Andres Serrano's Piss Christ destroyed by Christian protesters

[meegbear]

Source: guardian.co.uk

The controversial work Piss Christ by the New York photographer Andres Serrano has been destroyed at a gallery in France after weeks of protests.

The photograph, which shows a small crucifix submerged in a glass of the artist's urine, outraged the US religious right in 1987, when it was first shown, with Serrano denounced in the Senate by the Republican Jesse Helms. It was later vandalised in Australia, and neo-Nazis ransacked a show by the artist in Sweden in 2007.

The work has previously been shown without incident in France, but for the past two weeks Catholic groups have campaigned against it, culminating in hundreds of people marching through Avignon on Saturday in protest.

Just after 11am on Sunday, four people in sunglasses entered the gallery where the exhibition was being held. One took a hammer from his sock and threatened security staff. A guard restrained one man but the remaining members of the group managed to smash an acrylic screen and slash the photograph with what police believe was a screwdriver or ice pick. They then destroyed another photograph, of nuns' hands in prayer.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/18/andres-serrano-piss-christ-destroyed-christian-protesters

---

Piss Christ is part of a series by Serrano showing religious objects submerged in fluid such as blood and milk. It was being shown in an exhibition to mark 10 years of the art dealer Yvon Lambert's personal collection in his 18th-century mansion.

Last week the gallery complained of "extremist harassment" by Christians who wanted the image banned. The archbishop of Vaucluse, Jean-Pierre Cattenoz, called the work "odious" and said he wanted "this trash" taken off the gallery walls. Saturday's street protest against the work gained the support of the far-right National Front, which has recently done well in local elections.

Lambert had complained he was being "persecuted" by religious extremists who had sent him tens of thousands of emails. He likened the atmosphere to a return to the middle ages. The gallery stepped up protection, putting Plexiglass in front of Piss Christ and assigning two gallery guards to stand in front of it.

[slackmaster]

1. Exercising the right to free expression sometimes has consequences

:kick:

[Occulus]

8. Your post has an odor of "the artist deserved it".

Would you like to apply some Lysol to that, or are you going to just let it sit there and stink up the place?

[slackmaster]

35. I think the work is in poor taste, but I support the artist's right to produce it

HTH

[No Elephants]

102. Yet, you seem to blame the artist because some folk commited a crime.

[Hissyspit]

162. Well, it's not in poor "taste."

[Maine-ah]

46. well...it's kind of like Westboro

if somebody hauls off and punched one of them....I'd say they had it coming...though I would fight to defend even their freedom of speech, there are sometime consequences to ones actions no matter how legal their actions are.



I don't condone what they did by any means, but if you piss off just the right person, it's quite possible something is going to happen.

[No Elephants]

103. God forbid we blame lawbreakers, and only lawbreakers, for the actions of lawbreakers.

[No Elephants]

111. Creating a photo in your studio is kind of like harassing mourners of fallen soldiers? Really?

Kind of fails the apples and oranges test.

Also, you are implying that anyone doing anything at all that angers a group of people is fair game for lawless activity?

Good luck living in that kind of society.

[crim son]

145. I don't think the artist is being blamed for the destruction

but I agree with the poster, that said destruction was almost inevitable. You disagree? Fine.

[Maine-ah]

152. you missed the whole point

when you create something that is extremely controversial, or you act in a way that offends many, there is always the possibility that somebody is going to act out.

No where in my post did I say that it was fair game. In fact, I said that I didn't condone the actions at all.

[sudopod]

10. You know, that's what they said in the Soviet Union too.

The Soviet constitution guaranteed the right to free speech. You could say whatever you liked as long as you could live with the consequences (living in Siberia, etc).

Funny how history recycles better than us, lol.

[exboyfil]

27. It should not have been destroyed

but lets not forget it won an award which was paid for, in part, by NEA (tax) dollars. When Christians became aroused, the scream was censorship.

Dealing with true censors in the Middle East has shown just how passive the actual reaction of Christians in the 1980s was.

Insulting folks with the checkbooks and the votes does have consequences.

I regret that it was destroyed - not because it was art, but because it was someone's personal property. It now can be held of as a symbol of the intolerance of Christians. Better to turn your back on it and go after the funding related to such art.

[RaleighNCDUer]

39. ...because promoting censorship is so much better than promoting vandalism. nt

[exboyfil]

58. Fine should the NEA

fund a display desecrating the Koran? Go for it. A real good case can be made, given how women are treated, that you could have a legitimate piece of art communicating an important message (already been done on someone else's dime - one guy got his head cut off over it).

What I am saying is that, if you fund art that is offensive to a significant portion of the voting and tax paying public, you can expect your dollars to dry up. You may say it is censorship, but the artist is still free to create and display the art - just not on the public's dime. Choices about what is art is made all the time, and those choices which irritate that group are going to have consequences. I think the high brows who make these decisions should exercise some common sense otherwise you aer going to be throwing the urine soaked crucifix out with the Symphony.

If art is funded that attacks what I believe in, then I, at a minimum, am going to do everything in my power to make sure my dollars are not going to it. That is democracy. Just like I will fight to stop interventionist wars or the teaching of creationism in the public school. How about "artwork" that glorifies Nazis or the KKK? I will fight for your right to participate in the marketplace of ideas, I just don't have to pay for you to do it.

[sudopod]

76. Oh god, he mentioned the war. nt

[No Elephants]

115. Destruction by French folk in France had something to do with U.S.ta xes?

[Codeine]

28. Ugh.

What a vile thing to say.

[slackmaster]

36. Context is everything

If I said it after a story about the Westboro Baptist Church getting fire-bombed, most DUers would be cheering me on.

