Religious hypersensitivity at the Tate

BBC News reports that the Tate Gallery removed a very benign work of art on a very flimsy basis.

"The gallery said: "Having sought wide-ranging advice, Tate feels that to exhibit the work in London in the current sensitive climate, post 7 July, would not be appropriate."

What could be inappropriate in today's climate about a piece that aims to say "that all religious teaching comes from the same source, whatever name you give to it" according to its creator, John Latham?

For once, I actually filled in their "tell us your views" section. Religious over-sensitivity annoys me. I can't see anything remotely offensive about this piece and can only assume the objection here is that the Quran, having been cut in half, was not treated with the respect it demands of its followers, but I didn't know that the Tate was in the business of upholding religious commands. I very much doubt they're going to remove any exhibit with topless women in it, even though that is deemed unholy by some interpretations of the Quran. You can't just pick and choose the bits of a religion that are easy to comply with and leave the rest.

The only other thing I can think of that might cause offence would be that the creator has dared to put the Quran on the same level as other (lesser) religous texts, but that's a rather extreme speculation and highly unlikely.

My comment to the BBC is copied below:

"As a mixed-race person who grew up in an extremely multi-cultural environment, I don't understand how this piece is more offensive to Muslims than it is to Jews or Christians. By objecting to it on Muslim, rather then religious grounds in general, the Tate is only promoting segregation rather than the acceptance of all religions on equal footing. How is this a good thing?

It could be viewed that since Muslims are supposed to treat the Quran with the utmost respect, it is offensive to them to cut it in half in order to convey a message - but that is the very nature of art; provoking thought by drawing criticism. If the gallery aims to preserve its reputation of showcasing thought-provoking and interesting displays I would have thought the current climate of heightened cultural sensitivity was precisely the right one for a piece like this.

From a objective point of view, this piece doesn't desecrate the Quran any more or any less than the Talmud or the Bible and objecting to it on the grounds of potentially offending Muslims is displaying a disproportionate level of sensitivity. Were the piece to be a commentary on Muslim sectarianism or their lack of integration into society or celebrating imams who promote terrorism then pulling it on the grounds of "the current sensitive climate" might be understandable. This artwork made no comment on the current climate and from my interpretation, it just tried to highlight the similarity, rather than the differences in three major religious texts. By removing it, the gallery has done the exact opposite."

Tagged: art religion tate