View Single Post
  #12  
04-02-2007, 09:30 PM
snuzi's Avatar
snuzi
Outlaw Sniper
 
: Nov 2006
: Teh Webz
: 1,515
Rep Power: 21
snuzi  (12)

:
Most artworks like this are done primarily to be controversial, rather than for any real artistic merit.
Definitely. I believe that most artists that create this type of "art", are more concerned with creating something controversial, in order to gain exposure, rather than creating something for the sake of self-expression.

:
Back in 1999, the photographer Andres Serrano had an exhibition here in Melbourne that was controversial because he had a photo of a crucifix floating in urine. I, like most people, couldn't see what the big fuss was about until a very wise teacher suggested that I imagine it happening to something I care about. And, truthfully, I wouldn't want to see someone take a photo of a torah scroll bathed in urine. I probably wouldn't have a problem with a chocolate torah scroll but I certainly wouldn't call it art.
I heard about this awhile ago. Apparently, the crucifix was supposed to appear "golden" when palced in the urine, as a sign of holiness, but I just found it ridiculous. I'm usually unaffected by these sorts of religious controversies, but when people do things like this it just annoys me. Is exposure honestly worth angering or offending an entire religion?

And I agree. I could definitely understand why such a thing offended people. It's basically just taking something you care for the most, and desecrating it before your very eyes. It's just an offensive way of getting attention, and I resent it.

:
Well, it says in the Bible that he was beaten severely, and I'm pretty sure as a punishment, the Romans presented Jesus to the world naked, stripped of the holiness he had portrayed.
I know that. But for some reason, Catholics and Christians find that sort of stuff offensive. Bill Donohue was actually yelling at the artist, saying that he should have at least given him the loincloth, as having portraying him naked was an indecent and blasphemic act. I personally don't see a problem with it, since, in the artist's point of view, he might've just done that to show us that Jesus was just human like all of us. Although, I would have also preferred it if he were clothed at least slightly .
__________________

Reply With Quote