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

[kline]

I am really disturbed by some of these posts. I find this statue very offensive to my religion and I want it destroyed. Religion has not caused most of the suffering in this world. Racism, xenophobia, intolerance, fear, the need for scapegoats and ignorance justified by twisted religious beliefs are what has caused suffering and war throughout history. Just because many people believe in their faiths, including myself, doesn't mean they are trying to dictate to others how they should and shouldn't live. You will find extremists in any organisation or cause who will give it a bad name. Just because I and many other Christians want this statue gone not mean that I am gathering together a group of Christian extremists and trying to establish a religious based Orwellian censorship campaign. I don't see why anyone has the right to create or view something that deliberately spits at other people's beliefs just because they happen to be religious ones. Religion is very important to millions of people and has been a comfort during times of hardship. Many people consider their belief in God as an integral part of who they are so to sneer at religion as 'perverse' is extremely insulting.

I wouldnt give it head space Kiki That statue says more about whats inside the 'artist' and the people who are all for it then it does about Christian Faith.
Speaks volumes actually.

 

[hipmamajen]

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

Aw, thanks Nova! :blowkiss:

 

[Medea]

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?

Folk art is kind of a different thing though, its from its own various unique cultulral or regional traditions, so not sure comparing something made by Hopi Indians or even Grandma Moses to Michaelangelo is appropriate..same w/the self taught artist.

My own 'criteria' for real art or good art doesn't include a lot of what passes for Modern Art for the reason of lack of technical proficiency...they go straight to their own abstract or unique and usually self indulgent personal vision conveniently bypassing any technical basis on which to operate and then some trendy art gallery and pretentous "collectors"..elevate them to a "artist" I personally don't like Jackson Pollack and most of the other abstract expressionists, but because I know that he COULD paint, then I can at least intellectually follow his progression, same for a few others. I don't like it, its not my asthetic, but I can understand what the artist was trying to communicate. I see all kinds of total crap metallic modern sculptures that my tax dollars paid for that are HIDEOUS by any reasonable standard except people too cowed by what they're told is current to stand up for a real asthetic.

But, perhaps Jesus with an erect penis "art" but just bad art.

I also don't think simply because something is popular that makes it art..Britney Spears is not an artist, she's not even a good singer, doens't write her own material or arrange it, doesn't play an instrument to my knowledge...she's a performer. Sheryl Crowe, she's an artist. Kind of like 'is it literature or just something written'...Stephen King is not a great literary master, but his early work was entertaining and readable...Shakespeare he aint.

It's also true that in every age whatever is 'modern' is usually considered trashy by the traditionalists, but there has to be a bottom somewhere or art ceases to have any meaning, it cannot be 100% subjective. There IS a difference between Michaelangelo's David and some reclaimed junk glued together and given a jazzy title. There IS a difference between Hamlet and Judith Krantz...a big difference.

All my own opinion.

PS: When anyone starts advocating that something be "banned" because it offends their belief system or philosophy then that is absolutely Orwellian censorship, if everyone gets to ban what personally offends them, there wouldn't be much left and it certainly wouldn't be interesting, and that is most especially true of religious beliefs.

 

[Nova]

Folk art is kind of a different thing though, its from its own various unique cultulral or regional traditions, so not sure comparing something made by Hopi Indians or even Grandma Moses to Michaelangelo is appropriate..same w/the self taught artist....

You are absolutely correct that folk art and/or art from non-Western cultures shouldn't be judged by European criteria. I made the comparison only to point out that technical skill is too narrow a criterion to be useful.

This is not to deny your point about Pollock. Because his technical prowess was documented, we KNOW his abstracts were choices, not mere compensations for technical ineptitude. And that's an important distinction.

But you can imagine the difficulty of a system where artists had to submit such documentation before their current work could be reviewed. No painting could be "art" unless it were accompanied by a resume! I shudder to think what my house would look like if I had to post all those c.v.'s on the walls. LOL.

My own 'criteria' for real art or good art doesn't include a lot of what passes for Modern Art for the reason of lack of technical proficiency...they go straight to their own abstract or unique and usually self indulgent personal vision conveniently bypassing any technical basis on which to operate and then some trendy art gallery and pretentous "collectors"..elevate them to a "artist"....

Most art schools still require quite a bit of experience with the technical "basics," but we don't live in a society where one must have a degree to be an artist. And if we did, innovation would surely be stifled to a great extent. I don't see a solution to this issue and no doubt there will always be swindlers who pass off hasty crap as "art." Of course that begs the question: if the end result proves appealing or thought-provoking, does the artist's intent and skill level even matter?

