andres serrano - piss christ

[BrianShaw]

There may be a reason that it only pokes its head out of the cave every 30 years.

Why not move on to discussing Jock Stuges or David Hamilton now?

 

[removedacct1]

There may be a reason that it only pokes its head out of the cave every 30 years.

Why not move on to discussing Jock Stuges or David Hamilton now?

By all means! You start

 

[Patrick Robert James]

If it was "piss janitor" no one would know who Serrano is. That says it all right there. He kept on this religious/offensive track with work after that too IIRC. I couldn't care less about it, in fact I find it boring. I grew up Catholic so I can see how it could be offensive, but I am an atheist these days so I just chuckle when people care much about it. He was smart like a fox though. Got his name out there. Kind of like trolling before the internet. He knew what he was doing. He used religious people to get what he wanted.

 

[Alan W]

I like it.Beautiful shades of orange and red.As others have said,though-we wouldn't even be discussing it if the crucifix had been submerged in Tang.Life goes on.

 

[removed account4]

I like it.Beautiful shades of orange and red.As others have said,though-we wouldn't even be discussing it if the crucifix had been submerged in Tang.Life goes on.

i think he tried it in tang, and a handful of other materials .. it wasn't the same

 

[BrianShaw]

But if he had maintained proper hydration he’d need to use a filter.

 

[rwjr]

over the years , perhaps the most unlikely defender of serrano's "piss christ " has been british art scholar & television personality ( & catholic nun ) sister wendy beckett . she said " i thought he was saying, in a rather simplistic magazine-y way , that this is what we are doing to christ , we are not treating him with reverence . his great sacrifice is not being used . we live very vulgar lives . we put christ in a bottle of urine- in practice . it was a very admonitory work . not a great work ; one wouldn't want to go on looking at it once one had already seen it . but i think to call it blasphemous is really rather begging the question: it could be or could not be . it is what you make of it & i could make something that made me feel a deep desire to reverence the death of christ more by this suggestion that this is what , in practice , the world is doing .

 

[Cholentpot]

Can we try a Piss Mohammed? Or a Piss MLK?

 

[hoffy]

Can we try a Piss Mohammed? Or a Piss MLK?

But you won't be able to look at it.....

I'd rather a Piss Ron Hubbard/David Miscavige/Tom Cruise.

 

[rwjr]

Can we try a Piss Mohammed? Or a Piss MLK?

if you want to bring the wrath of the muslim world down on you i say go for it , just be prepared to always be looking over your shoulder because of the " fatwa " that will certainly be placed on your head . dont believe that " islam is a religion of peace " propaganda . the muslims aren't as tolerant or forgiving as other faiths are .

 

[rwjr]

https://www.thejesusquestion.org/2011/04/28/submerged-and-shining/ , if your interested in checking out more of his work GO HERE www.andresserrano.org

 

[rwjr]

what's interesting is that mr . serrano identifies himself as a christian & has long maintained that "piss christ " is not political but an act of devotion , a reflection of his relationship to the crucifix as a tarnished symbol & his childhood teaching that christ shouldn't be idolized . the piss isn't what serrano did to christ ; it's what WE did to christ over the centuries of commercializing him . the only message is that i'm a christian artist making a religious work of art based on my relationship with christ & the church . the crucifix is a symbol that has lost it's true meaning ; the horror of what occurred . it represents the crucifixion of a man who was tortured , humiliated & left to die on a cross for several hours . in that time christ not only bled to death but he probably saw his bodily functions & fluids come out of him . so if " piss christ " upsets people maybe this is so because it is bringing the symbol closer to it's original meaning ..

 

[removed account4]

Can we try a Piss Mohammed? Or a Piss MLK?

i don't think that would be possible. from what i remember
neither of them has vast commerical enterprises that turned
them into a commodity rather than a icon/human being to
be revered and respected. and that was one of the things
the photographer was talking about with his artwork, how
his saviour was cheapened and sold at a dime store.
i wonder if the people who are offended by this work are also
offended by the tom waites song chocolate jesus ..

 

[BrianShaw]

what's interesting is that mr . serrano identifies himself as a christian & has long maintained that "piss christ " is not political but an act of devotion , a reflection of his relationship to the crucifix as a tarnished symbol & his childhood teaching that christ shouldn't be idolized . the piss isn't what serrano did to christ ; it's what we did to christ over the centuries of commercializing him . the only message is that i'm a christian artist making a religious work of art based on my relationship with christ & the church . the crucifix is a symbol that has lost it's true meaning ; the horror of what occurred . it represents the crucifixion of a man who was tortured , humiliated & left to die on a cross for several hours . in that time christ not only bled to death but he probably saw his bodily functions & fluids come out of him . so if " piss christ " upsets people maybe this is so because it is bringing the symbol closer to it's original meaning ..

I understand the thought/rationale, andmaybe even agree with it, but not the image.

My thought has been more like making crucifixes out of wadded-up paper money and making rosary beads out of coins.

The image just doesn’t convey the “intended context” to me. I don’t even find it photographically pleasing in any way.

 

[Pioneer]

The problem with this photograph is that the artist (and I do use that term somewhat hesitantly) purposely used the religious context to create controversy to generate attention. As a result we will never really know if it really is art, or if continues to survive strictly on the controversy it created and not on the merit of the work itself.

Secondarily, I have trouble considering Mr. Serrano an artist at all. Is he using bodily fluids/excretions as his material because he has no choice? Or is he using these materials because his ability is not up to the task of creating art without attracting the attention of the art world, and the masses, through the controversial nature of his materials? I am pretty sure it is the latter.

