Niki Johnson's portrait of Pope Emeritus Benedict

Take a look at Mary Louise-Schumacher's take on the now-viral condom-pope portrait from local artist Niki Johnson....a piece she says is anything but a simple attention grabber...
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/entertainment/202253481.html

Take a look at my reaction...and skip to the bold at the bottom if you want the main idea...

If I had to make one, I think the main critique that I'd have for the piece is that, no matter how legit the argument is, the simple fact that it is portrayed with the medium it has been will dissuade MANY from taking part in the conversation, especially those you should be hoping to convince otherwise.

Schumacher says she isn't a fan of "in-your-face stunts that shut down discussion" and she seems to say this piece doesn't do that...yet in the second paragraph you find this on the subject of reaction...

Much of it has been salacious churn, attention-grabbing, news-of-the-weird headlines and commenters sniping about how "disgusting" the work is.

If most christians simply find the image offensive, who is it opening a discussion with? People who already dislike the pope?

I'm not saying that this reaction is appropriate, that this reaction nullifies a piece or that people who react this way have a legitimate gripe, but I also think that if a large amount of people react to a piece as such, it's a bit misleading to say the piece doesn't "shut down discussion", as it obviously has, at least in regards to certain groups of people.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with the piece in question...I just feel that if you are really looking to open a serious discussion meant to change minds (rather than simply inject your own POV), I think it's best to include the people who most disagree with your opinion, not make a statement that leads them to dismiss you and your views outright.

But then again, maybe that's just how big political statement-making is done...and those who disagree are always left yelling and screaming as they run to catch up.

I guess my main point is this... how effective is a political/religious piece of art if the conversation it creates does not include those that disagree? If a piece only creates discussion among people who already agree, is that a discussion at all? And if that is all that results, is it effective and progressive or just likable for a certain group that agrees with the viewpoint?

Even more, are these questions unanswerable until history tells you that the artwork was effective?

And if that whole thing wasn't enough blog for you, take a look at my papal portrait with a different aim; taking on the unsure direction of the church, the election of a questionable pope, and wondering what the future holds for what once was the most powerful institution on the planet...
http://marionart23.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-throne.html