I Pitt "Piss Obama"

[Debaser]

@Miller

And you’re not?

No. I’m not. I don’t know what the artist was thinking. I haven’t declared what his motives were. Maybe he’s just dumb and didn’t realize he would insult people. Maybe, I suspect, he was intending to insult Christians since that seems to be his M.O. Maybe he really thought he was making some sort of important statement about commercialization of religion and people would buy that. I don’t know what his deal is.

But none of those intentions of the artist change the fact that the work is insulting, by its very nature.

So, just to be clear, the fact that an artist uses urine in anyway is automatically insulting and disrespectful to the subject he’s depicting, even if the artist isn’t incorporating the fact that he used urine as part of the presentation of the work of art?

No, of course not. You are back into Data mode where you are being so analytical that you can’t see the forest for the trees.

Urine used to make paint in ancient times isn’t the same thing as dunking an image of Jesus into a jar of some guys piss in the 80’s. You can’t seriously need me to explain why these are different.

Except, again, the picture is plainly and manifestly not an insult to Christianity.

Yes it is. You don’t think so, but probably most Christians do. They’re right. You are being overly analytical and not understanding how most people will respond to such a crass act as the artist did with this work.

The only way to read it as an insult is to willfully and purposefully overlook the actual image being presented, and the context in which it was presented.

The context is clear. It’s a jar of piss. That’s the context.

I get the whole commercialization of Religion argument, I’ve read the wiki page. But regardless of whatever half baked reason he came up with the image is clearly an insult to Christians.

I never said Helms lied, I said he misrepresented it. When Helms said there was an artist who created a picture by immersing a crucifix in urine, he was being entirely factual. He was also being deeply misleading when he claimed that this was done to insult and degrade Christianity, because this is plainly not the case, as can be easily determined simply by looking at the actual photograph Serrano created.

Well you haven’t quoted him at all in this thread saying anything, so I don’t know what he said. If you want to accuse him of misrepresenting the work, put up some quotes so we can talk about them.

But if all he said was the truth: That the work is clearly an insult because it’s the Christian god submerged in urine. Then he didn’t mislead anyone. He just pointed it out. Plus I bet he mentioned that taxpayer dollars funded it. But I don’t know what he said because you aren’t backing up your claims with any cites.

[Debaser]

@Inner_Stickler

Let’s recap.

I came up with a hypothetical of someone clearly doing something that was an intentional insult towards a group of people. (Wiping ass with American flag.) That would be obviously insulting even without viewing the work, as long as a person had a description and a name of it.

You, being the contrary sort, said you wouldn’t be offended by that hypothetical. This really has nothing to do with my point, but to humor you I responded anyway.

I countered that it’s not about whether you are angry or not. It’s about whether the intent in my hypothetical is to insult.

You said that you’re not required to respond as they intend.

I agree. I don’t care how you respond or if you get angry. My hypothetical stands. Most normal Americans would be insulted by that hypothetical without having to view the actual work and they would be right to be. You don’t care about flags so it’s a moot point for you. Congratulations.

[Inner_Stickler]

If that had been your goal, when I said I wouldn’t have been offended, your response should have been “Fine, you’re weird.” Don’t act pissy when you get called on making blanket statements.

[Miller]

@Debaser

No. I’m not. I don’t know what the artist was thinking.

Really? Because a few posts ago, you said this:

I’m talking about whether the intent is to insult.

Kind of hard to talk about intent without going into what the artist was thinking, isn’t it?

Urine used to make paint in ancient times isn’t the same thing as dunking an image of Jesus into a jar of some guys piss in the 80’s. You can’t seriously need me to explain why these are different.

Apparently, I do need you to explain that, because they seem to be manifestly the same thing to me: both are using urine to create an image of Jesus that’s plainly reverent. The only difference I see is that one artist highlighted the material he used and incorporated it into the message he was trying to send. Why is one okay, and the other not?

Yes it is. You don’t think so, but probably most Christians do. They’re right. You are being overly analytical and not understanding how most people will respond to such a crass act as the artist did with this work.

Like a lot of modern art, the work in question requires analysis to properly understand. I understand completely that most people are not going to want to spend the time and effort to make that analysis, which is why they find the picture insulting. That doesn’t mean that their outrage is justified, no more than someone getting upset because they hear the word “niggardly” and think it’s a racial slur. The people who are insulted by this work are insulted solely and precisely because they refuse to look at the fucking painting, and think about it for five minutes.

