Controversial "Piss Christ" art back in New York

[Nye Bevan]

The controversial “Piss Christ” artwork Sen. Alfonse D’Amato once branded as a “deplorable, despicable display of vulgarity,” is coming to New York, and security is being heavily ramped- up at the gallery that will show the piece.

Andres Serrano’s work — a “photograph of the crucifix submerged in the artist’s urine” — first ignited controversy in 1989 when D’Amato complained to the US Senate that it was an “outrage,” an “indignity” and a “piece of trash” that had been funded by taxpayers. Serrano had won a $15,000 prize for his work, backed in part by the National Endowment for the Arts.

But the piece — which will be on display as part of a retrospective of the New York artist’s work at Edward Tyler Nahem gallery beginning Thursday — is still causing controversy over two decades later.

On Palm Sunday last year, 1,000 protesters marched outside a French gallery showing “Piss Christ,” and the piece was attacked by hammer-toting vandals while gallery workers received death threats. The piece — there are 10 prints — has also been vandalized at the National Gallery of Victoria in Australia and in Sweden.

http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/art_controversy_back_in_ny_ZjuqKoVhysXZ3eQg6U6n1H#ixzz276lwyeUW

As someone who was brought up Catholic, my reaction to this is that I find it offensive, but I unreservedly defend the artist's right to create and exhibit it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. IMHO, That's Not Art Or Piss Poor Art, Pardon The Pun, But He Has The Right To Make And Show It

.

[htuttle]

2. I think the light on the crucifix in the photo is cool

If Serrano had called it 'Ascension' or something, and not told people how he took it, the people who hate it would have loved it.

[Bucky]

139. He could've always used apple juice

For all we know, he did.

[piratefish08]

3. does it raise an emotion in you? then it's art. whether you like it or not is a separate issue.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. Porn Raises An Emotion In People. Sometimes Great Emotions.

Is it art?

[OriginalGeek]

44. Yes

ETA~ Like the KKK example below, porn is often hateful and disgusting too. But still art.

[HiPointDem]

71. watching the news raises emotions in me. seeing homeless people begging in the streets raises

emotions in me. funerals raise emotions in me. my dog raises emotions in me.

[morningfog]

84. News and funerals are forms of art.

People and dogs are living beings. They should raise emotions.

[HiPointDem]

92. everything is art, therefore nothing is art

[OriginalGeek]

110. Everything that an artist creates and claims to be art

is art.


If a news producer artfully creates a kick ass news report and calls it art, it's art. I've never seen anyone claim a dog is art except maybe in the case of a dog show where they have prettified a dog up with a degree of artfullness that transcends the mundane. In that case, that dog is art.


Stop trying to bring ridiculous to the table. Art is not up to you. It's up to the artist. Whether you accept it or not, if it's art to the artist it is art. Art does not require your approval.

[HiPointDem]

112. & who is "an artist"? "bringing the ridiculousness" is the circular definitions being proposed

in this thread.

[OriginalGeek]

115. That's one of the beautiful things about art

anyone who wants to be an artist can be an artist. Not all of them will be good but every one of them that wants to create can create and whatever they create is art. You don't have to like it and you don't even have to believe it's art.

I went and threw my first ever clay pot the other day. I enjoyed it and plan to keep going and learn how to do it better. I wouldn't try to sell this first thing I made and you might (rightly so) think it's a piece of shit but I had fun doing it and learning and want to learn more and it is art.

The ridiculousness is in bringing in dogs and news programs to an art discussion when nobody was claiming dogs and news programs are art. Even though they could be.


I once watched an old brick mason build a wall for almost an hour. There was a beauty to the way he expertly spread the mortar and laid the bricks without even hardly thinking about it. Even he might not think he was creating art - he probably thought he was just building a wall. But it was art to me.

[HiPointDem]

116. ergo, the meaninglessness of the definitions. everyone's an artist, everything is art. it's what-

ever any individual decides it is.

ergo, meaningless and not part of any generally shared social language.

[OriginalGeek]

118. Meaningless to you maybe

but what a crummy way to go through life.

[HiPointDem]

119. if everyone is an artist and art is whatever the artist says it is, then 'art' as a word,

has no social meaning.

nothing to do with me or how i go through life, that's just a fact when the meaning of a word is defined by each individual outside a larger social-linguistic network of meaning.

