Christian protestors destroy Piss Christ

[CptStern]

The controversial work Piss Christ by the New York photographer Andres Serrano has been destroyed at a gallery in France after weeks of protests.

The photograph, which shows a small crucifix submerged in a glass of the artist's urine, outraged the US religious right in 1987, when it was first shown, with Serrano denounced in the Senate by the Republican Jesse Helms. It was later vandalised in Australia, and neo-Nazis ransacked a show by the artist in Sweden in 2007.

...for the past two weeks Catholic groups have campaigned against it, culminating in hundreds of people marching through Avignon on Saturday in protest.

Just after 11am on Sunday, four people in sunglasses entered the gallery where the exhibition was being held. One took a hammer from his sock and threatened security staff. A guard restrained one man but the remaining members of the group managed to smash an acrylic screen and slash the photograph with what police believe was a screwdriver or ice pick. They then destroyed another photograph, of nuns' hands in prayer."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/201...no-piss-christ-destroyed-christian-protesters

 

[Escaep]

This really shows how all religion is bad! That'll shut em up!

 

[<RJMC>]

well those christians were surely pissed

 

[Krynn72]

That artist was just taking the piss anyways.

 

[Asknoone]

Christ himself didn't seem too bothered.

This really shows how all religion is bad! That'll shut em up!

What are you talking about? Is there a point to that post beyond quite possibly triggering Another One of Those Debates - something it would purportedly be against? Here's an idea: don't waste our time by posting.

 

[Eejit]

Don't let them visit Dali's house.

 

[Godron]

It's just a photograph though. Won't they just print out another one?

 

[Higlac]

This is just like when that crazy pastor burned a koran. Except these Christians aren't doing any beheading.

 

[CptStern]

ya there was no beheading either

 

[Raziaar]

Modern day Christian hotheads and extremists are thankfully far more non-violent than their Muslim counterparts. There are the violent ones out there, but they strike infrequently.

 

[Sheepo]

Heh, art. Seems weird to me that people would get worked up about something like this. Even if I disagree with them on political issues and the like I can see where they're coming from and why they're making a big thing of it. But in cases like this... I just can't get why some one would actually give a shit.

This really shows how all religion is bad! That'll shut em up!

Oh man, way to shut down all the people who came to that conclusion. All none of them.

 

[Stylo]

Wait, how is a Crucifix submerged in piss "art" anyways? F**k that.

I might just draw Jim Morrison on a piece of tree bark in my own dribbly shit and see if I can get it in the Saatchi gallery as some sort of nonsensical statement with hidden meanings.

 

[Raziaar]

Wait, how is a Crucifix submerged in piss "art" anyways? F**k that.

I might just draw Jim Morrison on a piece of tree bark in my own dribbly shit and see if I can get it in the Saatchi gallery as some sort of nonsensical statement with hidden meanings.

Well... there's always been Art... and then there's been "art". I wonder how relatively recent the "art" phenomenon has been... which is mostly just prop angst. Or in the case of that chick who did that disgusting vaginal discharge masturbation thing with the canned spaghettio's or whatever they were, that's body behavior angst.

It's not art bitch! You fingering your disgusting blood and yeast filled self is not art! It's just disgusting! Now go take a shower.

Real artists are those who accomplish things that I can't just do myself as a layman without any sort of developed talent. Things that require a skill applied to a canvas, whether that canvas is tangible or not(like music). Any ****ing moron can take a cross and soak it in a jar of their own piss. That's not Art. That's "art".

 

[CptStern]

Wait, how is a Crucifix submerged in piss "art" anyways? F**k that.

I might just draw Jim Morrison on a piece of tree bark in my own dribbly shit and see if I can get it in the Saatchi gallery as some sort of nonsensical statement with hidden meanings.

see unless you can justify why you drew Morrison in your shit it's just you playing with your shit; not art

 

[Krynn72]

If that guy's thing is considered art, then the people who destroyed it have created art also. Such passion in their work! Look at the sharp edges of the acrylic screen they smashed, portraying the hatred inside of the artists for the man who insults them. The gash in the photograph is jagged and rough from the slash of a screwdriver, rather than the clean, sterile cut of a knife. The work is just riddled with deep meaning! Those people should be paid for this beautiful work!