[Maine-ah]

49. I used a similar comparison before I saw your post.

:hi:

[LanternWaste]

44. I imagine everything has consequences.

I imagine everything has consequences. :shrug:

(About as relevant...)

[No Elephants]

101. Destruction of valuable property may follow an exercise of free expression "timewise," but is not a

"consequence" of free expression.

[AngryAmish]

2. Destroyed?

First, that was stupid and ignorent.

Second, why does Mr. Serrano just open the file on his computer and hit print? New Piss Christ.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

18. 1987 -

This is an old school photograph from a negative, not a digital imitation of a photograph. As one who studied photographey back in the bronze age, I can attest that Mr. Serrano's image is the result of many hours of very, very hard work to create the paper image he was seeking.

[AngryAmish]

33. Do the negatives exist?

If so, put them in a scanner and poof, millions of copies.

There is an argument that it is not "The" Piss Christ. The argument assumes that there is something special or magical about this one particular print. I am also assuming that there are more negatives or prints - which may or may not be true given my limited knowledge of this subject matter.

ABout your points - very valid. Back in the day photographic prints - especially artistic ones - were handmade. But today there is no excuse not to make digital copies.

[TalkingDog]

50. The negative may have been destroyed. That's a common practice among artists

That way the image can't be mass produced; which is a major part of the idea. If these are meant to be, in some way, sacred then having billions of copies dilutes the uniqueness (aura,frission) of the work. It becomes mass media advertising at that point.

To suggest he "just make a copy" is to belittle him as an artist. He probably made dozens of artist proofs to get the effects he wanted. And those proofs are a record of his process. A digital copy no matter how "good" would never be able to reproduce the look (and feel) of that particular set of chemicals on that particular paper.

And artist can't even find materials that are perfectly consistent from one batch to the next (read: paper, paint, chemical mixture) Add to that the fact that environmental factors: heat, humidity and so on play into how a work turns out.

The reasons we are Masters of our (individual) crafts is that we spend years learning the intricacies of the chemistry, the process, the applications, the interactions. Let me know when you've spent 20 years learning the intricacies of a subject and I'll just suggest you go to Kinko's and get a clerk to reproduce it... because obviously the labor you've spent learning, acquiring knowledge, developing your unique process is easily handled by some minimum wage high school graduate who just got back from break where they smoked a wicked fattie.

You remind me of people who won't buy original paintings because they can go to Wal-Mart and get one made in China by sweatshop labor for hundreds of dollars less.

[Ian David]

74. Very good point. n/t

[Hell Hath No Fury]

53. Yes, there is something about that one print --

As you said, it was handcrafted in a darkroom and chosen from dozens of other prints to be THE print.

Sorry, but a digital print or copy of a print is no substitute for a hand-printed original.

[Ter]

61. He pissed in a cup and put a cross in it

Hours of hard work?

[Ian David]

75. He had to force-feed asparagus to himself to achieve just the right color of urine. n/t

[No Elephants]

104. Few people would reveal lack of knowledge so readily and casually.

[crim son]

146. !

Well, it took him ten minutes to come up with the concept!

[Hissyspit]

163. What the fuck does that have to do with it?

The confusion between intrinsic (time and labor) value and cultural (ideas and meaning) died in the 19th century.

[originalpckelly]

3. Sounds like someone was pissed off. NT

[slackmaster]

4. It's better to be pissed off than pissed on.

:hi:

[Ian David]

5. They do realize it's a photograph, and photographs can be re-printed, right?

In fact, if I were the artist, I would mass-produce this, place the copyright in the public domain, and put it everywhere.

For example...

[TalkingDog]

51. see my post upthread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4818194&mesg_id=4818319

[hlthe2b]

6. Well, if controversy sells art like it does many things...

I'm guessing the notoriety will increase his exposure. Art is in the eye of the beholder, after all. But, for all the Xians who have no problem burning a Koran, (and can not imagine why Muslims would be upset), why then do they have so much problem with this? Seems a bit inconsistent to me. :shrug:

The truth is I find both unnecessarily inflammatory actions. That said, both artist and koran-burning protester have the right. Both should expect negative consequences from a minority, however.

[Kurmudgeon]

9. Controversy attracts extremists of all stripes.

Extremists aren't exactly known for being either consistent or rational.

[xchrom]

13. +1

[No Elephants]

105. Or law abiding.

[Proletariatprincess]

34. Bravo!

Good post. Nice insight.

[No Elephants]

112. Neither murder nor vandalism (nor lawbreaking of any kind) is an

appropriate response to speech of the kind protected by the First Amendment.

IMO, Jones is a bigot. However, blaming a preacher in Florida who burns a Koran for murders in Afghanistan is as ludicrous as blaming a Danish cartoonist for murders committed in alleged reaction to his cartoon.

People are responsible for their own crimes, period.

And I hope to goodness no one remains silent simply because his or her expression might anger some group or another, especially an artist.

[Book Lover]

113. Except that this piece is not for sale (nm)

[Book Lover]

114. Except that this piece is not for sale (nm)

[CTyankee]

132. I can't imagine a famous work of art not being zealously guarded in a museum.

Esp. one that is so controversial.

In every museum I have been in, there have been strict rules limiting one's behavior, whether it's not touching the work of art, or not taking a flash photo or sitting where you shouldn't sit, bringing in/drinking water,or talking loudly (even observing complete silence in some places!). Guards can literally see that you are thrown out of the museum for a lot less than what these people did. And where was security? My handbags have been examined, backpacks kept in a bin, running your stuff under a screening device...of course, the bigger museums do this a lot more than the smaller ones. Still, if it is an important and a controversial piece of art, I can't for the life of me understand why there wasn't more security...