[OriginalGeek]

122. I never said everyone was an artist

I said everyone who wants to be can be. Some are good, with natural talent. some aren't. Some work hard and become good. A lot of people have no desire to be artists at all. Some folks don't even want to look at art but others like to look without thinking they can or want to create anything on their own.

You seem to be trying hard to make things not art. I'm trying hard to make more things art. I'd rather go through life and see the beauty of what people who create are trying to say to me. Sometimes I get it and sometimes I don't. But whether I get it or not, I got no right to tell them it ain't art.

Art just is. There is no need to make the word fit a larger social-linguistic network of meaning. There may be people who try to force art into categories and meanings - probably because they want to sell it or buy it display it for money but that's all on them. Art doesn't require being sold or bought or even displayed to be art.

[HiPointDem]

123. by saying everyone who wants to create something is an artist, you are saying that, though.

"anyone who wants to be an artist can be an artist. Not all of them will be good but every one of them that wants to create can create and whatever they create is art."

art is whatever artists create, and anyone who wants to create is an artist.

perfectly self-referential and circular.

everyone is (or an be) a creator, therefore an artist, therefore every created thing is art.

miasma.

[OriginalGeek]

124. It's only miasma if

you insist art has to be something that fits your classifications and then you get confronted with a creation you don't like and don't want it to be considered art.

But it is.

Art comes from the desire of human beings to express something. How is the stick figure drawing done by a 5 year old girl who wants to express her love for her family any less art than Da Vinci painting the Mona Lisa? It may be less expertly realized but it is not less art. It means a lot to her and probably to her family and doesn't need to be loved or liked or even noticed by the world at large to be art.

This concept should not cause any consternation. Nobody is saying all art is good art. Nobody is saying anyone has to like all art or any art. Artists create art. You either want it or you don't. You like it or you don't. It speaks to you or it doesn't. None of these conditions has any bearing on whether or not the work is art. It was art before you ever even knew it existed. Once you know it exists then you can start to determine if it means anything to you or you can ignore it completely. If you are considering the piece for financial reasons (you are buying for yourself or others or evaluating the piece for use in some commercial venture) then you may have way different criteria for evaluating it other than "I like it" but all of that is superfluous to the fact that it is art.

[marions ghost]

141. Good points IMO

[marions ghost]

138. So

what is art to you? How do you define it. You never say, you just argue the negative.

[piratefish08]

49. yes.

has been for thousands of years.

[cthulu2016]

64. Of course

[Dr. Strange]

11. So cross burnings are art?

I've never thought of the KKK as artists.

[OriginalGeek]

45. I don't recall any cross burnings being claimed to be art

but if an artist wanted to do that then yes, it would be art.


Hateful, disgusting art is still art.

[chemenger]

28. I wouldn't say politics is art, yet it raises emotions in me

(usually anger, rage, disgust )

Unless you want to define politics as the art of pissing people off ...

[Bucky]

140. If I set your dog on fire or shredded your family photos, then, it'd be art?

Just trying to get a guage of how many eggs you gotta break to make that omlette called "art".

Personally, I think your definition could use some refining.

[LeftinOH]

4. What better time to show it? There won't be any violent riots over it. Except...

that sure is a lot of piss. I wonder if it's all from the same person.

[leftynyc]

6. Where are all the warnings

about having to "respect" others who may find offense? Where are the riots? Nobody getting killed? HOw can that possibly be?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. As The President Said "This Is A Teachable Moment"

I wonder if the pro-censorship crowd will want Serrano prosecuted.

[leftynyc]

12. Of course not

There has always been a double standard on this board for Islam.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. I Won't Go There

I won't go there but I pretty much demonstrated in the other threads about this topic how selective some members are when it comes to what speech or expression should be protected and what speech or expression shouldn't.

[leftynyc]

15. I have no problem "going there"

The double standards are pretty freeking stunning. It's like not mentioning the 2 ton elephant in a room.

[Missycim]

17. I agree

there is a HUGE double standard on DU.

