Art Gallery faces court over "obscene" statue of Christ.

New Posts

Montana said:
Art is intended to make people think, to evoke an emotion, to make you question your beliefs. The fact that this art piece has generated so much discussion, means the artist has achieved his goal.

Regards,

Montana
Click to expand...

My view of art is a little different, my view of real art is that it is to uplift the viewer, it should be beautiful, dramatic or thought provoking--which is different than shocking.

There are many, many images that would create discussion that can in no way be construed as 'art'..the 'artist' has achieved his goal, which was to shock people...the sculpture itself is clumsy, not much to write home about in terms of technique. I would call this kitch not art. But, I wouldn't ban it.
 
Medea said:
My view of art is a little different, my view of real art is that it is to uplift the viewer, it should be beautiful, dramatic or thought provoking--which is different than shocking.

There are many, many images that would create discussion that can in no way be construed as 'art'..the 'artist' has achieved his goal, which was to shock people...the sculpture itself is clumsy, not much to write home about in terms of technique. I would call this kitch not art. But, I wouldn't ban it.
Click to expand...

I don't think the piece in question is particularly "great" art and maybe the effort to shock is a bit immature. But even assuming the artist was merely provoking shock in a juvenile manner (something we really can't know), isn't that at least as noble a goal as making pretty pictures to match a sofa?

I don't understand your distinction between "shocking" and "thought provoking." If people don't think as a response to shock, whose fault is that?

Moreover, exactly how many people must be provoked to think before a work of art is declared successful? There are thoughtful posts in this thread. If many or most Christians don't want to consider the theological implications of a neutered Jesus or the degree to which fear of sex is built into their theology, it doesn't mean that other people won't ponder it quite a bit.
 
Ciara said:
I'd call it crap not kitch:):):)
Click to expand...

A filthy little toddler bringing me a mud pie with a stick in it and claiming it's a piece of art...it IS a piece of art.

Apparently so is the Mona Lisa (which is dumb looking to me.) I'm certainly no judge of art.

Maybe we can call shocking stuff Faux Art, and call it F-ART for short.
 
Nova said:
I don't think the piece in question is particularly "great" art and maybe the effort to shock is a bit immature. But even assuming the artist was merely provoking shock in a juvenile manner (something we really can't know), isn't that at least as noble a goal as making pretty pictures to match a sofa?

I don't understand your distinction between "shocking" and "thought provoking." If people don't think as a response to shock, whose fault is that?

Moreover, exactly how many people must be provoked to think before a work of art is declared successful? There are thoughtful posts in this thread. If many or most Christians don't want to consider the theological implications of a neutered Jesus or the degree to which fear of sex is built into their theology, it doesn't mean that other people won't ponder it quite a bit.
Click to expand...

A color photo of an aborted fetus will be thought provoking and shocking, but it isn't art. A photo or image of a person being tortured would be thought provoking and shocking, but its not art. And if we look, historically, at the overwhelming majority of great art, even modern art....you are not going to find many images that were created for 'shock value'.

If the goal was really to promote thoughtful reflection on the sexuality of Jesus Christ or to make a philosphical statement about same, why not a beatuiful statue of Jesus embracing Mary Magdalene instead of the very crude and juvenile statue that was created.

Many years ago I went to the 'piss christ' exhibit to see what all the fuss was about..and I found that yes, Maplethorpe I think, was a very good photographer but many of the images in the exhibit were too graphic, too crude to really be considered "art" as I define it.

Something that appeals to the most base instincts, sensational, purient, graphic isn't art in my opinion.
 
Medea said:
A color photo of an aborted fetus will be thought provoking and shocking, but it isn't art. A photo or image of a person being tortured would be thought provoking and shocking, but its not art. And if we look, historically, at the overwhelming majority of great art, even modern art....you are not going to find many images that were created for 'shock value'.

If the goal was really to promote thoughtful reflection on the sexuality of Jesus Christ or to make a philosphical statement about same, why not a beatuiful statue of Jesus embracing Mary Magdalene instead of the very crude and juvenile statue that was created.

