Alma Lopez Our Lady Digital Art

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/641908-ireland-s-poisonous-blasphemy-debate#page2

Added from the Guardian: Saturday, 25 June 2011 at 6:54 AM

Ireland's poisonous blasphemy debate
The uproar over a 'disrespectful' image of the Virgin Mary shows it is time to abolish Ireland's blasphemy laws

Padraig Reidy
guardian.co.uk, Friday 24 June 2011 15.31 BST
Article history

Alma Lopez's Our Lady makes use of popular images, such as this, of the Virgin of Guadeloupe. Photograph: Reuters
University College, Cork, is the jewel in the crown on the majestic head of Cork city. The limestone Victorian quad, the ornate Honan chapel and the state-of-the-art Tyndall National Institute (recently visited by Queen Elizabeth) are all sources of pride for an already proud people.

Today the university's department of Hispanic studies hosts the catchily titled "Transitions and Continuities in Contemporary Chicano/Chicana culture". What sounds like a niche event has gained notoriety because of an art exhibition taking place as part of the seminar.

In Our Lady and Other Queer Santas, Chicana artist Alma Lopez will exhibit her picture Our Lady, a digital pastiche of Our Lady of Guadeloupe, a 16th-century Peruvian manifestation of the Virgin Mary. More precisely, it is, in Lopez's words, "an image of a 40-year-old woman with her belly and legs exposed standing on a black crescent moon held by a bare-breasted female butterfly angel". The Madonna in a bikini, basically. So an obscure piece by an artist unknown in this part of the world is being exhibited as part of an academic conference on a specialist topic. You're wondering where this is going, aren't you?

On last Friday's Liveline, one of Ireland's most popular radio shows, presenter Joe Duffy was flooded with calls from irate Catholics mortified by this "blasphemous" artwork. One recounted the story of Our Lady of Guadeloupe and then told how "Microsoft and Nasa" had recently used a special microscope which had proved the miraculous nature of the image of Mary that had appeared on the poncho of Juan Diego. Their calls for bans and protests were countered by Michael Nugent of Atheist Ireland, who later commented: "It was like discussing the rules of quidditch with people who believe Harry Potter was a documentary."

Then John Buckley, Catholic bishop of Cork and Ross, chimed in, describing the exhibition as "unacceptable", adding "respect for Mary, the mother of God, is bred in the bones of Irish people and entwined in their lives". Which neatly ignores the recently discovered fact that some Irish people aren't devout Catholics, or even Catholic at all.

Buckley's not a bad man, by no means the stern Bishop Brennan type represented in Father Ted. To be honest, he's a bit more of daft-but-likeable Dougal. My main two memories of the man from Cork are of him regularly visiting my primary school in the 80s and distributing Fox's Glacier Fruits (an odd, but not unwelcome choice of sweet), and years later, promising at a victory homecoming rally for the Cork hurling team that if they won the All-Ireland final for a third time in a row, he would personally ask the Pope to visit Cork, to a notably muted response from the assembled fans. He's also a noted fan of road bowling, in which contestants hurl cannonballs down country roads. With all that, it was a bit of a surprise to hear him come out with such strong words.

Cork South Central TD Jerry Buttimer chimed in, saying the university should not be supporting an event that was "overtly blasphemous and blatantly disrespectful" and that "those in charge at UCC should consider whether or not it is appropriate to permit this exhibition to take place on its campus without affording others the opportunity to present an alternative and balanced point of view". Protests and counter-protests were scheduled for Friday by Catholic activists and the university's atheist society.

All this would be amusing if it was happening in a vacuum, but the combination of factors here make this case particularly poisonous. Lopez has been under attack for her artwork since it was first exhibited in California in 2001. The current campaign is headed by America Needs Fatima, a Mariolatrous US group that organises anti-abortion and anti-blasphemy rallies. Lopez's adaptation of Our Lady of Guadeloupe, an image familiar to Chicana women, into an image of a Chicana woman has clearly rattled their cage.

