Andres Serrano's Piss Christ Destroyed

[Gallstones]

The offense didn't merit act. You are correct. Again, I am not justifying their behavior, but I could just as easilly see an atheist vandalizing a figure of Christ in a positive light. In fact, that's what Serrano had done. That little plastic crucifix was valuable symbolically to the faith (as much of a money making novelty as it is), but he plunged it in his piss anyway.

The crucifix isn't damaged by placing it in urine. Take it out again and rinse it off, use soap even.
There are millions of crucifixes, all shapes and sizes and styles--there is only one Piss Christ.


If I buy a crucifix--and I do have some from my Catholic days---ie if I own the crucifix it is an object that belongs to me and I can do with it as I please.

How about Piss Mohammad, and I'll use dog piss?

[devogue]

It’s an offensive world we live in. Deal with it like an adult. You have not been physically harmed. Why should your offence be more important than someone else’s freedom to express themselves?

Although I now fundamentally agree with that, it's interesting that someone like Stephen Fry, who has had well documented mental issues, should contend that physical harm is the only real or valid kind of harm it is possible to cause a person.

People being offended by use of the word "fuck" don't make you bipolar.

Photos of a plastic Jesus in a container of piss don't make you bipolar, either.

I for one am glad Stephen Fry recognizes this.

You misunderstand me. My point is that Stephen Fry is acutely aware of the delicate nature of the human psyche - if a Westboro Baptist fuck stands and screams "Your fag child is in hell" to a father who is burying his nine year old daughter is that father's mental anguish not valid and real? Does it not hurt as much, if in a different way, to being punched in the guts? Of course, the Westboro fuck's right to free speech is sacrosanct, but for Fry to say that words can't hurt and that offence in itself is not important (even if it's not as important as free speech) is disingenuous, IMO.

[Gonzo]

By the by, I'm not sure all theists would appreciate being lumped in with the sort of barbarians who smash gallery exhibits.

That was some of the point I was trying to make, besides the fact that angry and irrational people should be understood to some degree as well. I don't think the article did a lot to draw the line between the protesters and all fundamentalists or theists in general and only did further to pit theist against atheists - a mentality I think is stifling. In fact, I would assume more people would give up there religion, if less fear of being shunned by there families was involved - and that has to do with how the two groups act towards eachother. A standard, I think, that deserves dignity and respect to all people.

Being offended is different from calling for the repression of offensive viewpoints, or resorting to vandalism.

That's a good point. It's all a matter of how ideas are expressed. I just want to point out that 'shock art' could be viewed as negatively as a violent act by some. The blasphemy fallacy leads people to do some awfully stupid things.

[Geoff]

The crucifix isn't damaged by placing it in urine. Take it out again and rinse it off, use soap even.
There are millions of crucifixes, all shapes and sizes and styles--there is only one Piss Christ.


If I buy a crucifix--and I do have some from my Catholic days---ie if I own the crucifix it is an object that belongs to me and I can do with it as I please.

How about Piss Mohammad, and I'll use dog piss?

Pig piss would be better...

[Gallstones]

It’s an offensive world we live in. Deal with it like an adult. You have not been physically harmed. Why should your offence be more important than someone else’s freedom to express themselves?

Although I now fundamentally agree with that, it's interesting that someone like Stephen Fry, who has had well documented mental issues, should contend that physical harm is the only real or valid kind of harm it is possible to cause a person.

People being offended by use of the word "fuck" don't make you bipolar.

Photos of a plastic Jesus in a container of piss don't make you bipolar, either.

I for one am glad Stephen Fry recognizes this.

I for one have become fucking sick and tired of the tendency of some "perfect normals" to disregard the whole of a person who may, as part of their being, have a mental illness.

[Gallstones]

The crucifix isn't damaged by placing it in urine. Take it out again and rinse it off, use soap even.
There are millions of crucifixes, all shapes and sizes and styles--there is only one Piss Christ.


If I buy a crucifix--and I do have some from my Catholic days---ie if I own the crucifix it is an object that belongs to me and I can do with it as I please.

