• 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

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...

It is art because it makes a very powerful and provocative statement. People wouldn't even know it was urine if it hadn't been pointed out to them.
 
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).
 
rocket88 said:
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).
Click to expand...
I think it's more ridiculous to compare what happened here with terrorism that actually kills people.
 
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...

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.

As for Piss Christ specifically, I think that Serrano puts it beautifully:

Serrano said:
AS: Being born, especially being born a person of color, is a political act in itself. Everything you do from that point on is political without having to be called political. My work has social implications, it functions in a social arena. In relation to the controversy over Piss Christ, I think the work was politicized by forces outside it, and as a result, some people expect to see something recognizably "political" in my work. I am still trying to do my work as I see fit, which I see as coming from a very personal point of view with broader implications.
Click to expand...

The imbecile is the one that stops simply at how art makes them feel. Art is supposed to make you think as well.

Funny, isn't it? Art once required skill to produce.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that you're one of the people that looks at Malevich's Black Square and says "I could have done that!" :roll:

malevich.black-square.jpg


Scatological impressionism is to art like men's room grafitti is to the Declaration of Independence.
Click to expand...

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?

This piece seems to be getting exactly out of you what Serrano had intended: for the ignorant, blind outrage.
 
sazerac said:
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.
Click to expand...

I will write to you in jail:lol:
 
Khayembii Communique said:
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?

This piece seems to be getting exactly out of you what Serrano had intended: for the ignorant, blind outrage.
Click to expand...

No. Just scorn at the fools who spend money on such nonsense. As the Mayor stated, if Serrano wanted reaction, he should have photographed a Koran in a pig sty.

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.
 
sazerac said:
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.
Click to expand...

Can you expand on this. Are these art terms I'm not familiar with? Or do they apply in a wider sense as in the dilemma of institutionalized art philosophy or sumthngidkimdumb....
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
No. Just scorn at the fools who spend money on such nonsense. As the Mayor stated, if Serrano wanted reaction, he should have photographed a Koran in a pig sty.

Piss Christ is an example of the pointless noise the chattering classes tell themselves has meaning, though it has none.
Click to expand...

The chattering is half the meaning. Also Qu'ran in a pig sty wouldnt be as conceptually cohesive as piss christ. It's that people are not offended by piss christ, whereas Qu'ran-in-the-pigsty would be the equivalent to crapping in public. The Qu'ran and the crucifix have different cultural and social contexts. Also, the Qu'ran is actually regarded as the word of God very seriously by many more people than the crucifix is considered 'holy'. Turd-on-the-torah would also be treated as such.
 
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
 
They are likely quite extracted emotionally and personally from the 'acts' depicted in the imagery and approach it more with your reaction in mind than a juvenile desire to merely crap on a cross.
 
rocket88 said:
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).
Click to expand...

Um...what?
 
Dr_Patrick said:
Of course it's offensive. That's the purpose. It's offensive, controversial and in your face. In my opinion that is the beauty and very definition of art. Art is supposed to evoke a reaction of some sort, even if it is extreme disgust and repulsion. I think that the "Piss Christ" piece is very provocative, but also makes a very powerful statement that some may agree or disagree with. You can be disgusted and disagree all you want, but it doesn't cease to be art. Believe it or not, but one can actually find beauty in things that repulse or offend us.
Click to expand...

That's really only a 20th Century phenomenon to the world of Art.
 
The video in Dr. Patrick's post describes things quite nicely, and it's a nun who does it: http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...te-role-religion-france-4.html#post1059420133

If she gets it, why can't others?

Yes it's art. Maybe people here are too "left brained" or unexposed to the art world to understand that it's art, but it definitely is. Your reactions to the image are what make it art, and every person reacts differently. Even among Christians in this thread, some are outraged and some don't care. You'll notice that the ones who are the most offended are the ones trying to say that it's not art, because they don't want it to have any authority or say.

I also think it's genius that the damaged piece is back on display. It enhances the message even more. Christ has been pissed on in the modern world because people are living vulgar lives (as the nun put it), and violence as a means to try and resolve their feelings is not beneath them. The artist pissed on Christ. The Christians smashed Christ when they attacked the work.

It's incredibly ironic - almost to a hilarious degree - that in trying to destroy a work that bothers them, the people who smashed the picture only ended up adding another layer in which Christ is being attacked. It's brilliant.
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
No. Just scorn at the fools who spend money on such nonsense. As the Mayor stated, if Serrano wanted reaction, he should have photographed a Koran in a pig sty.
Click to expand...

