The headline is
"An artist famed for using his own urine just bought Trump’s wedding cake. His plans are a mystery," but I can see in the first few sentences that all the wedding guests received a tiny cake as a gift, and Serrano just bought one of these non-unique items. It only cost him $1880, a minuscule price to pay for the publicity. "Piss Christ" itself was extremely effective publicity bait. Serrano submerged a crucifix in what he said was his urine and took a photograph of it, and people have talked about him ever since. With his own reputation for piss and that fake-news story about Trump and piss, there's immediate ideation about him pissing on the cake. He doesn't even have to do it. We've already got piss on Trump's wedding cake in our head. And it's not even Trump's wedding cake. It's just one of the cakes that were handed out at what was — you have to admit — Trump's huge publicity stunt, that wedding, with all the opulence and celebrities... and the $50,000, 7-tier, 200-pound cake, with 2,000 "sugar-spun" flowers.
Serrano isn't saying what he'll do with the tiny cake — what
else he'll do, that is, other than conspicuously buying it and thereby setting off the piss-soaked performance art of
our imagination:
"Artists work in mysterious ways. You never know what they’re up to! I don’t like to talk about things until I’m ready to talk."
Posts
157 comments:
Meh. Who cares. He can eat it for all I care!
Trump will never be forgiven for the lese majiste of having a little joke at Obama’s expense. He must be punished!
I have a hard time calling someone who specializes in a piss medium an artist.
A fool and his money are soon parted.
$1880 seems like a lot of money to me.
What's the over/under on diarrhea frosting?
Despite the provocative title and the hoopla surrounding the NEA controversy, Piss Christ is actually quite an arresting photograph. Beautiful and haunting. See it here.
Urine can be used in all sorts of art designs, at least from males.
Females are pretty much restricted to Jackson Pollocks.
With his own reputation for piss and that fake-news story about Trump and piss, there's immediate ideation about him pissing on the cake.
Obviously the key is to get Russian hookers to piss on it. That of course, is not art. The photographs of the Russian hookers pissing on it, however, is art.
If you want real high-brow art, make them black-and-white photographs.
There's no way to look good pissing on somebody else's wedding cake.
He'd have to somehow portray Trump as pissing on his own wedding cake.
Having said that, whatever Serrano does with the cake, it probably won't have anything to do with piss.
"Despite the provocative title and the hoopla surrounding the NEA controversy, Piss Christ is actually quite an arresting photograph. Beautiful and haunting."
Well, maybe if he had done it in feces and vomit I would have appreciated the art, but I just don't see the beauty in a pissy little photo.
J. Farmer said...
Despite the provocative title and the hoopla surrounding the NEA controversy, Piss Christ is actually quite an arresting photograph. Beautiful and haunting. See it here.
Now do Muhammad
Look for Richard Serra pissing on Trump's wall.
Pissing on cake is a blunt way of putting your marker on it.
Fun fact: Trump was photographed by Serrano back in 2003. You can see it here. He also said, in an interview with The Guardian, 'I never speak ill of people who've posed for me'.
I don't think Serrano will do any more with piss.
At present he's the transgressive artist who made the famous Piss Christ image.
If he keeps it up he'll just be, "that guy with the piss"
@Ignorance is Bliss:
Now do Muhammad
Don't have the slightest idea what this has to do with what I said, but okay.
I've never understood the concept of a decades (sometimes even over a century) old pieces of wedding cake are thought of as a collectable item. The idea of any perishable, let alone a piece of cake, being held onto for years past its expiration date is disgusting.
"Artists work in mysterious ways."
Bach, maybe. Serrano, not so much.
"You never know what they’re up to!"
Well, that's a truism, in the sense that it applies to anyone. But contemporary artists are pretty predictable.
Don't have the slightest idea what this has to do with what I said,
Right. We know.
@tim in vermont:
Right. We know.
Care to elaborate?