Many years ago I went to the 'piss christ' exhibit to see what all the fuss was about..and I found that yes, Maplethorpe I think, was a very good photographer but many of the images in the exhibit were too graphic, too crude to really be considered "art" as I define it.

Something that appeals to the most base instincts, sensational, purient, graphic isn't art in my opinion.
Click to expand...

"Piss Christ" was by Andres Serrano, but you are correct, of course, that it was very much associated with Maplethorpe's work by politicans trying to exploit public outrage. (I'm not being a know-it-all; I had to look up the spelling of Serrano's name.)

Like you, I might very much prefer the hypothetical statue of Jesus embracing Mary M., but surely we can agree that such a work would be open to misinterpretation in ways the "Erection Christ" is not.

As for Modern Art, almost all of it was just as shocking when it first appeared. We're just used to it now. The first word of Jarry's play, Ubu Roi, is "Merde!" Legend has it a riot broke out on opening night in response to that first word. Today, the play is considered a classic and is quite frequently revived without controversy. But that initial audience insisted, rather violently, that the play "wasn't art."

Even sillier, IMHO, were those who condemned the Realists and Impressionists in the mid-19th century because their paintings of ordinary (i.e., non-royal and not heroic) subjects "wasn't art."

I think it's all well and good to draw lines between the art one likes and the art one doesn't. Frankly, it sounds like you and I would often agree. But when we start declaring that such and such "is not art," we enter dangerous territory. For surely everything you and I like is "not art" to somebody else.
 
Nova said:
"Piss Christ" was by Andres Serrano, but you are correct, of course, that it was very much associated with Maplethorpe's work by politicans trying to exploit public outrage. (I'm not being a know-it-all; I had to look up the spelling of Serrano's name.)

Like you, I might very much prefer the hypothetical statue of Jesus embracing Mary M., but surely we can agree that such a work would be open to misinterpretation in ways the "Erection Christ" is not.

As for Modern Art, almost all of it was just as shocking when it first appeared. We're just used to it now. The first word of Jarry's play, Ubu Roi, is "Merde!" Legend has it a riot broke out on opening night in response to that first word. Today, the play is considered a classic and is quite frequently revived without controversy. But that initial audience insisted, rather violently, that the play "wasn't art."

Even sillier, IMHO, were those who condemned the Realists and Impressionists in the mid-19th century because their paintings of ordinary (i.e., non-royal and not heroic) subjects "wasn't art."

I think it's all well and good to draw lines between the art one likes and the art one doesn't. Frankly, it sounds like you and I would often agree. But when we start declaring that such and such "is not art," we enter dangerous territory. For surely everything you and I like is "not art" to somebody else.
Click to expand...

They don't call it a slippery slope for no reason:)

I guess my problem overall is the dumbing down and coarsening of the culture, where you can slap "art" on any kind of nonsense, surely there is some kind of a reasonable ground between banning James Joyce and covering up the genitals on Greek statues and elevating poorly constructed, shock value crap to the level of "art". High art? Low art? Schlock art?

But, again, I think its ridiculous to "ban" it, since its tame in comparisson to the 'free speech' *advertiser censored* sites all over the Internet...Yet, when anything can be called art, doesn't it diminish the whole category?

Are velvet Elvises and ugly erect penis Jesus's really in the same category as Botticelli and Picaso just because somebody somewhere likes them and calls them "art"?
 
Dark Knight said:
Jesus preached against the sin of lust. Since Jesus' was sinless, he wouldn't have an erection. (I can't believe I just typed that.) :doh:
Click to expand...


An erection is a sin???? Whaa haaa - I'm glad Heaven is going to be just a women's place!!!
 
This isn't a lecture, or anything, this is just something I think about from time to time and this post made me think of it again.

Our homeschool group went on a trip recently to see the art of Phil Bender, and the kids didn't get it. (I didn't really get it, either.) You can see some of his pieces here: http://pirateart.homestead.com/ben1.html This is pretty representative of what we saw, in fact I'm pretty sure the hangers are the same ones we went to see. One of the kids asked, "Why is that art? Why is this different than like a garage sale or something?" Of course, they asked it at the top of their lungs, which always makes you feel pretty stupid in an art gallery! LOL But, I couldn't fault them for asking.

