I am going to hit someone over the head with a brick and film it. I shall name the piece "Brick." It will be a contemporary formulated institutional dilema.
Is it just me, or is it fun watching people contort themselves trying to defend these people's actions? Or to defend the picture? And it's falling along predictable partisan lines, too.
I don't like the picture. So who cares, f**k me. It's wrong to attack a piece of art because you find it offensive. I find Miranda Cosgrove's singing career offensive, but I don't attack TVs showing Nickelodeon. These people are no better than Islamic fundamentalists talking about a picture of Mohammed (except that no people got killed, yet).
Before you criticize someone you should walk a mile in their shoes, that way when you do criticize them you'll be a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
I already stated my position earlier in this thread, and in every thread regarding Piss Christ that has been posted on this board. If you study Serrano's career you would know that he is not interested in "shocking" people but getting down to the root of social conventions and taboos and basically causing you to analyze these issues and to ask why they're taboo.Originally Posted by GPS Flex
As for Piss Christ specifically, I think that Serrano puts it beautifully:
The imbecile is the one that stops simply at how art makes them feel. Art is supposed to make you think as well.Originally Posted by Serrano
I'm sure that you're one of the people that looks at Malevich's Black Square and says "I could have done that!"Funny, isn't it? Art once required skill to produce.
This is pretty funny. So bodily fluids have no place in art? Moreover, where has he used feces? Does it even matter? Why would feces be out of the question in the use of art? Who legislated this, the world foundation on art?Scatological impressionism is to art like men's room grafitti is to the Declaration of Independence.
This piece seems to be getting exactly out of you what Serrano had intended: for the ignorant, blind outrage.
"I do not claim that every incident in the history of empire can be explained in directly economic terms. Economic interests are filtered through a political process, policies are implemented by a complex state apparatus, and the whole system generates its own momentum."
Piss Christ is an example of the pointless noise the chattering classes tell themselves has meaning, though it has none.
Clearly the Mayor isn't outraged. If it's not representational, it's not art. Art reaches its height when it combines beauty and functionality. The Concorde comes to mind. Insults to people's religion is what is known as a cheap shot.
My only objection to PC is the taxpayer money wasted on it.
Anyone who depicts christ with feces and dips cross' into urine is a scumbag not an artist...theres an idiot that drinks colors then regurgitates them up on canvass and they call it ART....its not art its a grouping of sick dipchits that cant make a living