By Agnieszka Matejko

The visual arts story I am about to write is the most difficult I have ever covered, and one that has given me some sleepless nights. The reason for my perplexity is that the issues I am about to discuss are confoundingly difficult.

On the one hand is an artist’s freedom of expression, a right that our society is founded upon and one that I can appreciate on a deeply personal level. (My parents escaped a communist system where they suffered for their convictions.)

On the other hand is another cherished value, one that allows all Canadians to live harmoniously in a multicultural society with sensitivity to the religious sensibilities of other cultures. In the story I am about to tell these two values have become intractably and painfully entangled.

But let me begin at the beginning. After much public controversy over the view-blocking wall of the new addition to the Shaw Conference Centre, local sculptor Ryan McCourt’s steel works collectively entitled Will and Representation were selected to adorn this section of Jasper Avenue. These sculptures have been inspired by Hindu art that, in McCourt’s words, “ranks among the great sculptural achievements of human culture.”

The specific image that McCourt depicts is one of the most common and highly venerated symbolic representations of God in Hinduism: Lord Ganesha, or the Remover of Obstacles.

For devout Hindus, nothing is started without the blessings of the Lord Ganesha. And, as with other religious art, every detail of the representation has profound symbolic significance, or “hidden” messages. For example the large ears of Ganesha represent the ability to listen and understand, the axe represents the cutting of bonds of attachment, the lariat represents the ability to pull the spiritual traveller to the highest goal, the small eyes represent the ability to concentrate. In short, over the thousands of years that this, one of the oldest living religions has evolved, every aspect of Lord Ganesha has acquired a specific meaning that spins a spiritual tale.

DUE TO THE COMPLEXITY of the symbolism, the apparent faithfulness in detail of McCourt’s sculptures and the clearly Hindu inspiration, I decided to get some feedback on these works from the richest source of information. I contacted the Bhartiya Cultural Society of Alberta and met Sukhdev Agnihotri, a former president of the society (he asked that his comments are viewed as his personal views, not representative of the society) and the resident priest of the temple. Together we braved the cold gusts of wind that blew down the River Valley quite literally making my pen freeze in mid-page and talked animatedly about the sculptures.

“Hindu iconography is based on rules as well as traditional values,” said Agnihotri as he examined one of the steel works and continued to elucidate how rules that religious statues follow are designed in the context of a spiritual purpose.

To take the sculpture out of the context of the spiritual purpose he views as problematic in itself. But in this instance, a number of details have been altered as well. For instance the seated posture of Ganesha is always devout, with legs crossed, while in the steel work the deity is seated on a stool with his legs spread.

“That is no way to represent Ganesha. When you are representing a God you should be a little more careful,” the priest exclaimed with hurt in his voice. “God is not represented as sitting nude. It’s more a mockery. He is sitting nude and that’s hurtful.”

At that point Agnihotri interjected to explain how important Ganesha is in Hindu traditions. “It’s the beginning of our life, we don’t consider ourselves in existence without Ganesha,” he said. “Whatever we begin we do a Ganesha pooja [ritual] first.” Such spiritual importance of Ganesha makes alterations deeply problematic. “How the artist did it is a big wrong. It is no way to represent Ganesha,” he continued. “They hurt feelings, they carry the wrong message of what Hinduism is all about,” adds the priest. “These things should not be encouraged by the city, or any level of government.

We feel that this is the wrong message; people who don’t know Hinduism will laugh at it. Any level of government should not encourage artists like that to touch any people’s religion whether it’s Hindu, or Muslim, or Christian. They should leave it alone,” concludes Agnihotri while the priest adds quietly: “He [the artist] should be more sensitive.”

AFTER CONVERSING WITH the artist over email, it is very clear to me that he did not intend any offence. He admires Hindu art and Hindu philosophy. Yet, a fundamental cultural misunderstanding remains. For McCourt the focus of the sculptures is primarily aesthetic. He refers to himself as a “devout atheist” with the spiritual aspects of the symbolism playing a relevant but secondary role. “ ... the symbolic meaning of the iconography does lend a secondary level of interest to the works, supplementing their primary effect as works of art,” he explains. But such secular interpretations of religious art are a major deviation from the original context and purpose intended by the cultures that developed spiritual art forms over thousands of years.

That is why appropriation of sacred imagery for secular purposes is inevitably hurtful and contentious. Particularly in Canada where we have a rich and harmonious multicultural society and where Native Americans have already clearly voiced opposition to the misappropriation of their sacred imagery into popular culture, artists and selections committees need to be sensitive to the concerns of minorities.

Does that mean that artists like McCourt can’t ever be inspired by the rich lore of world religions or use religious art as the starting point of their work? That question has kept me awake at night, with no concluding epiphany in sight. The final balance between freedom of expression and respect for the faith of others is like treading a razor’s edge with each side being irreconceivably [sic] in the right.