[Hissyspit]

170. No, the work is not an unnecessarily inflammatory action.

It is exactly what it's supposed to be.

And, no, you don't have to expect the worst from people.

[marions ghost]

175. right

:thumbsup:

I see things everyday that I don't want to see. But I don't go around destroying them literally--although I might destroy them by creating art critical of them.

Big Difference.

[Roy Rolling]

7. inflammatory and insensitive

sometimes art is inflammatory and insensitive, and this is the case. It is still art and there is the ideal of free expression, but exhibiting the art to "the masses" is likely to find a small percentage of those who appreciate it and a very large percentage who are outraged. It is dumb to expect a wide acceptance from this and he should not be surprised. Right or wrong is not the issue, knowing your audience is the issue and being ignorant of that is moronic for someone who creates "commmercial art."

[sudopod]

12. "acceptance" is a small subset of the behaviors and attitudes contained in the group of things

labled "not breaking other people's stuff like an loon"

To imply that "acceptance" and "not breaking other people's stuff like a loon" are equivalent is not very clever.

[Bluenorthwest]

14. The piece is 23 years old and world famous already

This blaming the artist trip is an odd take on this. Also, I do not agree with your take on the piece, and many others don't either. Also, it is not 'commercial art' at all.

[wtmusic]

20. The photograph was sold for $15,000. Sounds like commerce to me. nt

[No Elephants]

121. LOL, as if being in commerce equals "commecrial art."

Indeed, the more a work sells for, the less it is "commecrial art."

[wtmusic]

136. Why would I care what your arbitrary definition is?

I'm sure it's very clear in your own mind. :crazy:

[Hissyspit]

173. Piss Christ is not commercial art.

ANY art object can be bought and sold, even after the artist is dead. That doesn't make it commercial arr. The term commercial art is flexible but yet still fairly specific and it is not arbitrary. It involves the difference between applied (primary purpose above or shared with expression) and non-applied (primary purpose is expression).

[RaleighNCDUer]

43. Definitely not commercial.

If it was, there would be replications in black velvet hanging in double-wides all across the nation.

[No Elephants]

108. A few steps between "wide acceptance" and "illegal destruction of property" by a mob.

Your post explains why people may not want to line up around the block to pay a museum admission to view this, but the OP describes something quite different.

"Right or wrong is not the issue, knowing your audience is the issue and being ignorant of that is moronic for someone who creates "commmercial art."




An artist's audience is the world and, if Serrano had actually intended this as commercial art, the subject matter would have been very different.

[wtmusic]

11. I guess Terry Jones burning the Koran was performance art

A motive does not art make.

[groundloop]

17. My thoughts also. I don't see much difference between this work of "art" and Jones

Both are highly insulting to a large group of people. I find burning Koran's to be a slap in the face to millions of people, and I find this "art" to be a slap in the face to millions of people.

[wtmusic]

22. Had the artist not announced the fluid was urine

would it have any reknown or artistic value?

IMO it's a pretty cool photo, but just another pretty cool photo.

[jmowreader]

147. It would probably have the same value as "Praying Hands"

If the "Piss Christ" was actually the "Water Dyed Orange Christ" there'd be one in every True Christian's house due to the extreme beauty of the piece. It has a heavenly glow.

[Raine]

150. Yes, it's actually a beautiful photo with an etherial

look about it. All it would be is a pretty photo but for the gimmack of urine.

[glinda]

32. It amazes me that so many people here do not even understand the piece. It is actually

very reverent.
Too bad people are so ignorant culturally.

[wtmusic]

38. I understand it - it's a masterful publicity coup.

Andres Serrano was another struggling artist until he managed to offend a lot of people.

Too bad people are so naive.

[glinda]

81. Sounds like you resent artists that work hard.

[wtmusic]

92. On the contrary

I resent artists who resort to cheap publicity stunts to attract attention, while thousands of artists with more talent and subtlety struggle in oblivion.

[glinda]

98. That has always been the case throat History. Never makes it right but it is

for lack of a better word, in the DNA ofd the artist.
Artists need to realize that they may work forever and sometimes with little rewards, sometimes being ripped off, sometimes not smoozing enough to get Grants.
I know this. I painted, sold and exhibited for 30 years.

[wtmusic]

100. I would venture a guess that any one of your pieces has more artistry

than "Piss Christ", and that even in your darkest moments you would never have considered defiling something a great portion of the world has reverence for - just for the sake of elevating your exposure.

[glinda]

126. Compliments from the viewing public have been welcome by me. Compliments

from Museum Directors, Nationally known artists have also been welcome by me. I found though that both equally valid although for myself, ones from people whose background was in the Arts, psychology, philosophy, etc.... were very valued and validated my hard work and own knowledge. Both valuable.
I realize Art functions on many levels to many people. I find no offense to his work. I understand from my own Roman Catholic background how this piece spoke to me.
Included a little article that I found. There are many out there that explain his work but this summed up a few points.

http://www.minnpost.com/maxsparber/2011/04/19/27601/men_with_hammers_and_screwdrivers_on_the_destruction_of_serranos_notorious_photograph

[Forkboy]

153. Ok, we'll chalk it up to bitterness then.

You've argued in the past here on DU that artists should be compensated for their work, but it's clear that it bothers you when artist you feel superior to does just that.

[RZM]

45. Nothing says 'reverent' like urine . . .

Are you implying that anybody who disagrees with you is 'ignorant culturally?'

I don't think Serrano's work is the least bit interesting. To me he seems like a very competent photographer, but his work is as much about lame shtick as anything else. But that's just my two cents. I'm sure many others would disagree with me and many more wouldn't care either way.