What is art? There isn't really a definition that everyone can agree on, and just trying to look at what's considered art and go from there doesn't help much.

If the definition of art is that it's attractive, then I don't think the statue in the article qualifies, but then neither does a lot of Picasso's work. Is art supposed to be uplifting? Then we'll have to toss out Munch's The Scream, because that piece gives me the willies! Is it supposed to represent the human condition? If so, why does Marcel Duchamp's Fountain count? Does it need to depict something real? Then why is Jackson Pollock hanging in a gallery? Is art hard to make? Then we'd better toss out all those Compositions by Mondrian, because you could make those with a ruler and some paint.

See what I mean? It's confusing! Art doesn't necessarily make any sense.

Andy Warhol said, "Art is what you can get away with." By that definition, the piece in this article is art, because it's being displayed in a gallery and people are going to see it and talk about it.

I find this piece disrespectful. If I had any artistic ability, I wouldn't create something like this piece, because I just don't like it. But that doesn't mean it can't be called art. If part of the definition of art is "Does hipmamajen like it?" then American Gothic is out on it's butt, because those two creep me out and when I look at it, I wonder if that's her dad and he's abusing her. That's just me, though...

Like I said, I don't like it. You're allowed to not like it, too! You can even hate it and wish it would be destroyed in a fire. But I think that to be truthful, you gotta call it art, even if you have to hold your nose while you're doing it. ;)
 
Medea said:
They don't call it a slippery slope for no reason:)

I guess my problem overall is the dumbing down and coarsening of the culture, where you can slap "art" on any kind of nonsense, surely there is some kind of a reasonable ground between banning James Joyce and covering up the genitals on Greek statues and elevating poorly constructed, shock value crap to the level of "art". High art? Low art? Schlock art?

But, again, I think its ridiculous to "ban" it, since its tame in comparisson to the 'free speech' *advertiser censored* sites all over the Internet...Yet, when anything can be called art, doesn't it diminish the whole category?

Are velvet Elvises and ugly erect penis Jesus's really in the same category as Botticelli and Picaso just because somebody somewhere likes them and calls them "art"?
Click to expand...

No, not at all. But what is "music" to one person's is not to anothers. Some would call Picasso's work offensive and rudimentary compared to a Rembrandt.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder; and that's the way art is. Inherent in the definition of "art" is creativity and self-expression; we may not always love or agree with it.

That's why it's wrong to tell a child his art "looks funny" or is "not good"; creativity is stifled and we probably miss out on plenty of potential great artists.

I've seen plenty of art to which I said, "What the h___?"; but if the art gallery wants to show it, so be it. I and others probably won't be there. We're not always going to like the same things, as a culture.
 
Marthatex said:
No, not at all. But what is "music" to one person's is not to anothers. Some would call Picasso's work offensive and rudimentary compared to a Rembrandt.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder; and that's the way art is. Inherent in the definition of "art" is creativity and self-expression; we may not always love or agree with it.

That's why it's wrong to tell a child his art "looks funny" or is "not good"; creativity is stifled and we probably miss out on plenty of potential great artists.

I've seen plenty of art to which I said, "What the h___?"; but if the art gallery wants to show it, so be it. I and others probably won't be there. We're not always going to like the same things, as a culture.
Click to expand...


The difference between Picasso and Jackson Pollack is that they COULD PAINT LIKE REMBRANDT if they wanted to, as shown by their early work, but they chose to express their vision in a different and more abstract way. So, you may not like their "art" but their technical talent as artists cannot be disputed. They moved from technical proficiency to abstraction.

But some joker who puts up hangers or a collage of magazine articles or paints a few lines of primary colors on canvas and calls it art when he/she doesn't have the technical ability to actually draw or sculpt anything realistic..to me, its not art.

It may be creative, it may be self expression but its not ART.
 
Well, all arbitrary judgments as to what "art" is aside;

I think many artists were not even appreciated or "known" until after they died. Does that mean their skill was not recognized while they were alive, thus it was not good "art"? Salvidor Dali grosses me out, but I recognise that others may appreciate his work.

