Art: When Is Art Not Art?

Introduction

Art has long served as a mirror of human experience, reflecting cultural values, challenging societal

norms, and evoking emotional and intellectual responses. However, what constitutes "art" has sparked

debates throughout history, especially when works provoke outrage or defy traditional forms. One such

controversy erupted in the late 1990s when British-Nigerian artist Chris Ofili exhibited a painting of the

Virgin Mary that incorporated elephant dung and pornographic images. Critics condemned the piece as

blasphemous, while others defended it as a cultural and post-colonial critique. This incident

encapsulates a broader question: When is art not art? This essay examines the evolving definitions of

art, the influence of cultural context and intent, and the roles of institutions and public perception in

shaping what qualifies as art.

Defining Art: A Historical and Philosophical Perspective

The definition of art has never been static. In Ancient Greece, philosophers like Plato and Aristotle

viewed art as mimesis—imitation of reality. Art was defined by technical skill, perspective, and

alignment with religious or classical themes during the Renaissance. By the 20th century, however,

movements such as Dadaism and Abstract Expressionism defied aesthetic conventions and embraced

conceptualism.

Philosopher Arthur Danto argued that art is not merely defined by appearance or technique but by its

place within the "artworld"—a cultural and historical context that legitimizes its status. According to

Danto, a Brillo box in a supermarket is not art, but Andy Warhol’s Brillo Box is—because it occupies a

different conceptual space. Thus, what qualifies as art increasingly hinges on intention, context, and

critical discourse.
Chris Ofili and the Virgin Mary Controversy

1996 Chris Ofili’s painting “The Holy Virgin Mary” was exhibited at the Brooklyn Museum in New York.

The piece depicted a Black Madonna surrounded by cutouts of female genitalia from pornographic

magazines and clumps of elephant dung. Critics, including then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani, called it "sick" and

"disgusting," sparking a legal battle over public funding and freedom of expression.

Yet Ofili’s use of elephant dung was rooted in Nigerian traditions, where it symbolizes fertility and

reverence. The pornographic cutouts, too, were not gratuitous—they challenged colonial depictions of

African femininity and Western notions of purity. Defenders argued the piece was a cultural

commentary on race, religion, and identity. This highlights a crucial question: Is offense grounds for

disqualification as art?

Art or Provocation? The Role of Intention

Provocation is often intrinsic to contemporary art. Works by artists like Marcel Duchamp (e.g., Fountain,

1917) or Andres Serrano (Piss Christ, 1987) deliberately shock viewers to force reflection. According to

George Dickie’s Institutional Theory of Art, a work becomes art when the artworld accepts it as art—

not based on inherent qualities, but due to its role within a social institution.

Thus, Ofili’s work is art because it engages with established discourses, not because it adheres to

traditional norms. Without artistic intent or intellectual substance, provocation risks becoming a mere

spectacle. The key distinction is whether a piece challenges ideas or seeks attention.

The Role of Art Institutions

Museums, galleries, critics, and curators serve as gatekeepers of the art world. Their decisions often

validate what the public perceives as “real” art. When the Brooklyn Museum displayed Ofili’s work, it
conferred legitimacy. Yet these institutions are not neutral—they are shaped by politics, market

interests, and cultural biases.

For example, art by women, people of color, and non-Western artists has historically been marginalized.

Controversy or unconventional pieces may be viewed as either progress or provocation, depending on

one's cultural stance. Thus, institutional validation is robust, but also contested.

Cultural Relativism and Public Reception

The interpretation of art is subjective and culturally relative. Western societies steeped in Christian

traditions may view Ofili’s piece as blasphemous, while others may see it as a post-colonial critique.

Similarly, nudity in classical sculpture is revered, but in other contexts may be deemed obscene.

Reception also varies across time. Impressionist painters were once ridiculed; now they are celebrated.

What is rejected today may be canonized tomorrow. Therefore, public outrage does not negate artistic

value—it often signals a clash between evolving values and entrenched norms.

WhIn Art May Not Be Art

While inclusivity is vital, some boundaries still apply. Art may fail when it lacks intentionality, meaning,

or engagement with aesthetic or conceptual frameworks. For instance, a random paint spill may not be

art unless framed and interpreted within an artistic discourse.

Moreover, art that incites hatred, violence, or bigotry without critical reflection risks disqualification—

not because of offense alone, but because it fails to contribute meaningfully to dialogue or

understanding. Therefore, intent and context remain essential.

Conclusion
Determining when art is not art requires careful consideration of intention, context, cultural

frameworks, and institutional validation. Chris Ofili’s controversial depiction of the Virgin Mary

exemplifies how provocative art can engage deeply with themes of identity, race, and religion. Offense,

while powerful, is not a disqualifier—many masterpieces were once scandalous. Ultimately, art is not

merely about beauty or conformity but engagement, challenge, and interpretation. As society evolves,

so will the boundaries of art—what matters most is whether a work fosters dialogue, reflection, and

meaning.

References

 Danto, A. C. (1981). The Transfiguration of the Commonplace: A Philosophy of Art. Harvard

University Press.

 Dickie, G. (1974). Art and the Aesthetic: An Institutional Analysis. Cornell University Press.

 Gablik, S. (1984). Has Modernism Failed?. Thames and Hudson.

 Hughes, R. (1991). The Shock of the New: The Hundred-Year History of Modern Art. Alfred A.

Knopf.

 Stallabrass, J. (2004). Art Incorporated: The Story of Contemporary Art. Oxford University Press.

 Sontag, S. (1975). On Photography. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

 Young, J. O. (2001). Art and Knowledge. Routledge.