That being said, the work of any artist deserves basic respect. It's fine to publicly oppose what an artist does, but it's definitely not ok to destroy what they have created.

[wtmusic]

48. LOL has anyone done "Shit Jesus" yet?

I hope that's not offensively derivative.

[RZM]

55. In the 90s an artist produced something similar

An interpretation of the Virgin Mary that incorporated elephant dung:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Ofili#The_Holy_Virgin_Mary_and_Mayor_Giuliani


Serrano himself has since produced art involving shit as well:

http://www.villagevoice.com/2008-08-27/columns/serrano-s-shit-show/


Apparently Serrano finds feces and bodily fluids quite inspiring.

[WatsonT]

88. Yeah he seems to have the artistic breadth

of a toddler.

[Hissyspit]

171. And what's wrong with that? And, no,

urine does NOT automatically mean irreverent.

[glinda]

82. I am saying that not everyone understands Art History, art, etc... on the same levels. Some are much

more knowledgeable about it. Same as some people know more about Science or cooking than others.
Art is about having discussion and interaction. Good Art isn't static.

[WatsonT]

71. Sure it is, pissing on religious imagery is usually well recieved

And when some conservative religious type here pisses on a koran you'll be the first in line to defend him from "ignorant" detractors.

Right?

[glinda]

84. Actually, he didn't piss on it. He used his urine as a metaphor.

[WatsonT]

87. Does it matter? Would actual piss not be art

but metaphorical piss is?

And he is actually soaking it in his urine.

Consider this: I get federal funds to put together a show that consists of me soaking a Bible, a Torah, and a Koran in my own urine.

How do you suppose that would go over? Who would be most likely to kill me?

[glinda]

97. Firstly you would not get Federal Funds to do much of anything anymore in the Arts let alone

anything that would cause discussion. Secondly, it has been done already so unless you think of something more creative or unique, that can be validated with a proven arts track record, qualified by people who have extensive backgrounds in Art History, Arts, etc.... then this discussion is just one of anger, which I do not participate in.

[WatsonT]

99. Qualified art?

Really. What is the objective standard for art?

[glinda]

128. The answer to that one is far too long and complicated but certainly Art judged by

just and only the general random pick of the population would be a huge insult to me at least.
Art is not simple. It is complex even though it might appear simple. Or appear to be just a crucifix floating in urine for that matter.

[WatsonT]

134. Art is whatever the artist says it is

and an artist is someone who calls himself an artist.

There is no objective standard.

To say "this is real art, this is fake art" is simply saying "I like this, I don't like that".

[wtmusic]

137. Calling something art, does not make it so.

If you want to define "art" as something which has a basis in historical traditions of composition and technique, fine. I haven't seen any evidence that "Piss Christ" shows any compositional or technical ability beyond that of an average fourth grader.

To read complexity into where there is none, is to get caught up with the media circus surrounding its capacity to offend.

[RaleighNCDUer]

52. Why? If it was a cross without the image of Jesus

(remember something about making no 'graven image'?) would that be OK? If it was submerged in apple juice, would that be OK? How about beer? How do you know it was not apple juice or beer - just because the artist said so? Of course, it might have been apple juice or beer, just an hour after being consumed.

There is nothing 'holy' about a crucifix. It does not compare to a holy book - it is a magic amulet, which is - I think - expressly forbidden by that holy book. There is no mention of people wearing a crucifix in the bible - but there are warnings against graven images, the magic amulets of pagans, etc.

One of the prime purposes of art is to challenge one's assumptions. This certainly does that. It is art.

[No Elephants]

110. Who said art is never insulting to large groups of people? And, you and wtmusic

notwithstanding, a prize winning photo and Jones burning a Koran are not both art. Everything that happens to rile members of one religion or another is not in the same category.

[Hissyspit]

165. Why is it insulting? Did you take any time at all to understand the work? Did this large group of pe

No, it's NOT the same thing as Terry Jones.

[yellowcanine]

15. Hmm. Apparently the archbishop is not aware that some Christians would find the graven images in

Catholic churches to be offensive as well. If we start eliminating all "offensive" art, there will be no end to it. I would say to the archbishop and anyone else, if it offends you, don't go and view the exhibit.

[Freddie Stubbs]

16. Why didn't they overrun a United Nations compound and kill 12 people instead?

[HankyDubs]

26. I see what you did there

you should be ashamed of yourself.

[Freddie Stubbs]

42. What is shameful about comparing how two different groups react to what they perceive as sacrilege?

[The Stranger]

95. It is a poorly-disguised effort to demonize billions based on the actions of a few.

Next question.

[Freddie Stubbs]

96. Any inference to 'billions' is yours alone

[No Elephants]

118. And by "two different groups," you of course mean the four perps in Avignon and however

many perps were involved in Afghanistan?

[Freddie Stubbs]

129. Correct

[Arugula Latte]

59. It's not like Christians haven't had their fair share of murderous thugs over the centuries

and into our own ... Abortion clinic bombers, people who kill gay people for being gay, and so on, all done in the name of Christianity. There are plenty of religious nuts of all stripes.

[Kurmudgeon]

93. Bit of a stretch there, don't you think?

Anyone who commits murder or violence is NOT following Christ's teachings.
It's a real shame no one takes the time to mention that when one of these nut jobs does these things.
Do you really think that Russell Arthur Henderson and Aaron James McKinney and anyone like them were Christian?
Only if you're so biased that you've turned yourself blind, Argula Latte.

[Arugula Latte]

109. Are you kidding? Have you not heard of the Inquisition, for starters?

I said "over the centuries" ... Are you going to deny that thousands and thousands haven't been slaughtered in the name of Xtianity? Not to mention all the missionaries wreaking havoc on native cultures by spreading nonsense, disease, and clothing unsuitable for tropical climates.