And why should drawing a big "Coke can" catapult one to fame? Darn, I wish I had thought of his style. (Warhol) I suspect that there are also plenty of "shocking" drawings by famous artists,that didn't become popular or weren't put in the galleries for worry of offending.
 
Marthatex said:
Well, all arbitrary judgments as to what "art" is aside;

I think many artists were not even appreciated or "known" until after they died. Does that mean their skill was not recognized while they were alive, thus it was not good "art"? Salvidor Dali grosses me out, but I recognise that others may appreciate his work.

And why should drawing a big "Coke can" catapult one to fame? Darn, I wish I had thought of his style. (Warhol) I suspect that there are also plenty of "shocking" drawings by famous artists,that didn't become popular or weren't put in the galleries for worry of offending.
Click to expand...


I took my daughter to a "Breakfast with Salvidor Dali" in Orlando. She noticed a group of little kids on tour in the museum and people with the group were "strategically placed" at the more suggestive ones, to block the view from the kids.
...this intreiged my kid.
We spent the entire time looking SPECIFICALLY at the art that they were covering up, and then at breakfast, a kindly museaum curator sat down with us and told us the whole sordid tale of Dali and what his artwork represented to him. FASCINATING.

Definitely art is only art to the person who likes it. My Mom has a painting of a sunflower that I HATE and thought it was something she got at a thrift store when I was a kid. Apparently, it's a reproduction of someone famous' something famous. It's a stupid flower. I don't understand.
 
hipmamajen said:
This isn't a lecture, or anything, this is just something I think about from time to time and this post made me think of it again.

Our homeschool group went on a trip recently to see the art of Phil Bender, and the kids didn't get it. (I didn't really get it, either.) You can see some of his pieces here: http://pirateart.homestead.com/ben1.html This is pretty representative of what we saw, in fact I'm pretty sure the hangers are the same ones we went to see. One of the kids asked, "Why is that art? Why is this different than like a garage sale or something?" Of course, they asked it at the top of their lungs, which always makes you feel pretty stupid in an art gallery! LOL But, I couldn't fault them for asking.

What is art? There isn't really a definition that everyone can agree on, and just trying to look at what's considered art and go from there doesn't help much.

If the definition of art is that it's attractive, then I don't think the statue in the article qualifies, but then neither does a lot of Picasso's work. Is art supposed to be uplifting? Then we'll have to toss out Munch's The Scream, because that piece gives me the willies! Is it supposed to represent the human condition? If so, why does Marcel Duchamp's Fountain count? Does it need to depict something real? Then why is Jackson Pollock hanging in a gallery? Is art hard to make? Then we'd better toss out all those Compositions by Mondrian, because you could make those with a ruler and some paint.

See what I mean? It's confusing! Art doesn't necessarily make any sense.

Andy Warhol said, "Art is what you can get away with." By that definition, the piece in this article is art, because it's being displayed in a gallery and people are going to see it and talk about it.

I find this piece disrespectful. If I had any artistic ability, I wouldn't create something like this piece, because I just don't like it. But that doesn't mean it can't be called art. If part of the definition of art is "Does hipmamajen like it?" then American Gothic is out on it's butt, because those two creep me out and when I look at it, I wonder if that's her dad and he's abusing her. That's just me, though...

Like I said, I don't like it. You're allowed to not like it, too! You can even hate it and wish it would be destroyed in a fire. But I think that to be truthful, you gotta call it art, even if you have to hold your nose while you're doing it. ;)
Click to expand...

Great post! You really are a "hip mama."

"Beauty" and "truth" were long held to be the goals of art. But Modernists pointed out the two aren't necessarily compatible: what is "true" is often "ugly."
 
Medea said:
They don't call it a slippery slope for no reason:)

I guess my problem overall is the dumbing down and coarsening of the culture, where you can slap "art" on any kind of nonsense, surely there is some kind of a reasonable ground between banning James Joyce and covering up the genitals on Greek statues and elevating poorly constructed, shock value crap to the level of "art". High art? Low art? Schlock art?

