s it "provocative" and an expression of artistic freedom? Or is a controversial show at the Brooklyn Museum of Art "disgusting," "horrible," and "blasphemous as New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, Cardinal John O'Connor, and others insist?

   The brouhaha focuses on a painting, "The Holy Virgin Mary," which is part of a larger ensemble of works now featured at the prestigious gallery as part of its "Sensations" exhibit. It displays the works of 42 artists loaned by Charles Saatchi, a leading contemporary art collector. The controversial painting depicts Mary with African features and dark skin, and includes a shellacked clump of elephant dung and cutouts of naked buttocks; it is all the work of British artist Chris Ofili, who also happens to be Roman Catholic. He defends the piece, noting that images of the Virgin Mary are frequently "sexually charged," and adds that Elephant dung is both a reverential and "beautiful" object in some cultures. No stranger to fame in the artistic community, Ofili won the $33,000 Turner Prize for his work in 1998.

   The Virgin Mary isn't the only rendering where Ofili has used elephant dung. He began the habit of incorporating the substance into his art during a six-week stay in Zimbabwe, and now uses it in virtually all of his work. But now, the painting of the robed Virgin has become the center of a political and religious firestorm involving civil liberties, the issue of blasphemy, and $7,000,000 in annual city funding for the Brooklyn Museum.

   The flap began earlier this month when the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights branded the exhibit as "Beastly" for including the Ofili piece and other works featuring "dead animals and sexually mutilated bodies." League President William Donahue launched a verbal salvo against Museum Director Arnold L. Lehman for his statement that "New Yorkers are incredibly sophisticated," and "should be exposed to works that are emotionally engaging and ones that make us think."

   "I know of no other enterprise, profession or industry that allows as many frauds to be perpetrated on it than the artistic community," snarled Donahue. He then advanced the dubious claim, "No wonder Hitler was accepted as an artist: all he had to do was proclaim himself to be one and that was enough for the creative-types to welcome him." (In fact, despite his enrollment in a private art school in Blutenstrasse, Hitler's talent was considered mediocre at best. He was later rejected by the Academy of Fine Arts in Vienna where his test drawings were deemed "unsatisfactory." After seizing power, he "cleansed" Germany and the conquered territories of works he considered "Jewish" and "degenerative" in favor of Nazi-approved art.)

"New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani entered the fray, branding the exhibit 'an insult to Catholics' and 'disgusting,' and pledged to cut the $7 million in annual funding which the municipality provides to the Brooklyn Museum. 'There is nothing in the First Amendment that supports horrible and disgusting projects,' declared Giuliani..."

   New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani entered the fray, branding the exhibit "an insult to Catholics" and "disgusting," and pledged to cut the $7 million in annual funding which the municipality provides to the Brooklyn Museum. "There is nothing in the First Amendment that supports horrible and disgusting projects," declared Giuliani, a candidate for the GOP's U.S. Senate nomination. "If you're going to use taxpayers' dollars, you have to be sensitive to the feelings of the public." The Catholic League praised the Mayor, and quickly turned the issue into a political litmus test to measure the worthiness of those seeking public office.

   "Catholics salute Mayor Giuliani for his courage and decency in opposing funding of the Brooklyn Museum of Art for its obstinacy on this issue," a League press release declared last week. "Now Catholics need to know the position of Hillary Clinton, and to that end, we have asked her to state her position on this issue. We have noted for her that the museum is accessible by the number 2 and 3 subway lines..." The broadside also charged that the exhibition contained works by "snuff" artists, but did not identify names.

   New York Cardinal John O'Connor turned his church into a bully pulpit, asking parishioners to join him in condemning the Virgin Mary painting. "I'm saddened by what appears to be an attack not only on our blessed mother ... but one must ask if it not an attack on religion itself and in a special way on the Catholic Church," said O'Connor in a weekly sermon.

   Complicating the situation are charges now being leveled by Giuliani's office that the Brooklyn Museum conspired with the prestigious auction house Christie's to inflate the value of the "Sensations" collection. "Senior City Hall officials vowed on Wednesday to use the charge as part of a lawsuit to be filed in State Supreme Court in which they will seek to foreclose on the museum and take control of its board," noted the New York Times. That move is seen as a counter to a lawsuit filed by the museum in Federal court which accuses Giuliani of violating the First Amendment by threatening to withhold funding of the institution.

   Christie's quickly described the allegations as "bewildering accusations."

   "They have absolutely no substance, are not true," noted an auction house spokesperson. "Christie's has a long history of sponsorships of exhibitions in the United States and internationally. Nothing in this exhibition is for sale, nor is there any expectation for any of the works from the exhibition to be sold by Christie's."

   Civil Liberties attorney Floyd Abrams, who represents the Brooklyn Museum of Art in the federal court case told reporters, "It seems to me that every day, the city comes up with a new pretextual claim. Now they have come up with another argument. Each and every one of them is nothing more or less than further pretext in an effort to punish the museum for the exercise of its First Amendment rights..."

   Tomorrow is an important benchmark in the battle over whether "The Virgin Mary" and other provocative -- some say "blasphemous" -- works will remain available for public viewing. The museum is scheduled to receive its monthly check for $497,554 dollars from the city, but the Mayor's office said that the payment will not be made. According to the Times, if that happens the museum will ask the Federal District Court in Brooklyn to order the city to make the payment.

   In the meantime, the Catholic League is mobilizing to hold a "vomit bag" demonstration this Saturday. League members "will distribute vomit bags to the first 500 attendees of the 'Sensation' exhibit," notes a press release. "The distribution of vomit bags -- all of which are labeled 'Vomit Bag: Compliments of the Catholic League' -- is in direct response to the exhibit's warning that seeing it may induce vomiting. On this score, the Catholic League readily agrees..."

   The League says that it has been "overwhelmed" with inquiries about Saturday's event.

[text only]