andres serrano - piss christ

[rwjr]

american photographer known for his photographs of corpses & his use of using his own bodily fluids & feces in his work , his most controversial work known as immersion ( piss christ ) a red / gold tinged photograph of a plastic crucifix submerged in the artists own urine .the work sold for 277,000$ in 1999 . art critic lucy r. lippard said the photograph was in short " a darkly beautiful photographic image " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/piss_christ

 

[Kevin Caulfield]

I don't know much about art but I know what I like and I have seen this so-called art and would call it shithouse quite frankly.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Christians seem to be an easy target for people like that.

If he tried that with a certain other religion and its central figure, he'd have signed his death sentence. Same for the "art critic" who praised it.

 

[hoffy]

You have to really think what the point is, when the art is actually in the controversy, not the piece itself.

 

[Craig75]

Looks like bloody cosmic malestrom to me. One of most mystical crucifixion images in art. Thats what i always get from that image, regardless of materials or intent.

 

[hoffy]

There was an article in todays Guardian about David LaChapelle. His idea of Jesus:

“If you really want to shock people in the art world, talk about Jesus or God,” he says. “You could take a dump on a gallery floor and they won’t care. That’s art … when I wanted to do Jesus Is My Homeboy [where he positioned Jesus with pimps, prostitutes and gangsters], I wanted to ask who Jesus would hang with, if he was back. And it wouldn’t be the aristocrats or the rich people, but the disfranchised. I was making this point to the editor of i-D and I heard the phone go dead. Eastern religions like Buddhism are cool – anything foreign or exotic like that is acceptable, but Christianity has a horrible reputation because of fundamentalists and evangelicals.”

TBH, I think I'd rather see LaChapelle's image

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/nov/21/david-lachapelle-photographer-hawaii-warhol

 

[ruilourosa]

i don´t know nothing about rocket science but that seems witchcraft!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[guangong]

A gimmick doesn’t make it art. Marketing doesn’t make it art.

 

[removed account4]

i haven't seen the image, but friends who were living in NYC saw it when they were there ..
it really had a presence and was something like 7 or 8 feet tall and was beautiful.

 

[removedacct1]

It seems to me that - especially in the west, where we are mired in a surreal Warner Brothers cartoon version of New Puritanism - Christianity is regarded as being so deeply woven into the DNA of humanity that it cannot be examined, questioned, or - heaven forbid - mocked. I’m eternally amused that Serrano’s piece pushes the shock/dismay button of a certain demographic so hard and so immediately that those folks go instinctively to a Flash Point, never to return to a position where they might actually examine the image from any other perspective, or examine the image in any other way whatsoever: it remains forever An Offense. I expect that was one of the points Serrano was wanting to make.
The photo is extraordinary, luminous, beautiful - and yet many viewers cannot detach from their visceral response to the perceived insult to their sensibilities. As such, they’ve allowed the artist to put them exactly where he wanted them to be.

I would much rather be exposed to works that challenge my preconceptions and sensibilities, than a steady stream of vacuous imagery that aims to do little more than press the Happy Button in as many people as possible. I, for one, enjoy encountering work that challenges me to think about who and what I am and my place in the Universe.

 

[removed account4]

hi paulbarden
i couldn't agree more !
i always wished i could have seen it ...
i'd rather see things that make me think
as uncomfortable as that makes me.

 

[faberryman]

I, for one, enjoy encountering work that challenges me to think about who and what I am and my place in the Universe.

A photograph of a cruxifix in urine challenged who and what you are and your place in the universe? What existential insight did you gain from viewing it?

 

[removedacct1]

A photograph of a cruxifix in urine challenged who and what you are and your place in the universe? What existential insight did you gain from viewing it?

If I thought for one second you actually wanted to know, I'd give you an answer. But what I sense is that you simply want to challenge me, having already made up your mind on the matter. But go ahead - tell me I'm wrong

 

[BrianShaw]

I want to know too

 

[BrianShaw]

... and it’s also “old news”.

I found it controversial and a bit shocking when it was first conceived. At this point, I think I find it a bit boorish, both as an image and a societal statement. The original post is a bit boorish too, but that’s just my opinion.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

It seems to me that - especially in the west, where we are mired in a surreal Warner Brothers cartoon version of New Puritanism - Christianity is regarded as being so deeply woven into the DNA of humanity that it cannot be examined, questioned, or - heaven forbid - mocked.

