.
The reader should not even think about protesting this kind of art because he will be accused of lacking “an understanding of art history” (5G). Well, call us ignorant, but frankly it would be irrelevant if every artist since the Flood had drawn Biblical scenes in the style that Knippers does. It would still be wrong. “My paintings are not obscene,” the artist insists (5G). Okay. The Supreme Court has had some trouble with that one (even though most people with common sense know); so let us settle on the Biblical word shame (Rev. 3:18). Something need not be obscene to be offensive and tasteless.
Knippers also suggests that covering Jesus’ private parts “could become more provocative than the nudes” (5G). Does this guy do drugs? No one (who does not have a SERIOUS problem) could view Jesus falling under the weight of the cross, having been battered by ungodly men, as provocative. This is madness!
But the defenses offered for this “art” are not yet finished:
Nudity in Christian art is used to affirm the body as a creation of God deserving of respect, said Dr. Yates, who’s also a professor of religion, society and the arts at United Theological Seminary in New Brighton, Minn. (5G).
We have always wondered; now we know: a professor has told us. God created the tongue, also, but it is not necessary to paint Biblical scenes with all of the characters sticking them out to stress the point, is it? God created spiders, scorpions, and cockroaches, too; should they be in every painting to remind us that they are a creation of God and deserving of respect?
Knippers also thinks that “nudity conveys the humanity of Jesus” (5G). Would not the blood streaming down His face from the crown of thorns convey His humanity? Or how about His eating bread and fish or drinking the fruit of the vine? There must be dozens of ways of portraying His humanity without using nudity.
“Some people would like to spiritualize Christ out of existence, like he’s just some vague feeling that doesn’t have a physical presence,” he said.
“For me, humanity is the height of God’s creation. That’s my all–consuming concern in dealing with art. How the body fits into the larger created order is an endless world to explore” (5G).
While it is true that some try to spiritualize too much, is there no way to counter such attempts artistically except through the shame of nakedness? Knippers seems more like someone who has become obsessed with the idea of nudity than one who has a meaningful message to communicate. Those who know what the Scriptures teach concerning propriety and decorum versus nudity are going to be offended and pass up his exhibit. His artistic message will be lost upon them, whereas if he had chosen another means of expression, he might have made more of an impact.
Whereas Adam and Eve were naked and unashamed, people today who display themselves naked in public should be ashamed. So should be the artist who has presumed to portray Biblical characters in such an unholy manner. Any group of people who would call themselves “Christians” should be ashamed to promote such “art.” It is not Jesus’ “physical presence” that people have lost sight of in today’s world. It is the possession of a sense of shame and the ability to blush (Jer. 6:15).