It's the wall, not the image, that should be neutral.

Logo of Al Jazeera America from america.aljazeera.com

During our discussion of Islamic art, I showed the above image to my class along with my typical infuriating questions: what do you think? Why do you think that? So take a moment, and pretend you're my student.

What do you think? How does the image make you feel? Scared? Threatened? Did you just think of terrorism?

Now why did you think that? Some might not be able to get past the common spelling and sound of "Al" in Al Jazeera and Al Qaeda, for instance. I must assure you that this is natural. Especially after 9/11, I cannot blame anyone for that initial, gut reaction. However, I encourage you to recognize why Arabic words and calligraphy stir those feelings, and how you associate a television logo with a terrorist organization.

Then there was that wonderful moment after I played audio of Sura (Chapter) 18 of the Koran. A student raised her hand and said she thought it sounded quite beautiful. She liked the abstract design of the calligraphy and the spiritual qualities that abstract design can impart. Yes.

That's what I mean when I talk about the power of an image. It can scare you, and it can cause you to think beyond the gut reaction. But if images were completely neutral, we wouldn't have much of a visual culture. We wouldn't have the great, iconic images of our own history that express the proverbial thousand words even without any text.

Kent State, 1970

Rosie the Riveter

But with great power, comes great responsibility. Artists of course are responsible for the images they create, just as viewers are responsible for the images they view. Furthermore, teachers like me are responsible for presenting such images in an academic context, one that nurtures critical thinking beyond gut reactions.

I've written before, pleading for skepticism of facebook memes. That is an example of viewer responsibility. We don't get a "dislike" option, so often the posting of an image is taken as a sign of agreement (unless you accompany it with a rant, like I do). The liking and sharing encouraged on facebook is not invalid as expression, mind you, but it is the expression of gut reactions. Good, bad, beautiful, ugly, agree, disagree...these aren't the products of in-depth analysis, but they are starting points.

Now what happens when the image in question touches on a controversial subject, and the artist is a high school student?

I'm talking about teeshirts, here. Teeshirts that were on display in my high school before the whole Jesus drama ensued. From what I understand of the project, the students were free to pick a topic important to them and create a silk-screen design for that topic. Once displayed to the student body, these teeshirts caused a lot of buzz. Isn't that a good thing? School isn't a protective bubble, especially high school, and what better time to start discussing major issues like gay rights and abortion than when you are young and under the direction of responsible educators?

Again, art has power. Images start conversations, create controversy, and, heck, 100 years ago a ballet started a riot in Paris. A ballet! Go ahead and Google Rite of Spring...

Apparently, some educators at JG are descendants of the Parisian rioters. If I understand correctly, some, but not all, of the teeshirts were taken down after students were unable to keep the discussion civil. Instead of direction, instead of education, the principal chose to blame the art. What a lovely lesson for tomorrow's leaders: "You are just mindless information receptacles. You have no power over your own behavior. You have no responsibility to analyze the issues put in front of you. The art made you do it."

That is a huge problem. That is not realistic. The idea that you can put away or destroy art, or anything you disagree with, is what prevents discussion and compromise. (Are you reading this, Congress?) For all our talk of a free society, I was quite frankly shocked by how a majority of my students not only recognized moments of iconoclasm in our culture, but condoned it when it was the government making the call. Essentially, they wrote on their papers "Some images should be banned, and the government should decide." Scary, right? That's not just a parent refusing to buy Tommy the latest "Grand Theft Auto." That reminds me of Entartete Kunst in Munich, the exhibition of "degenerate" modern art put on by Goebbels and Hitler.

Yeah, I just went there.

Neither side is as bad as Hitler, yet I do not want to see this adversarial approach grow unchecked. Forget riots in Paris; taking away religious objects has led to war. (Fine, go Google the dissolution of the monasteries in 16th century England).

It's a pretty good way to piss people off. No one is dying because their church has been torched, but the school in Jackson did have to pay $95,000 in punitive damages when the ACLU came around. That's money taken out of schools, away from education that should fix this mess. The ACLU swoops in at the very hint of promotion of a particular religion, blind to any other consideration, and JG really left itself open to it. I've seen comments from Christians saying that they do not want to see other religions included in schools. They think a portrait of Mohammed on the wall would be just terrible. Regardless of the fact that there are no portraits of Mohammed! Gah, it's an unyielding viewpoint paired with ignorance that I have a problem with here.