Ireland, meanwhile, is facing its first blasphemy controversy since the Fianna Fáil/Green government introduced a new blasphemy law. Buckley's claim that all Irish people revere Mary chimes dangerously with that law's definition of blasphemy as something likely to cause "outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of [a] religion". UCC could yet have a case on its hands.

When the blasphemy law was introduced, the government claimed feebly that a referendum to remove the constitutional requirement that made it "necessary" would be too expensive. Yet this October, people in Ireland will take part in a referendum on judges' pay, on the same day as the presidential election. Can they now be allowed to vote on this unwanted law too?

Comments

Comment RSS Feed

Please sign in or register to comment

Comment 1 by Stevehill
How very Guardian not to link to any image of the "offending" work so we can form our own opinions.

Do they fear being prosecuted in Ireland if they do so?

Since I can't actually get to Cork by the end of the day, I shall never know what my opinion might have been.

Saturday, 25 June 2011 at 7:02 AM | #842498
Comment 2 by Sara12
From the article:

Buckley's claim that all Irish people revere Mary chimes dangerously with that law's definition of blasphemy as something likely to cause "outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of [a] religion".

Haven't we been through this already? Didn't we come to the consensus that blasphemy laws were a violation of free speech? Didn't the UN Human Rights Charter just make a change to this? Aren't we all berating Pakistan for just the same thing? Sad.

Saturday, 25 June 2011 at 7:12 AM | #842503
Comment 3 by Drosera
On last Friday's Liveline, one of Ireland's most popular radio shows, presenter Joe Duffy was flooded with calls from irate Catholics mortified by this "blasphemous" artwork.
Why do I suspect that these callers were not irate about the child rape scandals within their own Church? They should get their priorities straight. In the meantime, they deserve no respect, not one iota.

"respect for Mary, the mother of God, is bred in the bones of Irish people and entwined in their lives"
I sincerely hope this isn't true. But this 'mother of God' thing is ludicrous in the extreme. These Catholics are apparently too stupid to understand the essence of causality. If Mary is the mother of God, then God was his own father, now wasn't he? How can anyone believe such a monstrosity without instantly becoming clinically insane? Oh, wait...

Saturday, 25 June 2011 at 7:41 AM | #842510
Comment 4 by QuestioningKat
Here is the art of Alma Lopez

It's a perfect fit for the Museum of International Folk Art in Santa Fe. I actually think the piece is quite beautiful. Check out the protesters. I shake my head and wonder why is that woman on her knees (all fours?) If you don't like a piece of artwork, just ignore it. No reason to get dramatic about it.

I recall seeing the controversial Mappelthorpe show in Cincinnati years ago. Lots of controversy about that exhibit because of the homoerotic photos and a crucifix was submerged in urine. I thought nothing of the controversy, but got a good education on gay sex between men. It was my opinion that much of the controversy was due to the city. If the exhibit was further north, the show would not received much attention. I think this "Our Lady" work simply upset a highly Catholic Hispanic community.

Saturday, 25 June 2011 at 7:47 AM | #842511
Comment 5 by The Plc
Buckley (and self appointed religious spokespeople in general) should learn to speak for himself. I, and every other Irish person, didn't choose Catholicism. As he knows perfectly well, it was rammed down our throat. Some of us have grown up to deeply resent the Catholic Church's effect on our lives and society, and despise the values it stands for.

Saturday, 25 June 2011 at 7:50 AM | #842512
Comment 6 by Irish atheist
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/bishop-claims-image-of-virgin-is-unacceptable-2803478.html

There's a link to an article in the independent with a picture of offending work! Up till recently I was a student in UCC and to be honest there's not exactly a huge deal being made of it on campus, I did see some pleasant looking elderly people outside the main gates earlier with an inoffensive statue of Mary whom I'm sure were attempting to save some souls! Unfortunately I was on the other side of the road so I guess my soul is still in jeopardy!