How about Piss Mohammad, and I'll use dog piss?

Pig piss would be better...

Yeah, but I can get dog piss. I'll feed him pork.

[Gonzo]

The offense didn't merit act. You are correct. Again, I am not justifying their behavior, but I could just as easilly see an atheist vandalizing a figure of Christ in a positive light. In fact, that's what Serrano had done. That little plastic crucifix was valuable symbolically to the faith (as much of a money making novelty as it is), but he plunged it in his piss anyway. Why call those who smash it 'babarians' but not the artist's deprecation? It's an interesting double standard I think. Indeed, are YOU not offended by the fact they destroyed the art? Enough, apparently to call the vandal's 'barbarians'. I think it's fair to say there was an offense going both way's - towards each group against eachother. The 2000 year old established religion, and all it's offenses, the artist's response as 'shock art', the reaction to art by the first group. There is veracity to art, as Devo said, and this illustrates it. Were the artist not inspired by the offenses of religion, he would have never created the piece. And, then, I have a bit of a revelation: the artist creates, the vandals destroy. Whish is why there is no justifying what they did, just framing it as another stupid human act in a long line of stupid human acts.

As for taking offense, I consider this dialogue by the character Zossima from The Brother's Karamazov which we're in the middle of reading:

Above all, don't lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to such a pass that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others. And having no respect he ceases to love, and in order to occupy and distract himself without love he gives way to passions and coarse pleasures, and sinks to bestiality in his vices, all from continual lying to other men and to himself. The man who lies to himself can be more easily offended than any one. You know it is sometimes very pleasant to take offense, isn't it? A man may know that nobody has insulted him, but that he has invented the insult for himself, has lied and exaggerated to make it picturesque, has caught at a word and made a mountain out of a molehill—he knows that himself, yet he will be the first to take offense, and will revel in his resentment till he feels great pleasure in it, and so pass to genuine vindictiveness.'

Being offended is different from calling for the repression of offensive viewpoints, or resorting to vandalism.

So far as I know, Serrano owned the religious figure he dunked in pee. It was his object to defile. Theoretically, one of the angry mob of Christians could have bought the photo, then destroyed it. There would have been nothing inherently wrong in doing so, They could even have documented the process in some way, and called it art. Which would also have been valid.

Correct, IMO - and I don't make any distinction just because it's about religion...I feel the same about, say flag-burning, which I've never understood the merkins getting all het up about.

Most American could care less about flag burning and equally so about Piss Christ. I am more bothered by generalizations and condescending terms, but excuse my if I sound offended.

I have made controversial art (actually religious and featuring the crucifix) before to be put on public display and have returned to it vandalized. I do not deem the perpetraitors barbarians, though. I spent a good couple years trying to offend religious folk, and was pretty damn pleased when they took offense. Looking back, I think my attitude and the art itself was destructive in a way, even if it holds a purpose. Or perhaps creative in that it created a greater distrust for organized religion.

[hadespussercats]

It’s an offensive world we live in. Deal with it like an adult. You have not been physically harmed. Why should your offence be more important than someone else’s freedom to express themselves?

Although I now fundamentally agree with that, it's interesting that someone like Stephen Fry, who has had well documented mental issues, should contend that physical harm is the only real or valid kind of harm it is possible to cause a person.

People being offended by use of the word "fuck" don't make you bipolar.

Photos of a plastic Jesus in a container of piss don't make you bipolar, either.

I for one am glad Stephen Fry recognizes this.

You misunderstand me. My point is that Stephen Fry is acutely aware of the delicate nature of the human psyche - if a Westboro Baptist fuck stands and screams "Your fag child is in hell" to a father who is burying his nine year old daughter is that father's mental anguish not valid and real? Does it not hurt as much, if in a different way, to being punched in the guts? Of course, the Westboro fuck's right to free speech is sacrosanct, but for Fry to say that words can't hurt and that offence in itself is not important (even if it's not as important as free speech) is disingenuous, IMO.