So Koran in pig sty = art. Crucifix in urine = not art. Good to know.
 
rocket88 said:
So Koran in pig sty = art. Crucifix in urine = not art. Good to know.
Click to expand...

I have been inspired to do an art piece using Jesus Juice and shall call it Hypocritical.
 
Temporal said:
Your reactions to the image are what make it art, and every person reacts differently. Even among Christians in this thread, some are outraged and some don't care. You'll notice that the ones who are the most offended are the ones trying to say that it's not art, because they don't want it to have any authority or say.
Click to expand...

Following your logic, someone could film the rape and murder of your entire family and call it art, no?
 
GPS_Flex said:
Following your logic, someone could film the rape and murder of your entire family and call it art, no?
Click to expand...

I suppose, but killing people is a crime. Putting a crucifix in urine is not.
 
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...

France is one of those Eurotrash countries with anti-free speech laws where they can fine or jail a preacher for saying homosexuality is a sin or fine and or jail someone for offending a Muslim but someone can put a Rosary cross in a jar of piss and call it art and it is not considered hate speech in that country? If this man had taken a plastic figurine of Mohamed and put it in a jar of piss I somehow doubt France would let him hold an exhibit of it and would toss his ass in jail.
 
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...

I'm sure you would give that same interpretation to a Feces Muhammad.
 
Barbbtx said:
I'm sure you would give that same interpretation to a Feces Muhammad.
Click to expand...

It depends. I'm far more aware and knowledgable about Christianity than I am of Islam. I do find it interesting that Christians get so defensive about "Piss Christ" that they have to bring up Islam though. Is it that hard to stomach that some people choose to interpret "Piss Christ" differently than you? If the interpretation of "Piss Christ" were that cut and dry and clearly just disparaging against Jesus and Christianity, I could see your point.
 
Dr_Patrick said:
It depends. I'm far more aware and knowledgable about Christianity than I am of Islam. I do find it interesting that Christians get so defensive about "Piss Christ" that they have to bring up Islam though.
Click to expand...

Its because many Christians know that there is a double standard. If this was a piss Koran or a Piss Mohamed there is no way in hell this would have been on display in a museum in France and he would have been arrested and or fined for violating hate speech laws. Serrano probably wouldn't have even been allowed to step foot in France.


Is it that hard to stomach that some people choose to interpret "Piss Christ" differently than you? If the interpretation of "Piss Christ" were that cut and dry and clearly just disparaging against Jesus and Christianity, I could see your point.
Click to expand...

I think if you take anything a large group of people consider sacred and drop in a jar of piss many people are going to be offended regardless of a what a so called artist claims his interpretation is.
 
Dr_Patrick said:
It depends. I'm far more aware and knowledgable about Christianity than I am of Islam. I do find it interesting that Christians get so defensive about "Piss Christ" that they have to bring up Islam though. Is it that hard to stomach that some people choose to interpret "Piss Christ" differently than you? If the interpretation of "Piss Christ" were that cut and dry and clearly just disparaging against Jesus and Christianity, I could see your point.
Click to expand...

In other words, no, you would not interpret a "Feces Muhammad" in any other way than what it was meant to be. A disgusting disparaging of Muhammad and the religion of Islam.
 
Barbbtx said:
In other words, no, you would not interpret a "Feces Muhammad" in any other way than what it was meant to be. A disgusting disparaging of Muhammad and the religion of Islam.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. I didn't say I would one way or the other. However, I interpret "Piss Christ" the way I do because I'm far more aware of Christianity and what many have done to disparage Jesus than I am about Islam and what people have done to disparage Mohammad. I, unlike many people on this forum, am not going to pretend to know enough about Islam to make harsh judgments about it. I interpret "Piss Christ" the way I want to, and the way that the artist himself has admitted to doing so. If you choose to interpret it differently, that's your perogative.
 
I suppose my interpretation on "Feces Muhammad" would also depend on who made the picture and what their statement about it was. There is a pretty strong anti-Islam view in the US and if someone did make a "Feces Muhammad" it would seem more like retribution for "Piss Christ". If some random American, with little understanding of Islam made "Feces Muhammad", it wouldn't be the same as "Piss Christ" and my interpretation would lean more towards it being a blatant jab at Islam. I would do the same if some random Muslim with very little understanding of Christianity had made "Piss Christ". However, that is clearly not the case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom