• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Attack on 'blasphemous' art work fires debate on role of religion in France

ric27 said:
Whenever you pull up an instance of a "Christian" committing a violent act allegedly in the name of religion, please make 2 comparisons

Compare the individual and/or group population to the total number of Christians in the area and compare the amount of public support v. public condemnation.
Click to expand...

Make an essential third comparison. Count the bodies, count the heads, count how many are still attached to bodies still walking around, and then discuss extremism with people who object to burning a koran.
 
GPS_Flex said:
They didn't cut of any non-believers' heads? They aren't very good at this religious zealotry are they?
Click to expand...

Where are Christian protesters yelling, "Death to France"? The sole purpose of this thread is to make christians seems as bad as muslims.
 
Last edited:
ew - they used hammers to break it. NASTY - by now it's probably toxic rivaling the worst of all acids. That's just gross - I guess rage knows no common sense, hunh? I hope they took showers after.
 
Temporal said:
Looks like France isn't only having problems with Muslims as we are being lead by some to believe. The Christians are being unruly too.
Click to expand...

You can't yell fire in a crowded thater because it could cause injury or death.

But it's ok to purposefully cause outrage towards a fine religion.

Throw the snot nosed "artist" in a jail. In a torture chamber,
 
I certainly do hope they had the much esteemed artwork insured.

The damages might run into the pennies.
 
Gardener said:
I certainly do hope they had the much esteemed artwork insured.

The damages might run into the pennies.
Click to expand...

Actually, it probably has added value now. I heard they opened back up and are displaying the "damaged" art.
 
sazerac said:
You can't yell fire in a crowded thater because it could cause injury or death.

But it's ok to purposefully cause outrage towards a fine religion.

Throw the snot nosed "artist" in a jail. In a torture chamber,
Click to expand...

It depends on your interpretation of the piece. I don't think it was necessarily meant to be disparaging towards Christianity, but to rather make a commentary on how people have treated Jesus and Christianity as a whole over the years.
 
Dr_Patrick said:
It depends on your interpretation of the piece. I don't think it was necessarily meant to be disparaging towards Christianity, but to rather make a commentary on how people have treated Jesus and Christianity as a whole over the years.
Click to expand...

Bring pissed on is the ultimate humiliation for a man. I'd have to see his overall artistc kitsch, It's probably integrally spurious.
 
sazerac said:
Bring pissed on is the ultimate humiliation for a man. I'd have to see his overall artistc kitsch, It's probably integrally spurious.
Click to expand...

It must be man's urination. LOL!
 
StillBallin75 said:
If I hadn't known it was actually piss, I would've just looked at it and said "Hey look it's Jesus encased in amber! How pretty!"
Click to expand...

Of course, the title of the "work" might give it away, what it is. :lol:

IIRC, there was also some blood in there. That's what makes it kind of orange.
 
Last edited:
I wrote this about the piece a while back:

Me said:
What was the point of even displaying that, knowing that someone would get offended unless it was to join in the dickhole crusade going on here? ****ing atheists are the most childish bitches, on the whole, you'll ever encounter.
Click to expand...

I wasn't trying to offend you, I was wondering if that was the one you were talking about, and thought it would be easier to post it instead of trying to explain it.

Anyways, the fact that you're offended by that is the entire point of the work. Serrano always juxtaposes the beautiful with the repulsive/taboo. His point is that there is beauty even in the most ugly things, and that if you look beyond your boundaries you can see that. You're so bound up in your own limitations that you are unable to appreciate that photo for what it is.

The best part about Serrano's art is that it challenges you to redefine how you think, and that usually involves people either opening up their minds and accepting the piece for what it is, showing their openness to grow, or people get all upset and offended, exposing their narrowmindedness.

I actually think that picture is beautiful.

Source
Click to expand...

IMO it's even better now with the damage, it adds to the meaning of the piece more than anything Serrano could have done.
 
The wonderful thing about art is that is is subjective and open to interpretation. Hell I love what some deem "death" art and what some have tagged as "torture" art, bdsm art, etc. Art is simply that: art.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
I wrote this about the piece a while back:



IMO it's even better now with the damage, it adds to the meaning of the piece more than anything Serrano could have done.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. Art is supposed to evoke a reaction, even if that reaction is disgust.
 
Dr_Patrick said:
I couldn't agree more. Art is supposed to evoke a reaction, even if that reaction is disgust.
Click to expand...

No, that's bull****. Trying to get a reaction just for the sake of getting a reaction has very little value and takes very little skill or talent.
 
X Factor said:
No, that's bull****. Trying to get a reaction just for the sake of getting a reaction has very little value and takes very little skill or talent.
Click to expand...

Call it what you want. We obviously have different opinions of art. I like art that evokes a reaction. I find art that doesn't to be extremely boring.
 
Did they chop any heads off yet? Come on, this is France, it aint a real revolution unless some heads roll.
 
No, that's bull****. Trying to get a reaction just for the sake of getting a reaction has very little value and takes very little skill or talent.
Click to expand...

Nobody said he was just trying to get a reaction. Some of the best art is going to be provocative, and deeper than the reaction it originally causes.

The entire point of art is self reflection and self exploration, both for the artist and for the viewer.
 
Last edited:
Dr_Patrick said:
Call it what you want. We obviously have different opinions of art. I like art that evokes a reaction. I find art that doesn't to be extremely boring.
Click to expand...
Well, to each their own. I'm not interested in gratuitous images that have the sole purpose to shock or offend. How hard is that? If I take pictures of someone gutting a kitten for example, is that art if I put the pictures on display?
 
Last edited:
Well, to each their own. I'm not interested in gratuitous images that have the sole purpose to shock or offend.
Click to expand...

Nobody's talking about "gratuitous images that have the sole purpose to shock or offend" except you.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Nobody's talking about "gratuitous images that have the sole purpose to shock or offend" except you.
Click to expand...

Oh come on....are you so naive you think a crucifix dunked in a glass of urine is really art rather than one of those “gratuitous images that have the sole purpose to shock or offend”?

If not, the socialist movement isn’t churning em out as bright as they used to be.
 
X Factor said:
Well, to each their own. I'm not interested in gratuitous images that have the sole purpose to shock or offend. How hard is that? If I take pictures of someone gutting a kitten for example, is that art if I put the pictures on display?
Click to expand...

No. It's only art if the "someone" is dressed as Uncle Sam or a Priest or Rabbi. Dress him up as Mohammed and it becomes hate speech.
 
GPS_Flex said:
Oh come on....are you so naive you think a crucifix dunked in a glass of urine is really art rather than one of those “gratuitous images that have the sole purpose to shock or offend”?

If not, the socialist movement isn’t churning em out as bright as they used to be.
Click to expand...

Funny, isn't it? Art once required skill to produce. The Parthenon, for example, or the statue David. Any representational painting takes knowledge and skill and effort to produce.

Scatological impressionism is to art like men's room grafitti is to the Declaration of Independence.
 
GPS_Flex said:
Oh come on....are you so naive you think a crucifix dunked in a glass of urine is really art rather than one of those “gratuitous images that have the sole purpose to shock or offend”?

If not, the socialist movement isn’t churning em out as bright as they used to be.
Click to expand...

Disregard what the crucifix is in, and it's quite a nice picture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom