Infinite MonkeysI haven't seen "The Passion of the Christ," so I am withholding an opinion on all its controversial aspects. But I am shocked, shocked, by the reaction of the intelligentsia. Self-described fool and porn freak David Denby goes nuts in the current New Yorker about the film. The gist: it's too shockingly violent, and it departs from the way Jesus's suffering has been depicted in past art (Denby gives a bunch of examples to show how smart he is).
Wait a second--isn't art supposed to be challenging? Isn't art supposed to be shocking? In fact, go to page 95 of the print edition of the New Yorker, and you'll see a piece of art I refuse to even describe here (if you must know, go here and search for "Chapmans" and you'll see a description).
Of course, what these folks really mean is that art should be challenging to other peoples' sensibilities, but should confirm their own world view. So Piss Christ is art, but Gibson's film is not.
Even more troubling is Denby's assertion that Gibson's departure from "the central tradition of Italian Renaissance paintings" makes his work "foolish, or worse." Isn't art supposed to break new ground, and make us see familiar things in a new way?
Posted by David at February 27, 2004 12:51 PM | TrackBack