Left erects anti-monuments, not just toppling
This coming week, get ready to witness the awe-inspiring sculpture ”Witness” at the University of Houston. Standing at a massive 18 feet by 13 feet by 13 feet, this sculpture portrays a nude woman with braids resembling rams’ horns, tentacles for arms, and a stunning hoop skirt adorned with Arabic writing in stained glass.
While the university describes “Witness” as a grand allegorical figure with multiple meanings and possibilities, the group Texas Right to Life has a different interpretation. They believe it to be satanic imagery honoring abortion and the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. In fact, the artist Shahzia Sikander herself confirmed this interpretation, expressing her intention to advocate for justice for nonwhite women, protest the reversal of Roe v. Wade, and celebrate pro-abortion views.
But “Witness” is not just any monument; it is an anti-monument. It challenges the traditional notion of a monument by dividing the community with its grotesque and offensive appearance. Instead of bringing people together through beauty, goodness, and truth, it aims to provoke anger and discomfort.
Without knowing the artist’s inspiration, one can observe that “Witness” is a bizarre and unsettling sculpture. It distorts the female form with beastly elements, satanic hairstyles, and a peculiar metallic bubble inscribed with the word “Havah,” a combination of “air” and “Eve” in Urdu. Its target audience is not the public or women, but rather angry feminists who reject Western culture and Christian values.
This is not the first time Sikander has created such controversial artwork. She previously displayed a similar sculpture alongside Moses and Zoroaster on a New York courthouse.
The Goal Is to Mock Christianity
Like all satanic imagery and ideology, “Witness” serves as a tool for mockery and spite. While the artist and her supporters may claim it represents empowerment or justice for nonwhite women, it is clear that this statue will not achieve those goals. Its purpose is to provoke white Christians and then label them as hypocrites when they voice their objections.
This situation is reminiscent of Satanist groups promoting the After-School Satan Club. Despite their claims of promoting self-confidence and rationality, everyone understands that their true intention is to mock Christians. Why else would they name themselves after Satan, the adversary of God?
The same question can be asked about UH’s new statue. If the goal is to celebrate reproductive rights, marginalized women, or RBG, why choose a visually unappealing and sci-fi horror-like sculpture instead of something that truly symbolizes those progressive ideas? The answer is simple: to provoke discomfort and anger.
A Sign of the Times
Erecting an anti-monument may have a more demoralizing impact than simply toppling existing monuments. By displaying ”Witness,” innocent bystanders are reminded that their culture, legacy, and access to beauty have vanished. They now live in a world that lacks the spiritual and moral capacity to create true monuments. Instead, all they can produce are abominations that destroy their surroundings, surpassing even the worst graffiti.
However, there is hope for a different approach. The Texas Right to Life organization is justified in calling for the removal of the statue, and their formal process demonstrates a commitment to building and creating rather than destroying. It is essential to act responsibly and with love when it comes to public art, as it is not a trivial matter. “Witness” may be an exquisite piece of anti-culture, but it belongs in private enjoyment or the landfill, not as a representation of shared values.
rnrn
What are the ethical considerations surrounding the display of satanic symbols in public spaces, especially when the intention is to provoke and offend Christian believers?
The display of satanic symbols in public spaces. These groups argue that it is a matter of free expression and religious freedom, but in reality, their intention is to provoke and offend Christian believers. In the case of “Witness,” the goal is to mock Christianity and challenge its values and beliefs.
By using religious symbols and imagery, the artist seeks to create controversy and generate attention. This tactic is not new and has been used by artists throughout history. However, it is important to recognize that freedom of expression should not be used as an excuse to offend or insult others’ beliefs.
Furthermore, the University of Houston’s decision to display “Witness” raises concerns about the institution’s responsibility towards its students and the community. While universities should promote artistic freedom and diversity, they also have a duty to create a safe and inclusive environment for all individuals, regardless of their religious or cultural backgrounds.
It is crucial to have a dialogue about the boundaries of artistic expression and the potential impact on different communities. This conversation should involve not only artists and curators but also the public and religious leaders. By engaging in open and respectful discussions, it is possible to find a balance between artistic freedom and the need to respect diverse perspectives.
In conclusion, the sculpture “Witness” at the University of Houston raises important questions about the role of art in society and the limits of artistic expression. While artists have the right to create thought-provoking and controversial works, it is essential to consider the potential impact on individuals and communities. As viewers, we should approach these artworks with an open mind but also a critical eye, questioning their intentions and the messages they convey. Ultimately, it is through thoughtful and respectful dialogue that we can navigate the complexities of art and its relationship to society.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
