Readers See That Dung Differently --and Don’t Want to Pay for It

I read Christopher Knight’s “Rudy, et al. Play the Art Card” column of Oct. 1 to be critical of all who allegedly rushed to judgment or politicized the display of the admittedly irreverent painting of the Virgin Mary displayed at the Brooklyn Museum. I support Mayor [Rudolph W.] Giuliani’s prompt attention in the face of certain backlash. This was a display of courage, in support of fundamental constitutional concepts, not a “mugging of the Brooklyn Museum.”

I am not a member of the “conservative political base” which Knight claims Giuliani sought to “consolidate.” But I do support all those, including the United States Senate and the United States Supreme Court, who distinguish between the 1st Amendment right of free expression and my obligation as a taxpayer to support that expression.

Taxpayers should not be required to fund an artist or museum craving controversy or attention by “art” which a reasonable man could reasonably conclude violates fundamental social values, in this case, an important religious icon. The same reasonable-man concept pervades our legal system. It is the basis of liability for negligence. It is the reason the 1st Amendment does not allow one to shout “Fire” in a crowded theater.

If the museum wants controversy, aware that its presentation is certain to offend many with legitimate private religious interests, let it underwrite the ploy with private funds. Controversy and attention sought by an underachiever are no basis to demand support from our tax dollars.

JOE BOWMAN

Westlake Village

*

Hey, Christopher, you are bending over backward to defend something that isn’t worth it.

You seem to feel that critics have grossly misrepresented the dung by saying it was “splattered” rather than hung with care like some Christmas stocking. Who cares? Would hung dung be any less offense on a Martin Luther King or Matthew Shepard’s picture?

You try to defend the dung by saying, “In some African cultures, elephants are linked to the power of the chief, while their dung, sometimes used in making spiritually potent ritual objects, can be symbolic of regeneration.” Thus it “might well be something other than a religious slur.”

OK, Christopher, so you are saying that we need to look at it from the point of view of that culture. Well, according to Elizabeth Jensen’s article in the same L.A. Times (Page A 25), the picture “is surrounded by cutouts of bare and thong-clad buttocks ‘clipped from porno magazines,’ according to the free audio guide narrated by singer David Bowie.” So, my question to you, Christopher, is: In some African cultures, what positive uplifting thing do cutouts from a porno magazine signify?

In this age where “tolerance” and “respect” seems to be what everyone is asking for, the art world needs to show some, to images that are important to others.

ERIC COOPER

Malibu

*

I want to thank Christopher Knight for throwing a little water on the fire in Brooklyn.

While Mayor Giuliani’s “tough as nails” approach is applauded by some, I see it more like “dumb as nails.” If New Yorkers elect this man to the Senate next year, Jesse Helms can retire.

DOUG E. ROBERTS

West Hollywood

*

I only have one response to Christopher Knight’s commentary about the art exhibit enjoying all of the free publicity at the Brooklyn Museum. With regard to the artwork in question, I don’t know much about excrement, but I do know it when I see it.

ROBERT E. BRENNAN

Van Nuys

*

How could anyone be so low as to depict elephant dung in the context of the Catholic Church? That indicates a complete lack of respect for the culture of elephants.

WILLIAM CHITWOOD

La Canada Flintridge

*

“Experts” like Christopher Knight would have us believe that trash and hate are art, much as others of their ilk want us to believe that spouting vile four-letter words in presence of children is a constitutional right. Knight is playing the “rights” card, which holds that not only is every repugnant expression fine and dandy but that taxpayers should be required to pay for them.

The trash created by the so-called practicing Catholic artist defiles his own religion’s holy icon. It is beyond defense and certainly without artistic value. To anyone with eyes, this alleged artwork at best resembles the scrawling of a deranged child. And that’s before you consider the pornographic hind ends and turd, obviously added simply for shock value. If he wants to create mean-spirited, vile trash and call it art, fine. But I don’t want to be forced to pay for it.

Knight, like so many self-deluded “experts,” doesn’t realize that the emperor has no clothes. If this is art, so is a filthy toilet in a restroom on the road to Barstow. But at least in the case of the toilet, no malice is intended, and none of my tax money is required to display it.

MARK LANDSBAUM

Diamond Bar

*

Knight conveniently rationalizes the whole controversy away by claiming that the painting “might well be something other than a religious slur.” Give me a break!

The fact is, it is intended to offend. It is meant to offend those who would hold the Virgin Mary as a sacred icon; namely Catholics.

Would the show have the courage to display defiled images held sacred by Jews, African Americans, homosexuals or other ethnic or religious groups? It’s a given that Catholic-bashing can be tolerated but bashing certain other groups is not, when it comes to “art.”

Knight’s commentary cleverly evades the central issue now being debated: If an artist wants to shock and offend a group, do taxpayers have to support it?

STEVEN SCHINDLER

Los Angeles

*

Years ago, as an art student at Pratt Institute in Brooklyn, I was inspired by the fine collection of watercolors by John Singer Sargent and the biblical scenes by Tissot at the Brooklyn Museum. These fine artists must be turning over in their respective graves!

OREN COOPER

Granada Hills

*

Christopher Knight writes [that] like the race card, the art card exploits irrational fears. From what I read about the entire exhibit, some artists’ cards are well displayed: whatever it takes to confuse/provoke man’s sense and sensibilities about real art.

And Arnold L. Lehman plays the director’s card well: whatever it takes to draw attention to the Brooklyn Museum and get free publicity.

I hope this new “celebration of differences” collection fails to draw a significant audience and fails Lehman’s sensational and financial expectations miserably.

ETELVINA R. PATMAS

Mission Viejo

*

Imagine my surprise when I dug up my copy of the 1st Amendment and discovered part of it missing, the part where it says that the taxpayer must pay for offensive and sick art. Perhaps Knight can send me a copy of his version of the 1st Amendment where the founders of our country made that clear.

KEN KOONCE

Hollywood