[Skip Intro]

25. I agree. That double standard is glaring.

And it isn't the only double standard evident on DU.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. They Came Up With The "Eyes Of The Beholder" Test

i.e. you can disrespect any religion as long as some of its adherents won't riot. It's a morally repugnant position that infantalizes the very people they seek to protect.

[rDigital]

69. Solid post. nt

[HiPointDem]

120. they certainly are....

[riderinthestorm]

19. I'm going to predict there's no 1A flamefests over this particular bit of religion bashing... nt

[morningfog]

85. As there shouldn't be. But, there were such arguments when the piece was first unveiled.

[ronnie624]

29. We have an advantage here.

Economically we're better off, which makes people less like to riot and engage in violent conduct, and despite the propaganda induced fear and loathing with which many Americans regard Islam, I don't think very many people in the U.S. believe "the Muslim world" has been waging a hundred year war against us to control our resources.

[leftynyc]

37. Is it propoganda to point

out that it appears only one religion seems to have adhereants that riot for a perceived insult? That put out fatwas that have writers/cartoonists fearing for their lives for years? Where are the leaders who condemn this sort of shit (in both languages)?

And just so I can put it on my calendar - just how long are Americans going to have to put up with the imperialist label when the vast majority of the countries have invited us in and sure as shit don't mind taking our dollars?

[ronnie624]

38. The dictators our government supports invited us in, not the countries.

The first part of your post has already been covered. Outside interference from a foreign power will, without doubt, cause political extremism within. It's a given.

[leftynyc]

39. Oh brother

So now we're responsible for making sure their elections are fair - we're the bad guys. Does the fact we supported the Arab Spring get us off the hook even a little bit? Sure doesn't seem that way. And should we applaud when fanatics win elections that will do nothing for women other than shove them back under the burka?

[ronnie624]

42. Our government's interventions in the Middle East,

have always included the undermining of democracy.

I'm familiar with the history of U.S. involvement in the ME and elsewhere, so that dog won't hunt.

[leftynyc]

48. You didn't answer my question

Should we be supporting governments that are filled with fanatics that will bring their women backwards even if they are democratically elected?

Your thinking the US is the bane of everyone's existence is getting really tired. Perhaps we should just pull everyone and all of our money out of the mideast and let Israel handle it. What could go wrong?

[ronnie624]

67. We already support governments that oppress women, Like Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

And the U.S is not the bane of everyone's existence, only those whose resources or government wants to control.

[HiPointDem]

121. it's the us who is *creating* those governments, and it has very little to do with islam.

though what any of this has to do with 'piss christ' i don't know.

perhaps you could ride that hobbyhorse another time.

[leftynyc]

125. Thread police? Who elected you?

Yes, it was us that voted in the madman from Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood from Egypt, Hamas in the Gaza Strip and don't forget how we voted in the Taliban of Afghanistan. I forgot voters there are just mindless children who need the US to lead the way - whatever was I thinking?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

40. All Of This May Or Not Be True

All of this may or not be true but what does that have to do with the right of someone to make a crappy and offensive film.

[ronnie624]

41. I was speaking to the underlying reasons for the rioting and violence.

I generally support the right of 'artists' to immerse crucifixes in urine or draw cartoons that are offensive to Muslims. Thankfully, it's not illegal to be a jackass, as long as you're not bringing harm directly to others.

[leftynyc]

51. Nothing as they most certainly have that

right here in the US. Nobody is forcing people to riot and murder over it. If the point of the movie was to portray Muslims as violent, shouldn't somebody be telling the rioters/murderers that they're just reinforcing a mindset? I do see that Libyans are protesting what happened to our ambassador and that's great. Now how about the other 13 countries where they just can't seem to help themselves? I'm not like many here that like to treat the Muslims as children who have no control over themselves.

[zellie]

46. Good points.

Well put.


Old adage...

" Who you going to believe... Me or your own eyes?"

[ronnie624]

47. I'm not sure that adage applies here,

considering the fact that no one was disagreeing with the fact that riots were occurring in predominantly Muslim countries but not in the U.S.

[treestar]

57. The fact there aren't riots or people being killed has to do with the context

Where this is being displayed and what is going on in their lives.

There is more to it when Muslims riot over these things. It has to do with politics, geography and culture.