Saturday, 25 June 2011 at 7:51 AM | #842513
Comment 7 by BigPencil
I hope I am wrong, because it sickens me to think that the battle for the free exchange of ideas will have to share the distinction of being never-ending with wars on terror and cannabis.

Nevertheless, unlike those ridiculous campaigns, this one is actually worth fighting.

Saturday, 25 June 2011 at 7:55 AM | #842514
Comment 8 by Flapjack
Why am I reminded of the "Passion of St Tibulous" episode of Father Ted? It neatly demonstrates that whenever Catholics attempt to censor the arts in general, they end as unwitting promoters by instantly making the work on show ten times more intriguing than if they hadn't bothered.

As with this episode in which Fathers Ted and Dougal are instructed by Bishop Brennan to boycott a blasphemous film resulting in endless free publicity.

Saturday, 25 June 2011 at 8:03 AM | #842517
Comment 9 by QuestioningKat
When I think of movies and works of art from the past, if anything was said against the RCC, the Church lashed back. Yes flapjack, I now have a new artist to explore because of this controversy. She's getting lots of free publicity.

Until Ireland takes a good questioning look at Catholicism and religion, free exchange of ideas will always take a back seat to being considered offensive.

Saturday, 25 June 2011 at 8:13 AM | #842519
Comment 10 by Marc Country
Blasphemy laws are fine, as long as you leave it to the discretion of the victimized god or goddess whether or not to press charges. As far as I can see, nobody else should have any legal standing to do so.

Everyone's religion is a blasphemy to everyone else's, after all.

Saturday, 25 June 2011 at 8:14 AM | #842520
Comment 11 by El Bastardo
Ah, Ireland, how I don't miss thee.

Sounds like usual run of the mill, old lady catholism. A bunch of aouldwans who are "terrible shocked" by anything that even dares question their world view.

I remember when it was discovered Bishop Eamon Casey of Galway had a son and in typical old lady fashion they tried to blame the mother of the child who was labelled a "harlot" or a fallen woman who went out of her way to seduce that poor holy man.

Here's the thing, they actually think that Mary is "God's Mammy" and therefore any perceived insult on her is even worse. It's the ultimate in catholic "Yo momma" jokes.

I'm sure many shawled old women are on their arthritic knees belting out hail mary's as fast as they possibly can to atone for this.

Saturday, 25 June 2011 at 8:31 AM | #842523
Comment 12 by Dhamma
I wouldn't be surprised if a great deal of the "offended" in this case were the first to defend the right to draw pictures of Mohammed.

Saturday, 25 June 2011 at 9:07 AM | #842532
Comment 13 by Neodarwinian
Isn't this the same lady of Guadeloupe that saved some pope? These mythical creature sure cause a lot of bruhaha.

Saturday, 25 June 2011 at 9:19 AM | #842533
Comment 14 by QuestioningKat
Here is the Lady of Guadeloupe history and image

Compare this to Our Lady of Controversy

It's a classic take on the Madonna/whore depiction. If I saw this woman on the beach, I'd think "wow, that's a flowery bathing suit." Terrible beach cover-up though. The artist should do a whole series. Mary as a doctor. Mary as a waitress. Mary as whatever. Watch and see if people react to the different Marys. But my guess is that Mary isn't allowed to be depicted as a sensual, confident woman.

Saturday, 25 June 2011 at 9:53 AM | #842536
Comment 15 by Anonymous
Comment Removed by Moderator

Saturday, 25 June 2011 at 10:00 AM | #842539
Comment 16 by Ivan The Not So Bad
Meanwhile, Fr Michael Drumm tells us why the RC Church must retain control over Irish education. It's all in the name of rationality and reason and nothing to do with indoctrination, apparently:

Religious Education Nothing To Do With Indoctrination Says Bishop

Saturday, 25 June 2011 at 11:08 AM | #842560
Comment 17 by Tony d
I bet there are lots of catholic priests in Ireland , who will be so shocked by this art work that they will be to upset to molest their choir boys.