But, perhaps Jesus with an erect penis (is) "art" but just bad art.

Certainly, that's a fair opinion. Personally, I think Christianity needs an eroticized Jesus now and then, just to stir things up. That function of art is at least as important as pretty pictures of sunsets.

I also don't think simply because something is popular that makes it art...

Surely not. But isn't the converse also true? Just because something (the "Erection Christ," for example) is UNpopular doesn't make it NOT art.

I basically agree with your valuations of Spears v. Crow and Shakespeare v. King (and so would Mr. King), but I'm not sure how that makes anybody "not an artist." If a surgeon is clumsy, is he "not a doctor"? (Perhaps eventually, when his license is revoked, but you get my point.) Some artists are just poor artists, as you suggest.

 

[Kiki]

PS: When anyone starts advocating that something be "banned" because it offends their belief system or philosophy then that is absolutely Orwellian censorship, if everyone gets to ban what personally offends them, there wouldn't be much left and it certainly wouldn't be interesting, and that is most especially true of religious beliefs.

So if this was a statue of a child or an animal being abused you would still want it displayed even though it may offend you?

I wouldnt give it head space Kiki That statue says more about whats inside the 'artist' and the people who are all for it then it does about Christian Faith.
Speaks volumes actually.

:clap: Thank you Kline.

 

[GlitchWizard]

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).

Yes. It's quite ugly. I've seen real sunflowers in a field in North Dakota and I'm thinking the greatest artist of all time is either God or two big rocks that slung together in space, depending on your idea of who made the Earth.

...and much of that art is as ugly as much of it is beautiful, too.

 

[Dark Knight]

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.

Yes we have every right to be offended and to express that in America. For some odd reason others feel the need to tell us we should feel otherwise. Well too bad so sad, as they say. We'll feel the way we have a right to feel about the way our Lord and Savior is depicted. If we want the thought police's opinion, we'll let you know. In this instance, there are laws in place that drag this into the legal spectrum, but it wouldn't matter to some people, who insist on telling us when to be offended and when not to be.

 

[Nova]

Yes. It's quite ugly. I've seen real sunflowers in a field in North Dakota and I'm thinking the greatest artist of all time is either God or two big rocks that slung together in space, depending on your idea of who made the Earth.

...and much of that art is as ugly as much of it is beautiful, too.

I love Van Gogh. Last I heard, his images were the most popular of all time. But his work isn't about how sunflowers (or any subject) appear, it's about how he felt about them at the time he was painting.

At the very least, he invites us to view reality in a different way. And that is certainly one very important function of art.

 

[Nova]

Yes we have every right to be offended and to express that in America. For some odd reason others feel the need to tell us we should feel otherwise. Well too bad so sad, as they say. We'll feel the way we have a right to feel about the way our Lord and Savior is depicted. If we want the thought police's opinion, we'll let you know. In this instance, there are laws in place that drag this into the legal spectrum, but it wouldn't matter to some people, who insist on telling us when to be offended and when not to be.

Oh, please. Nobody said you can't be offended. What we've been discussing is whether causing offense means something isn't art. And whether your feelings need to be protected by force of law. I'm sure you know my views on these issues.

 

[justche]

Oh, please. Nobody said you can't be offended. What we've been discussing is whether causing offense means something isn't art. And whether your feelings need to be protected by force of law. I'm sure you know my views on these issues.

Right - only if the protection by force of law impacts your life, beliefs, etc.
Protection for sexual partners ok - protection for religious beliefs, not ok.

Got it.

 

[Love_Mama]

Completely uncalled for, and a blatant attack on the founder of one of the world's major religions. Not art, an attack and attempt to embarass our Lord and Savior. If that were mohammed, that gallery would be in flames, right now. :furious::furious::furious:

DK, am replying to you, because I know you! LOl

Honestly, I don't think this person was attacking Jesus. He was just looking for an audience, looking for 10 minutes of fame and he got it. You're mad, almost everyone here is mad, so how come I'm not mad and I'm a Christian?
Do we not KNOW that this artist knew what the reaction would be?
You bet he did and he's getting more fame then he ever imagined! You're playing right into his game.

Honestly, just look the other way. We're not dealing with a famous Artist. That's like me saying I don't like the Catholic cross showing Jesus nailed to it while our cross shows him as risen. I mean like who cares.

I can't believe it that this thread is still here. The real Christian's here who don't like this artist's rendition of Jesus should simply forgive this guy and get on with their life.


