andres serrano - piss christ

[Pioneer]

it depends ! **
...

 

[faberryman]

Its pretty clear that - whether you like the piece or not - Serrano had something to say and said it quite effectively.

I must have missed it. What did he say?

 

[Pioneer]

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.

I kind of get a kick of statements like this.

First, I would like to say that the work itself doesn't impress me in any way, irregardless of the materials used to produce it. So my dislike is not based on being offended but on my own personal critique. In my opinion there is nothing about this work that deserves attention outside of the controversy attached to it. I am not asking that this piece be burned or otherwise removed from any viewing. I am not trying to stop anyone else from spending as much of their money as they wish to buy it or view it. All I am saying is that it does not qualify as art for me and I have some pretty clear and specific reasons for that. I am not even saying that Andres Serrano himself has not produced anything artistic, just that this particular work doesn't count for me.

Now that is out of the way and taking this entire train of thought a bit further, why are we expected by people to completely suspend our feeling of disgust the minute someone claims something is art? Is there an unwritten rule somewhere that allows people to be just as socially offensive as they can possibly be, all in the name of art (sorry gr82bart?) By its very nature art is expected to elicit some form of emotional response from the viewer, otherwise what is the purpose? So if the only response is disgust, that emotion is not supposed to count and we are not allowed to use that emotion to dismiss it? Is that only true in this particular case, or are there other circumstances where this "rule" also applies?

Odd.

 

[dpurdy]

I kind of get a kick of statements like this.

First, I would like to say that the work itself doesn't impress me in any way, irregardless of the materials used to produce it. So my dislike is not based on being offended but on my own personal critique. In my opinion there is nothing about this work that deserves attention outside of the controversy attached to it. I am not asking that this piece be burned or otherwise removed from any viewing. I am not trying to stop anyone else from spending as much of their money as they wish to buy it or view it. All I am saying is that it does not qualify as art for me and I have some pretty clear and specific reasons for that. I am not even saying that Andres Serrano himself has not produced anything artistic, just that this particular work doesn't count for me.

Now that is out of the way and taking this entire train of thought a bit further, why are we expected by people to completely suspend our feeling of disgust the minute someone claims something is art? Is there an unwritten rule somewhere that allows people to be just as socially offensive as they can possibly be, all in the name of art (sorry gr82bart?) By its very nature art is expected to elicit some form of emotional response from the viewer, otherwise what is the purpose? So if the only response is disgust, that emotion is not supposed to count and we are not allowed to use that emotion to dismiss it? Is that only true in this particular case, or are there other circumstances where this "rule" also applies?

Odd.

Yep +1

 

[jtk]

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.

Paul, the assertion that something has "meaning" or "says something" is only valid for that individual, and for others who hold similar views.

The assertion that Serrano is an "artist" has validity for folks who think public recognition defines "artist." My view is that public recognition actually suggests the person is NOT an artist

 

[jtk]

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.

Paul, you've shared many beautiful photos "of" vegetation. As beautiful photos they do something more important than "meaning" or "saying" something...because those words don't "mean" anything. If you were to tell us what they "mean" or "say," I think that would significantly dilute your photos value. In other words, they are art.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

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?

Whether you like Andre Serrano or not, his work is definitely thought-provoking. Some folks see his photograph of a crucifix in urine as offensive. To me, Christianity can withstand such scrutiny if his work is to insult Christians. My interpretation of "Piss Christ" show how Jesus is human. Human waste is one unpleasant part of living that we share as human beings. If Jesus, a mortal human is connected to God, why not all human beings? In Buddhism, all living being have "Buddha nature" which means we all have the ability to be enlightened. Maybe this holds true for all humans? Buddha, Jesus both human. I hope I haven't offended anyone.

 

[Cholentpot]

My two cents for stuff like this.

Where is the effort and creativity? When I see art I want to see that it took work, brains and courage. Dunking a statue in piss takes a trip to Walmart for the vat, a midnight stroll to a nativity scene and a 24 pack of natty lite.

 

[Pioneer]

My two cents for stuff like this.

Where is the effort and creativity? When I see art I want to see that it took work, brains and courage. Dunking a statue in piss takes a trip to Walmart for the vat, a midnight stroll to a nativity scene and a 24 pack of natty lite.

Don't forget...once you are done you have to tell everyone exactly what you did otherwise they may ignore it. In fact, it is so poorly done they probably will ignore it. But if you tell them, some thin skinned Christians will become offended, it will become controversial, and then it becomes art. Actually, it may not beome art even then, but it will be worth more money.

BTW. Besides this poor piece of work, what exactly has Andre Serrano done in his life? Surely he has produced other works that could be thoughtful, insightful, pieces that impress people...right? Surely...

EDIT - Ahhh, that's right. Before this he was a morgue photographer. I guess this probably is a step up then.

 

[Cholentpot]

Don't forget...once you are done you have to tell everyone exactly what you did otherwise they may ignore it. In fact, it is so poorly done they probably will ignore it. But if you tell them, some thin skinned Christians will become offended, it will become controversial, and then it becomes art. Actually, it may not beome art even then, but it will be worth more money.

BTW. Besides this poor piece of work, what exactly has Andre Serrano done in his life? Surely he has produced other works that could be thoughtful, insightful, pieces that impress people...right? Surely...

EDIT - Ahhh, that's right. Before this he was a morgue photographer. I guess this probably is a step up then.

I doubt he would have had the 'courage' to do this when religion was more popular and powerful. There was little risk to him or his by pulling this stunt.

 

[removedacct1]

What I find most amusing in all of this is that I suspect if people didn't know how the photo was made (IE: didn't know what the fluid was) they'd find the image beautiful. But because the materials used are considered by many offensive and imply a negative message, many people are immediately blinded by this perceived insult to their sensibilities and the proverbial baby goes swiftly out with the bath water, never to be seen again! I'm often amazed by human nature.

 

[BrianShaw]

What I find most amusing in all of this is that I suspect if people didn't know how the photo was made (IE: didn't know what the fluid was) they'd find the image beautiful. But because the materials used are considered by many offensive and imply a negative message, many people are immediately blinded by this perceived insult to their sensibilities and the proverbial baby goes swiftly out with the bath water, never to be seen again! I'm often amazed by human nature.

In some ways I think you may be correct. In other ways... if it were apple juice I think it would have been dismissed as just a crappy image.

 

[Pioneer]

In some ways I think you may be correct. In other ways... if it were apple juice I think it would have been dismissed as just a crappy image.

That is exactly what I did, and still do, no matter the fluid.

To each his own I guess.