But, again, I think its ridiculous to "ban" it, since its tame in comparisson to the 'free speech' *advertiser censored* sites all over the Internet...Yet, when anything can be called art, doesn't it diminish the whole category?

Are velvet Elvises and ugly erect penis Jesus's really in the same category as Botticelli and Picaso just because somebody somewhere likes them and calls them "art"?
Click to expand...

I'm sure you're being intentionally funny when you mention Botticelli and Picasso in the same breath, because I know you know Botticelli fans originally complained about Picasso in precisely the terms we find in this thread.

Certainly velvet Elvises can't be compared to Boticelli or Picasso in terms of complexity, technical skill or even - IMHO - profundity of thought. But some folks - God love 'em - still find them Elvises beautiful. If we insist that Elvis-on-velvet isn't "art," don't we eliminate most popular art in the process?

I won't miss Britney Spears, but I think we'll all be poorer without Bob Dylan and Bruce Springsteen.

I share your concern about the coarsening of popular culture, but I doubt we'll help matters by claiming such and such "isn't art." The same pop culture that values crudeness will be thrilled!

As for the "Erection Christ," it won't be hanging on my wall, but this thread is proof that the artist successfully provoked thinking and discussion.
 
Medea said:
The difference between Picasso and Jackson Pollack is that they COULD PAINT LIKE REMBRANDT if they wanted to, as shown by their early work, but they chose to express their vision in a different and more abstract way. So, you may not like their "art" but their technical talent as artists cannot be disputed. They moved from technical proficiency to abstraction.

But some joker who puts up hangers or a collage of magazine articles or paints a few lines of primary colors on canvas and calls it art when he/she doesn't have the technical ability to actually draw or sculpt anything realistic..to me, its not art.

It may be creative, it may be self expression but its not ART.
Click to expand...

You are right that Picasso and Pollack were technical masters. (There's a famous story about a young Dali painting cherries so technically perfect his father tried to eat them!)

And I would (and have, when I was teaching) advise any young artist to master technical skills before rejecting them, because the greater her technical skills, the more choices an artist has. But if an artist can "only" paint in primitive style (Grandma Moses, for example), does it make her work "not art" because she can't paint "Nightwatch"?

What of folk artists? Though they are masters in their own right, they may not come from cultures that developed the realistic techniques of Europe. Is a San Blas mola "not art" because its creator probably never learned perspective?
 
GlitchWizard said:
...Definitely art is only art to the person who likes it. My Mom has a painting of a sunflower that I HATE and thought it was something she got at a thrift store when I was a kid. Apparently, it's a reproduction of someone famous' something famous. It's a stupid flower. I don't understand.
Click to expand...

Would that be Van Gogh's "Sunflowers"? At one time (1980s), it was the most expensive painting in the world (not counting works that will never be sold).
 
I would definitely count the macaroni necklace my niece made me when she was five as art and the crayon drawing of ants crawling around in underground tunnels my nephew, then 6, copied for me out of a book hangs proudly on my wall like the Louvre-worthy masterpiece it is. This statue is not art. It's simple vandalism of a statue of Jesus designed to get a lot of press attention. If that is what it takes for the sculptor to get attention to his 'art' I don't see a long glittering career ahead.
 
Texana said:
I'm all for it if we have a cartoon about Mohammed next to it.
Click to expand...
Well said Texana:clap:
It seems though that the very people that feel this type of deliberatly offensive filth is just great a long as it offends Christians would be the first to blanch and start screaming about cultural sensitivity if it were directed at any other Faith in the world.
Having said that even though Im a Christian and think there is a definate difference between provoking thought and being gratuitously insulting I would never endorse any form of creative censor.
If It bothers me I can choose not to look at it and I can also call the artist a no talent a##hole.
Freedom of expression is good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 171 more.
Total: 1,311 (members: 172, guests: 1,139)

Online statistics

Members online
172
Guests online
1,139
Total visitors
1,311
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,778
Messages
17,958,685
Members
228,604
Latest member
leannamj
Back
Top