This is the first of a series of blogs I intend to do about freedom of expression and offensive art. This is a topic that keeps popping up in one of my english classes, and I've been thinking about it a lot lately.
My teacher told us about a piece of art called The Piss Christ. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ) It is a photograph taken by Andres Serrano in 1989 of a small, plastic crucifix submerged in a jar of the artist's urine. It isn't hard to imagine, but people freaked out. Obviously, here in America, there are a lot of people who consider the crucifix to be a sacred image, and to submerge it in urine is considered going too far.
What do I think? I think people are too sensitive. I think that artist has every right to take such a picture. I also think people have every right to be offended....but I think they have NO right to say that because they are offended, that means that the artist shouldn't have made the picture. Or, because they are offended, that picture should not be displayed.
I don't believe that it is blasphemy to take a picture like that. First of all, did the artist take this into a sacred place? Did he enter a church and violate the sanctity of that place? Did he prevent someone from following their religion by taking this picture? All he did was make a statement--yes, a religious statement, and yes, a negative statement--but he did it in an artistic context. He made something he considered art, and he displayed it with other art. I can understand why people would be offended--but he didn't violate anyone's religion by doing this. Had he entered a church and desecrated it, that would be a different story. But he did this in a public, artistic context--therefore, it is art, and it is free to express whatever he wants it to.
Being offended is one thing, but thinking that the fact that you are offended gives you some sort of right is somethign else altogether. Just because you are offended does not mean you have the right to say this piece should or should not be displayed. The question of whether or not it can be displayed is only of matter to the person who made it and the person who displays it. So, the artist, and the curator. That's it. Just because you are Catholic or Christian does not mean you can decide what this artist may or may not do. Sure, you can say what you think, but you can't expect action to result because of what you think. You can express, and the artist can express--no more, and no less.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| 200px-Piss_Christ_by_Serrano_Andres_(1987).jpg | 41.53 KB |
I'm a Christian- but I'm an artist as well. I definitely agree that if the artist thinks he is making a statement- then good for him.
I sometimes wonder if people do this sort of thing for the sheer purpose of starting controversies... >:D
"I feel that there is nothing more truly artistic than to love people."
-Van Gogh
well sure!! maybe, even, the statement this artist was making was that he wanted to make people think about the question of what counts as art, or what role offensiveness plays in the world of art....probably not, but I'm sure that some artists do create art with the intention of offending....sometimes,, I'm sure that artists just want to raise the question once more of where the line is in terms of freedom of expression. that is just as much of a statement as whatever a crucifix in piss means.
The artist could be saying that the religious right has pissed all over things he deems sacred, so now he's going to return the favour.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
One of the paintings was like a diagram of a woman's reproductive system: uterus, fallopian tubes, etc. It was placed exactly opposite from the altar.
What does a the image of a reproductive system have to to with sacrilege?