TOP: Bill Burch - Fur Coat Jesus - 2009BOTTOM: Bill Burch - Transvestite Jesus, 2009
I have just found these amazing pix on a blog I follow – JesusInLove. The one is of a transvestite Jesus, while the other is a rather strange one, I think, if I understand it correctly, cocking a snoot in the direction of some feminists, as well as the more general swathe of patriarchists .
One of the readers of the blog describes them as “disturbing”. Personally, I am way past being disturbed by this kind of imagery – but I suppose I am probably fairly far out on a limb in this regard anyway. I suppose many, if not most religious people would find them “disturbing”, because they are certainly not the norm!
But the point is a relatively simple one – any and all pictures of Jesus are necessarily interpretive. What mainstream orthodox, so-called “Bible believing” Christians may see as the “right” kind of picture of Jesus, others will find offensive.
The really interesting point, though, is this: would a transvestite see this picture as appropriate. Is it remotely possible that he (in this instance) would have such a good and such a positive self-image, that Jesus himself could be represented in this way?
Similarly, would a feminist who resists and resents everything that high heels and fur coats represents, be able to see the trauma of being woman in this representation? Would the kind of woman who wears furs and high heels, but still considers herself to be a feminist be able to discern herself in this picture? Would a woman who is neither feminist, nor dressed in this way see herself there?
Or, is Jesus so fully and so comprehensively defined in patriarchal, hetero-normative terms, that nothing else is even remotely or conceptually (or even artistically possible? I fear that might be the truth.
Thanks for writing this really interesting review of art. I think people are very wedded to the traditional when it comes to Jesus, but I've always explained to people that Renaissance costume was contemporary to Christians of that era, so why not make Jesus more contemporary to the images of our own era.
ReplyDeleteThe high heel Jesus is about being cruxcified, and the feminist interpretation of this, is that women are forced by patriarchy to wear this stuff to begin with.
So that is the cruxifiction of women, the demeaning of women ultimately.
Thank you for this excellent piece based I what I posted at the Jesus In Love Blog.
ReplyDeleteThe transvestite Christ image has been haunting me in the days since I posted it. I’ve been wondering if the image has a different meaning depending on whether it shows a “real” transvestite. Is it transvestite crucified by society for his desire to wear women’s clothes? Or is it a “straight” man who was dressed in women’s clothes as a form of torture preceding crucifixion? Either way, this is a statement against homophobia and sexism. Based on the photos from Abu Ghraib prison, this form of torture continues in our time.
Thanks Kitt. I think the essential ambiguity is always going to be there. "Hail King of the Jews!" That is the most painful and most sublime irony.
ReplyDeleteNews flash: Accusations of blasphemy from an art school professor gave a big boost recently to this alternative Jesus photo project by Bill Burch.
ReplyDeleteA conservative Christian professor harassed some of Burch’s models and threatened to “shut down” his project, which includes GLBT and female Jesus photos. The effort to stop the project had the opposite effect, inspiring many more students to volunteer as models!
For new photos and the full story, see my new post “Blasphemy charge aids queer Jesus project” at the Jesus in Love Blog:
http://jesusinlove.blogspot.com/2010/01/blasphemy-charge-aids-queer-jesus.html