"Ephesians 4:31-32 (21st Century King James Version)
21st Century King James Version

31Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice;

32and be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.

xxxxxxxxoo
mama
DK.........this is not directed at you............it's to all of you who are so upset.

xxxoo
mama
:blowkiss::blowkiss::blowkiss:

 

[GlitchWizard]

Love Mama - Real Christians? I love that term. Only because it seems impossible to define to anyone's satisfaction.

 

[Love_Mama]

Love Mama - Real Christians? I love that term. Only because it seems impossible to define to anyone's satisfaction.

GlitchWizard, a real Christian is just someone, anyone, who believe's in Jesus Christ as his personal savior. That is the kind of Christian that I am.
The Catholic Church and other churches are all a little different.

You'll get different answers from different people but the majority of Christian religions consider "forgiveness" as the hardest Christian Ethic to follow.

In other words, a real Christian would be kind and loving to each other, and forgive each other just as God forgave them in Christ.

It's this simple GlitchWizard, but very hard to do.

xxxxxxxxxxxooo
mama
:blowkiss::blowkiss:

 

[justche]

GlitchWizard, a real Christian is just someone, anyone, who believe's in Jesus Christ as his personal savior. That is the kind of Christian that I am.
The Catholic Church and other churches are all a little different.

You'll get different answers from different people but the majority of Christian religions consider "forgiveness" as the hardest Christian Ethic to follow.

In other words, a real Christian would be kind and loving to each other, and forgive each other just as God forgave them in Christ.

It's this simple GlitchWizard, but very hard to do.

xxxxxxxxxxxooo
mama
:blowkiss::blowkiss:

Yeah, but Jesus made a stand. He made a stand when he threw over the tables in the temple, and physically used a whip to those who made money immorally and unethically.

He made a stand when he told people - to give away their possessions to follow Him.

He made a stand when he said the only way to heaven was through Him.

He made a stand when he said there was only one true God.

He made a stand when he told people they were forgiven and to go and sin no more.

He didn't just tippie toe through Jerusalem with love and fairy dust. He loved by showing the right way.

He also made a stand when he did literally turn the other check and went through a crucification he didn't deserve.

It's ok to have righteous anger against immoral art - that is a way of showing love to your Lord.

 

[Dark Knight]

Oh, please. Nobody said you can't be offended. What we've been discussing is whether causing offense means something isn't art. And whether your feelings need to be protected by force of law. I'm sure you know my views on these issues.

Awwww, Nova, after all but giving up WS for the past several months, you made it a point to return just to defend a blasphemer, how sweet! I am sure he appreciates it. :crazy:

 

[Dark Knight]

Yeah, but Jesus made a stand. He made a stand when he threw over the tables in the temple, and physically used a whip to those who made money immorally and unethically.

He made a stand when he told people - to give away their possessions to follow Him.

He made a stand when he said the only way to heaven was through Him.

He made a stand when he said there was only one true God.

He made a stand when he told people they were forgiven and to go and sin no more.

He didn't just tippie toe through Jerusalem with love and fairy dust. He loved by showing the right way.

He also made a stand when he did literally turn the other check and went through a crucification he didn't deserve.

It's ok to have righteous anger against immoral art - that is a way of showing love to your Lord.

He wasn't very subtle, was He? Calling those who deserved it "a brood of vipers" or "foxes" or even calling them a devil.

 

[justche]

We don't get it how strong of language it was to be called a brood of vipers

 

[Kiki]

It is sad that nothing is considered sacred anymore. I don't understand why wanting statues of Jesus that are designed to deliberately upset and provoke Christians removed from public view is considered Orwellian censorship. I am not saying that Christianity should not be scrutinized or critized but why allow something that's sole purpose is to hurt and disrespect Christians? How is it's removal telling people what to think? What is so wrong with respecting the religious convictions of others? Why is it so wrong to defend your faith? The minute you do you're considered "thought police".

 

[kline]

Thats why I pay little attention to this kind of trash or the 'is it art?' debate.
Its not intended as an 'artistic expression'.
Its a creation by someone with hostilty toward Christianity and it has no other purpose but to be deliberately insulting to those of the Christian Faith.Period.
And of course focus attention on the 'artist' for 15 minutes or so.
*Yawn*
The only thing more boring is the time worn "but at least it makes us think!!!" argument.*Snore*
I imagine the next work we can expect from this guy will be a performance piece where he sets a paper bag of dog-pooh on fire in front of a church then knocks on the door and runs.
Actually, even though Im a Christian at least that one might be entertaining.
I might have to check that one out.
Seriously though whenever I see this kind of debate I cant help but wonder how many of those who so eloquently defend this guys artistic licence would be Screaming "Bigot!!!" if this work did feature Mohamad?

 

[miimaa]

I think it is a desecration. I do not understand why anyone would create something like that statute.