@ Farmer
That's great, Trump and Snoop Dog. Two guys who care about their hair.
Basically artist now see themselves as activists to bring on a state that will then severely restrict the production of art since once their preferred government has been installed, free expression will no longer be allowed as this might endanger it.
Serrano probably bought a counterfeit Trump wedding cake with box made in China. They were all the rage on AlieExpress in 2016 for $24.99 with free shipping. I doubt it will matter to those he will market his “art work” to who will no doubt get a thrill just thinking about the cake with feces or whatever he delivers.
Care to elaborate?
No, I have some jello I need to nail to a wall.
Here's a real multi-media (pencil, crayon, charcoal and dead bodies) artist:
Sketches by Samuel Little of two of the more than 90 women he claims he killed
@tim in vermont:
Congrats. It takes real guts to traffic in innuendo and insinuation.
p.s. How do you know what Serrano's "preferred government" is?
"...and people have talked about him ever since."
In terms of 'that guy who put a crucifix in a jar of piss', but not so much as Serrano.
@ Farmer
Your 2nd link isn't right.
(Yawn)
#not2edgy4me
Do the Quran. In a crowded market. In Yemen.
#Uhaveme@attention!!!
@Bob Boyd:
Your 2nd link isn't right.
Oops. This one should work: 'I never speak ill of people who've posed for me'
Artists. The least sane group of people on the planet.
So Hillary and Bill sold their souvenir cake from Trump’s third wedding for $1,880.
Speaking of photographs, this photo of Serrano at the The Village Voice's 25th anniversary party is terrifying. Not sure if that is some kind of frightening oral herpes or what.
Squeeze a baby to produce urine. Redistribute change and let them eat cake.
What created the stink around "Piss Christ" was not that an "artist" created it but that the National Endowment for the Arts funded it.
And, yes, this is a clever brand extension for Serrano, and undoubtably worth the $1880. it cost.
I have the same opinion now that I did when the controversy over Piss Christ erupted. I think it's a beautiful work of art. (This is not a popular view for a Christian to have.) If you forget, for a moment, what you know about the photo, and look at it as a religious work of art, it is very beautiful. Pretend that it's a painting, and look at it with fresh eyes. Forget about the artist's intention. It's a haunting depiction of the crucifixion. There's something about the lighting that is powerful and effective. Sometimes a piece of art "works," and Piss Christ works for me.
Furthermore, if you want to over-analyze and over-spiritualize the work, is it really more offensive then the reality of what Christ experienced as a man? The holy and righteous Son of God came down as a man in the flesh, and interacted with sinful and fallen humanity. He touched lepers, and forgave adulterers. He put himself at the mercy of sinners and religious hypocrites. He became sin in the flesh on the cross to bear our judgment, though He himself was sinless. He drank the cup of God's wrath so that we could receive the cup of God's blessing. Being immersed in human piss (as the result of an immoral and sinful man's choices) isn't that bad or inaccurate a symbol. In fact, it's far more accurate a portrayal of the crucifixion than many traditional depictions.
I would love to tell this to Serrano, and thank him for his work. I have no idea how he would respond.
Zzzzzz. What a boring man.
Have fun.
Waiting for the era of "That's Not Arty" to kick in.
J. Farmer said...
@Ignorance is Bliss: Now do Muhammad
Don't have the slightest idea what this has to do with what I said, but okay.
Apparently IIB believes that, since Andres Serrano is a Christian, that you should allude to a perceived commercializing or cheapening of muslim icons in contemporary culture because you're a muslim.
"Don't have the slightest idea what this has to do with what I said, but okay."
J. Farmer, for a seemingly smart guy you're being deliberately obtuse.
You're not fooling anyone.
@Andrew:
I agree with you about the photograph's beauty. If it had a more innocuous title, no one would consider it blasphemous. Serrano himself said in the Guardian article: "What it symbolises is the way Christ died: the blood came out of him but so did the piss and the shit. Maybe if Piss Christ upsets you, it’s because it gives some sense of what the crucifixion actually was like."