If anything, it boggles my mind how similar the mindsets of both sides are, religious right and secular left. Can we get a third option, here? Maybe a fourth?

Remember, these are the words of an idealist, and my grand solution--a school taking the reins and guiding students as they consider images they don't agree with--is contingent on the school being impartial. And I think it's pretty clear that JG has some partial administrators and educators...not to mention parents and other concerned adults. By equating a mass-produced picture (not even a painting) with your own personal faith, you see yourself attacked. Your way of life is threatened. You bemoan catering to the minority. Well, all that tells me is that our community is not ready to stop blaming the art (or making it your martyr) and start explaining our gut reactions.

How can we teach students to work through big issues if we ourselves are not capable of doing so together?

picture painting photograph

The local newspaper is reporting on the JG story now, and of course the comments have exploded like an atom bomb. There are my compatriots of course:

Really this is news ??? Hang a pic of Satan who cares ,just educate the kids ..you religious followers and apposers get fanatical about the dumbest things

There are BIGGER issues that should be addressed way before a picture in the office... Lots of rights violations... prejudicial issues, distinguishing treatment of individual(s) based on their race & community roots…

I heartily agree with your sentiment, if not with your grammar and spelling. Then there are these: 

No they should put one up on every wall !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Amber and Randy may you burn in Hell That's my religion don't like it tuff crap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You stay classy, SE Ohio...classy and crazy. Here's my absolute favorite:

Jesus had his picture taken??? Kodak???

Thank you from the bottom of my heart; I needed that laugh! And the pièce de résistance:

No way.the teacher should be FIRED!!!!!!!!!!

Say what? Someone is commenting on an issue with which they have not wholly familiarized themselves. Shocker!

All right, my snark is over. Long story short, there has been an image titled The Lord is My Shepherd in my high school since the 1970s. I couldn't really remember it exactly, but my friends have helped me confirm that it is Warner Sallman's work. Frustratingly, the website does not list the painting's date or medium the way other museums and galleries would, but I'd say it is in the vicinity of 1941, the year Sallman painted the Head of Christ. The reproduction of The Lord is My Shepherd in the high school was originally dedicated to a beloved teacher. 

I'm still looking into more about her: Dad identified her as Margaret Barnett, a "pillar of Rix Mills Church." (Shout-out to the ancestral Elliott lands...) As a Latin and English teacher, I'm sure she would share my abhorrence of bad grammar. On matters of religion, we'd agree to disagree. Or, as my dear father told a fellow church-going man, "Don't bother talking to Debbie about religion; you won't win that argument." Whatever that means...

Back to a key word, and why my favorite comment is my favorite: reproduction. I highly doubt that the image in JG is an actual painting, and thus does not have the same value as the original (read here, it would not fetch over a million at auction like The Scream), so I hesitate to talk about it in art historical terms. However, I have a new pet peeve: the words picture, photo, and painting (heck, toss portrait in the mix) are not interchangeable. They each have a particular definition. Thus, I use the term picture, image, or reproduction.

But wouldn't it be cool if Jesus took a selfie and posted it on Instagram? It would also be cool if he could just diffuse this whole situation and remind people that whether the image is on the wall in a school or in a church, their faith (that thing protected by the First Amendment) is inside them, not the image. If we all remembered that, maybe we wouldn't be shouting at each other "Your goin 2 hell!!!!1!" and making ourselves look rather silly. 

Another gem from the comments. You just proved my point, madam.

No one took God out of schools. The courts did rule against school-led prayer. Christian or Muslim, it doesn't matter. No one will be led, but they may lead themselves. What's more important to you, really, stamping Jesus on every locker or actually acting like a Christian?

Crazy notions of Jesus-coated public schools aside, this is not a simple issue, no matter how many internet commenters type "end of story" or "period" after their opinions. Of course, the most immediate argument concerns the separation of church and state, and I'm purposely avoiding the argument over where the phrase "separation of church and state" originated...let's say it's an interpretation of the First Amendment and move on for now. It's precedent that raises the question: should a public school display a religious image? Court decisions on this topic point to "No." 