We aren't inherently better people than Muslims are (this kind of thing is meant to prove that). We are in a better situation economically, politically and governmentally. We don't have any reason to bother with rioting over this. It was done by one person who is part of our culture to get a rise out of us.

[leftynyc]

61. With all due respect, horseshit

When people riot over injustice, because they don't have enough to eat, because their leaders are corrupt, that makes sense. Just what are the thugs trying to accomplish here? They are demanding that we respect not only their religion, but their taboos.

We can have movies like Life of Brian or the Last Temptation in Christ and The DaVinci Code - all of which mock or question the very essence of Christian faith and there will be demonstrations and protests but nothing gets burned and nobody gets hurt. Why is it so different? Again I ask what are they trying to accomplish?

[treestar]

62. If we were in their position

We might well kill people over such things. We just aren't in a similar position. We can't prove we are better than they are. We can "take" that stuff which, note is all from our own culture (what if a Muslim produced the Life of Brian and everyone in the movie was a Muslim and it made fun of our beliefs from outside?). And what if we were living in weak tyrannical or religious regimes and threatened with Muslim influence and takeover of our society?

The riots and protests are not just about the item making fun of their prophet. It's just a part of it.

[4th law of robotics]

97. Apparently if Christians wanted progressive to argue against

this blasphemy they should riot and indiscriminately kill people.

Otherwise they can suck it.

[slackmaster]

7. I was raised Protestant and am now Agnostic. I also find it offensive, and defend the artist's...

...right to create it.

Nobody has ever forced me to look at it.

[RiffRandell]

9. I remember this controversy.

Then it was Mapplethorpe in Cincinnati (can't remember which was first). I can't remember the name of the course but it was a political one I took in college around this time where we had a discussion of the attack on funding for the NEA.

[no_hypocrisy]

10. Swell, one more excuse for Giuliani to come back on the cable news channels and morning shows.

[sinkingfeeling]

14. I think if people were totally unaware that it was taken through urine, they'd think

it was stunning. The light and bubbles portray the agony of Christ on the cross.

[Nye Bevan]

16. It does look better than you think it's going to look (nt)

[SDjack]

18. In the broadest sense, for me, "art" is anything formed, shaped, created by a human.

"Nature" is the opposite -- it is unaltered by humans. The quality scale for art begins with "crap" and goes to "fine", where "crap" actually diminishes the value of the original materials and effort, and "fine" greatly increases the value (due to exceptional skills of the artist). As an atheist, I see the Piss Christ as crap. I'm not angry at Jesus, but I see no value in insulting my Christian friends. I would never purchase a copy of it, display it in my home or anywhere, and never buy a ticket to see it. But, art is very personal. If you find it valuable, that OK with me.

[redgreenandblue]

20. People playing with their excrements is still considered art?

The churches may after all have a point about the evolution of species not having happened....

[Generic Other]

21. It asks a valid question about plastic icons

Does the cheap plastic depiction of christ make the plastic holy and divine because it depicts a diety? If you place the holy into the profane human waste byproduct, does it corrupt the holy or sanctify the piss? Is man corrupt and christ uncorruptible? So many valid questions.

I personally find the artwork rather interesting. But I can see why others might not.

[slampoet]

22. Every Christian who I show this to finds it beautiful.

Then I tell them it is part of a series based on bodily fluids and the first one was blood, like Christ, and this one is urine.

90% of them understand when it is presented properly.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. Maybe I'm Not Avant Garde, Chic, Or Hip Enough But I Find It Offensive

Maybe somebody should take a dump, put a Jesus in it, and call it the Brown Jesus...


That being said I defend the artist's (sic) right to make and show it...

[whistler162]

52. offensive no... just another emporer has no clothes

piece of "art"!

[slampoet]

54. If it was a photoshop filter you wouldn't care.

and this work almost pre-dates photoshop and was all about images viewed through bodily fluids.

Funny how no one finds the use of urine to make leather or gunpowder or fertilizer offensive, but they draw the limit at photographs.

Do you find this image offensive?



Did you even KNOW that there was also a Milk Christ?

[snooper2]

133. Was there a chocolate milk christ too?

tastes great less filling?

[treestar]

58. That's what I was wondering, is there more to this

Why did it get an award? Maybe there is more to it. Christ died for our sins, washed people's feet- he wouldn't care about this - there's an argument it's in concert with what he did.