But, but, but...what about Muhammad?!?
"I have a hard time calling someone who specializes in a piss medium an artist."
J. Farmer beat me to it: Piss Christ is a beautiful image, the most compelling depiction of the crucifixion I have seen. His other photographs are also quite good. He's got chops.
(I once stood on line to see a movie at the Film Forum on Houston Street in the West Village and Andres Serrano was standing right in front of me.)
How about a picture of Stormy Daniels enjoying a slice...on the toilet.
@nob490:
J. Farmer, for a seemingly smart guy you're being deliberately obtuse.
You're not fooling anyone.
Oh brother. I said that despite a provocative title, the photograph itself was beautiful and haunting. And then someone said to me, "Now do Muhammad." It's not obtuse to see no logical connection between those two statements. I asked for clarification, and so far I've had two people tell me they can't be bothered to explain it. Right.
I wonder how much the cake seller spent on the wedding gift?
Making a profit off of Trump’s wedding would be priceless.
J. Farmer:
Perhaps there is no logical connection. Perhaps the feeling is that if Serrano were trying to be truly provocative he'd do something to offend people who might fight back.
What he did isn't particularly brave.
I myself am not offended, but I'm not particularly interested in art, either.
As for Serrano's explanation? If that's what he intended that's fine, but I don't think everyone sees it that way.
"Forget about the artist's intention. It's a haunting depiction of the crucifixion."
That was Serrano's intention. It was not to desecrate Christ or Christianity. Those who think that just reveal their provincial biases.
J. Farmer,
Sorry, you beat me to the punch. I didn't read all the comments before posting mine. Honestly, I didn't think anyone would share my view. And your follow-up comment articulated it exactly.
(But I will beat you this time to making a Seinfeld reference: https://youtu.be/naVyR6KlkWI)
And Robert Cook, we agree on something. You commie thug, I'd love to buy you a beer.
@nob490:
Perhaps there is no logical connection. Perhaps the feeling is that if Serrano were trying to be truly provocative he'd do something to offend people who might fight back.
What he did isn't particularly brave.
I never said anything about its bravery or whether he was "trying to be truly provocative." I commented on the photo's aesthetics. As I said, if you saw the image without knowing the title, you would be very hard pressed to interpret it as blasphemy.
"Perhaps the feeling is that if Serrano were trying to be truly provocative he'd do something to offend people who might fight back."
Who says Serrano was trying to be provocative or to offend anyone? That is your preconception.
@Andrew:
(But I will beat you this time to making a Seinfeld reference:https://youtu.be/naVyR6KlkWI)
It says "video not available." But now I'm intrigued as to what specific reference you were making.
An artist famed for using his own urine...
Yes, that is what brought him fame. "Using his own urine." Not for dunking a religious symbol in it.
Pointing out the intellectually dishonest manner in which media outlets frame stories has become routine, but it must be done.
"Those who think that just reveal their provincial biases."
Talk about revealing statements.
I recommend he eat the cake, process it internally and dine on the results.
At least DaTrump is serial monogamous and loves the one he is with. But Ridcule Art must have new material.
@J.Farmer,
Damn! Well, it worked on my phone. Anyway, it was a clip from the episode where Elaine eats an ancient wedding cake belonging to Peterman.
Who says Serrano was trying to be provocative or to offend anyone? That is your preconception.
That's disingenuous. He cannot have been surprised that some people were provoked and offended. Nobody who matters, of course.
For what it's worth, I have long agreed with Camille Paglia that intentionally blasphemous, anti-Christian art is usually pretty lame and hides behind a hip, faux transgressive pose. I don't believe Piss Christ falls into that category. If anything, you could interpret it as anti anti-Christian. Serrano's Piss Christ Reconsidered covers the issue pretty well.
"Those who think that just reveal their provincial biases."