Saturday, 25 June 2011 at 11:36 AM | #842567
Comment 18 by bluebird
Surf's up!! Supposedly some catholics find Mary "hanging ten" offensive. I say, you go girl, shoot that curl! link text

Saturday, 25 June 2011 at 11:45 AM | #842570
Comment 19 by eridu
Our Lady of Guadeloupe is a Mexican, not Peruvian manifestation of the Virgin Mary. Regards

Saturday, 25 June 2011 at 11:49 AM | #842571
Comment 20 by josephor
The Irish politicians are still shit scared of the Catholic Church in Ireland. They suffer from conditions such as amnesia, hypocrisy and weak bowels when it comes to dealing with the Church.

Saturday, 25 June 2011 at 12:11 PM | #842576
Comment 21 by ZenDruid
La Virgen de Guadalupe is not Mary daughter of Anna, sorry about that. Neither is Lourdes, neither is Fatima, nor is any other feminine apparition ever experienced. It is axiomatic that those popoholics engulf and devour anything like that and call it "Mary". (The heathen in me likes to think instead of the primordial Earth Mother.) Since her legend involves her image appearing in a poncho full of roses, there is nothing more proper in my mind than Alma Lopez's rendition.

Those Irish popoholic 'big hats' are becoming more and more infantile under pressure. A mouthful of teat is what they need.

Saturday, 25 June 2011 at 12:29 PM | #842580
Comment 22 by Bishopess
Than you, QuestioningKat, for link! I agree, it´s quite beautiful, like the roses and it´s totally and literally clean, so where´s the blasphemy?

Saturday, 25 June 2011 at 12:51 PM | #842590
Comment 23 by QuestioningKat
Comment 22 by Bishopess :

Than you, QuestioningKat, for link! I agree, it´s quite beautiful, like the roses and it´s totally and literally clean, so where´s the blasphemy?

I think its more an issue of sexism than blasphemy. She looks sexy and confident and women who are like this are supposed to be "tramps." RCC just can't handle it. They want their Mary pure and chaste praying and crying for all the little children of the world or something. No belly buttons allowed. Yet she looks like an everyday, attractive woman. The controversy seems unreal. I really like Mexican folk art and this a good example of a contemporary work. I'm reminded of Botticelli's Venus.

Saturday, 25 June 2011 at 1:29 PM | #842600
Comment 24 by kscally
Irish Independent has reproduced the image in question.

Saturday, 25 June 2011 at 1:37 PM | #842603
Comment 25 by Bishopess
Comment 23 by QuestioningKat :

Comment 22 by Bishopess :

Than you, QuestioningKat, for link! I agree, it´s quite beautiful, like the roses and it´s totally and literally clean, so where´s the blasphemy?

I agree, it´s attractive. work. Shakes her head to Catholics, in amazement.

Saturday, 25 June 2011 at 2:06 PM | #842607
Comment 26 by QuestioningKat
I'm shaking my head because I went back to that link I provided to read the article on the Oakland protest, and just noticed that the woman on all fours drew a crucifix with water. That's "blasphemy" of all that is reasonable. I just don't understand the extremism and melodrama. Look at the artwork woman, what's the deal?

Saturday, 25 June 2011 at 2:33 PM | #842612
Comment 27 by Anonymous
Comment Removed by Moderator

Saturday, 25 June 2011 at 4:00 PM | #842628
Comment 28 by *upsidedawn*
I am not going to feel aghast at the silly protests over this piece of art. Instead, I feel, "Way to go, Alma Lopez!" If I were the artist, I would be loving this controversy.

Saturday, 25 June 2011 at 4:09 PM | #842629
Comment 29 by Hellboy2
These are the same fruitloops who believe that the eyes of this painted image (the original) show real reflections from the time the tilma was unfurled; images of diego showing the image to the bishop. Also, that the pupils actually dilate when a light is shone on them! Honestly, you couldn't make this up and be sane!

Saturday, 25 June 2011 at 4:22 PM | #842631
Comment 30 by Anonymous
Comment Removed by Moderator

Saturday, 25 June 2011 at 5:06 PM | #842638

Comment 31 by silentbutler
Well seeing as I'm neither Catholic, or Hispanic (though I've been known to pull off a mean Carlito's Way impression from time to time...when ever I'm throwing together a plate of Nachos for instance) I can't say that I am feeling any overt emotion for those who are offended, but shouldn't there be some education offered to these people? For that matter to all people.

If you want the freedom to speak, about ANYTHING on your mind, in public...live with other people's opinions!!!...suck it up!

Now if you'll excuse me, I believe that I'm in the mood for a good Al Pacino movie. "say hello to my little friends"!

Saturday, 25 June 2011 at 5:13 PM | #842639
Comment 32 by Agrajag
Heh... I flagged #30 and got a message: "You are not authorized to access that page". Past experience has shown that the comment was being deleted at that exact moment. :-)
Steve

Saturday, 25 June 2011 at 5:23 PM | #842641
Comment 33 by Anonymous
Comment Removed by Moderator

Saturday, 25 June 2011 at 5:29 PM | #842643
Comment 34 by dandelion fluff
Comment 12 by Dhamma

I wouldn't be surprised if a great deal of the "offended" in this case were the first to defend the right to draw pictures of Mohammed.

The artists are not in the same category, though. Of the two, Lopez is the only one drawing on her own culture/religion that she was raised in. There shouldn't be any controversy about her right to react to it.

Comment 21 by ZenDruid

La Virgen de Guadalupe is not Mary daughter of Anna, sorry about that. Neither is Lourdes, neither is Fatima, nor is any other feminine apparition ever experienced. It is axiomatic that those popoholics engulf and devour anything like that and call it "Mary". (The heathen in me likes to think instead of the primordial Earth Mother.) Since her legend involves her image appearing in a poncho full of roses, there is nothing more proper in my mind than Alma Lopez's rendition.

Very good point. I'm acquainted with a few ex-catholic women who are now goddess-worshippers who consider Mary a goddess or an avatar of her. And I know some catholic women who place so much emphasis on her that it seems they're fairly close to that as well, though they never say so (maybe not even to themselves).

Lopez's piece makes it all too visible, and it's freaking the misogynists out.

Saturday, 25 June 2011 at 6:08 PM | #842654
Comment 35 by Anonymous
Comment Removed by Moderator

Saturday, 25 June 2011 at 6:19 PM | #842656
Comment 36 by Anonymous
Comment Removed by Moderator

Saturday, 25 June 2011 at 6:36 PM | #842658
Comment 37 by Roedy
You have to treat religions equally. That is the prime directive. If it is blasphemy to use Christian symbols in strange ways that Christians don't like then it must also be blasphemy to use Satanic symbols in strange ways that Satanists don't like.

I think it is nonsense to demand all art not be offensive. It as silly as demanding that all music has to be inoffensive. If you don't like it, don't expose yourself to it. You have no right to deny those who do enjoy it. You are not their mother.

It more reasonable to demand that people not tell lies about others designed to encourage others to kill them (hate speech). Christians love to tell lies about gays trying to encourage thugs to beat up and kill gays or at the least deny them equal civil rights.

Saturday, 25 June 2011 at 6:47 PM | #842661
Comment 38 by PERSON
Christians love to tell lies about gays trying to encourage thugs to beat up and kill gays

Depends which Christians, but there certainly some who like to promote ideas like this, which reeks of "urban myth" but is not conclusively dealt with in the WP article. Salon pointed out what was wrong with the Rolling Stone article at the time, but there seems to have been follow-up since (unless the WP citations are all bogus; quite possible).

Sunday, 26 June 2011 at 12:24 AM | #842718
Comment 39 by Stevehill
@upsidedawn

I am not going to feel aghast at the silly protests over this piece of art. Instead, I feel, "Way to go, Alma Lopez!" If I were the artist, I would be loving this controversy.