Of course my opinion really has no bearing on his standing within the artistic community, but for me his is more of a sideshow in the carnival and not the real deal. As a result none of his images interest me nor am I particularly interested in devoting any of my own precious time to exploring his work further. Since there are many other artists out there whose work I do admire, I doubt I am worse off.

 

[Cholentpot]

if you want to bring the wrath of the muslim world down on you i say go for it , just be prepared to always be looking over your shoulder because of the " fatwa " that will certainly be placed on your head . dont believe that " islam is a religion of peace " propaganda . the muslims aren't as tolerant or forgiving as other faiths are .

Don't worry. I already have a 'fatwa' on my head. Born with it you can even say. Cousins can be a pain you know?

 

[Michael W]

The problem with this photograph is that the artist (and I do use that term somewhat hesitantly) purposely used the religious context to create controversy to generate attention. As a result we will never really know if it really is art, or if continues to survive strictly on the controversy it created and not on the merit of the work itself.

Strictly speaking, it wasn't Serrano who sought controversy. The photo was exhibited in the 1980s with no adverse comment until the moral majority decided to make it a scandal, particularly the Replublican senator who tore up a copy of the photo.

Secondarily, I have trouble considering Mr. Serrano an artist at all. Is he using bodily fluids/excretions as his material because he has no choice? Or is he using these materials because his ability is not up to the task of creating art without attracting the attention of the art world, and the masses, through the controversial nature of his materials? I am pretty sure it is the latter.

He has said that he used bodily fluids (initially blood and milk) partly for their purity of colour but also because of the Catholic emphasis on body fluids, e.g. blood of Christ.

 

[Pioneer]

Strictly speaking, it wasn't Serrano who sought controversy. The photo was exhibited in the 1980s with no adverse comment until the moral majority decided to make it a scandal, particularly the Replublican senator who tore up a copy of the photo.


He has said that he used bodily fluids (initially blood and milk) partly for their purity of colour but also because of the Catholic emphasis on body fluids, e.g. blood of Christ.

I could really care less what the moral majority did or didn't do. This entire issue was not created by the moral majority. They may have jumped on the bandwagon later because of some politicians desire for more publicity, but for me that is unimportant. You will never convince me that Mr. Serrano was not attempting to create controversy. Whether or not it created any public controversy when it was first exhibited, I do not believe for one moment that Mr. Serrano could not have known that it was controversial from the very beginning.

Had he not specifically publicized the materials he used then there would have been no controversy. Religious art of all types can be found everywhere and we will likely never know what was used in its creation. For all we know Michangelo used a bit of urine to mix his colors on the Sistine Chapel. I seriously doubt that he climbed down off that scaffolding every time he needed to relieve himself. Whether or not he did, he did not feel it necessary to advertise his choice of materials.

Finally, the idea that the only way he could get his colors mixed right was to use his own blood is pure, unadulterated BS, and everyone knows it. There are thousands of ways to mix different colored pigments to come up with hundreds of thousands of different colors. Just go down to any paint store if you don't think it is possible.

I stand by my original assessment. Mr. Serrano's art is entirely dependent of controversy, not on any artistic merit. It is totally up to him if he wants to piss off the pope. But that doesn't make his work art.

 

[gr82bart]

Mr. Serrano's art is entirely dependent of controversy, not on any artistic merit. It is totally up to him if he wants to piss off the pope. But that doesn't make his work art.

Some would argue the act itself is art.
:-O

 

[Pioneer]

Some would argue the act itself is art.
:-O

Saying it does not make it so.

Left unsupervised long enough any baby will play in his own feces. Doesn't make it art.

 

[removed account4]

Saying it does not make it so.

Left unsupervised long enough any baby will play in his own feces. Doesn't make it art.

it depends ! **
i know of people who have raised that sort of thing to an artform
and from what i remember at centre de georges pompidou in paris
they had an exhibit on elephant dung .. so one never knows what will
be a hot commodity** in the art world

**( pardon the puns )

 

[Cholentpot]

Some would argue the act itself is art.
:-O

Some would say it's piss.

 

[faberryman]

Saying it does not make it so.

Left unsupervised long enough any baby will play in his own feces. Doesn't make it art.

Depends on who your agent is.

 

[jtk]

Artists, whatever we/they are, don't "say things" with their work, they/we just make the stuff. If they/we want to say things, they/we say them.

My dog sometimes barks. She's not "saying things," she's barking. It's up to me to infer from time of day or other realities that maybe she's hungry or wants to go out.

Serrano's work is comparable to my dog's work. Serrano claims his work says something, or means something.

My dog is more of an artist than Serrano is because she barks for us to enjoy or interpret. She's too much the artist to interpret her barks for us.

 

[removedacct1]

Artists, whatever we/they are, don't "say things" with their work, they/we just make the stuff. If they/we want to say things, they/we say them.

My dog sometimes barks. She's not "saying things," she's barking. It's up to me to infer from time of day or other realities that maybe she's hungry or wants to go out.

Serrano's work is comparable to my dog's work. Serrano claims his work says something, or means something.

Why is it that the people who are offended by or disgusted by a piece of work like this inevitably deal with their feelings by demeaning the work or dismissing it as meaningless??? Its pretty clear that - whether you like the piece or not - Serrano had something to say and said it quite effectively. The fact that his message continues to resonate and draw ire after decades is all the evidence we need to illustrate the fact.