The context is clear. It’s a jar of piss. That’s the context.

That’s one tiny part of the context. I’ve explained the larger context, at length, and repeatedly. You have not once actually addressed those arguments, instead preferring to focus on things like demanding evidence for things about Jesse Helms that I’ve never claimed, and which have only the most tangential connection to the arguments I’m actually presenting.

I get the whole commercialization of Religion argument, I’ve read the wiki page. But regardless of whatever half baked reason he came up with the image is clearly an insult to Christians.

I haven’t said anything at all about the commercialization of religion. It’s not an interpretation of the work that particularly works for me, and I’ve not included it in my analysis.

Well you haven’t quoted him at all in this thread saying anything, so I don’t know what he said. If you want to accuse him of misrepresenting the work, put up some quotes so we can talk about them.

I’m not assigning any position to Helms on this subject that you, yourself, have not taken in this thread. That’s the position that I’m describing as, at best, highly misleading. But if you really, really, really need to read something by Jesse Helms, you can try this:

Not to be outdone, Senator Jesse Helms joined in the denunciation: “The Senator from New York is absolutely correct in his indignation and in his description of the blasphemy of the so-called art work. I do not know Mr. Andres Serrano, and I hope I never meet him. Because he is not an artist, he is a jerk. . . . Let him be a jerk on his own time and with his own resources. Do not dishonor our Lord.”

But if all he said was the truth: That the work is clearly an insult because it’s the Christian god submerged in urine.

And you’re wrong. Because there is additional context in the work, and about the work, which undercuts the traditional values assigned to the subjects of this picture. I’ve explained those contexts repeatedly, and at length. If you think those contexts are somehow invalid, please try to explain why you think those contexts are invalid, or present an argument as to why your context must necessarily over ride all other concerns.

[crowmanyclouds]

@Miller

… Because there is additional context in the work, and about the work, which undercuts the traditional values assigned to the subjects of this picture. …

Up next: Chris Ofili’s The Holy Virgin Mary?

… The work employs mixed media, including oil paint, glitter, and polyester resin, and also elephant dung and collaged pornographic images. The central Black Madonna is surrounded by many collaged images that resemble butterflies at first sight, but on closer inspection are photographs of female genitalia; an ironic reference to the putti that appear in traditional religious art. A lump of dried, varnished elephant dung forms one bared breast, and the painting is displayed leaning against the gallery wall, supported by two other lumps of elephant dung, decorated with coloured pins: the pins on the left are arranged to spell out “Virgin” and the one on the right “Mary”. Many other works by Ofili in this period – including No Woman No Cry – incorporate elephant dung, particularly as supports for the canvas, inspired by a period that Ofili spent in Zimbabwe. …

If you aren’t aware of Ofili’s other work you can’t have an informed opinion of the intent of The Holy Virgin Mary! Not that that stopped anyone from forming completely uninformed opinions of Ofili’s intent. :rolleyes:

CMC

[Debaser]

@Miller

Apparently, I do need you to explain that, because they seem to be manifestly the same thing to me: both are using urine to create an image of Jesus that’s plainly reverent. The only difference I see is that one artist highlighted the material he used and incorporated it into the message he was trying to send. Why is one okay, and the other not?

They’re the same like me using a brick to build a wall is the same as throwing a brick through your windshield.

One is using an established method, (the best method available at the time) to make ammonia and painting materials. The other is a jar of piss in modern times labelled “Piss Christ.”

They would only be equivalent if instead of painting the ceiling and calling it the Sistine Chapel, Michelangelo instead pissed on the floor and suggested renaming it the “Piss Room”.

I still refuse to believe you can’t see the difference between these two things and are trying to make some sort of absurd point with this argument. Go ahead and make it already. But it’s impossible for any rational person to equate these two things.

The people who are insulted by this work are insulted solely and precisely because they refuse to look at the fucking painting, and think about it for five minutes.

I’ve looked at the painting and I’ve thought about it for five minutes.

Yep. Still insulting.

That’s one tiny part of the context. I’ve explained the larger context, at length, and repeatedly. You have not once actually addressed those arguments…

This just isn’t true. The fact that’s it’s a jar of piss is the context. Anything else is just noise. I’ve addressed all your arguments. If I’ve missed something go ahead and point it out, specifically, and I’ll address it.

instead preferring to focus on things like demanding evidence for things about Jesse Helms that I’ve never claimed, and which have only the most tangential connection to the arguments I’m actually presenting.