[Kurmudgeon]

144. Are you willing to admit doing something expressly against Christ's teachings isn't His fault?

It doesn't matter if it's long ago or just done 10 seconds ago, if it goes against Christ's teachings, it isn't Christian, no matter how badly purported believers or disbelievers may want it otherwise or what labels people hang on it.
I believe those who misused Christ's name and faith will get their comeuppance on Judgement Day. And even if you don't, which is your right, it's inherently dishonest to blame Christ or his true followers for the crimes and sins committed by those who broke His teachings and the 10 Commandments. I deny nothing, I just don't agree those actions would have been forgiven or wanted by Jesus.
Compare His Testimony to the actions of some purported Christians, from The Inquistion to the Salem Witch Trials to the Iraq War.
They'll all reap what they've sown.

[Arugula Latte]

160. I stand by my point. All religions have had plenty of murderous thugs.

Are you also saying that Muslims that are murderous thugs aren't really Muslim, and Jews that are murderous thugs aren't really Jewis? Because if you say that about Christians you'd have to hold it for all other religions. Well, I say of course they are. They spout the beliefs of that religion, and they commit crimes and murders in that religion's name. You can't excuse them all just because they have "faith" in an invisible ghost. In fact, the belief in this nonsense makes them more bloodthirsty, according to history.

[Freddie Stubbs]

130. Yes, but some religious nuts seem to be more excitable than others

But I do not think it has to do with the culture in which these people were raised. Which is why the religious nuts in Pakistan killed people and the religious nuts in France only committed vandalism.

[No Elephants]

116. Is there a United Nations compound in Avignon, France? Or any occupiers?

[Freddie Stubbs]

131. What does the UN have to do with a crazy redneck preacher in Florida?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

124. Maybe they should bomb a gay bar or an abortion clinic or shoot a doctor in the head.

[AtheistCrusader]

19. If I were the artist, I'd leave the damage there for all to see.

Forever.

Damn zealots.

[wtmusic]

25. Damage? The so-called "vandalism" was an inspired work of performance art

and this is all Andy Warhol's fault. :D

[Hell Hath No Fury]

54. Likewise -

Leave it as a testiment to religious zealotry.

[meegbear]

57. The gallery is doing that (but not forever) ...

The gallery's director, Eric Mézil, says he will keep the exhibition open to the public with the destroyed work on show "so people can see what barbarians can do".

[Nihil]

21. No loss to the world of art but it sets a sad example all the same.

No doubt other extremists will find suitable "reasons"
to imitate this particular act of mindless vandalism on
a whole slew of works of art in the future ...

:thumbsdown:

[Hissyspit]

166. "No loss to the world of art." do you have ANY justification for that statement?

Of course it is.

[Nihil]

184. Loads.

Most of it has been said already but how about this:

Now that it has been damaged by a mindless fanatic, it has
actually *gained* a value that it didn't have before - it is
now a silent witness of the stupidity of allowing religious
brainwashing to over-ride the sensible & rational reaction
that non-zealots have to the work.

Surely that is now a *gain* to the world of art rather than a loss?

It might be my opinion that its previous "value" was largely
an indictment of the gullibility of certain "art lovers" but I felt
no need to damage it - the worst that it got from me was being ignored.

Now it demonstrates daily some of the problems that the lack of such
tolerance can create:
- it was physically attacked for the apparent "crime" of simply existing;
- it requires additional security to be protected from other bigots;
- it hasn't been destroyed and so remains a mute reminder of the event;
- it highlights the fact that mindless vandalism isn't the preserve of
one religion but is a cancer that can pervert any arbitrary divisions.

Bringing such poisonous hatred into the light means that this piece
has achieved something by being damaged that it had never been able
to whilst intact.

[totodeinhere]

23. If it portrayed Muhammad rather than Jesus there would be a death contract out on Serrano by now.

I don't condone the destruction of his work by Christian extremists but it is probably a pretty mild reaction compared to what some Muslim extremists would do in a similar situation.

[patrice]

24. Meanwhile, Christ Jesus dies in wars, in "health" "care" warehouses, is

killed by poor education and ignorance, tortured, degraded and mocked by commercialism and social conformity . . .

Jesus IS still with us and we ARE still hurting and killing him. Though some religious types may be working away in the trenches of Social/Economic Justice, their leaders keep their voices on these issues low and private. If they speak out at all, it isn't enough.

[No Elephants]

117. Thank you. Thread winner.

[HankyDubs]

29. seeing so many responses here

that are basically cheering this act of stupidity. So disappointing. Jesus was just a dude, his name wasn't jesus, and he has been dead for a very long time. Get over it.

[frebrd]

77. Thank you!

:banghead:

[Codeine]

30. Can you imagine the reaction to "Piss Mohammed"?

Nobody's got the guts to do that one, however.

[slackmaster]

37. I would like to see that, just for the entertainment value of the outrage

As I was entertained by the outrage over Piss Christ.

[Igel]

56. No.

You see, there'd be outrage. Violence and destruction. Possibly death.

But in that case the truly guilty person would be the one who created the "art." He (let it be epicene) would be the one responsible for the damage and violence. Any death threats would be expected, if not deserved, for having given offense.

Hence the asymmetry.

In one case, to give offense is to be responsible for anything done by those offended, and any death threat is deserved.

In another case, to give offense is a morally pure act and the offender is utterly blameless (if not deserving of praise). Those offended are entirely responsible for anything they do.

