I Pitt "Piss Obama"

[Debaser]

Two other things I should have addressed…

@Miller

Well, moot or not, I’d still like to hear your answer to the question.

I think it’s not particularly interesting or artistic, but my answer would be no: It’s not offensive if the medium wasn’t piss and the title was changed the actual photo isn’t insulting to religion by itself without that context.

But you knew that.

And people got outraged, because rather than look at the picture and think about it for themselves for five minutes, they just went with whatever Jesse Helms told them about it.

Which I find mildly contemptible.

Did Jesse Helms or any other religious figure lie about the work?

All they had to do was point out the truth to get people upset with it. It’s Christ in a jar of urine entitled “Piss Christ”. That’s insulting, and true.

[elucidator]

Seeing my flag smeared with shit is insulting, yes. Seeing it spattered with the blood of innocent people…far, far worse. Never saw the shit. Saw the blood.

[Inner_Stickler]

@Debaser

Can you name any action that you would interpret as being insulting to Americans?

I mean, if wiping your ass with the flag doesn’t raise to that level, what would?

Dunno. “All americans are [expletives]”? A flag’s just a piece of cloth and if they bought it and wiped their ass with it, what business is it of mine?

Mostly, I don’t see the point in getting angry when someone does something specifically to anger me.

[Trinopus]

@Debaser

. . . I mean, if wiping your ass with the flag doesn’t raise to that level, what would?

Would you rather the guy go around without wiping his ass at all? Ew!

[Miller]

@Debaser

You say this, but then you go on to say this…

…and then I go on to say that I’m making an exception in this case, and explain why. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make with this.

You are going deep into the artists thoughts and motives. You are assuming a lot. Who knows what he thought? Do you have cites to back up any of these claims? Is he a friend of yours? How do you know him this well to make all these assumptions?

I’m really only making two fairly innocuous assumptions about Serrano: that he knew that combining something with urine is usually going to be read as insulting, and that his grasp of visual communication is sufficient to recognize that the image he actually produced (details about how he produced it aside) is not remotely insulting.

He took a picture of a religious figure submerged in urine and titled it as such.

Yes, he certainly did that.

It’s insulting to the people of that religion. Full stop.

And that’s simply incorrect, because it ignores an enormous amount of context, including (once again) the actual image he created.

I think it’s not particularly interesting or artistic, but my answer would be no: It’s not offensive if the medium wasn’t piss and the title was changed the actual photo isn’t insulting to religion by itself without that context.

Thank you for answering my question. If I may follow up with an additional one:

An identical picture, except that it’s entitled… I dunno, “The Glory and the Radiance of the Son of God.” The artist never says how the image was created. However, a friend of his, who saw him producing it, tells the press that he used his own urine to create that distinctive, cloudy lighting. Is it still offensive?

Did Jesse Helms or any other religious figure lie about the work?

Well, first of all, Jesse Helms was a Senator, and not a “religious figure,” per se. I think he very badly misrepresented this picture, although whether he did it deliberately and maliciously, or out of ignorance, is debatable.

All they had to do was point out the truth to get people upset with it. It’s Christ in a jar of urine entitled “Piss Christ”. That’s insulting, and true.

A simple description of a work of art can be both accurate, and misleading. I could, for example, accurately describe this picture as showing Obama as a terrorist burning the American flag. That would be entirely accurate. It could also, depending on the context in which I was describing it, be highly misleading.

[Larry_Borgia]

Have you heard about this Mark Twain guy? He calls Black people niggers on nearly every page of this book Huckleberry Finn! What a jerk. Obviously I’m not going to read the book or learn anything about it, because there’s no point. Everything I said is true, and there’s no need to think about “context” or “meaning” or “intent” or any of those hoity-toity ideas snobs learn in elite universities. I’m just going to make sure it’s banned from my local taxpayer funded libraries and schools.

[BigAppleBucky]

I say “meh”. Can’t understand why this thread got to 4 pages and I’m not going to read it to find out.

[Miller]

@Larry_Borgia

Have you heard about this Mark Twain guy? He calls Black people niggers on nearly every page of this book Huckleberry Finn! What a jerk. Obviously I’m not going to read the book or learn anything about it, because there’s no point. Everything I said is true, and there’s no need to think about “context” or “meaning” or “intent” or any of those hoity-toity ideas snobs learn in elite universities. I’m just going to make sure it’s banned from my local taxpayer funded libraries and schools.

I’ve got an even more shocking one for you. Did you hear about the guy who walked into an art museum, and attacked a prominent work of art representing Jesus with a hammer? Clearly, the guy had some sort of crazy hate-on for Christ.

[Kobal2]

@Debaser

I’m still finding it tough to believe that you really don’t get this.

I get the notion. I think it’s intellectually lazy at best and pants-on-head retarded at worst, and the fact that you’re presenting this lazy or stupid knee-jerk reading of it as just as valid as any bothers me. Particularly in the context of modern art, which practically runs on introspective, deconstructive pretension. I’m not sure I agree with Miller’s own reading of the piece, but he’s got a point when he says that while Serrano probably expected that the piece could be shocking to lazy or stupid people, he wasn’t trying to speak to them (or possibly expecting that they’d get anywhere near his shit to begin with). He likely expected his target audience to move past that.

I don’t know the man, and **bup **is probably absolutely correct about him being a dedicated shock artist ; but all subversive art is made and meant to jolt the viewer and challenge them, if only to trigger two very basic questions in them: “Why does this affect me so ?” and “Why did the artist want to affect me so ?”. Well, all *good *or effective subversive art I should probably say. Piss Christ is no different, and I genuinely think it’s one of the good ones.

That said, I gotta say your (and bup’s) insistence that the title of what in the end is a piece of visual art overly matters amuses me. I wonder if people would have been so outraged had the piece been titled something artsy fartsy and pretentious like “Saviour #7” or “The Apple.”

@Miller

This creates an interesting contrast. Urine is generally regarded as unclean, but it can be used to produce something that’s quite beautiful. And that’s a central part of Christian theology, isn’t it? Christ was God cloaked in the profane material of our fallen world, so that he could offer us a message of spiritual salvation. In this interpretation, the urine is representational of the physical world as a whole, which is still unable to conceal the glory of Christ.

I got a more pragmatic one, doc. You know those Renaissance frescoes, or that little graffiti the RCC put up on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, with the lighting and the striking colours and the glory of god shining through the pigments ? Yeah… you reeeaaally don’t want to know what was involved in the creation of those vivid colours. Urine is probably the least offensive of the ingredients used by medieval dye makers (they used it as a source of ammonia). Dog shit (sorry, “muck”) was another big one.

[Debaser]

@Inner_Stickler

Dunno. “All americans are [expletives]”? A flag’s just a piece of cloth and if they bought it and wiped their ass with it, what business is it of mine?

Mostly, I don’t see the point in getting angry when someone does something specifically to anger me.

Who’s talking about being angry? That hasn’t been brought up. I’m talking about whether the intent is to insult.

[Debaser]

@Kobal2

That said, I gotta say your (and bup’s) insistence that the title of what in the end is a piece of visual art overly matters amuses me. I wonder if people would have been so outraged had the piece been titled something artsy fartsy and pretentious like “Saviour #7” or “The Apple.”

I’ve never insisted that the title is the only problem. The title draws attention to it, but the fact that the image itself is a religious figure in a jar of urine is the problem. The title just helps to point this out to people.

[Debaser]

@Miller

…and then I go on to say that I’m making an exception in this case, and explain why. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make with this.

You are making a lot of assumptions about what’s in another persons head with absolutely no evidence to back up any of it.

Thank you for answering my question. If I may follow up with an additional one:

An identical picture, except that it’s entitled… I dunno, “The Glory and the Radiance of the Son of God.” The artist never says how the image was created. However, a friend of his, who saw him producing it, tells the press that he used his own urine to create that distinctive, cloudy lighting. Is it still offensive?

Not to me. But, I’m not offended by the original “Piss Christ” either.

As to whether Christians would be offended, I don’t know. You’d have to ask them.

