scrambler Posted October 3, 2003 Posted October 3, 2003 Art as social commentary? Or just catholic bashing? Local sculpture irks some on Kansas campus Quote
catbirdseat Posted October 3, 2003 Posted October 3, 2003 I find it offensive and I'm not even religious. It was designed specificially to piss off a group of people. That's what passes for art today. It can't be just beautiful or thought provoking. It has to make you angry. Quote
scrambler Posted October 3, 2003 Author Posted October 3, 2003 catbirdseat said: I find it offensive and I'm not even religious. It was designed specificially to piss off a group of people. That's what passes for art today. It can't be just beautiful or thought provoking. It has to make you angry. Seems you always have to bring some context into it so that you can connect with the artist's intention and derive some meaning (interpretation). Is good art supposed to move you, either repulse or attract you or is that just pornography? Honestly, most art doesn't speak to me. Don't know if that's just a shortcoming on my part or what. Maybe too much tv. Quote
dryad Posted October 3, 2003 Posted October 3, 2003 Catbird, this IS though-provoking. You're thinking about it now, right? Scrambler, very true about judging art in context. Without context, the Mona Lisa would be just a picture of some chick with a weird smile. I respect the artist's intention here, but at the same time I think the artistic merit of this work is hampered by its complete lack of subtlety or complexity. The archetype of the lecherous priest dates back to medieval times, and this sculpture really isn't saying anything new. It seems designed mostly to inflame, rather than inspire legitimate discussion. Or maybe the artist intended to inspire legitimate discussion and failed. But hey, that's just my take. Bad art is still art. Quote
murraysovereign Posted October 3, 2003 Posted October 3, 2003 catbirdseat said: I find it offensive and I'm not even religious. It was designed specificially to piss off a group of people. That's what passes for art today. It can't be just beautiful or thought provoking. It has to make you angry. But that's nothing new. Michaelangelo's "Last Judgement" in the Sistine Chapel pissed off a lot of people in its day, and a certain amount of it was deliberate on Michaelangelo's part. Piccasso's "Guernica," and Goya's "The Shootings of May Third" both made a great many people angry - "Guernica" is still a bit of a flash point in Spain to this day. Works of Art that are intended to anger people are themselves born out of anger, more often than not. Michaelangelo was angry with certain individuals in the Vatican; Piccasso was angry with the Fascists; Goya was angry about War in general. All three caused considerable offense in their day, and the world is now that much richer for it. So yes, I can see this piece offending people, and making them angry. Perhaps they should be angry. Obviously this artist is angry with the Catholic Church, and certainly the Church has much to answer for these days. Perhaps this artist overshot his target, but maybe he's nailed it. Regardless, the Catholic Church has been attacked artistically for hundreds of years, and they've always protested vigorously. And then, strangely enough, many of the offending pieces find their way into the Vatican Gallery in Rome. So I'm not going to worry too much about the Catholic Church - this is chicken-feed compared to some of the stuff they've had to endure in the past, and in a couple of months it will have been forgotten - or bought by the Vatican. Quote
iain Posted October 3, 2003 Posted October 3, 2003 but just think of the frat pranks would be more offensive if they had turned it into a fountain Quote
lI1|1! Posted October 3, 2003 Posted October 3, 2003 i like it. i like what it says about the human condition. i care less about it as a comment on catholisism. also, the inscription is pendantic/whimpy. maybe it has social relevance beyond child abuse and could also be about fundamentalism? i wish dwayner were here to get in a big sprayfest about it. Quote
Dru Posted October 3, 2003 Posted October 3, 2003 yellow cruxifiction Anybody remember Andres Serrano? "Piss Christ"? Quote
dryad Posted October 3, 2003 Posted October 3, 2003 I know it's considered uncool to actually judge art, and go ahead and call me an elitist, but "Piss Christ" is a joke. To demonstrate what you think of something by dipping a photo of it in urine is just plain juvenile, something worthy of Beavis and Butthead. I don't think that a little bit of sophistication should be too much to ask in art. That piece of crap shouldn't be in a gallery not because it's controversial, but because it's simply BAD ART . In general, I think it's easy to make something that's beautiful, it's easy to make something that's controversial (or thought-provoking, or whatever), but it's really hard to do both. Guernica and the others mentioned above are both, which is what makes them great works. I think it's really unfortunate that in much of contemporary art, the ability to generate controversy has become a subtitute for quality. Quote
