It's difficult to believe anyone attending a service at Cambridge University would be upset if novel opinions were expressed on this subject. More unusual though is the choice of artwork. One picture from 1400 must have been painted in the Roman Catholic tradition because there wasn't anything else, other than eastern orthodoxies which are the same thing. Essentially what was "Italian Orthodox" broke away from the rest but the others are all still there and all obsess over blasphemous art. In other words, none of them were Christian in the first place.
I John 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
The other artist is something else. By saying for example,
“I think a table is a frog,”
(and then producing a picture of a frog) has no bearing on whether tables are frogs. If it had, a counter argument would be,
“No they're not; tables are a shiny floor,”
and yes, produce a picture of a shiny floor. I'll go one better: a
moving picture of a shiny floor
and some tables.
Choosing Ann Miller is a cop out because wherever she is performing there's going to be a shiny floor and very probably tables. In the same way, choosing Henri Maccheroni to illustrate the claim in question here is even worse a cop out. He never seems to paint anything else!