As to whether the intent of the artist was to insult Christians, I’d have to say that your hypothetical doesn’t give enough information.

Maybe in this example he simply used poor judgement and used piss because it worked to get the results he desired. This would indicate he’s a moron, but it’s possible.

Maybe he did it to snicker with his art show friends about the stupidity of Christians. “Ha. They like my picture even though it’s actually piss.”

I don’t know.

But in the actual work “Piss Christ”, he clearly is insulting Christians since he openly makes the fact that it’s piss part of the work by acknowledging what it is to the audience.

Well, first of all, Jesse Helms was a Senator, and not a “religious figure,” per se. I think he very badly misrepresented this picture, although whether he did it deliberately and maliciously, or out of ignorance, is debatable.

How? You haven’t made a case here at all.

Please provide a cite of something Jesse Helms said about the work that wasn’t true.

I’m not denying he has, but you haven’t given me anything yet.

As far as I know all he did was point out the truth. The work is Christ, in a jar of urine. The truth is damning enough in this case. You don’t need to invent any facts to get Christians riled up about this one.

A simple description of a work of art can be both accurate, and misleading. I could, for example, accurately describe this picture as showing Obama as a terrorist burning the American flag. That would be entirely accurate. It could also, depending on the context in which I was describing it, be highly misleading.

Let’s focus on the actual work we’re discussing in this thread. Give an example of Helms doing what you describe. It’s not good enough for you to just insist over and over that he did. I’d like to see it myself. Did I miss a post?

[bup]

Hypothetical:

One guy wipes his ass with something you hold dear (maybe it’s not an American flag for you, but indulge me and pick something that would offend you), claims it’s art with no other comment.

Another guy wipes his ass with the same thing, but claims it’s an ironic commentary on how other people disrespect the thing you hold dear.

You don’t witness them, but hear about them both, and the description is accurate.

Is there a difference? Is one offensive and the other not? I say no.

(I feel like I need to point out throughout all this that I am not in any way advocating censorship. This is just about if it’s reasonable that people find a work objectionable. Whatever Serrano claims, many people find Piss Christ offensive and aren’t idiots for doing so, even if they haven’t seen the work but know it involved putting a crucifix in piss.)

[Malacandra]

I think Piss Christ is a work of art with a real message, and the real message is “Ha ha, I can immerse a crucifix in piss, annoy a helluvalot of Christians, and get away with it while making a good living off people who will queue up to praise the Emperor’s new clothes”.

[Inner_Stickler]

@Debaser

Who’s talking about being angry? That hasn’t been brought up. I’m talking about whether the intent is to insult.

Someone can intend any of a number of things. I’m not required to respond as they intend.

[Debaser]

@Inner_Stickler

Someone can intend any of a number of things. I’m not required to respond as they intend.

Yes. Agreed. Glad you finally came around.

[Miller]

@Debaser

You are making a lot of assumptions about what’s in another persons head with absolutely no evidence to back up any of it.

And you’re not?

As to whether the intent of the artist was to insult Christians, I’d have to say that your hypothetical doesn’t give enough information.

Maybe in this example he simply used poor judgement and used piss because it worked to get the results he desired. This would indicate he’s a moron, but it’s possible.

Maybe he did it to snicker with his art show friends about the stupidity of Christians. “Ha. They like my picture even though it’s actually piss.”

I don’t know.

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?

By that standard, the Sistine Chapel is the greatest insult to Christianity ever conceived, considering that the paints used at the time often (as Kobal2 pointed out) used urine and worse as pigments and/or binding agents.

But in the actual work “Piss Christ”, he clearly is insulting Christians since he openly makes the fact that it’s piss part of the work by acknowledging what it is to the audience.

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

Please provide a cite of something Jesse Helms said about the work that wasn’t true.

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.

[Inner_Stickler]

@Debaser

Yes. Agreed. Glad you finally came around.

[bup]

@Miller

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

Oh, for fuck’s sake. That’s just ridiculous.

[elucidator]

“Many people these days are leaving the Church, and turning back to God.”

• Lenny Bruce (paraphrase)