Jim Posted October 3, 2003 Posted October 3, 2003 I'd agree. Seems that a lot of "edgy" art these days is little more than a witty idea and not much talent. I appreciate art more as social commentary when it takes some talent to produce while pushing social boundaries. Quote
murraysovereign Posted October 3, 2003 Posted October 3, 2003 dryad said:...I think it's really unfortunate that in much of contemporary art, the ability to generate controversy has become a subtitute for quality. I agree 100%. However, I think there's also a tendency lately to dismiss controversial works of art solely because they're controversial, which is just as bad as calling controversial crap "Art" simply because it's controversial. Somewhere in there, there's a line, and it's very poorly defined. As to the specific piece in question here, there's no question that it's controversial (we wouldn't be talking about it otherwise). The question is whether it's "Art," or if it's "Catholic Bashing." I'd say it's both. It's not "Great Art," by any means, but satirical caricature is a legitimate artform, whether in cartoon form, prose (Swift's "Gulliver's Travels" and "A Modest Proposal" come to mind), or cast in bronze as is the case here. Quote
babnik Posted October 3, 2003 Posted October 3, 2003 dryad said: I know it's considered uncool to actually judge art, and go ahead and call me an elitist, but "Piss Christ" is a joke. To demonstrate what you think of something by dipping a photo of it in urine is just plain juvenile, something worthy of Beavis and Butthead. I don't think that a little bit of sophistication should be too much to ask in art. That piece of crap shouldn't be in a gallery not because it's controversial, but because it's simply BAD ART . In general, I think it's easy to make something that's beautiful, it's easy to make something that's controversial (or thought-provoking, or whatever), but it's really hard to do both. Guernica and the others mentioned above are both, which is what makes them great works. I think it's really unfortunate that in much of contemporary art, the ability to generate controversy has become a subtitute for quality. i agree... piss christ just caters to anti-christian audience without really saying anything. just making anti-christians laugh. i thought the penis-bishop was an interesting concept and was quasi-tastefully done really... dick-head makes a statement, all piss christ does is incite anger and whatnot. i know that is status-quo, but still ridiculous "bevis/butthead" antics at best. Quote
murraysovereign Posted October 3, 2003 Posted October 3, 2003 Hey, Dru - remember "Sniffy the Rat"? (insert "snaffle-being-crushed-to-death-under-giant-weight" graemlin here) Was that Art, or Snaffle-Bashing, or both? Discuss Quote
Dru Posted October 3, 2003 Posted October 3, 2003 no rat was actually crushed in the Sniffy the Rat thought experiment! everybody should click the link to see the piss christ. its not a photo in urine...it's an actual crucifix dipped in urine... and a photo taken of it.... sorta puts a golden glow around the whole thing.... I think it's good art! References Gandhian non-violence and urine drinking and golden showers and all that. It encourages us to look beyond excretionary taboos and see that urine can have holy qualities. Quote
murraysovereign Posted October 3, 2003 Posted October 3, 2003 Dru said: no rat was actually crushed in the Sniffy the Rat thought experiment! Yeah, I know, but if a rat had been crushed, would it have been "Art"? It certainly was controversial - Gawd, what a circus! Wasn't that the same guy who ate a human testicle and called it "Art"? Quote
Dru Posted October 3, 2003 Posted October 3, 2003 the art is all about people's reactions to the proposal. it's trolling as art! Quote
catbirdseat Posted October 3, 2003 Posted October 3, 2003 I just think that the artist could have made the statement better using more subtlety, where some people think it looks like a penis and others don't. Then everyone can then see what they want. Quote
Dru Posted October 3, 2003 Posted October 3, 2003 catbirdseat said: I just think that the artist could have made the statement better using more subtlety, where some people think it looks like a penis and others don't. Then everyone can then see what they want. you are saying the artist should try to avoid offending everyone. what bunk. the artist should make their statement as effectively as possible. what you are talking about is not "art" but "decoration". Quote
babnik Posted October 3, 2003 Posted October 3, 2003 Dru said: the art is all about people's reactions to the proposal. it's trolling as art! then you are the andy warhol of cc.com Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.