The artist could well not have been expressing hatred of Christ - there is little to hate there, it's usually Christians who are hateful and maybe he's bringing that out with this work.

[Romulox]

23. Anxiously awaiting the breathless explanations of how this work is "ZOMG hate speech!" and

not protected by the 1st Amendment.

[Arugula Latte]

24. It has super-Jesusy status w/ extra God sauce 'cuz it's about "Faith" and "Religion"!!!

Hands off! People might be offended if they have to think about stuff!

[ronnie624]

34. I think the artist has a right to do it.

But I think it's disgusting. I would have to be well paid to invest the energy required to view it. I think if the 'artist' had genuine talent, he would be able to induce emotional reactions from people through his work, without being so profane and and offensive.

[Romulox]

56. We're on the same page, then. Some DUers wanted the Islam filmmaker charged with a crime. nt

[ZombieHorde]

30. I really don't understand why a Christian would find this offensive.

If Christianity is true, then piss is a part of God's design. If Christianity is true, then we are how god made us. There is nothing in the Christian Holy Bible declaring piss offensive. Piss is a Godly substance, as is blood, tears, shit, etc.

Now, if it was Toxic Waste Christ, I could see the offensives. Toxic waste is not a "natural" substance, and it is very harmful to the environment.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. Seminal fluid is a bodily substance

Do you see how some people would be offended by a Bukakke Mary?


With all due respect, your observation reminds me of Orwell's observation that some ideas are so bizarre that only an intellectual can believe them.

[ZombieHorde]

35. "Piss Christ" is not called "Golden Shower Christ."

"Cum Mary" would be more comparable to "Piss Christ" than "Bukakke Mary."

"As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it."

That is from Genesis 9 . Cum is very much a part of God's plan, according to the Old Testament.

In the Catholic faith, Mary is called the Mother of God. Cum Mary would be an interesting take on that theme.

[Nye Bevan]

43. Someone already created art comprising the Virgin Mary smeared with elephant feces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holy_Virgin_Mary

On a yellow-orange background, the large painting (8 feet high by 6 feet wide) depicts a black woman wearing a blue robe, a traditional attribute of the Virgin Mary. The work employs mixed media, including oil paint, glitter, and polyester resin, and also elephant dung and collaged pornographic images.

[Luminous Animal]

59. Mary was also "smeared" with oil paint, polyester resin and glitter.

The elephant dung fashions her breast.

[Bluenorthwest]

82. It is worth noting that a vandal actually smeared this piece with white paint

to cover the black Mary. The only 'smearing' involved in this painting was done by a person of religious conviction, who attempted to destroy the piece. A criminal act of vandalism. I only mention that due to the use of Rudy's word of choice 'smeared'....

[Bluenorthwest]

79. I bet it would surprise you to learn that Ofili's portait of the Vigin Mary gave me

insight into the Catholic veneration of Mary, which as a Protestant I was raised to consider an error. I'd been to the Vatican like four times, seen most of the great religious art of Europe more than once. Yet it was that portrait that brought me what little understanding I have of the reasons and value of that particular practice, the reasons and the value of the elevation of Mary....
So while Rudy and others were busy being offended, I looked at that painting and found understanding of your faith, understanding I had lacked entirely, understanding that did not come through the works of Michelangelo but from Ofili.
Rudy and the rest were among other things, very Euro Centric in their reaction to that piece. That dung, it has meaning. And Mary gave birth in a stable. Can anyone claim that stable was dung free?
Perhaps the understanding others find in the art is the purpose of the art?

[wingzeroday]

91. cow

Back in the 90's Hamas conducted suicide bombings they claimed were in retaliation for works depicting Mary with a cows head and Muhammed as a pig.

97 iirc?

[Zax2me]

89. You do not get to decide what others find offensive.

For one, they don't care what you think.
For another, your reasons for Christians not finding this offensive is condescending and absent of substance at best, ignorant at worst.

[ZombieHorde]

106. I have not told anyone what to find offensive, I have only expressed confusion for the offense.

your reasons for Christians not finding this offensive is condescending and absent of substance at best, ignorant at worst.

Why?