I didn’t force you to bring up Jesse Helms. You brought it up. You said he was misleading and I’m asking for a cite for that. It’s how this message board works, don’t you know. If you didn’t want to back up your claim then you shouldn’t have made it.

But that’s fine. You obviously don’t want to talk about Helms, so we can drop that. All you had to do was ask.

I haven’t said anything at all about the commercialization of religion. It’s not an interpretation of the work that particularly works for me, and I’ve not included it in my analysis.

I know. I’m responding to the actual artist and what he claims it means. I know you’ve got a different version. That’s fine, but I’m talking about what Serrano says the work means there.

And you’re wrong. Because there is additional context in the work, and about the work, which undercuts the traditional values assigned to the subjects of this picture. I’ve explained those contexts repeatedly, and at length.

I’ve read your posts. It’s great that you’ve made up elaborate theories as to what the artist intended and what the work means (mostly in post 155). This work obviously speaks to you, and that’s fine. But your interpretations are just that: Yours. There is absolutely no evidence to back up any of your claims, and you even admit that your interpretation of the work isn’t the same as what the artist himself intended.

One needs to bend over backwards and accept all your rather interesting analysis of the work in order to accept that it doesn’t insult Christians.

Sometimes a pig is just a pig.

[Debaser]

@Inner_Stickler

If that had been your goal, when I said I wouldn’t have been offended, your response should have been “Fine, you’re weird.” Don’t act pissy when you get called on making blanket statements.

That’s basically what I said, but I was a bit nicer. I asked if that’s really what you meant, since it’s so damn weird.

But, sure, if that’s what you want: You’re weird. Really. If you don’t understand that someone wiping their ass with a flag probably intends to insult Americans then I think you are very weird indeed.

Happy?

[Miller]

@Debaser

One is using an established method, (the best method available at the time) to make ammonia and painting materials.

Why does that make a difference? It’s still using urine to depict religious figures. Why does this particular context neutralize the insult, when Serrano’s context does not?

I still refuse to believe you can’t see the difference between these two things and are trying to make some sort of absurd point with this argument. Go ahead and make it already. But it’s impossible for any rational person to equate these two things.

What do you mean, “go ahead and make it?” I’ve been making it for this entire thread. Do try and pay attention, please.

This just isn’t true. The fact that’s it’s a jar of piss is the context. Anything else is just noise. I’ve addressed all your arguments. If I’ve missed something go ahead and point it out, specifically, and I’ll address it.

I literally laughed out loud at that. You haven’t addressed any of my arguments. You’ve just repeated, “it’s a a jar of piss!” over and over.

I didn’t force you to bring up Jesse Helms. You brought it up. You said he was misleading and I’m asking for a cite for that.

I just gave you a cite.

I’ve read your posts. It’s great that you’ve made up elaborate theories as to what the artist intended and what the work means (mostly in post 155). This work obviously speaks to you, and that’s fine. But your interpretations are just that: Yours. There is absolutely no evidence to back up any of your claims, and you even admit that your interpretation of the work isn’t the same as what the artist himself intended.

I’ve given the only piece of evidence that matters - the picture itself. My analysis is based entirely on that. This is something you have not discussed at all - absolutely nothing you’ve witten here has shown any hint that you’ve ever actually looked at it.

[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.

If I rape a child, and then claim it’s performance art that is intended to draw attention to how *society *sexualizes children, not me, would you change your tune?

What the fuck, man. Creating the photograph Piss Christ involved putting a crucifix in a jar of piss. Nobody has to see the photograph to fairly decide if it’s offensive, if they have the accurate info that what they consider a holy symbol was put in piss. The means of achieving the end are offensive to some people.

Your sophistry about it makes me shake my head in wonder.

[Nars_Glinley]

If I put an image of President Obama in a jar of piss and called it “Piss President”, I would expect Obama supporters to be offended despite my protestations that it was merely about the cheapening of the presidency.

[Nars_Glinley]

Geez, I’d forgotten that this thread actually was about “Piss Obama”, which IMHO, is offensive.

[Debaser]

@bup

Miller, how can you not get this?