What the heck is that supposed to mean?
J. Farmer -- not worth the arguments -- I don't really disagree with you, and appreciate your comments in this blog.
@Andreew:
Damn! Well, it worked on my phone. Anyway, it was a clip from the episode where Elaine eats an ancient wedding cake belonging to Peterman.
Damn, I should've guessed that one. Favorite quote from that episode (unrelated to the cake subplot): "Holes! I need holes!"
When I saw the episode of Seinfeld where Elaine sneaks into J. Peterman's office to eat his collectible piece of wedding cake from the marriage of Prince Edward and Wallis Simpson, I thought the writers were making up the idea of collectible cakes.
Serrano should piss on the wedding cake, while live-streaming it on Facebook. Call it "double-stream-entendre."
Leftwing artsy-fartsy morons like that kinda stuff.
@Yancey Ward:
When I saw the episode of Seinfeld where Elaine sneaks into J. Peterman's office to eat his collectible piece of wedding cake from the marriage of Prince Edward and Wallis Simpson, I thought the writers were making up the idea of collectible cakes.
Same. The writer's may have thought so, too. Supposedly they had no idea Latvian Orthodox was a real religion. Both of my sisters froze portions of their wedding cakes and ate them on their one year anniversary. I thought that was a little sketchy. 60-year-old cake? Yikes.
Who says Serrano was trying to be provocative or to offend anyone? That is your preconception.
It strikes me as disingenuous to presume Serrano was unaware or unintending of controversy or provocation. Talk about provincial.
What tcrosse said.
I would purchase a Piss Schlump lithograph for $100. I don't want no actual piss though.
there's immediate ideation about him pissing on the cake
Given the level of impiety considered acceptable re: Trump, I wonder what the transgressive expression with the cake could be?
Who says Serrano was trying to be provocative or to offend anyone?
LOLOL! It bought him the publicity he wanted when he chose to provoke and offend.
"I don’t like to talk about things until I’m ready to talk."
Kinda like all those peasants who are not artistes.
Let's go!
I'm painting, I'm painting again!
I'm painting, I'm painting again!
I'm cleaning, I'm cleaning again!
I'm cleaning, cleaning my brain!
Pretty soon now, I will be bitter!
Pretty soon now, will be a quitter!
Pretty soon now, I will be bitter!
You can't see it 'til it's finished!
I don't have to prove that I am creative!
I don't have to prove that I am creative!
All my pictures are confused!
And now I'm going to take me to you!
If you want to be reductionist about it, what artists produce is stuff for people to hang on their walls to make them feel rich and/or look rich.
Given the level of impiety considered acceptable re: Trump, I wonder what the transgressive expression with the cake could be?
Could Serrano top this blasphemy?
Those who think that just reveal their ... identity as bridge and tunnel people.
Those who think that just reveal their ... identity as bridge and tunnel people.
Given our provincial nature he didn't think we'd know what that means.
I wish I could find a Robert Crumb portrait of one of those women at auction somewhere though. Art works are heat seeking missiles aimed at the “biggest fool."
Regarding the dialogue on whether the picture has visual profundity aside from the sensationalism: If the artist had wished for the picture to be taken only on its own visual merits he could have simply used a less inflammatory name and kept the details of the material(s) to himself.
However, this same picture at the museum would (obviously) get only a fraction of the attention if named differently and without mention of the physical components.
The artist made the conscious decision for the sensationalism -- this bargain-basement conceptualism is the true 'artwork'; the picture is -- at best -- secondary.
As the British might say: Piss Take.
I am Laslo.
On the subject of cakes, this is one of the funniest sites on the web. Take a look at the Valentine's Day cakes and cookies, for example:
http://www.cakewrecks.com/
Very transgressive for the 1960s.