It shows underlying attitudes and opinions. Some firmly believe in showing respect, but only to certain privileged groups. Some believe that no respect should ever be shown. Others believe that respect is always in good taste, and yet others believe that it's always in good taste but there can be reasons to violate good taste.

[totodeinhere]

66. You could not be more wrong.

But in that case the truly guilty person would be the one who created the "art." He (let it be epicene) would be the one responsible for the damage and violence. Any death threats would be expected, if not deserved, for having given offense.

So you really believe that if an artist gives offense to a particular group he would really "deserve" death threats? Come on now. Death threats are never justified. And the only ones responsible for damage and violence would be the ones committing that violence, not the artist.

I am not implying that creating "art work" that might be highly offense to any religious group be it Christian or Muslim or any other is an appropriate thing to do. And I wouldn't do it. But violence and death threats are never the answer among civilized people. And I would always defend the artist's free speech rights whether it's offensive to some groups or not.

[WatsonT]

89. He only deserves death if the offended fall in to a certain category

Christians are fine.

There is another monothestic faith from that region that is not acceptable to offend however.

Offend christians and their response is their fault.

Offend muslims and their response is your fault.

[No Elephants]

119. See Reply 112.

[WatsonT]

72. The key to controversy

is to piss off people who take something very seriously, but not so serious that they will kill you for it.

Christians make an ideal target for this kind of work.

Muslims are too likely to take it personal and start killing.

Buddhists seem to mellow.

[Violet_Crumble]

142. My bet would be there'd be a race to start a new thread in LBN about it...

And if anyone came along and posted 'can you imagine the reaction to "Piss Christ" or "Piss G-d" they'd be roundly told off for trying to change the subject away from Muslim extremism.....

[Hissyspit]

167. Actually many artists have done works that question Christian and Muslim doctrine alike.

And have their lives affected, even threatened. Serrano was dealing with his personal religious concerns and cultural upbringing. He would have had a hard time finding a plastic Muhammed, anyway.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Keith Bee]

40. Meh

No great loss.

[Hissyspit]

168. Bullcrap.

Justify your ignorant statement.

[krabigirl]

41. A bit of piss pales in comparison to what some Christians have done to "heretics" in the past.

[No Elephants]

122. A bit of piss pales in comparison to what some Christians have done to Christ and Christianity.

[WatsonT]

123. Singeing a Koran pales in comparison to what some Muslims have done in the past

and currently.

And yet no one made that argument following the Koran burning.

[Prof Lester]

47. Well, it's idolatry, isn't it?

I mean, respectfully, that God isn't to be found in material objects. Protestants are supposed to believe that "holy" images are inherently bogus and unworthy of our concern. Isn't it? After looking at the idea of art since childhood, personally I have given up trying to define it. Consider this: radiation is coming from the west. 22 of your neighbors were just killed in storms. The Gulf is a stinking, poisoned, poisonous cesspool lapping the eastern shores. I've just read that only 45% of the American people have jobs! Now, under those circumstances (and those are just a tiny few) who giveth a fat rat's ass about some joker in France hanging a silly picture on the wall of his villa? Not me.

[patrice]

70. 1++++++++++++++++++++

:hi: Welcome, Prof Lester! :hi:

[bengalherder]

60. Over last weekend I read Patti Smith's 'Just Kids'

a chronicle of her relationship with Robert Mapplethorpe, who, if y'all remember was, with Serrano, the second target of the NEA bashers in the 80's. She makes an important point in that book about his (and Serrano's) catholocism, how they were raised devoutly in it and their art reflected their struggle with it and the message they recieved from it, which was ultimately (for them at least) positive.

The damn Catholics and religious christians only have themselves to blame ultimately. If these artists weren't raised by cheerless religious nuts bent on their own salvation, these works of art, however offensive, would never have been created.


Suck on that.

[Tansy_Gold]

67. I've not read that, but. . . .

wouldn't it make sense, given the level of violence in the reaction to these various works of art AND the religious upbringing of the artists AND the general violence that seems to be a part of the religious extremists' reaction -- doesn't it seem that the discussion ought to be about "how do we counter the extremism? how do we reach people before they become extremists? how do we establish a dialogue between the sides that respects the underlying beliefs but protects the rights of the individuals?"

I don't think the "blame" lies with the offending art. I think it lies in the institutionalized intolerance that seems to be part and parcel of dogmatic religion on all sides. And that's what I find most offensive.

But I'm just


Tansy Gold

[Travelman]

62. Everyone's a critic, I guess.

[closeupready]

63. You couldn't just get an Ansel Adams negative and, presto, print another copy, because

duh, part of his genius was in DEVELOPING and PRINTING his photographs, in which some parts of the photos were overexposed and others underexposed. And I am talking about his B/W photos - color is another ball of wax. Same thing would apply to Piss Christ.

[truthisfreedom]

64. If any of you had been trapped in a violent religous cult for two decades,

you certainly wouldn't have anything negative to say about this work of art.

[lilbethm]

65. Every Artist has a right To free expression

If you don't like it don't look, don't pay to see it what is so hard? No one should have the right to destroy anyone else's property period!
Shouldn't that be the issue?
They have taught an entire new generation how to show people their displeasure with violence and non sense when simply ignoring something you find tasteless does the job better. I know I wouldn't want anyone telling me I cant watch the scary movies I love so much because they feel its in poor taste.

My Son has a Tattoo shop, his GF mother was afraid for her to date him because "he enjoys inflicting pain"lol My son wouldn't even pick up a gun to target shoot, or eat meat or wear leather..people are walking canvasses to him.

Freedom of expression has to be preserved.