 

[Sheepo]

Art is whatever culture wants it to be. If it gets in an exhibit, it's pretty much art.

 

[CptStern]

you make it sound like they pull names out of hat and that's how they decide who gets to exhibit. galleries are not going to waste their time with some guy off the street who for the hell of it drew a pic of Morrison with his shit

If that guy's thing is considered art, then the people who destroyed it have created art also. Such passion in their work! Look at the sharp edges of the acrylic screen they smashed, portraying the hatred inside of the artists for the man who insults them. The gash in the photograph is jagged and rough from the slash of a screwdriver, rather than the clean, sterile cut of a knife. The work is just riddled with deep meaning! Those people should be paid for this beautiful work!

so what's the art; the act of making the "art" or the final piece because you seem to be arguing both

 

[Vegeta897]

Real artists are those who accomplish things that I can't just do myself as a layman without any sort of developed talent. Things that require a skill applied to a canvas, whether that canvas is tangible or not(like music). Any ****ing moron can take a cross and soak it in a jar of their own piss. That's not Art. That's "art".

I think that's a very stupid definition of art. Art is not solely dependent on talent. What about creativity?

 

[Viperidae]

Artisans vs. craftsmen? Not that AGELESS AND ENDLESSLY DEBATED question! Nooooo!

 

[Raziaar]

I think that's a very stupid definition of art. Art is not solely dependent on talent. What about creativity?

Well, I didn't think of every aspect of the definition I believe art to be, but creativity is part of it. In many regards creativity and talent go hand in hand, but not always.

The idea of art as being simply an expression, any expression no matter what form it takes(which many of the "art" crowds believe it is), is preposterous. Is not every action that man does then a display of art, provided they can slap on some descriptive phrases to sound edgy and philosophical to accompany it?

No, that's not Art.

 

[Krynn72]

so what's the art; the act of making the "art" or the final piece because you seem to be arguing both

What is the final piece if not the culmination of the act of making it? An artwork is merely a retrospective representation of the motivations, intentions and process of creating it.

 

[CptStern]

What is the final piece if not the culmination of the act of making it? An artwork is merely a retrospective representation of the motivations, intentions and process of creating it.

the mona lisa is still the mona lisa. we dont need to know that Leonardo used aerial perspective that was much pretty much unheard of back then or that he used a specific type of paint etc. the final piece is all that matters to all but art historians and the curious

 

[No Limit]

Well, I didn't think of every aspect of the definition I believe art to be, but creativity is part of it. In many regards creativity and talent go hand in hand, but not always.

The idea of art as being simply an expression, any expression no matter what form it takes(which many of the "art" crowds believe it is), is preposterous. Is not every action that man does then a display of art, provided they can slap on some descriptive phrases to sound edgy and philosophical to accompany it?

No, that's not Art.

You're acting like this guy dipped christ in piss and that made it art. It's not that simple. I don't think you would dispute that photography is an art. It clearly is. And this was a really good photograph:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_QfVWU-2pV...1600/Piss_Christ_by_Serrano_Andres_(1987).jpg

 

[Warped]

What he should have called it was 'The Salt of the Earth'....then years later mention that its really 'Piss Christ'

I would so do that. make something with Art for religion, get it really popular and famous then BAM reveal the Sacriligiousness of it

 

[Stylo]

see unless you can justify why you drew Morrison in your shit it's just you playing with your shit; not art

Maybe I think Jim Morrison is shit.

 

[A2597]

see unless you can justify why you drew Morrison in your shit it's just you playing with your shit; not art

As an arts major, I can fill you in on something. 99% of the time an "artist" just does whatever the frak they want, then comes up with a bullshit reason for why they did it. Easier to come up with symbolism after the fact.

 

[flamingdts]

What would have been funnier is if the Christians all decided to pull their pants down and piss at him, or start throwing buckets of piss at him instead.

 

[MJ12]

Rather sad, I liked Piss Christ.

