Purchase today

Enter your email address here to receive updates from the team.

Jobs

User login

The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

RSS

An ape on a cross and a black Jesus

Will Christians find these works blasphemous?

By Sholto Byrnes Published 12 October 2009 14:51

The contemporary art world is descending on London in time for the opening of the Frieze Art Fair in Regent's Park on Wednesday. It will be interesting to see how much reaction there is to two works in a show timed to coincide with it, "The Age of Marvellous", which is on at a deconsecrated church opposite the park. One of the artists, Paul Fryer, caused controversy this year when his Pietà, a sculpture of Christ in an electric chair, was displayed in the cathedral of the Alpine town of Gap. Now he has taken this further in another work, in which the Christ figure is black and appears contorted and visibly suffering.

"The figure of Christ isn't just in the electric chair," explains Fryer, who has collaborated with Damien Hirst and whose work has been exhibited at the Tate and the Courtauld. "He's starved and he's black. Hundreds more black people have been executed in the chair than white people. More black people starve to death than white people by what you could call a significant margin, too." The work also makes the point that "we still execute people 2,000 years after Christ's death".

More edgy -- more likely to offend, at any rate -- is The Privilege of Dominion, in which a waxwork ape appears nailed to a cross. "At the rate we're killing them all, the lowland gorillas will be dead by the year 2020," says Fryer. "Do animals have souls? What a question. We should be asking the same question of ourselves."

Personally, I don't find either sacrilegious. But then perhaps that's not for me to say. Given that the clearly fantastical Jerry Springer: the Opera managed to arouse the ire of so many Christians, it's quite possible that Fryer's ape on a cross will provoke more than just thought.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Religion

More from Sholto Byrnes

View the discussion thread.

11 comments

Sat, 2009-10-17 01:34 — Daniele1

Who cares if these pieces are offensive to Christians? What happened to the good old "freedom of speech" that everybody want to give the BNP? So it is "freedom of speech" AS LONG AS it does not offend the "deluded"?
Christians and Muslims offend me all the time but I am called a "fanatical, fundamentalist atheist" if I mention it.

Mon, 2009-10-12 15:31 — PM-elect

Try depicting Mohammed then you cowards!

Mon, 2009-10-12 17:38 — TJ_Lives

The Alpine town of Gap? Would that be Garmisch-Partenkirchen?

Don't be silly, PM-elect. It's not fashionable to lampoon Islam or for Richard Dawkins to give lectures in Mecca. Somebody might get hurt! Best to play it safe and attempt to portray what is in fact docile conformity for courageous dissent.

Tue, 2009-10-13 03:11 — brad evans

I'm an atheist and I find these works too boring to be offensive.
Not to say that most artists aren't posers trying for cheap laughs to get grant money, only that 99% of them aren't worth the cost of the bullet
But I hope they do feel free to lampoon Mohammad ibn Abdullah sometime soon. Watching 'progressives' run for cover during the Danish cartoon flap was hilarious.

Tue, 2009-10-13 07:09 — Luddite.

Just three comment's all dismissive another victory for Christ. NOW!! try putting the good prophet Mohammed on the cross and see the reaction from the religion of peace.

Tue, 2009-10-13 09:49 — toby forward (not verified)

As far as I can see, without having seen the works themselves, I don't think they're particularly good art, nor are they profound thought. The sort of thing you might expect from a bright(ish) fifth form art student. But the point they make, though not specially wise, is worthmaking. I don't find the pieces offensive or blasphemous. The image of Christ in the electric chair was, I think, better. But to use the symbolism of the cross in this way is not bad in itself, if a little cheap.
There is, though, the other point about whether the same artist would consider using Muslim imagery to make a similar point. After all, plenty of savage things are legally sanctioned in the Islamic world. If he wants to go down this road then I would like to see him balance his output by using images from different religions (specifically Islam) in the way he has used Christian iconography. That would at least give him the opportunity to prove that he is not parochial in his attacks, nor frightened not only of giving offence, but of actual reprisals. Otherwise, I'm afraid he's open to the charges of cowardice and flippancy.

Fri, 2009-10-23 19:05 — dominic1

To traduce 7/8s of the world religions through artistic license and leave islam untouched isn't daring, innovative or edgy. It's Islamist.

Sun, 2009-10-18 22:35 — brad evans

Daniele, freedom of speech is terrific. Get a First Amendment in the UK of GB and NI and you'll be amazed that you managed to live without it for so long.

Tue, 2009-12-29 15:14 — Poeticjazztice

I thank Paul Fryer for his attention to the sufferings of Black people.

Now, I'd like to see a Paul Fryer christocentric interpretation of women's suffering.

May I suggest an image of a crucified Barbadian Opposition Leader (aspiring Prime Minister) Mia Mottley? This darling of a demoralised international feminist movement is as misunderstood as the man from Nazareth. Sadly, her schizophrenic logic primarily suggests a failing of self-understanding.

Here certainly, is a study of a "messianic complex" and a tragic tale, not entirely unlike the passion of Christ.

Mon, 2009-10-26 05:30 — Absentee Christian (not verified)

dominic, the reason everyone uses the cross is simple: everyone understands the cross. The cross is a visible symbol that is easily, if I may use the word, parodied. Islam has no such symbol. The star and crescent? Try using that in art. The five pillars? Not a visible symbol. There is no real visible, easily parodied symbol of Islam the way there is for Christianity. The tallest tree IS the first to be cut down.

Wed, 2009-10-21 12:34 — Abdul (not verified)

According to Islam jesus is one of the best massengers that has ever been sent by god and beleiving in him and loving him ( as a prophet) is a essential in islam. I regard anything that portrays him ,or indeed any other prophet e.g Moses, in a bad way exteremely offending.
However i don`t reagrd The Privilege of Dominion offensive. Islam teaches that Jesus was never crucified but indeed was raised to the heaven ( where he will descend from later).

It is not muslims` fault that people are taking the "piss" at christianity.it is just that Muslims care about their religion; the mass majority of christians don`t. And artist know that. So when you see things like this happening don`t just say in despeartion " dare you do it to Islam" but think : WHY ?