It does however get my cynical antenna twitching about whether a work such as this, from a devout Catholic country, was created precisely for the purpose of putting the artist on the map...

It may still be good art. Hell, every artist needs to be his/her own marketing department these days (Damien Hirst or Tracey Emin, anyone?).

But it's a fair question, just as questioning Catholicism is fair.

Sunday, 26 June 2011 at 2:05 AM | #842745
Comment 40 by SomersetJohn
I don't see what the problem is.

If the senile, pedo-protecting ex-nazi (I assume he's ex) doesn't like it he is free to tell the rest of the world who follow his primitive tribal superstition not to look at it. He's even free to throw any followers out of his gang if they ignore him. Just leave the sensible people alone to enjoy the art!

Sunday, 26 June 2011 at 5:06 AM | #842812
Comment 41 by QuestioningKat
Comment 39 by Stevehill :

@upsidedawn

I am not going to feel aghast at the silly protests over this piece of art. Instead, I feel, "Way to go, Alma Lopez!" If I were the artist, I would be loving this controversy.

It does however get my cynical antenna twitching about whether a work such as this, from a devout Catholic country, was created precisely for the purpose of putting the artist on the map...

It may still be good art. Hell, every artist needs to be his/her own marketing department these days (Damien Hirst or Tracey Emin, anyone?).

But it's a fair question, just as questioning Catholicism is fair.

The artist lives in California not Ireland. Looking at the artist's website, I think this is a case of the personal being political.

If someone were to create atheistic art, I'm sure that it will tick some people off. Whether the artist creates for the sake of controversy or is simply expressing their personal beliefs is unknown. But if anyone sees a social injustice or wrong and goes about trying to change society. More power to them.

Sunday, 26 June 2011 at 5:42 AM | #842824
Comment 42 by Derek M
It goes without saying, in order to keep the lie going they need a holy, grovelling, supernatural image of Mary. Anything looking modern and real is not allowed.

Sunday, 26 June 2011 at 7:19 AM | #842873
Comment 43 by Tintern
"On last Friday's Liveline, one of Ireland's most popular radio shows, presenter Joe Duffy was flooded with calls from irate Catholics mortified by this "blasphemous" artwork. Why do I suspect that these callers were not irate about the child rape scandals within their own Church? They should get their priorities straight. In the meantime, they deserve no respect, not one iota."

There may have been a few callers trying to do that but they wouldn't have gotten on the air. Joe Duffy, when not on the bandwagon of attacking public sector workers - the most popular media sport in Ireland for some time now - is one of the staunchest arch Catholic a-holes polluting the airwaves.

Tuesday, 28 June 2011 at 8:13 AM | #843863
Comment 44 by Alternative Carpark
For the longest time I was puzzled as to why Little Atoms had a "Padre Greidy" on its panel of hosts.

Tuesday, 28 June 2011 at 10:25 PM | #844268
Comment 45 by SheilaC
I wonder how many of the "irate Catholics mortified by this 'blasphemous' artwork" have actually seen it?

Wednesday, 29 June 2011 at 11:08 AM | #844519
Comment 46 by quarecuss
Jaysus, Mary and Joseph and the Wee Donkey, how did I miss this wonderful story back in June? The comments are very funny but I am talking into a vacuum here. Everyone has left the building but do I care? I love getting the last word, even if nobody hears it. Maybe it's like being on a desert island and putting a note in a bottle and hoping somebody will find it. Anybody out there two months on? I remember doing a painting when I was in my cups back in Belfast in 1965 or so of St. Patrick holding his big dick in his hand and it was a snake with its tongue out, looking up at him, one of the many he was said to have driven out of Ireland. It was a bad painting and there were no protests from the 3 or 4 people who saw it but I can safely say that piece of blasphemy was one of the steppingstones on my way to atheism. I wish I'd kept it.

Tuesday, 16 August 2011 at 8:17 PM | #861734
← Prev 1 2 Next →