Jesus and Mata Hari

There is nothing in common between Jesus and Mata Hari, except that both were executed. One was a metaphysical rebel who went on to achieve divinity and the other was an exotic dancer who came to be accused of espionage.

Tom Vattakuzhy, an artist from Kerala, found certain similarity between the two and generated some controversy. His painting Supper at a Nunnery had to be removed twice from the public sphere. One was a few years ago when it was used as an illustration in a Malayalam periodical and the other was recently in the Kochi-Muziris Biennale art exhibition. [For my post on that exhibition, click here.] Both the times some Christian religious groups protested against the symbolism in the painting which allegedly offended their religious sentiments. Both the times the painting was removed from the place.

Religious sentiments have become very fragile all over the world. Even Donald Trump and Narendra Modi, who are otherwise unexceptionally insensitive, carry the burden of that fragility. Therefore we needn’t be surprised that the Christians in Kerala raised a stink when a nude dancer was placed in the centre of Leonardo da Vinci’s iconic Last Supper with some nuns taking the places of Jesus’ disciples.

Tom Vattakuzhy is an artist with considerable repute. His paintings must have deep meanings, as I have come to understand.

The present painting of a nude Mata Hari with nuns surrounding her on a long dining table certainly forges some metaphorical associations between Jesus and the dancer. Both were executed, though for completely different reasons. But are there some similarities between those executions? I guess that’s what the artist is trying to portray.

The French government accused Mata Hari of spying for Germany during the WWI and executed her. But there wasn’t any clear evidence for the charge. She was a scapegoat. Wasn’t Jesus one too – though at a very different level?

Jesus advocated freedom of the spirit. Mata Hari lived that freedom in her own way. No patriarchal system would be at ease with the sexuality and personal independence that a woman asserted and lived. Mata Hari was a tragic figure, I’m sure Tom Vattakuzhy would say. She was a woman punished for transgressing social and sexual norms rather than for proven treason.

It is easy to execute anyone who is seen by the social systems as a threat to their systems. Jesus was a threat to the Jewish religious system. Mata Hari was a threat to the European patriarchal system.

Her nudity in the painting shows her vulnerability. It is not a titillating nudity at all. On the contrary, it highlights the fact that this woman was continually reduced to her body – first consumed, then condemned. Vattakuzhy’s Mata Hari is a female Christ-figure. Jesus was executed by the state and turned into a moral warning for rebels. Mata Hari was executed by another state and turned into a moral lesson about “dangerous women.”

One of them was eventually deified while the other was branded as immoral.

The nuns in the painting symbolise moral discipline, religious authority, and regulated female bodies. Against this, Mata Hari represents erotic autonomy, transgression, and the woman who refuses enclosure. Chastity vs desire; institution vs outcast, order vs excess… Whatever. The painting needn’t be seen as an attack on nuns or Christianity, but on systems that define which kinds of womanhood are acceptable. [Of course, Christianity is not a particularly philogynous religion.]

The painting stages a trial without a courtroom. Mata Hari is surrounded but isolated. Seen ‘transparently’ but not understood.

The painting asks uncomfortable questions like: Why is female sexuality treated as guilt? Who decides what is sacred and what is obscene?

The Christians of Kerala could be more broadminded in understanding art and thus set an example for the bigots who run the country today.

Tom Vattakuzhy