I get your point. But I think Fry addresses it here:

Before you picket a theatre, write to your local paper, fire your AK-47 in the air, or call for someone’s head on a plate, ask yourself this question. Can you give an honest and coherent answer, explaining why your personal hurt feelings take precedence over someone else’s freedom?

Because you need to have an answer to this question. And it has to be a good one. Otherwise you will just be dismissed as an irrational, immature cry-baby with an inflated sense of the importance of your own sensibilities.

He's leaving open the possibility for someone actually being able to offer "an honest and coherent answer" for why someone should be concerned about what they say.

For instance, a recovery center for anorexics might have a thoroughly legitimate reason not to want a billboard of an ultra-thin supermodel facing their building-- because anorexics often are in fact susceptible to these images as "triggers" for their disease, and it would be difficult for them to avoid being confronted by that particular display while they're in recovery.

On the other hand, just because there are anorexics in the world is no reason fashion magazines shouldn't be allowed to show images of skinny women-- consumers have the option not to buy those magazines. They even have the opportunity to take those magazines to task in the public realm for the possible damage they could be doing to women's psyches. But that's different from censoring their publication.

Glgh. This metaphor could get really involved.

All I'm trying to get at is the simple existence of offense should not be enough to affect public policy. But we already recognize that a reasonable society occasionally limits free speech-- not allowing people to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, when there is in fact no fire, is a classic example.

But a reasonable society should also require a coherent rationale for limiting an essential liberty. I think that's what Fry is getting at here. But I could be wrong.

[hadespussercats]

It’s an offensive world we live in. Deal with it like an adult. You have not been physically harmed. Why should your offence be more important than someone else’s freedom to express themselves?

Although I now fundamentally agree with that, it's interesting that someone like Stephen Fry, who has had well documented mental issues, should contend that physical harm is the only real or valid kind of harm it is possible to cause a person.

People being offended by use of the word "fuck" don't make you bipolar.

Photos of a plastic Jesus in a container of piss don't make you bipolar, either.

I for one am glad Stephen Fry recognizes this.

I for one have become fucking sick and tired of the tendency of some "perfect normals" to disregard the whole of a person who may, as part of their being, have a mental illness.

Word.

[FBM]

So now instead of Jesus immersed in piss we have Jesus immersed in piss with his fucking face smashed in.

Result!

Improved the message, I'd say.

Perhaps a photograph of the photograph to be framed is in order?

I'm all for it.

[fordo]

The crucifix isn't damaged by placing it in urine. Take it out again and rinse it off, use soap even.
There are millions of crucifixes, all shapes and sizes and styles--there is only one Piss Christ.


If I buy a crucifix--and I do have some from my Catholic days---ie if I own the crucifix it is an object that belongs to me and I can do with it as I please.

How about Piss Mohammad, and I'll use dog piss?

Pig piss would be better...

and there i was feeling a lack of inspiration on this sunny autumn morning thank fuck i has ratz!

[Gallstones]

The crucifix isn't damaged by placing it in urine. Take it out again and rinse it off, use soap even.
There are millions of crucifixes, all shapes and sizes and styles--there is only one Piss Christ.


If I buy a crucifix--and I do have some from my Catholic days---ie if I own the crucifix it is an object that belongs to me and I can do with it as I please.

How about Piss Mohammad, and I'll use dog piss?

Pig piss would be better...

and there i was feeling a lack of inspiration on this sunny autumn morning thank fuck i has ratz!

Sunny? You got sun?

We got snow. More snow----six fucking months of snow.

[fordo]

i has more sun than i need its autumn, sunny as all fuck, i cant enjoy it i'm sensitive to light stuck cowering indoors even on the finest days, can we trade i never seen snow before, had enougth sun to last me a life time

[Gallstones]

Have some snow.

This was Monday and typical for spring--snow, sun, snow, sun.
We get the heaviest, wettest snow between March and June.

Looking south from my front step.



It is snowing right now and has been, off and on, all day.

[hadespussercats]

This doesn't really fit here, but I just wanted to say

Hi Fordo! Sorry about all the sunshine.