Art and lies

Francis Ayodele

When does a cartoon become a riot? When it is drawn by an unthinking artist! The uproar over the caricature of the Prophet Mohammed by the Danish daily, Jyllands-Posten, has been very much in the news recently. The Danish Prime Minister, according to newspaper reports, has stated that the issue is centered on Western free speech versus taboos in Islam. But is this really the case? Should the fact of a free press mean a disregard for the sensibilities of others or a profanation of what they hold sacred? Freedom, it must be remembered, is always linked to responsibility. We all crave information, and place a lot of value on the work of the media. But no one would thank the journalist who irresponsibly publishes that which he knows is going to incite violence and destruction. (This is not of course to voice support for violent reactions of protest in the face of such provocation. These are equally to be deplored.) It is worthwhile asking, how far does freedom, not only for the press but also for any form of artistic expression, really go?

We are faced here with the apparent conflict which exists between art and morals. Art here is understood in its general sense as that which is expressive or beautiful; while to speak about morals is to refer to those standards of good or bad behaviour, fairness, truthfulness, decency, etc. The two terms often appear to be opposed or difficult to reconcile. This is particularly so because art sometimes seems to claim rights and a freedom of expression which are at the margin of moral laws, of what is good and bad. (This is indicated, for instance, in the stance of the British newspaper, the Telegraph, which in its February 3 editorial defended "the right to offend.") There is an ongoing attempt to enclose art in a singular ambit of its own, with a complete detachment or independence from all moral value. But this cannot be done given that the producer and the target audience of such art are human persons; and the human person is a subject of moral laws. Art, in all its forms, to be truly worthy of the human person, must reflect some, at least, of those qualities which we treasure so much – especially those of consideration and respect for others.

We all appreciate beauty in its various forms, and art, with the perfection it entails, is expected to be an expression of beauty. When we praise a novel, a painting, an article or a film, it is because we have identified in it some element of beauty, a perfection. It is something we actually look for and are left feeling disappointed when our expectations are not met. Art, in whatever form it comes, is meant to be an expression of the human spirit. The artist puts himself into his creation, and the one who contemplates it enjoys and is often elevated by that self-giving. Thus one expects to find truth in any work of art. That idea expressed in philosophy, that being is equivalent both to beauty and to truth, could not be truer when applied to the world of art.

It is therefore quite distressing when art is misused, when the beauty of an art form is distorted and used as an invitation to ugliness. Hatred, bigotry, a lack of respect, indecency, and derision are some forms of ugliness which have been promoted in this

way. Various instances come to mind: the rabble-rousing films produced by the Nazis, which portrayed the Jews as rats; the portrait of the Virgin Mary done in faeces about a couple of years back; the plan last year by a German zoo to put up, as one of their exhibitions, a display of Africans in a village setting; the window dressing of a shop in Britain that consisted of a naked couple that occasionally engaged in the sexual act. More recently, we have had the frivolous manipulation of truth and history, with a good dose of lies thrown in for good measure, in the book, The Da Vinci Code. In the book, among other things, Jesus Christ is portrayed as marrying Mary Magdalene and fathering a child. The author makes a name for himself with a most vicious attack which he presents as art. The examples could go on and on but what we have here are clear violations of good taste, which go against the beliefs and sensibilities of others, in the name of art.

The excuse of freedom is simply untenable. There is no such thing as absolute freedom and this applies as well in the world of art. The right to freedom of thought and expression will always have its limits. It certainly cannot be seen as 'a right to offend.' According to The Guardian newspaper of Britain, although the right of free speech is an important principle, "there are limits and boundaries - of taste, law, convention, principle or judgment."

One must always take into consideration the moral aspect. The spheres of art and morals may be distinct but they are not opposed or independent. So, just as the artist has to be guided in the production of his art by what is morally correct, the viewers or the audience should also be expected to bring in the moral aspect into their judgment of a work of art. This is not to say that every work of art must contain a moral lesson. Far from it! But at the very least, it should not possess as a primary goal that of causing offence. The limits which are set by decency, good sense and consideration for others should always be respected.