The unmistakable imitation of Leonardo’s iconic masterpiece definitively demonstrated that, in today’s world, nothing is off-limits.
Commentary
Just two days after the Olympics kicked off with a controversial performance that seemed to parody Leonardo da Vinci’s “Last Supper,” the Paris Organizing Committee responded to the ensuing uproar.
The original display was deemed lewd and provocative—or vibrant and daring, depending on one’s perspective. Nevertheless, the evident delight the performers took in their outrageous portrayal made it evident that traditional norms and decorum were the targets of the show. The not-so-subtle mimicry of Leonardo’s masterpiece conclusively illustrated that in this context, on stage and in the minds of the creators, nothing is sacred.
“There was never an intention to disrespect any religious group. On the contrary, with Thomas Jolly, we aimed to celebrate community tolerance. Based on the feedback we received, we believe this goal was achieved. If anyone was offended, we sincerely apologize.”
The chief architect of the event, Jolly, supported Descamps by stating that his intention was never to offend anyone; in fact, he even emphasized that “The Last Supper” was not his inspiration at all. Instead, he sought to pay homage to the pagan deities, the Gods of Olympus who presided over the ancient games.
The media portrayed these statements as apologies, and while the speakers did strike a conciliatory tone, the focus of their words is noteworthy. The statements did not address the specific content of the potential offense, only the feelings of offense that some individuals may have experienced. The intricate details of Leonardo’s painting and the sacred elements of Christian doctrine it symbolized were disregarded. The perceived parallels between the Olympic tableau and the 15th-century mural—and what those parallels imply—were not part of the conversation.
For Christians, the sacrilege was a matter of fact: the Eucharist had been profaned and insulted. For Paris officials, it was a subjective issue: some religious individuals were upset. The officials’ response was seen by the religious community as merely an acknowledgment of hurt feelings rather than an acknowledgment of the Last Supper’s significance, both as an artwork and as an event that took place 2,000 years ago.
The Last Supper holds profound meaning for Christians. Leonardo selected a specific moment in Christ’s final days as his subject. Jesus sits serenely at the center, the focal point of the composition, while the disciples flank him in expressions of shock and dismay. He has just made a startling announcement: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me” (John 13:21). The disciples react differently, all questioning, “Who? Who?” except Judas, who spills the salt shaker in surprise at the revelation of his betrayal. Bread and wine are on the table, now transformed by Jesus into symbols of salvation as Christians partake in his essence and sacrifice whenever they observe the Eucharist. The entire composition is harmonious and symmetrical, set in a classical indoor space with three windows allowing in a soft light.
For Christians, this goes beyond art; it is a sacred event. Leonardo’s painting evokes the most significant days in human history for them, when the curse of the Fall was lifted and sin and death were conquered. It is not a myth; it is reality, and it changed everything. Shortly after this meal, Jesus would face trial, torment, and a form of execution more brutal and painful than modern individuals can comprehend. Christians revisit the Passion every Sunday. For an hour, a gap opens in the world’s troubles as believers recount the suffering of their Lord. Ridiculing this sacred event, turning the reverent Eucharist ritual into a crude drag performance, affirms that anything transcendent, sublime, beautiful, and holy in modern life is no longer revered.
Despite claims that the drag performance promoted “community tolerance,” it is evident that Christians are unwelcome in this community unless they abandon their belief in the sacred. What kind of society is built when the desecrators finish their work? When all sacred objects have been defiled, when statues have been toppled, and the hecklers and vandals have nothing pure and sacred left to mock and defile, what will they do? Without the sacred to profane, what purpose do they serve?
Certainly not a positive one, only a desire to find new targets, even if they have to invent them. The counterculture requires a sacred tradition, a vulnerable object for its subversive actions. Remove the sacred, and it descends into increasingly pathetic displays. A society that thrives on desecration is in a dire state.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times. Please provide an alternative version.
Source link
