Pope Painted With Condom

[cronus]

http://www.skegnessstandard.co.uk/news/ ... -1-4736560

Skegness exhibition’s ‘blasphemous’ artwork would give Pope a ‘dicky fit’

An artist’s depiction of Christ painted using a condom is ‘blasphemous’ and ‘highly offensive’ to Catholics, a concerned gallery visitor has said.

The complainant, who did not wish to be named, was visiting the H-Art Gallery at the Hildreds Centre in Skegness, when she noticed Steve Gould’s ‘Immaculate Conception’ ink painting.

Despite enjoying the exhibition, she was concerned her devout Catholic friend would have been ‘upset terribly’ if she saw the Son of God portrayed using prophylactics, which her church frowns upon.

She said: “I enjoyed it thoroughly - there were so many beautiful art works there and I think Skegness should have more things like this but I do feel my friend would have been offended.

“At first I thought it was quite amusing but some people could say it was blasphemous and my friend, who is a devout Catholic, would have been terribly upset.

“I think His Holiness the Pope would have had a dicky fit.”

Mr Gould has defended his piece, which he says was not initially intended to represent Christ, whose likeness was purely coincidental and not even obvious to many viewers.

He said: “I did not set out to design an image of Christ using a condom - it was done as an experimental piece of art - I like to try methods that I’ve not seen done before.

“I can’t see it as being offensive - people take what they choose from art and most people haven’t even noticed the likeness.”

(continued, so it was Jesus and not the Pope...are you real?)

[Jason]

Piss poor picture. Did he use condoms instead of a brush or paint condoms and stick them on there?

[cronus]

Piss poor picture. Did he use condoms instead of a brush or paint condoms and stick them on there?

Not a very big one is it?

[Svartalf]

Shit "art" is shitty.

[orpheus]

Mr Gould has defended his piece, which he says was not initially intended to represent Christ, whose likeness was purely coincidental and not even obvious to many viewers.

This may be true in his case. But in general, this sort of statement makes me angry. It's an apologetic and excuse-making stance. It implies that being intentionally provocative is wrong. And that's dangerous. It would be so refreshing to hear an artist/writer/filmmaker/etc. say "you know what? It's not a coincidence. My work is satirical. I meant it to be provocative. It is intended to offend. So what? What are you going to do about it?"

[cronus]

Mr Gould has defended his piece, which he says was not initially intended to represent Christ, whose likeness was purely coincidental and not even obvious to many viewers.

This may be true in his case. But in general, this sort of statement makes me angry. It's an apologetic and excuse-making stance. It implies that being intentionally provocative is wrong. And that's dangerous. It would be so refreshing to hear an artist/writer/filmmaker/etc. say "you know what? It's not a coincidence. My work is satirical. I meant it to be provocative. It is intended to offend. So what? What are you going to do about it?"

I'm wondering about the people out there who *actually* know what Christ looked like?

[Jason]