However, I would also ask: Does the presence of the image endorse the religion? Should the image's particular location within that school have any bearing on the argument? Should the ACLU be involved on the student's behalf? 

To complicate it further (as if parsing which hallways students use or threatening legal action weren't enough), there is a very specific function for this image: the commemoration of a teacher. There are of course such memorials in many school buildings; one internet comment that caught me as particularly salient brought up the portrait of John Glenn himself. By displaying and viewing his image, do we become Democrats like our former Democratic Senator? This, in my mind, is the real issue. What does the image actually do, and what are the responsibilities of the viewer and of the institution displaying the image?

Now, since I teach religious art on a regular basis, I have always been able to frame the religious subject matter in terms of history and visual culture. And I have for a while been asserting the ability of images to serve many different functions depending on their context. Why can schools such as my alma mater not present religious imagery in the same compartmentalized, educational context? Create an open forum for students to view The Lord is My Shepherd alongside their own images, directed by art teachers, history teachers, English teachers, oh my! Alongside examples of Islamic art, Buddhist art, whatever, just keep the dialogue going. They want to talk about it.

But would that satisfy the students who feel their liberties from religion are infringed? I'm curious...

It took me aback that this new article states that Whaley (the student at the center of all this...stay strong and ignore the burka comments, Allison!) was "initially upset" about the teeshirts. Perhaps that is why one of the ignorami thinks a teacher should be fired over this? Could they be referring to the poor art teacher? That would get me truly riled up. 

I had thought that the Dispatch conflated the two issues--Jesus picture and teeshirts--and Whaley's argument was solidly about the picture. I can see, though, how one might lead to the other. The fateful teeshirt project, for which art students chose hot topics like gay rights and abortion, is one of those bigger issues that the school should address. More on that later...

notes on a town

Before I dive in to the high school drama surrounding religious images and students' rights, I thought I should begin at the beginning: just what is it about New Concord?

While I was describing the issues to a student of mine, she said "Nothing bad ever happens there, and everyone is so nice." New Concord is our Mayberry, our Pleasantville. It's a quaint college town on the outskirts of Appalachia. And everyone is so nice.

Except the person who robbed the drug store at gun-point last year. True, that sort of thing seems a lot more frequent in a place like New York City; everyone asked me "aren't you scared about moving there?" I think this is true of all rural areas; we have this delusion that crime only happens in cities. That there is an invisible barrier between us and the gangsters and drug dealers and burglars. It was last year that I really (really) missed having my dog Zeke around, because there were several burglaries in the little town near the farm. Zeke would have bitten a burglar's legs off to protect me, and I missed that reassurance. I find it really strange how "country" it is to have dogs around, to have guns in the house for protection, then in a brilliant moment of cognitive dissonance, to assert that nothing bad happens here because we're country folk. We obviously feel the need to prepare for something. 

The security director at the campus where I teach made this very important point: banish all thoughts of New Concord as a real-life Pleasantville from your mind. Do it now! Have you seen the film titled Pleasantville? What is pleasant is not always pleasing. 

Aside from having a magnificent soundtrack, the film is very instructive for people trying to understand what is going on in New Concord. It, like Pleasantville, is a place where tradition reigns, and change is frowned upon. And I'm not talking about new construction--with the university on the hill and the new bank on the corner, cosmetic change is welcomed, so long as it's clad in quaintness and ornamental brick. As a kid, it really did feel like the end of Main Street looped back to the beginning again. An endless loop of small town goodness. A loop I was, as a country kid, often excluded from. Sometimes it takes an outsider, though, to make things happen.

What happens to Pleasantville? Outsiders change it from black & white to color. From conformity to diversity. From narrow-mindedness to open-mindedness. I think that same change can happen in New Concord, but not if grown men and women get their panties in bunches over a student questioning a picture of Jesus. Not if they call her un-American or tell her to get out.