 

[Danimal]

This is probably the only semi-valid contribution I can make to this thread without sounding like a useless echo:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsWv9nFLl_s

 

[GreatEmperor]

This is just like when that crazy pastor burned a koran. Except these Christians aren't doing any beheading.

Yeah because we actually control religious shitheads nowadays, they know the consequences of inciting or performing violence and are generally tamed. If muslims did the same they wouldnt be so rife with violence when some guy pisses on a symbol of blah blah

 

[Shift]

Well, I didn't think of every aspect of the definition I believe art to be, but creativity is part of it. In many regards creativity and talent go hand in hand, but not always.

The idea of art as being simply an expression, any expression no matter what form it takes(which many of the "art" crowds believe it is), is preposterous. Is not every action that man does then a display of art, provided they can slap on some descriptive phrases to sound edgy and philosophical to accompany it?

No, that's not Art.

I agree completely, I despise the whole philosophy behind art that states that as long as it creates an expression, or a message, then art can be whatever he hell it likes. So you grab a chair, break it in pieces, put it in the middle of the room and say it shows the laziness of modern society or some utter nonsense. The creations of the like of Van Gogh, Escher, Dali and Alex Grey are the true depictions of what art is, none of the rubbish that seems to hold the main spotlight at the moment.

Oh and on topic, I don't see the point of protesting against it or even breaking in and destroying the said piece, its not going to change anything at the end of the day.

 

[Eejit]

So you grab a chair, break it in pieces, put it in the middle of the room and say it shows the laziness of modern society or some utter nonsense... Dali ... true depictions of what art is

Eh wat.

 

[Remus]

Eh wat.

lobsterphone snip

Well Dali did a lot of things just for the sake of being weird. I'm a fan, but I don't consider that lobster/phone art.

You guys can try and define what consitutes art all you want, it will remain a higly subjective matter.

 

[CptStern]

Well Dali did a lot of things just for the sake of being weird.

lol the amount of people who think that artists do things "just for the hell of it" is astounding. it's like hl2.net was sucked into a cultural void

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrealism

I bet you think jackson pollock just splattered paint on a canvas

then art can be whatever he hell it likes. So you grab a chair, break it in pieces, put it in the middle of the room and say it shows the laziness of modern society or some utter nonsense.

this absolutely never happens. it only happens in the imaginations of people who dont understand art that isnt 100% recognisable as something, anything. the irony here is that you've bought into that idea as much as you're accusing the art world of buying into ideas just because someone labels it as "art"

 

[MuToiD_MaN]

You're acting like this guy dipped christ in piss and that made it art. It's not that simple. I don't think you would dispute that photography is an art. It clearly is. And this was a really good photograph:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_QfVWU-2pV...1600/Piss_Christ_by_Serrano_Andres_(1987).jpg

You're right, that's a great photograph from a purely technical perspective. And if he kept the "piss" part to himself it could have been his little secret joke to the world. Considering he did lots of other submerged media photos as part of the series, I wonder if he's been trollin' all this time.

 

[Remus]

lol the amount of people who think that artists do things "just for the hell of it" is astounding. it's like hl2.net was sucked into a cultural void

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrealism

I bet you think jackson pollock just splattered paint on a canvas

Please get your head out of your ass Stern, I was specifically talking about the phone, not lumping together all the paintings/sculptures/drawings he's ever done. And thanks for refreshing my memory on what surrealism is, it's not like I would know what the hell it is having graduated art school and all that, no siree bob.

Speaking as an artist myself, I stand by what I said. Most of the time it's not about some deep meaning at all, no matter how much art critics may like to dissagree. Most of the time it really is about having an interesting visual idea, and wanting to put it on canvas/paper/ whatever, whitout thinking "omg this simbolises this and that". Visual art does not require meaning, or a message, for it to be art.

 

[CptStern]

did you graduate from one of those schools advertised on the back of a matchbook? wtf how can you go through art school and still think the majority of art is just "because"? you cant show at a gallery on "just because". you have to justify what you do or else it's just someone throwing paint on canvas and people who just throw paint on canvas do not show at galleries

what you're talking about is found art but that's the whole point behind found art it's anti-art and even then there's meaning behind it