[dmallind]

32. meh. Another facile and hamfisted attempt at making a point masquerading as art

There is certainly a contrast between this and the "Innocence" movie though - a bunch of apparently sane people think this is worthwhile based on artistic merit, for some unfathomable reason. The movie - not so much.

[ismnotwasm]

33. I understand with the right light it's quite beautiful

The artist was being an artist, but he had to know it would piss folks off. Ahem.

[Bluenorthwest]

80. It's a photograph. The light is in the photograph.

nt

[ismnotwasm]

130. So on display it just sits there?

Ew.

I was sure I read something different when it first came out, could be wrong of course.

[Mariana]

135. They usually hang photographs to display them.

I imagine it's up on a wall.

[kenny blankenship]

36. You can take the piss out of New York

But you can't take the New York out of the piss. Maybe it's gone home to die?

[xchrom]

50. Sister Wendy on Piss Christ (Part 6)

[Luminous Animal]

60. Gotta love Sister Wendy!

[Politicub]

68. That was great

Thanks for posting

[LeftyMom]

53. As someone who was brought up Catholic, I think it's kind of an interesting piece.

It's lit nicely, the bubbles add visual interest, and woah, Serrano must have been all kinds of dehydrated to get that color.

[bluestateguy]

55. While this "art" offends me, it is free speech

Having said that, I don't think it violates the 1st amendment to withhold government subsidization of such works.

[cthulu2016]

63. Just in case folks don't know... it is a photograph

It isn't a jar of piss at the gallery. It is a photograph, hanging on the wall ...exactly as seen in the OP.

Thus being about a zillion percent less outrageous than generally assumed.

[marions ghost]

73. It's a photograph

It is a photograph. It is a photograph. It is a photograph.

I can think of many photographs that offend me (Abu Graib pix, New Orleans after Katrina, the Dubya smirk, Dick Cheney
evil grin, etc. etc.

This is NOT one of them.

The artist is questioning what we know or think we know, about what we see. For one thing we're told that this is urine--it may be orange soda. Is a plastic Jesus sacred? Is any Jesus figure sacred? What is sacred? Etc Etc

[Nevernose]

65. On some level, this is the most successful artist in many years

I don't know if he's commercially successful, or even if people would recognize his name, but he has sparked debates -- what is art? What is the government's role in art, if any? -- that have lasted for 25 years. That's pretty remarkable.

[nolabear]

66. Hell all I can think is that the guy's dehydrated.

I know it upsets people and I respect that. It's also pretty and if people thought it was holy water more might think so. Is it art? Well, I think the whole experience of the social and religious brouhaha elevates it to art in an interesting way, and it does ask something substantial of the observer. I like it far more than I liked that Innocence of Muslims trash, but I don't know how reasonable that is.

And mostly I still think the guy needed hydrating,

[Major Nikon]

70. People who get outraged over this completely validate the artist's point

This is a small molded plastic figurine and nothing more. If people are expressing this much outrage over a symbol, then it obviously means that too much emphasis is placed on symbols over substance.

[bunnies]

81. ^^^ this ^^^ nt

[HiPointDem]

72. the world of high art = corrupt

[marions ghost]

74. Like everything else...

this is art about representation of inanimate things and the value we assign to them.

It's art to think about, not to decorate your house with.

[HiPointDem]

75. it's not about thinking, it's about the benjamins.

not to mention the benjamin-laundering.

[marions ghost]

76. Sure like every other commodity

but a commodity still has to have value to it's audience. I might say a Porsche is a dumb thing to waste your money on, but I can't deny it's attraction to its appreciators. But a Porsche is a functional thing. This kind of art is a think piece. It needs context to be useful.

The following is well-written, easy to read, and puts Serrano (& this type of art) in context:

http://www.roberthobbs.net/book_files/Andres_Serrano_The_Body_Politic.pdf

[HiPointDem]

77. anything bought & promoted by rich people will have an audience.

up to & including bottles of pee.

[marions ghost]

93. I'm with you sneering at the excess of luxury commodities

but if we had any public support for art in this country like they do in Europe, it might not have to be this way quite so much.

Try to get away from slamming all contemporary art as commodity and try to see it as provoking thought and discussion. Serrano is pointing out the connection between art and the illusion of advertizing. And that's why it's art.

