Reflections, Reflections

Updated 10 times (last update March 26):

Offensive Last Supper Ad Banned by Churches in France - CSM





The juxtaposition of these two images is such a nice visual symbol of some aspects of our values/religious wars, although the modern "Supper" is a rather tame representation of our materialistic, violent liberalism. (You can see a bigger version here, although the blogger is too braindead to ask anything other than "what´s the problem?" and call the people who took action against the ad as "moralisateurs")

What is annoying is all the publicity Girbaud (the clothes designer) is getting through religious offense. But if you look at how ugly the clothes from their last fashion show were, you understand why they needed to employ such a cheap shot tactic, otherwise who would care to deign attention to attire so pathetically ugly?

WE'RE INNOCENT LAMBS
More info on who produced it:

Bien involontairement, semble-t-il, Gérard Dupuy, dans Libération, met en évidence ce hiatus, mais aussi le niveau (moral, spirituel…, qualifions-le comme on l'entend) des enjeux d'un tel référé : Le directeur de l'agence de publicité s'étonne en conséquence [de l'interdiction d'affichage], car il n'avait pas pensé que sa création pouvait être blasphématoire.

I don't believe it, I think he's trying to push an attitude that says, "What is the big deal? I'm so innocent in how I think, how could anyone see any malice in anything?" It's interesting that I do know a lot of liberals that are truly that clueless and do not understand the concept of blasphemy or offense (directed at other than their favorite pet groups). There are many others who think the world should revolve around their navels: "I don't care to see any problems with this ad because I don't respect another religion, therefore there aren't any problems at all." Several blogs repeat this views. One put the question in this manner, "There is nothing obscene or pornographic with the photograph, I am not shocked, therefore there is nothing to complain about." (see more on this further below). Here's just two of many such blog examples. Anyways, I doubt this ad agency director and the designer executives are little rebelling teenagers or Woodstock clouded-head hippie types. Not so fast with the "I'm so naive" posture. Or with the "I'm blind, so there is nothing to see" one.

---

THE JUDGE'S RULING
From Christianity Today:

Judge Jean-Claude Magendie ruled yesterday that display of the ad posters in public was "a gratuitous and aggressive act of intrusion on people's innermost beliefs", quoted by the Australian newspaper.

"The offence done to Catholics far outweighs the desired commercial goal,"

---

LIBERAL ART (AND WHY THE MAN IN THE PHOTO?)
The insertion of the half naked guy in the photo is quite interesting too. I wonder if it's supposed to have a particular message or meaning or if it´s just a result of a whim. Or is Marithe Girbaud a homo, that's why she put a man on "Judas?" Or does she think that she is going to solve a hazardous patriarchal society by reversing the coin to a detrimental matriarchy?

(update) I found what seems to be a very plausible explanation to the above:

Dans la cène de Leonard de Vinci, le personnage assis à la droite de Jesus est il une femme, la question se pose depuis longtemps.
J'imagine que c'est pour cette raison que dans la pub on peut légitimement se demandé si le personnage de dos, torse nu, à la droite du personnage feminin central ne serait pas, de même un homme.

From The Guardian:

"One of the women apostles is kissing the naked torso of a man, which just makes the imitation more offensive. As does the use of Christian symbols like the dove, the chalice and the position of the fingers of the female Christ."

The company says the image is not offensive but a tribute to women. It was inspired by Dan Brown's bestseller The Da Vinci Code, which suggests that the figure of John in Da Vinci's masterpiece is actually Mary Magdalen in disguise.

---

You can see clearly in the bigger photo (not on my blog) that the woman is not kissing the man, I wonder why the Guardian reporter wrote that. You can also see just how low his jeans are.

The whole face and body language of the young woman is strikingly Jesus-like. Contrary to many of the other models, her attire is not sexy, nor corporate, nor edgy, although not the most modest either. But there is a certain purity that she expresses, an evangelical benevolence (the gesture of her hands greatly enhances this message). This is all in opposition to the clothes I saw in the designer's last show, which are ugly, aggressive, debauched, and sexually objectify women's bodies. What irony, eh? The model's feet also reminded me of Jesus' crossed feet nailed at the cross. Many of the faces with the respective hairstyles do come across with that very poignant Renascence feel. If the women chosen had not been vassals of our gaunt and anoxeric dictatorship, they would have been even more resembling of centuries past and how grandly the Renascence evoked drama in painting. Not that da Vinci is particularly a major representative of what I speak of (Michelangelo is more expressive and several painters leading into the 19th century as well). Also, the erasure of where they are all sitting did add a metaphysical feeling to the photograph. I do like that only "Judas" is looking directly at the audience in the photograph. The way the model is looking seems to say to me, "Are you catching on to what advertising tactics we are employing here?" So, as problematic as the Catholic Church was at da Vinci's time, at least da Vinci had grand themes to work on with his artistry. Now, our current liberal compendium of trash artists use their artistic visual communication talent to stuff jeans down people´s throats. Can liberals become more mediocre? Is it humanly possible?

update March 20-2005

This is smart. From Bloguedu:

Aussi, je voulais apporter une touche personnelle, n'ayant aucune envie de me soumettre aux délires de quelque religion que ce soit et pas plus à ceux de la pub qui a atteint, en quelques décennies, une capacité de manipulation et une connaissance de la psychologie humaine incomparables. La pub est-elle une religion ? Bon, ce n'est pas le sujet, elle entraîne aussi une forme de soumission et c'est bien suffisant pour s'inquiéter des conséquences.
Donc un petit clin d'oeil à NPNS. Soumis à rien si possible, lucides autant que possible.

(end of March 20 update)

---

Update March 26:

Another Blasphemy Controversy Breaks Out - Jesus as a Woman in Italian Re-enactment of the Passion of Christ

See full entry here.


(end of March 26 update)

---

A SHORT DEBATE ON OFFENCE AND RESPECT - update mar 17-2005

A rejoinder from La boite a images:

critiquer les créations vestimentaires de M. et F. Girbaud ou dénoncer le mercantilisme qui les anime n'a rien à voir avec le sujet concernant le caractère éventuellement blasphématoire de cette publicité.

**éventuellment** blasphématoire?

La question est qui defini le respect? C'est une personne qui n'a pas le respect? Pour quoi c'est votre conception de traitement sans respect pour des autres personnes et ses religions qui doit être la loi et la règle dans le monde?

Par example, aux Etats Unis, les Indiens ont déposé une action en justice contre un équipe du sports, parce qu'ils utilisent l'image d'un indien comme mascotte et les Indiens disent que cela met leur image dune façon qui n'a pas de respect. C'est la même chose.

The question is: who defines what is respect? Is it someone who does not have respect? Why should you, someone who does not have respect for other people and their religions, be the person who defines the law and the rules in society?
For example, in the US, an Indian nation has sued a sports team who uses an Indian image as a mascot. The Indian nation says that's a way to use their image to demean them. It's the same thing.

---

This is the problem with "political correctness," liberals want to apply it only to certain groups or values (and the respective speech that refers to them). Who has the right to offend and for what reason is the question at hand. And from the only news bit on the reasoning of the judge, it does give me the impression that's exactly what he considered:

"The offence done to Catholics far outweighs the desired commercial goal,"

This judge does not seem like one who would outright ban any speech that offends a religion, but he weighed the objective and context of the offense.

---

Zorglubs adds:

Le "respect" ressemble ici fort à un alibi que se donnent certains responsables religieux, ici des catholiques mais ce n'est pas mieux ailleurs, pour interdire que l'on tienne un autre discours que le leur sur des sujets, qu'ils se sont appropriés. En d'autres termes, le respect est ici un joli mot pour ce qu'en d'autres contextes, on dénommerait de la censure.

Le respect véritable consiste à considérer que l'autre est mon égal et que je dois accorder la même valeur à ses avis, décisions, actes... que celle que j'accorde à mes propres avis, décisions, actes... Ainsi, le droit qu'un responsable religieux s'accorde à discourir sur certains sujets, à condamner comme hérétiques certains avis ou certaines représentations, il doit me l'accorder aussi, au moins dans un Etat laïque et républicain.
Hugh j'ai dit.

---

Si les personnes ne sont pas égales, pour quoi insister qu'il n'y a pas de différence? Vous n'êtes pas égale a moi, vous n'êtes pas moi. Votre valeurs ne sont pas les miens. Vous n'êtes pas d'accord avec mes valeurs, mes idées. C'est une illusion que toute est la même chose. La différence, pas l'égalité, c'est la réalité.

[Le "respect" ressemble ici fort à un alibi que se donnent certains responsables religieux, ici des catholiques mais ce n'est pas mieux ailleurs, pour interdire que l'on tienne un autre discours que le leur sur des sujets, qu'ils se sont appropriés."]

Voilà, "un autre discours" ce n'est pas le même discours. Il y a de très grandes différences entre les discours. Nous ne sommes pas tous le même.

Et, je suis d'accord qu'il y a des contextes, religieux ou non, où la demande pour respect c'est une façon de faire la censure (l'ignorance des idées pro-homosexuels, par exemple).

"a gratuitous and aggressive act of intrusion on people's innermost beliefs" et "The offence done to Catholics far outweighs the desired commercial goal," a dit le juge.

Ce n'est pas une question d'être hérétique, c'est le droit de faire une agression gratuite pour vendre des vêtements idiots.

(If people are not the same, why insist that we are? You are not the same as I am, you are not me. Your values are not my values. You don't agree with my values, my ideas. It's an illusion to think everything is the same. Difference is real.

Two different discourses are not the same.

I agree that in various contexts (religious or not), the demand for respect is nothing more than a disguised attempt at censorship (the ignorant pro-homosexual propaganda, for example).

But it's clear that to use the main symbols of Catholicism in the manner Girbaud did, to sell their stupid clothes is an act of gratuitous aggression that outweighs their commercial goal.

---

Zorglub rejoins:
L'égalité n'est pas l'identité. Le respect ne consiste pas à partager les opinions d'un autre mais à lui reconnaître le droit d'en avoir et à reconnaître qu'elles méritent la même considération que les miennes.
Discuter avec quelqu'un, écouter ses arguments, entreprendre même de lui montrer qu'il a tort sont à ce titre autant de marque de respect.
En revanche, le faire taire, lui dire qu'il raconte des inepties sans autre précision relève de l'absence de respect.

Reste que je ne défends pas particulièrement les publicitaires : leur utilisation des oeuvres artistiques (musicales, iconographiques...) a une fâcheuse tendance à m'agacer. Mais ceci n'a rien à voir avec le contenu de telle ou telle oeuvre et, dans ce cas précis, l'épiscopat aurait mieux fait de se taire.

---

L'égalité n'est pas l'identité. Le respect ne consiste pas à partager les opinions d'un autre mais à lui reconnaître le droit d'en avoir et à reconnaître qu'elles méritent la même considération que les miennes.
====================
De cette façon, comment tous les agressions (verbales) expriment des sentiments et, d'une façon plus ou moins visible, des idées, vous prêchez que tous les agressions verbales sont admissibles, pour être une façon de s'exprimer. Personne a le droit d'avoir un traitement avec respect dans la sphère émotionelle, psychologique, intellectuelle.

Ce ça c'est la liberté d'expression totale. Et c'est un monde de guerre et violence, parce que, comment nous n'avons pas jamais les mêmes droits réels, ni les mêmes moyens et possibilités de faire le discours publique et privée, les puissants peut faire tous leurs agressions et les autres n'ont pas le droit de s'exprimer ou de se défendre. La liberté de n'être pas agressé est un droit aussi.

La question est qu'il y a une agression avec cette publicité. Bien sur que si Madame Girbaud ait proposé une conférence pour discuter les problèmes de la religion Catholique avec les femmes, personne objecterait et demanderait la censure. Ce n'est pas la censure des idées, mais la question de l'agression.

(This way, because all verbal aggressions express feelings and/or ideas, you are dictating that every verbal aggression is permissible, because it constitutes an expression (a form of speech). According to you, no one has the right to be treated with respect in the emotional, psychological, and intellectual sphere.

This is the world of absolute freedom of speech and it is a world of war and violence because we never have the same real rights, nor the same means and possibilities to practice private nor public speech. The powerful get to make all their aggressions and the rest of the world does not have a right to expression or defense. The right not to suffer verbal aggression is also a right.

If Ms. Girbaud had proposed a conference to discuss the problems with Catholicism and women, no one would have objected (to the point of censorship). It's not the censorship of ideas that is in question here, but the component of aggression.)

---

update March 21:

I have been thinking about how often I saw this same commentary from liberal viewers of the ad: 1)It is not pornographic and 2)I was not shocked.

If liberals understand that pornography is a way to practice aggression and disrespect, why do they promote such a violent world while criticizing others for being blind, stupid, and retrograde?

The question of shock. It is intriguing how many people measured the justice or injustice value of the ruling based on the shock factor, not on the disrespect/aggression factor. Is it because our culture, specifically mass media/advertising/pornography, deliberately employs larger and larger doses of "shocking" things to get attention, without caring in the least about what consequences this has for people's lives?

(end of March 21 update)

---

Miscelaneous related links and comments:

---

From CNN:

'The Da Vinci Code's' amazing success
Two years later, book still dominating charts

Twenty-five million books, in 44 languages, are in print worldwide and no end is in sight. Booksellers expect "The Da Vinci Code" to remain a best-seller well into 2005.

---

On another note, who could have predicted the "Da Vinci Code" would cause such a cultural religious racket and become this enormous best-seller? (which I still haven't read, btw. I wasn´t too inclined to read it, and I would have never have been interested if it hadn't become this buzz thing, now you feel out of the loop for not having read it).

Best post on the da Vinci Code and the Vatican, from Impensavel:

Apenas a mim tudo parece estar proíbido, mesmo o prazer triste de ler maus livros: confessei aqui ter passado os olhos pelo "Código Da Vinci" e logo o Vaticano, que até aqui tinha estado calado, achou ser chegada a altura de desaconselhar a leitura por o livro ser um "château de mésonges" li a notícia - poderia dizer, a admoestação - em francês. Percebi, de imediato, que a crítica me era dirigida e, escusada por tardia, apenas para me fazer sentir mal. Contrito, prometo não ler outros em iguais circunstâncias.

---

An interesting related comment regarding just how anti-religious many lay people have become at Ceteris Paribus (in French).

---

The best blog post title that I have seen so far for this subject:

"The Last Billboard"

---

Update March 25-2005

I just found out that about five centuries ago, Veronese also incurred the ire of the Inquisition because of his choice of mixing religious and profane elements in his gorgeous, enormous version of the Last Supper. His solution to the threats and charges from the Inquisition is quite entertaining, although I'm sure the Inquisition was not at all amused...

(end of update)

---

Historical tidbits re da Vinci's original here. If you'd care to know, I think the Mona Lisa is one of the art establishment's greatest jokes on the populace, since it is such a substandard and low-grade painting regarding artistic quality.

A quick reflection on da Vinci's style:
da Vinci's style is fairly clean and still reasonably contained. It is hinged on reminiscent 15th century simplistic and rigid stylization of human figures, although his style has loosened up, flourished, and expanded, and he communicates a lot with facial expressions and hand gestures (such as in the Last Supper). But high drama is not his main vein of expression, an effect of graciousness is more usual.

---

related posts: PC speech, animal cruelty speech, liberalism as a religion, Christian band banned, banana hate speech, the tuxedo lesbian, swearing is offensive speech, hate speech.
.