[Taverner]

68. Who knows how many souls they have saved by destroying this!!!

:sarcasm:

[eridani]

69. Serrrano is actually serious about the Incarnation. It is Christians who aren't

Ken Kesey once told a story about falling asleep in front of the TV and having a vision of Christ surrounded by an intense golden glow. He woke up to a story on the news about the Piss Christ. What if people didn't know it was urine? How would they react to the aesthetics then?

The first thing I thought of when I heard about Piss Christ I thought about the Taoist saying "Where is the Tao? In urine and excrement. Cleave the rock; there am I." Serrano actually is a Christian, and he is asking people if they really, truly believe that God is everywhere and that Christ truly became flesh.

[daleo]

79. I agree with you

That's pretty much what my take on the work was all along. If there was a perfect God who created the physical universe, why would any aspect of that universe be impure?

It's an oddly beautiful picture. Maybe that's hinting at some deeper truth.

[eridani]

85. I saw the Milk Christ at a local arts festival. No protests there

Haven'e seen the one with blood. The Milk Christ was far more subtle.

[Duer 157099]

83. God made pee, too

I doubt God is ashamed of any of his creations.

[bloom]

107. +1 /nt

[Hissyspit]

169. Oh my god!

Someone without an ignorant knee-jerk reaction. IMAGINE that. What's wrong with you?

[WatsonT]

73. Interesting

for all the talk about how crazy religious we are here, this didn't happen in the US, it happened in the more enlightened and tolerant (supposedly) France.


Also despite all the outrage (and the fact that it was federally funded) all people did was eventually vandalize a picture. No one died, despite this being very obviously intended to cause offense.

And no one is blaming the artist for intentionally inflaming passions and bringing this on himself.

[No Elephants]

125. Obviously, you did not read this thread.

"And no one is blaming the artist for intentionally inflaming passions and bringing this on himself."


Several on this thread alone did that--and this is {supposedly} a Dem board, though it is always infested by some non-Dem trolls.

But what are you implying? That U.S. religious crazies are less so than the French? If so, I disagree.

"Also despite all the outrage (and the fact that it was federally funded) all people did was eventually vandalize a picture."

What on earth did U.S. tax money have to do with vandalism by 4 French people in a gallery in Avignon, France?

"No one died, despite this being very obviously intended to cause offense."

Disagree about serrano's intent. Again, read the thread. And no one died this time. So?

[Bucky]

78. Upon being arrested by the police, the culprits were told "urine trouble"

[Telly Savalas]

148. +1

[PurityOfEssence]

80. So now it's an art installation

If there's surveillance footage of it, it can be used as performance art.

The guy made this to get a reaction; he got a reaction. Personally, I find it a good example of the selfishness that organized religion engenders, and even though a work of art (or any piece of craft) should be respected, when playing with religion, one is playing with fire.

This certainly should throw some gas on the "gosh, Muslims are worse" argument, too: obviously, at least some Christians refuse to tolerate their symbols being insulted as well.

Hey, religion doesn't play fair. That's the point of religion: it's better than other viewpoints, to the degree that others shouldn't really exist at all.

[yurbud]

86. I thought this was going to be an Onion piece, and the protesters pissed on it.

[Javaman]

90. Clean up in isle 5...bring a mop.

morons.

[johnroshan]

91. Ironical isn't it?

When Jesus was spat on and crowned with thorns and dragged through the mud and crucified on the cross, I really don't recall Jesus resorting to petty violence to safeguard his message. His silence was the message. Its sad when Christians miss the whole message of Christ claiming to save it.


If Jesus wanted to destroy the art, He's fully well capable of doing so without dumbass sidekicks with hammers.

[Arugula Latte]

139. Wait, I thought Xtians were waiting for JC to make his big entrance on earth

You're telling me he's capable of slipping back in to commit art vandalism?

:crazy:

[The Stranger]

94. Damn crazy Muslims, don't understand free expression . . .

Wait . . . what?

[bloom]

106. If this is OK then vandalizing churches should be OK

Good grief. There are a lot of dense posters here today.


The Catholic Church in particular has been pissing on women for nearly 2000 years - shall we burn down all of the churches?

Stupid church authorities argue that women are "responsible" for "Sin" - that sex is bad - that life (because it includes mortality) is bad. Women are demonized far worse that anything Serrano has done.

Anyone who thinks that it's OK to vandalize a "Piss Christ" because it is offensive ought to think it is reasonable to vandalize all church related material. All Bibles. All of it. I find it all offensive and obnoxious. Same goes for Muslim stuff what with all of their virgins in heaven nonsense for men who kill.

[Book Lover]

120. First of all, this print was NOT destroyed...

http://www.artinfo.com/news/story/37484/youll-never-guess-what-hammer-wielding-zealots-did-when-piss-christ-was-shown-in-france/

" The museum will reopen tomorrow as usual, keeping the damaged works on view as is "so that the public can appreciate on its own the violence of the barbarous acts that were committed," it said in a statement. "

Sloppy headline writing, Guardian...

[No Elephants]

127. Way to make Jesus proud, French folks! And way to make DU proud, posters on this thread!

[and-justice-for-all]

133. Religious people are funny...

it just goes to show how insecure some religious people are with their professed 'faith'. It is just an object, so fucking what, how delusional are they that they need to destroy property and be vandals, just because of a damn picture of an inanimate object.

[tomg]

135. If anyone is interested, there is a

wonderful discussion on Piss Christ between Sister Wendy and Bill Moyers that is on YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9pAKdkJh-Y&feature=player_embedded#at=187

I have used the work in my college writing class a number of times, specifically to teach context and interpretation. Clearly, it can be construed as offensive. Having seen it, I find it beautifully luminous (IMHO). When one plays the material used against the visual image created, it does, at least for me, what I think good art does: it provokes me to reflect and to respond. I don't think it is great, but that is a completely subjective response. The real issue is, for me, not whether it is obscene/ blasphemous. offensive or not. Those are moral categories. It is how and in what way the artifact elicits the response.

