He argued that “the fact that the artwork formed part of the student’s IEB final submission in no way removes the responsibility that Grantleigh bears for the final product”.
Former Grantleigh head boy slams controversial artwork for ‘belittling Jesus’
In an open letter, Sinjon Moffett holds the school responsible for the young artist's 'iniquity against all the people who follow Jesus, and against God himself'.
Screengrab from a video of artworks which were displayed at the Grantleigh Curro school in Richard’s Bay.
Following artwork by a matric pupil at Grantleigh School in the KwaZulu-Natal town of Richards Bay going viral and causing outrage, a former head boy from the school has written an open letter siding with those who were angered at the young artist’s depiction of Jesus.
“Why was it deemed appropriate to publicly deface, misrepresent and mock the figure who many within the Grantleigh family, as well as millions of people globally, worship as their God?” asked Sinjon Moffett, who was head boy of the school in 2011, in his letter.
The pupil’s art included an interpretation of Italian renaissance painter and inventor Leonard da Vinci’s Last Supper with Jesus depicted as a clown as he broke bread for the last time before his crucifixion, with dollar signs painted on the lintel behind him.
The disciples were depicted as people and animals, with hats, sunglasses and some with horns.
Torn strips of the Bible featured in another work.
“I believe it is my responsibility as a past pupil and a representative of the Christian faith to voice my deep disappointment over this matter,” Moffett wrote.
He said if the school wanted to claim the accolades it gets due to the work of its learners, it must also take “full responsibility” for artwork and the backlash it caused.
He further argued that “freedom of expression” cannot be used as a justification for the artwork, as the school doesn’t allow “racist and homophobic” viewpoints, “and rightly so”.
He said the artwork should similarly have been disallowed because it’s incompatible with the school’s aim of “moulding” its pupils to have “an open and compassionate world view”.
Moffett went on to acknowledge that the pupil who created the artwork exhibits “artistic technique” which is “clearly exceptional”, “besides the fact that a number of his pieces carry plagiaristic similarity to other international artists’ works”.
WATCH: Parent protests over Grantleigh school’s ‘satanic’ artwork
He said, however, that while the artist was clearly “an extremely talented individual”, “the first lesson of contemporary art is that it is the message, not the method, that carries importance”.
“Any art teacher or enthusiast will attest to this, as this has been the general understanding of art since around the time of Duchamp. This removes the prospect for any explanation that the learner’s art was skilfully executed and therefore respectable,” Moffett wrote.
He added that “children are impressionable” and that kids as young as five years old could have seen the artwork as they have free access to the school hall where it was displayed.
“Disregarding the religious controversy that the artworks present, they are objectively violent and graphic in nature.
“Surely the public display of these works within a sheltered school environment is deeply irresponsible and a complete oversight on behalf of the staff body.
“A school should be where dreams are inspired, not nightmares.”
Moffett said the artist was “perhaps revelling in the attention his work is currently receiving” and that staff of Grantleigh’s reaction could be “a statement on the school’s behalf to disassociate yourselves with the Christian ethos rooted in the school’s history”.
“The simple truth is that if this was attempted with any other religion, Grantleigh would (hopefully) never have permitted it. If the learner had made an artwork that encourages racism, Grantleigh would (hopefully) never have permitted it.
“If the learner had made an artwork containing bigoted slurs against the LGBTQ community, Grantleigh would (hopefully) never have permitted it.
“I say this with such confidence because I know that Grantleigh does not allow their learners to be hateful, disrespectful, or prejudiced towards any group of people, but to rather be respectful and loving of all races, cultures and religions.
“This is what Jesus himself preached, what Jesus himself displayed, and what Jesus himself still inspires within people today.
“I am deeply disappointed to see that it is Jesus who has been belittled under the flag of the school that claims to embody a Christ-inspired ethos.
“Grantleigh, you are responsible for this iniquity against all the people who follow Jesus, and against God himself.
“I hope that you are humble enough and wise enough to accept this responsibility, ask for forgiveness, and disassociate yourselves with the artworks and the artist,” Moffett wrote, before signing off: “With love, as a proud Grantleigh alumnus”.
The artist himself this week said that his art had been misunderstood.
In a rationale, he said: “Despite what the parent depicted in the recording purports my artwork to be, the rationales seen nearby each piece in the video quite clearly explain that they are the furthest thing from so-called ‘satanism’.”
He pointed out that the “artworks in this exhibition explore the commercialisation of contemporary organised religion as well as the monetary exploitation of the faithful by greedy individuals who hide behind the disguise of a church or similar pious institution. They discuss (through the appropriation of religious imagery) how contemporary religion has become superficial. Instead of connecting with one’s faith on a deep, seemingly meaningful level and actually having the guts to ask metaphysical questions, many simply consume their religion in the same fashion as they would any other product (hence the use of Ronald McDonald as a symbol for the infection of faith with consumer culture) and it is because of this that they become vulnerable to manipulation at the hands of those who use their office as a religious leader to further their own lives instead of bringing about positive change in the world. Ronald McDonald does not act as a defamation of anyone’s personal messiah, instead he acts as a symbol of the abuse and misuse thereof. I do not care what people believe, I simply want to highlight potential risks in how they believe it. For in a society dominated by an idea-driven culture, the contents of your mind are perhaps the most important and exploitable.”
(Compiled by Daniel Friedman.)
For more news your way, download The Citizen’s app for iOS and Android.