Museums are for everybody. A lot of low paid artists, academics, curators, and cultural workers are bringing it to you. All of them remain poor after years of dedication to the field.

[HiPointDem]

94. i'm not slamming it as commodity, i'm slamming it as tax dodge & money-laundering facility.

high art isn't really commodified, imo. it's in a different realm, and controlled by a small group of people.

i don't accept their judgments about what we should think about or what is thought-provoking or what is art, sorry.

those culture workers remain low-paid for the same reasons other workers do.

[marions ghost]

95. Rich people don't decide what is art--

and you don't have to like it. All I'm saying is...understand it.

Like I said, if there were more public funding for art it would be a better situation for the real deciders, the academics, curators, artists. But art is expensive to produce, maintain, and exhibit. If there's no money for it, art dies.

It's better that the rich spend their money on art (which ultimately ends up in museums if it's good enough & has cultural value) than on other expensive junk, right? Or is it better for them to buy diamonds and furs?

As far as money laundering, I think they have a LOT better ways to do that. OK there are some blue chip artists stuff that it's high status to own, but in general, they just collect art for fun and status.

A lot of rich people have terrible ideas about art and don't even end up buying good stuff, (like stocks a lot is overrated...)

The rich are NOT the deciders of what is art. Academics, critics, curators decide & they are usually far from rich.

-------------------

Not all art collectors are rich. Have you ever heard of Herb and Dorothy:

Check this out:

[HiPointDem]

96. oh but they do. with their dollars, which fund the museums, curators, media people, "in-crowd" etc.

with their presence on the government institutions that fund the arts, with their private grants, through a plethora of channels.

there is no high art world without the rich.

this has been true for 1000s of years.

i have nothing against art or thinking in a general sense. i'm saying that high art, like all things, has a class base and it's good to be aware of it rather than accepting that class judgment as the final word on 'art'.

[marions ghost]

98. I know about this world...

so I differ. I know it from the perspective of the people slaving in it out of love for the arts. THEY DO provide input to big collectors and such about what is really worthy. They value the stock that the rich (who are not always very knowledgeable) buy.

This "in-crowd" you speak of is not what you think. I am not at all rich and I feel very much a part of the high art world.
Especially in recession the arts are seriously hurting. I don't endorse the way it operates completely & there are some cases of undue influence-- but without it, right now...

You're making too much of this class base thing. "High art" curators appreciate all sorts of art as long as it's high quality (a a matter of opinion). These days there really is something for everybody. I would say that I only "like" about half the high art I see. There's no obligation to like it. Pick what you like, diss what you don't like. There's no need to acquire it to appreciate it, but sadly in this country, it's all about commodities. Much American art is highly critical of the status quo, of art as commodity for the rich--but maybe you don't hear that message...

Artists need MORE of the general public to support them, not less.

[HiPointDem]

99. your relationship to the high art world, as i understand it, parallels the relationship of any

worker to the corporatist establishment. many workers also 'feel close to' that establishment, that world. many workers also believe that world runs on merit, hard work, knowlegable people making legitimate value judgments.

but many people haven't traced the lines of influence.

we'll have to agree to disagree.

[marions ghost]

104. Ok we can disagree...

I don't think there's a strict parallel between the art world --and the situation of workers re the establishment, the business world. I'm more on your side in the case of exploited workers.

Who is exploiting who in the (commodity) art world? And does the public not benefit?

Would you say that opera (usually thought of as high art in the west) -- is a case of sold out to the establishment?

Anyway...thanks

[HiPointDem]

105. it's not a question of individuals 'selling out'. it's a question of control, direction,

definitions & creation of consciousness.

such that the entire mythos of 'the artist' is a creation of money & class power.

[marions ghost]

107. mythos of "the artist"

ya lost me...

Musicians, writers, performers, visual artists, photographers --all creative artists are controlled & directed??? None of them deserve credibility as reflecting the culture and being of value to the culture?

What are we left with?

Yeah we're far apart I think. Most professions have a creative, artistic component, even the best of business, sports, medicine--you name it. Art is everywhere. Not some property of the rich.

[HiPointDem]

109. very far apart indeed, which is why it's better we just agree to disagree.