That is what the censors ( be they right-wing or left wing - and I am a far leftist and there are censors on our side, too) really are opposed to when they censor art. If the art provokes us, we are thinking more deeply and can't subsist on platitudes and bromides and moral cliche through which most political discourse function. In fact, for me, it is the challenging of the cliched and the simplistic that the ideologues fear. They specifically don't want us to consider these things. Art prompts us to consider these things. Well, at least that is what I think after a long, depressing day teaching students.

I abhor these extremists, but each time they lash out, it does cheer me in a strange way. It tells me that a work of art - be it a book, a painting, a piece of music - still matters enough to move someone.

typo

[Telly Savalas]

149. On a visual level, I'm totally with you on the "beautifully luminous"

but conceptually, it's pretentious bullshit.

[tomg]

158. I honestly don't know. Serrano

is fairly provocative ( to put it mildly), but this wasn't a one-off piece. Religious themes have played a very strong role in much of his art, as has his concern with the relationship between visual and sacral beauty and profane materials. Again, he is not one of my favorites by a long shot (I work on the poet/painter David Jones.) It has gotten me to think about the relationship, though.

[freshwest]

138. Looks like they found his target audience.

[uncle ray]

140. they should have used Lexan, not Acrylic.n/t

[GReedDiamond]

143. I was planning on the use of lexan...

...for a multi-media sculptural-art-floor lamp project I'm working on right now (it's almost done in a week or two).

It has a 3/4" thick oval glass base, which originally, was to be lexan, until I found out that the lexan yellows with age.

Not good for the "Piss Christ" gallery presentation application, on a long-term basis.

Although, on the other hand, if lexan was used, "Piss Christ" would likely still be intact.

[Name removed]

141. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sofa king]

151. Perhaps this will bring back the million Iraqis we killed.

[ProudDad]

154. I'd call the vandals "typical christianist bigots"

Not "Christians"...

[tabasco]

155. What a vile picture to display in an art gallery.

What kind of stupid ass calls that art?

[Book Lover]

161. Oh please

If no one told you there was urine in that shot, you'd be impressed with the way the rich gold tones mimic a Sunday afternoon in a wood-paneled church. Instead of being angry that you were robbed of an education in the arts, you're angry at what someone did to a mere object.

[tabasco]

164. Yes, we must all bow down and praise it because you say so!

I'm so impressed with your education! When I earned my college degrees, I learned that people can have different opinions.

My opinion is that a jar of piss is pretty fucking ugly to be hanging in an art gallery.

Don't like my opinion? Shove it!

[Hissyspit]

172. Calling something vile when you clearly are jumping

to conclusions based on knee-jerk prejudices and ignorance is not justified in the name of "well, it's my opinion.." I teach THAT in college all the time. Opinions can be wrong. Have you even seen the photograph?? I have to argue with people all the time who communicate your opinion about Serrano's work, and half the time, they've never even seen it! In fact that happened today with someone and it was before I'd seen this thread.

In fact, one of her arguments was "I don't need to know any more about this, to know what I think!" Yay, ignorance!

[tabasco]

182. Oh puleeeze.

Your babble is ridiculous.

Please tell me how an opinion about a photograph, proffered as a work of art, can be wrong.

Are you saying that we must LIKE EVERYTHING?

Again, your pretentious babble is ridiculous.

[Book Lover]

176. I learned people can have different opinions in the cradle

In college, I learned to back up my opinions with data. Sadly, you seem to have been denied that lesson also.

[joeglow3]

177. Really?

I have not seen any data in your conclusion. Rather, you merely posted an opinion and your thoughts on how you THINK people would react given certain pieces of information. If that is what you think "data" is, you may want to request a refund from whatever college you attended.

[Book Lover]

178. If you read carefully, you will note that I have not, actually, offered up anything

identified as my own personal opinion regarding the photo in question.

[joeglow3]

179. So, what was this:

"If no one told you there was urine in that shot, you'd be impressed with the way the rich gold tones mimic a Sunday afternoon in a wood-paneled church."

[WatsonT]

180. Data?

On why something is disrespectful or what constitutes good art?

Both are entirely subjective.

The only data you can offer for either is "I feel this way".

[tabasco]

181. I need DATA to decide if I like a picture or not?

You're kidding, right?

[Book Lover]

186. How about a simple informed opinion

Instead of your puerile reaction ("Eew! Pee! Gross."), how about you offer up an objection with some substance behind it?

[tabasco]

187. OK. Only if ...

I take a big diarrhea shit in a bowl and stick a picture of your mother in it and you give me your substantive analysis.

Let me give you a clue.... if you call others who do not appreciate the same things you like "uninformed," it only makes you look stupid.

[tabasco]

183. Gee, you were one smart baby!

LOL.

[w4rma]

156. They should keep showing the destroyed version. Now it has even more meaning. (nt)

[coalition_unwilling]

157. I hope the French Government identifies and prosecutes those

directly responsible, along with the archbishop for incitement.

Shades of Victor Hugo's 1830 premier of Hernani in Paris and the riots it occasioned. IIRC, Hugo had to hire guards to protect against death threats from outraged Parisians.

[rocktivity]

159. It's a heavy metal song, too

by Fear Factory

:headbang:
rocktivity

[The Nexus]

174. No biggie. He can make another one.

Now justify why it is a biggie!

[slackmaster]

185. I'd even buy him the beer he needs to get prepped

;-)