# I Pitt "Piss Obama" **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 30, 2012, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pitt-piss-obama/642606 "2012-11-30T20:24:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2012, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pitt-piss-obama/642606/201 "2012-12-07T22:30:54Z")
> [@bup](#): > > **Miller** , how can you not get this? > > Some people are offended by putting a crucifix in a jar of piss. It doesn’t matter if it was for a work of art. It doesn’t matter what the artist’s intent was. Oh, for fuck’s sake. Yes, I get that. I understand why people are offended by this picture. There is no part of that reaction that I do not understand. My argument is that _this is a stupid reaction._ And furthermore, that you can’t hold Serrano responsible for how stupid people react to his art, particularly given the fact that he showed it in a venue where he would not expect stupid people\* to ever see it. \*at least, the sort of stupid person who would find a picture like this offensive. Lord knows, the art world has its own species of idiots to deal with. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2012, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pitt-piss-obama/642606/202 "2012-12-07T22:45:49Z")
Yes, that’s the point. Serrano is not responsible for stupid reactions to his work, even if the stupid reactions are to some extent foreseeable. For that matter, I believe it to be stupid to feel insulted if someone wipes his or her ass with your national flag. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2012, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pitt-piss-obama/642606/203 "2012-12-08T03:49:00Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Oh, for fuck’s sake. Yes, I get that. I understand why people are offended by this picture. There is no part of that reaction that I do not understand. My argument is that _this is a stupid reaction._ And furthermore, that you can’t hold Serrano responsible for how stupid people react to his art, particularly given the fact that he showed it in a venue where he would not expect stupid people\* to ever see it. Tell me what the \*real \*message \*smart \*people get from it. Explain why it’s so clearly not offensive to smart people, and why we should trust that Serrano is telling the truth about his message, and why we can conclude that Serrano’s depiction of Jesus is > [@Miller](#): > > clearly reverent. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2012, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pitt-piss-obama/642606/204 "2012-12-08T04:35:40Z")
> [@bup](#): > > Tell me what the \*real \*message \*smart \*people get from it. > > Explain why it’s so clearly not offensive to smart people, and why we should trust that Serrano is telling the truth about his message, and why we can conclude that Serrano’s depiction of Jesus is You can easily answer your own question by reading _virtually any post I’ve made to this thread_. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2012, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pitt-piss-obama/642606/205 "2012-12-08T04:52:55Z")
Once you understand that someone’s goal was to give offense, don’t you at least at some level understand that you don’t have to BE offended? That YOU make the choice of how you feel about things and whether or not you give them any emotional space? ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2012, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pitt-piss-obama/642606/206 "2012-12-08T05:40:36Z")
I have a possibly relevant story about “professional” art interpreters, curators at the National Gallery of Art. I was rather stunned to learn that they don’t know and don’t particularly care what an artist’s _intent_ was when creating the art. I learned this by listening to a thesis presentation by a grad student there about a particular series of art pieces by Jasper Johns. It seemed entirely plausible, yet during the followup questions none of the people in the audience (virtually all staff members and grad students) asked what seemed to me the obvious question – “Since Johns is still living, have you tried contacting him to find out whether he agrees with your interpretation?” So, after the presentation and question session was over (I was working as a technician at the event and it would have been inappropriate to interrupt it with questions of my own) I went up to the guy and asked him. The answer was “no” and he seemed really quite surprised by the idea. And I followed up with the same general question to bunches of curators over the next few weeks, and got the same response. The meaning of the art is in the mind of the viewer (or listener, or whatever) and the intent of the artist at the time of creation is at best an interesting historical footnote. I don’t think they made the intellectual leap that I did upon learning this … I dunno what to call it, it’s not a professional “practice” because, um, no one actually does anything … well, call it “attitude”, I suppose. My intellectual leap was to understand that this attitude makes their entire profession irrelevant, at best an **un** interesting historical footnote. The really odd thing (to me) is, this attitude may be entirely correct. But that’s for another thread. The Piss Christ photo will mean something entirely different to a person who has no knowledge of its history (or more accurately, the press and public reaction to it when it was created), than it will to someone who does know the background. The title itself suggests a question, “Is the title actually a part of the art?” I don’t believe anyone who sees the image in ignorance of the history AND the title, would be offended by the image itself. The offense is given (or perhaps taken) by those two pieces of knowledge. So what this is, my friends, is another of the endless meaningless issues illustrated by questions like, “What is the sound of one hand clapping?”, or “If a tree fall in the forest and no one is there to hear it, …?” You may as well argue over whether Lassie is better at being a dog than Willie is at being a whale. (Me, I vote Lassie.) ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2012, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pitt-piss-obama/642606/207 "2012-12-08T05:41:00Z")
Heck, if someone’s goal is to give offense, I find that, in itself, to be offensive! It’s like when a half-drunken lout rolls in to a bar and tries to pick a fight with someone. Do we really care if someone “looked at him funny?” It’s the fact that he wants to start a fight that really gives him away as a clod. I’m with **Miller** here, however: no one has established that Serrano wanted to start a fight. Especially if he, himself, said he wasn’t. Presuming people are lying without sufficient evidence for it is also kinda offensive. ---
**Author:** ![Nars\_Glinley](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nars_glinley/32/8177_2.png) [@Nars\_Glinley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nars_Glinley)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2012, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pitt-piss-obama/642606/208 "2012-12-08T06:18:22Z")
So Serrano is either an idiot for not realizing that people would take offense at his naming his work “Piss Christ”, a troll for not caring, or a liar. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2012, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pitt-piss-obama/642606/209 "2012-12-08T06:21:27Z")
> [@Nars\_Glinley](#): > > a troll for not caring This one is wrong. An artist has no duty to care about those who might take offense. It’s not trolling not to care. Trolling is intentionally riling people up, which is the opposite of not caring. ---
**Author:** ![rogerbox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/76d3ee/32.png) [@rogerbox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rogerbox)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2012, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pitt-piss-obama/642606/210 "2012-12-08T06:23:20Z")
> [@Nars\_Glinley](#): > > So Serrano is either an idiot for not realizing that people would take offense at his naming his work “Piss Christ”, a troll for not caring, or a liar. or it wasn’t meant for non-art scenesters. I could give some examples of a hobby of mine where something that is a perfectly normal term of art, could get me fired from my job, or ostracized by other friends outside of the hobby for using… the messages you put out have intended audiences and context. I’m sure if you asked him what a fundie Christian who doesn’t know anything about art from the Bible belt would find the idea offensive, he would’ve agreed? edit: And the purpose of his art could’ve been this very discussion, and the only way to have this discussion is with the existence of a piece of art called “Piss Christ”. I’m not that familiar with Piss Christ as a piece but I hate the idea of artists not being able to have freedom to do whatever they want to express ideas not commonly expressed, in ways not commonly used. ---
**Author:** ![Nars\_Glinley](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nars_glinley/32/8177_2.png) [@Nars\_Glinley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nars_Glinley)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2012, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pitt-piss-obama/642606/211 "2012-12-08T06:39:00Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > This one is wrong. An artist has no duty to care about those who might take offense. It’s not trolling not to care. Trolling is intentionally riling people up, which is the opposite of not caring. A troll doesn’t care if they rile people up. To me, this is no different than the asshole who created the anti-Mohammed video that riled up the people of Egypt. He was trolling the Muslim world and didn’t care if he offended anyone. I doubt that anyone here would accept his word if he had said that he didn’t mean to offend anyone. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2012, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pitt-piss-obama/642606/212 "2012-12-08T07:37:21Z")
> [@Nars\_Glinley](#): > > A troll doesn’t care if they rile people up. … No, this is just wrong. A troll is someone who does or says things with the intent to rile things up. Someone who just doesn’t care is merely an ass. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2012, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pitt-piss-obama/642606/213 "2012-12-08T14:46:37Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > You can easily answer your own question by reading _virtually any post I’ve made to this thread_. Ah, because you’re one of the smart people. People who react differently than you are _idiots_. You have the ability to determine the objective truth of the piece. It’s a _plainly reverent_ depiction of Christ. Even if I don’t find it offensive, allowing that other people could without being stupid makes me stupid. Way to be, **Miller**. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2012, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pitt-piss-obama/642606/214 "2012-12-08T19:48:25Z")
