Wed 27 Jul 2005
Apparently this isn’t new, its been an issue a few months back, but I just recieved it from a reader of the blog, and I think its still very interesting!
The picture above is an ad for a collection by the designer Marithe et Francois Girbaud. The picture below that is the famous Last Supper painting by Leonardo Da Vinci.
The ad created so much contraversy that it was banned in Italy and France! It has been called blasphemic, disprespectful, immoral, trivialising….etc.
Ok, so….did the designer cross the line?? Is this mocking religion? Is copying the painting ok because its a painting and not the bible?
Could this be considered in itself a work of art?? A modern view of an old painting for social commentary? Interesting enough, the half naked male in the picture is where Judas supposedly is!
This picture brings alot of questions to mind, which is great! Does the government have the right to ban something like that?! Put in mind that France is a secular country with very liberal views!! What if it wasnt an ad, but a painting in a museum, would they ban it? Did the designer just want to create this contraversy to get his name out?!
I think its a beautiful work of art…..if it wasnt used in an ad!
13 Responses to “Art x Religion + Censorship = Publicity”
Leave a Reply
Visitor stats
-
user(s) online
so far
July 27th, 2005 at 1:10 am
I would interpret this as plagiarism.
July 27th, 2005 at 1:58 am
Im gonna go ahead and critique the art aspect of this add. The detailed potrayal of the Da Vinci’s last supper is really amazing stuff. Using a universal art masterpeice to display the designers line for that season was truely a remarkable idea.
Religion and art in christianity is unlike islam where it is considered sinful to imagine how the prophets looked like, therefore in islam no one can play the character in a movie, and no paintings portraying any of the prophets are valid.
But I can see how using religion as a means to an end (and in this case fashion) could cauze a stir in that region because you have to rememeber that these religiouse people are minimalists, compared to the mo7ajabas in our country where they are instyle from head to toe. Inturn fashion/color/and nudity does not coinside with their religion in any way, and certainly when you think about it it can also be seen as profane.
July 27th, 2005 at 2:06 am
Can we agree that both are blasphemous?
July 27th, 2005 at 2:52 am
Let’s look at it from a feminist point of view. The picture did not stop at reproducing Da Vinci’s ‘The Last Supper’ for comercial ends. When you look at the casting you will see that it went beyond that. All the main elements except one were replaced with women. Judas remained a man and was set in a very compromising position. Remember that it is usually the women who are displayed as sexual objects, and this picture accomplishes the opposite.
I think this picture gives a very sharp statement regarding good and evil. What is good (Jesus and his disciples) is feminine and what is evil (Judas) is masculine. The Da Vinci Code argues for the same line of thought…..
In short I loved it
July 27th, 2005 at 5:27 am
Religion-Art-Politics…If you think this ad is controversial then I would suggest that you check out this 10 minutes controversial movie Submission, its effects and consequences.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0432109/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_%28film_director%29
http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,12589,1536836,00.html
July 27th, 2005 at 7:51 am
This is Art just like the origionaly drawing! I always thought that painting “Jesus” was blasphemous but when I look at the new rendition of the art work I see it as being a picture that concers the feminist movement! I say that this pic should not be banned and that the governments should apologise to the photographer/artist!
July 27th, 2005 at 9:34 am
great analysis shosho ! haven’t thought of it that way !
July 27th, 2005 at 9:52 pm
Great comments guys!
3baid, its not plagiarism, this picture has been depicted many ways by different artists
waterlilie, interesting idea about the difference in religious people here and abroad in terms of fashion, never thought of it that way before!
playa hater, if u look at it from a Christian point of view, the Last Supper is not blasphemous at all. If you look at it from Islam’s point of view, then yes it is, as well as every other painting of Christ in the world.
shosho, excellent analysis!! Really great stuff, thx purg ;P
frenzy, its different in a way. This movie was more of a propaganda film showing Islam in a bad light. Its a non-muslim view using the story of a one woman to generalize the treatment of women in Islam. In this pic, its not meant as propaganda against anyone. Definitely more politics in this film, and it ended sadly I guess.
Stallion, sa3ba shway they apologize ;P
MC, we agree on that
July 28th, 2005 at 12:26 am
I haven’t read any of the other comments yet so as not to change the opinion i had when I first saw the picture. I think it’s amazing, really it is an amazing picture and a very nice idea.
July 28th, 2005 at 5:01 am
Nope,
A Christian might perceive this ad as propaganda just as much as a Muslim would perceive that movie as propaganda Therefore, that’s why I said, Religion-Art-Politics. The most complex equation…and to complicate the equation even further, you have democracy, the right to express your views.To complicated even more and more, the right to practice your beliefs, a secular country…no comment
July 28th, 2005 at 5:41 am
Shosho, I caught your point about the characters being all female. One little difference though. The traditional interpretation is that the one to the right of the Christ-figure is John.
The DaVinci code was based on some other works, documented in the book “The Templar Revelations”. The theory is that the person traditionally thought to be John is actually Mary Magdalene, making her the only female in the picture.
So, it’s almost a validation of that theory (which carries its own implications for Christian theology) that the genders of all the characters are altered. So when Christians get all tizzied, its not necessarily because it is a parody of a religious painting, or used in for commercial purposes (although they are in play).
They are upset because it makes a statement that has caused a lot of controversy in Western Christianity in the past 2-3 years. Then again, feeding into a hot controversy is what keeps an advertiser in business.
Good topic Q!
July 28th, 2005 at 5:55 am
I took a look at the original interpretation. Judas is fourth from the left. He has the swarthy complexion and is dressed in blue. Supposedly he has a bag of silver in his hand.
In the ad, that would correspond to the woman looking right at the camera and has what looks like a bouquet of flowers hanging over the table. And she does have a mischievous look in her eye.
Still, I can see the point you’re making about the man being the most vulnerable figure depicted.
Now what I’d love to see is the disembodied hand with the knife, now that would be pretty cool!
October 27th, 2005 at 3:54 am
Hi, you have a great blog here! I’m definitely going to visit again! Please feel free to visit my blog too at http://rushprnews.iuplog.com, RushPRnews Daily Gazette.
My site is ** RushPRnews press release services, distribution and free web posting** . Cordially, Anne Laszlo-Howard