You really believe that, don't you? I'm an atheist. Nothing has ever happened to me for calling Christianity stupid, aside from occasionally being told I'm going to Hell.

You want to see a religion that cannot be mocked? Try going to a Muslim country; any Muslim country, and make a work of art mocking Muhammed. You'll most likely not live to tell about it. Ask the guys at Charlie Hebdo.

American artists, comedians, political commentators, and musicians mock Christianity every day in this country and no one stops them. It's a free country, that's their right, just as its the right of Christians to find such mocking offensive.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

If my doctor friend were here, he would say, judging by the colour, Mr. Serrano's may have too much protein in his diet.

 

[MattKing]

I wonder what Sirius would say if the artist had used a mock Hasselblad instead of a mock Christ?
I'm not sure I'm ever comfortable with an artistic creation which has a purpose, at least in part, to upset and offend.
But I certainly understand the importance of causing people to examine their values.
So while I wouldn't go to see the work, I wouldn't try to prevent others from doing so.

 

[BrianShaw]

Hey, great idea. But instead of a Hasselblad how about a Leica.

 

[rwjr]

when new york photographer andres serrano plunged a plastic crucifix into a jar of his own urine & photographed the work titled " immersion ( piss christ ) in 1987 he claimed he was making a statement on the mis-use of religion . the controversial photograph was part of a series showing religious objects submerged in fluids like blood & milk , serrano defended his photograph as a criticism of the " billion - dollar christ for profit industry " & a condemnation of those who abuse the teachings of christ for their own ignoble ends

 

[removedacct1]

A photograph of a cruxifix in urine challenged who and what you are and your place in the universe? What existential insight did you gain from viewing it?

The "existential insight" gained from Serrano's work had less to do with the photograph itself than observing how people react to it and the consequences of their reactions. Moments like this present me with an opportunity to view people's fears, prejudices and judgements in a very clear light, and I am reminded how difficult it can be to allow the judgements of others seep into my psyche. (If you tell me you haven't passed judgement on Serrano's photograph without considering The Object as separate from The Content, then I have to say I don't believe you) I am also reminded why I have lived my life in a space where judgement and prejudice and opinion can be viewed from a safe distance, because these things often comes so quickly and so easily, flowing unimpeded, like the movement of air. And so my place in the Universe is one where I guard myself from the harsh opinions of others. Not all of us are built to withstand unlimited exposure to Others. I'm sure this is what Sarte meant when he said "Hell is other people."

I feel I must address Mr. Berryman's question specifically: I perceive a passive-aggressive judgement built into the DNA of your questions, suggesting you have already passed judgement on my statement and don't care one bit what I might say to defend or illustrate my point. I should also add that I made my remarks not specifically about "Piss Christ", but about challenging creative work in general: "I, for one, enjoy encountering work that challenges me to think about who and what I am and my place in the Universe."

 

[faberryman]

I'm still not sure what existential insight you gained from viewing the image. I like the image qua image. It's the rest of the baggage that has me scratching my head.

 

[removedacct1]

I'm still not sure what existential insight you gained from viewing the image. I like the image qua image. It's the rest of the baggage that has me scratching my head.

I think the fact that the "Piss Christ" image has great ability to conjure people's "baggage" is its real power. If a person views this piece and it summons their personal demons/baggage, then its an opportunity for self-reflection, and insight into one's psyche. Whether or not any individual makes use of that opportunity is another matter. Myself, I choose not to let a work push my Hot Buttons without examining the things in my psyche that made such reactions possible.

 

[faberryman]

I think the fact that the "Piss Christ" image has great ability to conjure people's "baggage" is its real power. If a person views this piece and it summons their personal demons/baggage, then its an opportunity for self-reflection, and insight into one's psyche. Whether or not any individual makes use of that opportunity is another matter. Myself, I choose not to let a work push my Hot Buttons without examining the things in my psyche that made such reactions possible.

The baggage I was referring to the baggage that accompanies the image, not the personal baggage I bring to it, which are two distinct things. I have read Lucy Lippard's explanation and found it wanting, which, if it is the best she can do, may be indicative of the merit of the work.

 

[removedacct1]

I have read Lucy Lippard's explanation and found it wanting, which, if it is the best she can do, may be indicative of the merit of the work.

I think the “merit” of the work can be found in the fact that after thirty years in the public consciousness, it still incites dialog about its meaning, it’s intent, and whether or not it’s actually “art”!
I should be so lucky as to create a single piece that has that kind of life in the world.