[marions ghost]

127. Applied Arts depend on art in general

Architects study art (& are in fact, artists)
Engineers study art
Graphic artists/computer gaming designers study art
Film-makers and cameramen study art
Fashion designers study art
Landscape designers study art
People who do jobs requiring hand-eye coordination often study art
Psychologists/sociologists study art
Historians regard art history as essential to understanding previous centuries
Tattoo artists study art
Sign painters study art
Vehicle painters study art

--etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc

It seems you think that all these exist outside the realm of art and therefore have little value. :shrug"

[HiPointDem]

129. no, what i think is that the definitions of 'art' in this thread are meaningless.

[snooper2]

134. you have a comrade in that line of thinking..

He never gets a fair shot

[MikeE]

78. I always found this work profound and deeply spiritual

I remember when it was was first exhibited. My impression, and what I understood the artist to be conveying, was the idea of a symbol of God or love submerged and surrounded by human waste.

[NuttyFluffers]

83. as do i. it's a sublime piece.

i read the work akin, but as so: the sacrifice of forgiveness transcends the sterile ugliness that surrounds; it literally 'gives life.'

i find it profoundly moving and would buy a poster of it, if i could.

[vaberella]

101. Interesting interpretation. I like this. n/t

[rrneck]

86. As a combination of things revered and reviled

the juxtaposition of two powerful cultural metaphors causes us to reexamine what they mean to us. That's what art is supposed to do; give a deeper insight into the human condition.

This may well turn out to be one of the more important works of the twentieth century.

[Zax2me]

87. Will there be riots? Murders?

Concern for such - or condemnation for the person who made the art?
This poses SO many questions....

[GreenPartyVoter]

88. If he had said he had soaked it in ammonia and uric acid, would it have had the same reaction?

[Puregonzo1188]

90. #christianrage

[vaberella]

100. In all honesty before I read what I was seeing I thought the art was gorgeous.

Upon reading that's the crucifix submerged in urine was disgusted. I am very anti-religion and I was raised Catholic. However, I can't call this art.

[orpupilofnature57]

102. Like Guns, Art doesn't kill, steal, or incite riots

Offensive and perverse yes, but those are the indicators of a free society.

[kestrel91316]

103. I always thought the piece consisted of an actual container of urine with the

crucifix in it, and so was a very temporary installation, lol. I didn't know it was a photograph of such.

My bad.

[L0oniX]

108. Ok that does it! I want to go kill whoever did this.

[craigmatic]

111. Just looking at the picture and not the whole exibit it looks like sunset.

The color is great.

[leeroysphitz]

113. I hope Serrano is drinking more water these days. n/t

[jmowreader]

114. If that was water the crucifix was in, that photo would be in every Christian church in the world

It has the most ethereal glow...the light of Heavenly Grace.

This is supposed to be the most offensive picture in the world. The only thing that makes it offensive is knowing he put the crucifix in five gallons of urine.

[marions ghost]

131. right and how do we even know it was urine?

It's a photo.

Whether it is or isn't, what matters is that he SAYS it is, but where's reality? it's only the IDEA of urine we're dealing with here.
Ambiguity--people have a hard time with it.


It's a photo.

[jmowreader]

132. He claims it was five gallons of urine

Which means one of three things:

1. He's single--what wife is going to let you store five gallons of piss?

or

2. He made the image the day after his Super Bowl party.

or

3. It's actually water.

[marions ghost]

136. LOL right

I think it's orange soda myself.

[Bucky]

142. Part of the trick of light is the phosphorescense unique to urine

It's more than just amber colored fluid, but the golden play of light as it's diffused by all the urea and salts and other chemicals in the mix. I still think it's a silly thing to do, but I can't really argue against the compelling quality of the light he ended up with.

I still suspect he could've gotten an interesting play of light using Gatorade, but then he'd be suspected of making a product placement ad in his art.

[daleo]

117. I have always found it curiously beautiful

And it makes me think about connections between notions of divinity and the material world. It's odd that humans venerate the divine for creating the universe, then hive off some aspects of creation as unworthy and disgusting.

[porphyrian]

126. Art doesn't offend me, republicans do. n/t

[GumboYaYa]

128. Sweet, I have a piece of Serranos work...

Hopefully, the attention will increase its value.