It’s very odd. I’m shaking my head in amazement as well. If this was anyone other than a mod I’d be certain that this was some sort of performance art style of posting or just plain old trolling.

[Debaser]

sigh

I’ll give this one more try:

@Miller

Why does that make a difference? It’s still using urine to depict religious figures. Why does this particular context neutralize the insult, when Serrano’s context does not?

What do you mean, “go ahead and make it?” I’ve been making it for this entire thread. Do try and pay attention, please.

Yes, you’ve been making points about the work and I’ve been reading them. That comment was directed towards this rather insane insistence of yours that there is no difference between “Piss Christ” and the Sistine Chapel.

I literally laughed out loud at that. You haven’t addressed any of my arguments. You’ve just repeated, “it’s a a jar of piss!” over and over.

What do you want me to respond to as far as arguments? I’ve been answering you post for post. If you have something that hasn’t been responded to point it out. Put up or shut up.

I just gave you a cite.

Yes, that I had to pry from you with pliers and a blowtorch.

You obviously don’t want to discuss that topic, despite the fact that the only one to bring it up was you. I’m fine with dropping it.

I’ve given the only piece of evidence that matters - the picture itself. My analysis is based entirely on that. This is something you have not discussed at all - absolutely nothing you’ve witten here has shown any hint that you’ve ever actually looked at it.

Do you think your analysis matters?

First of all, it’s very out there. You are just flat out making up all of it out of whole cloth. Secondly, I could do a similar analysis and it would be equally meaningless. You can’t debate someone else’s wild interpretations of art. There’s no point in going back and forth on what the deep meaning that you made up for this piece.

But none of that changes the obviously insulting nature of submerging a religious figure in piss for shock value.

[elucidator]

Do you hold similar views on “insulting” depictions of Mohammed?

[bup]

@elucidator

Do you hold similar views on “insulting” depictions of Mohammed?

I don’t know if you’re asking **Debaser **or **Miller **- probably not me. Nobody pays me any mind.

Anyway, sure. They’re offensive to a lot of Muslims, and it’s ridiculous to say that they’re not.

Fatwas are uncool, though. Serrano could have Obama, Jesus and Mohammed in a threeway in a jar of Santorum and I’d defend his right to do it.

[Debaser]

My response to this portion of your post got lost…

@Miller

Why does that make a difference? It’s still using urine to depict religious figures. Why does this particular context neutralize the insult, when Serrano’s context does not?

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”.

I could go on and on. This is absurd. I feel like I’m talking to a child, or as I said earlier Data from Star Trek. If you don’t see the obvious differences between these two things I can’t help you.

My analogy of a brick being used to repair your wall vs a brick being used to smash your window is apt. Just because they both involve a brick they aren’t the same thing. Just because two works of art both have the involvement of urine doesn’t make them the same.

[Debaser]

@elucidator

Do you hold similar views on “insulting” depictions of Mohammed?

If someone did a work consisting of an image of Mohammed submerged in urine and titled it “Piss Mohammed”? Yeah. I’d be able to figure out that this was insulting towards Muslims in about two seconds.

[Debaser]

@bup

I don’t know if you’re asking **Debaser **or **Miller **- probably not me. Nobody pays me any mind.

Keep posting! I’m reading every word.

Plus if we keep it up I’m sure Miller will come around eventually. Give it a few years.

[Trinopus]

I’m offended by Debaser’s reasoning. Did he intend it to be offensive? By his reasoning…yes. Weird. He’s defined an objective measure for subjective feelings. Now we don’t need to know ourselves; others can know us and tell us what we really feel.

(“I’m angry.”
“No, you aren’t. You just say that, but you aren’t really.”)

Surreal.

[Kobal2]

@Debaser

If someone did a work consisting of an image of Mohammed submerged in urine and titled it “Piss Mohammed”? Yeah.

Mohammed already worked that out himself - the insistence of the founders of Islam that there be no representation of god (or Mohammed) whatsoever stems precisely from their really not wanting their followers to fall into the trap of worshipping those symbols like the Christians worshipped theirs. I’d like to think he’d have been on board with dumping images of himself in piss just to make a point, demonstrate their worthlessness/the foolishness of treating them as something sacred, that sort of thing.

I doubt Mohammed anticipated his more, ah, enthusiastic followers to start fanatically worshipping their *lack *of idols though :smack:. That’s pretty fucking meta, no matter how you slice it.