Now, the people saying these things are not necessarily from New Concord. But New Concord residents who care about what is going on in their community ought to ask themselves why there is such an aggressive reaction to the question "Should a public school have a religious image on the wall?" Fear. The knowledge that you and your sect are not in complete control. Yet in their anger and fear, as in the film, they show their true colors. If only she'd be quiet, right? If only she's stop making a scene, everything could stay the same.

Will taking the picture down negate all that is actually good about the community? No. And allowing students to debate (in a civil manner) controversial issues doesn't take away from the fact that New Concord is a pretty good place in which to grow up. The debate will make it better. It will diminish the false pretenses that rural communities are in these protective bubbles that liberal secular elitists are trying to pop. No, you don't live in a vacuum. Sorry.

The idea of Pleasantville is dependent upon conformity, and conformity cannot coexist with American liberty. The process of breaking down conformity is painful, I know, and those most discomforted by change will fight back with unkind words and judgments. I pity them for using Christianity as a shield. I'm disappointed in them for showing a young adult such disrespect. Above all, I admire the student for attempting what I could never do.

religion on the brain

I have a confession: I'm addicted to The Tudors, and not because it's a Showtime boink-fest. As a student of history, I love to see certain events brought to life, and I love dissecting the writers' liberties taken with historical figures even more. Aside from Henry's many wives and affairs, I think the series made manifest the Reformation and the religious struggles on both sides--Catholic and Protestant--in brilliant fashion.

Along with indulging my Tudors craving, I have also been teaching religious art in my class these past few weeks. In fact, more than one student has, privately, expressed surprise that I put images of Jesus Christ and churches and pages from the Koran up on the screen in front of them. They were surprised, not because they were offended by the images or my lectures, but because they expected others to be offended. How unusual, I thought. Then again, I've been trying to goad them all into making their first impressions known, in order to teach them how first impressions often need to be modified. Essentially, I too was betting at least someone would be offended; I played audio of someone reading from the Koran, for Pete's sake. More on that another time...

Perhaps it is wrong of me to expect some students to be ill-informed about Islam or Christianity, considering my own fear of being pegged a Christian simply because of where I grew up and the family I belong to. It's all so timely, to be teaching religious art and immersing myself in religious history when I came across the article about my high school's current troubles. Of course I immediately shared the article with a lengthy rant. It was liked by a very diverse sampling of my friends, both conservative and liberal. I take this as a sign of success, up to the point that I trust no one has made any assumptions about my religious views.

Has humanity changed much in the last five hundred years? In the last thousand? The more I read, and the more I teach it, the more I believe history is repeating itself. In the 16th century, it was reformers like Martin Luther versus the papacy. Today, it's the religious right versus...well, secular heathens like myself. That's what Bill O'Reilly would call me. I've referred to myself as agnostic in the past, never atheist (that term has a PR problem, for sure...more like getting-religious people-to-understand problem). I think I need a new label these days, so now--maybe it's the historical drama binge talking--I call myself a Humanist.

Humanists value learning above all else. Learning leads to improving oneself and one's community. The humanism of the 16th century highlights, for me, a time in history when great minds realized that learning (particularly of Classical culture once deemed too pagan), is not contrary to religious practice. It is, however, contrary to religious dogma.

I cannot let go of the issues presented in the article. I cannot, as an art historian, abide by the removal of a potentially educative image from a school. I cannot simply join the side of the ACLU, the perceived "liberal secular progressive" side. I cannot stomach the calls for prayers for JG, as if the school is battling Satan and his legions. I'm trying to present a nuanced view of a very complicated situation in my own hometown. So, I want to ask my high school: Dear JG, are you spreading dogma, or are you encouraging learning?

Insisting that New Concord is a Christian community is dogmatic. Not to mention exclusionary (and that's where you bump into the First Amendment clause). Trumpeting the commemorative nature of a religious image is a pathetic attempt to cling to that dogma while hiding from it at the same time. Berating students who have raised their concerns about the constitutionality of a religious image in a public school, telling them to "get out of my country," is just plain wrong. So within the next few weeks, I hope to do some research on the side about the many issues at play in my high school today. And I hope I clarify the points I made in my rant, making plain that I am not on Team Christianity, and not really on Team ACLU. I'm on Team Let-the students-have-a-voice.