> [@bup](#): > > Ah, because you’re one of the smart people. People who react differently than you are _idiots_. You have the ability to determine the objective truth of the piece. **bup** , I’d like you to meet a friend of mine. His name is [Fallacy of the Excluded Middle](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_excluded_middle). > [@](#): > > Way to be, **Miller**. Yeah, it’s pretty awesome. You should really try it. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2012, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pitt-piss-obama/642606/215 "2012-12-08T19:51:16Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > My response to this portion of your post got lost… > > I still find it odd you actually need an answer to this. Here are some reasons why using urine as an ingredient in paint in ancient times is different than putting a figure in a jar of it in the 1980’s… > > Urine was used commonly in art and in tanning hides and other trades before more advanced techniques that we have today. It’s unusual today. > > In Rome it was common for there to be piss buckets in front of shops where urine would be collected by passers by who had to relieve themselves. This isn’t common today. > > Urine was a necessary ingredient in the finished product of the artwork back then. It isn’t today. > > Using urine was the best method at the time of making ammonia and other uses such as paints and dyes. We have better methods today such as food coloring. > > The Sistine Chapel isn’t about piss. Placing the figure submerged in urine makes the fact that it’s submerged in urine the centerpiece of the work. > > The Sistine Chapel isn’t known as “The Piss Chapel”. The work in question is entitled “Piss Christ”. So, what you’re saying is, despite using a substance that’s generally considered unclean or disgusting to make his images of God and Jesus and so forth, there’s all these factors… let’s call them, I dunno, _context_… that makes it clear that the Sistine Chapel isn’t insulting towards Christianity. My next question, obviously, is why are you so willing to accept context for one situation, and so stubborn about considering it in another? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2012, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pitt-piss-obama/642606/216 "2012-12-08T20:41:55Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > I don’t think they made the intellectual leap that I did upon learning this … I dunno what to call it, it’s not a professional “practice” because, um, no one actually does anything … well, call it “attitude”, I suppose. The term you’re looking for is “critical theory.” > [@](#): > > My intellectual leap was to understand that this attitude makes their entire profession irrelevant, at best an **un** interesting historical footnote. I don’t really see how your conclusion follows, here. A good critic is someone who can say interesting things about art, and who is good at guiding people to art they’ll enjoy. Neither of these functions is dependent on their ideas representing some sort of objective truth about the art they criticize. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2012, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pitt-piss-obama/642606/217 "2012-12-08T20:55:48Z")
Dude! I LOL’d totally! Really good stuff, there! Live long, because when its over, I gotta roast your ass for all eternity. Sorry, but them’s the rules! Your pal, J. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2012, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pitt-piss-obama/642606/218 "2012-12-08T21:27:56Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > …I don’t really see how your conclusion follows, here. A good critic is someone who can say interesting things about art, and who is good at guiding people to art they’ll enjoy. Neither of these functions is dependent on their ideas representing some sort of objective truth about the art they criticize. If the artist’s intent/opinion is irrelevant to the meaning of a piece of art, either it has no meaning or it has as many meanings as there are people who view it, none any more or less relevant than anyone else’s. IMO that makes a critic the most replaceable person on the planet. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2012, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pitt-piss-obama/642606/219 "2012-12-08T21:52:24Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > . . . that makes a critic the most replaceable person on the planet. 😉 Is this news to anyone here? ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2012, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pitt-piss-obama/642606/220 "2012-12-08T22:05:47Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Is this news to anyone here? Possibly **Miller**? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pitt-piss-obama/642606.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pitt-piss-obama/642606.md?page=12)