Human reason began with the advent of clothes. Adam and Eve, made naked, abandoned their nudity when they took the bearings of the forbidden tree of knowledge. Generations later, the birth of Jesus Christ to the Virgin Mary saved the sinful and corrupt lineage of Adam and Eve.Mary is extolled in history, religion and culture for her brave actions.She is the epitome of beauty, grace, peacefulness and altruism. Myriad paintings have been created or inspired by an interpretation of her image. Each painting is recognizable regardless of the identity of the artist. This antiquated model of Mary has followed us for too many years.Chilean fashion designer Ricardo Oyarzun fabricated a novel icon inspired by Mary.The Roman Catholic Church criticized the designer’s plans for a fashion show because his interpretation was too provocative and vulgar. The models were said to be dressed “in some cases — with ample, near-naked breasts,” according to a Jan. 15 article in Reuters.But Oyarzun told Reuters, “There is no pornography here, there’s no sex, there are no virgins menstruating or feeling each other up,” furthering his freedom of artistic expression.We still live in archaic times if and when we harass artists for their individual expressions. Each artist — regardless of the medium he chooses to work with — should be eulogized for novel creations, not persecuted.The Bible is not only a piece of religious literature but can also be viewed as fictional literature — fictional literature filled with moral philosophies that teach humans to live philanthropic lives. The character of Mary in the Bible can be viewed in any way the reader wishes.If the reader sees Mary dressed in all modesty, that is only one possible version of the numerous interpretations existing.Centuries ago, the modest representation of Mary may have been considered beautiful, but now, our meaning of the ambiguous term “beauty” has changed drastically. Most people will not object to the statement that a girl walking down the street in a conservative polo shirt and khaki pants will be overlooked — whereas a girl wearing a miniskirt and tank top will be ogled by the male population.Oyarzun illustrates Mary’s beauty through modern eyes. His innovative design amplifies the areas of a woman’s body modern people find attractive. Mary still represents beauty — just in a more relatable term.Further, beauty, which is thought to be correlated with confidence, is profoundly displayed in the models wearing these clothes. Although these designs may be mere inspirations of Mary, they commend her character more than literature from past centuries. The designs characterize poise and assurance because they are not made with conventional diffidence in mind.But accusations arise that compel us to redefine the age-old debate about how to classify pornography and art separately. Many will solely judge the art and exclude the artist’s intentions from the work. They are subjective and extract the meaning without any help from the architect.The frustration people experience when trying to comprehend the subtle implications is unnecessary when the artist himself is alive. We read late authors such as Goethe, Joyce, Dickens and many other mind-boggling literary masters in English classes, and we try to understand why they were writing that particular material. But we never acquire solid answers. We are left to debate.But the fashion designer’s intentions need not be misunderstood. His designs were merely “inspired by the Virgin Mary but not intended to represent her.”His intention and ideas should never be excluded from his work because then the work cannot be fairly judged.The individuals who engage in making pornographic entertainment have the unique intention to sexually arouse the audience. Pornography is a subset of art because it involves the liberal expressions of individuals similar to the expressions created by Michelangelo’s or Degas’ paintings. But art alone cannot be treated as pornography if it is not made with the intention to sexually arouse the onlooker.It is vitally important artists be protected from denigration by orthodox and antiquated beliefs of people who wish to oppress individual expression simply because it offends.We must remember Adam and Eve, the two people God intended to be naked. Clothes are manmade accouterments — therefore forms of art. God did not order people to dress as they do now, so Oyarzun’s fashion designs cannot be accused of Biblical blasphemy.—-Contact Dini Parayitam at [email protected]