@Andrew:
On the subject of cakes, this is one of the funniest sites on the web. Take a look at the Valentine's Day cakes and cookies, for example:
http://www.cakewrecks.com/
Holy shit. That's pregnancy announcing V-Day cake boggles the mind. Truly a "what were they thinking" moment.
I don't think an art work titled Christ in Apple Juice would have quite the same impact.......I agree that he didn't mean to be blasphemous. That's because he has no real belief in Christ. It's impossible to be blasphemous of Jupiter or Apollo. That's because no one believes in those divinities. He lives in a world where Christ has about the same valence as the Aztec God of War...........I've got an idea for a really edgy piece. Instead of the bride and groom on top of the wedding cake, how about the Aztec God of War and Mohammed holding hands on top of the cake. This would symbolize the triumph of love over Trump's restrictive immigration laws. Also since wedding cake decorations are part of the history of gay liberation, I see no reason why Mohammed and the Aztec God of War could not be represented in an act of sexual congress. Now that's art.
"'Who says Serrano was trying to be provocative or to offend anyone? That is your preconception.'
"That's disingenuous. He cannot have been surprised that some people were provoked and offended."
He may have been aware some would be, but that doesn't mean that was his intent. If that had been his intent, the image wouldn't be so beautiful.
But, of course, Seinfeld already got to the theme, though in a more regal way.
@Laslo Spatula:
The artist made the conscious decision for the sensationalism -- this bargain-basement conceptualism is the true 'artwork'; the picture is -- at best -- secondary.
Perhaps. Serrano himself has denied this, but of course that could be a self-serving lie. It's also worth remembering that the photograph was around for a couple of years without drawing any attention or protest. In fact, ironically, had D’Amato and Helms not made such an uproar, the image and the artist would likely to have continued to linger in obscurity. Perfect example of the Streisand effect.
If that had been his intent, the image wouldn't be so beautiful.
De gustibus....
@William:
That's because he has no real belief in Christ.
How do you know that? Serrano was raised Roman Catholic and is a professed Christian. The famous nun and art critic, Wendy Beckett, defended Piss Christ, while not being particularly impressed by the artist himself. You can see her thoughts on the subject here.
Serrano should photograph a naked Kamala Harris sitting on Trump's wedding cake.
It could symbolize the rise of the #MeToo movement, juxtaposed with black liberation theory, sticking it to the Man.
For me, Serrano also gets points for not jumping on the Trump-bashing bandwagon. From the Guardian article I linked to:
I fulminate against Trump in fairly predictable ways. “You know, Jonathan,” he says, “I never speak ill of people who’ve posed for me.”
That does not necessarily strike me as the stance of a man obsessed with sensationalism or provocation for its own sake. Of course, you could make the argument that in today's climate, not bashing Trump is the ultimate in provocation. Perhaps Serrano is just playing 4D chess with everyone.
Who says Serrano was trying to be provocative or to offend anyone?
Anyone with 2 working brain cells to rub together.
If it was the image, then he could have used yellow water (or red, or green, or whatever). He chose urine for a reason, and NAMED it after urine for a reason.
If you can't see this, then I'm not sure how else to respond.
"'Those who think that just reveal their provincial biases.'
"What the heck is that supposed to mean?"
It it biased and provincial to ignore the primary aspect of the piece--it's beauty--and focus only on the title, (which reveals the means the pf its making), and assume the title is the primary element of the work. This reflects typically American exaggerated fastidiousness about the physical body, about bodily fluids, etc. We think all that is gross, so an artist using a bodily fluid as a medium must have a nefarious purpose to shock and offend.
"In fact, ironically, had D’Amato and Helms not made such an uproar, the image and the artist would likely to have continued to linger in obscurity. Perfect example of the Streisand effect."
Yes. Rather than Serrano trying to arouse outrage and attract sensationalistic attention, it was the conservative politicians trying to arouse outrage for their own purposes.
Piss Christ was like blackface. No physical damage done, but some people screamed that it hurt them. Of course, in one case, they were only Christians who have a long history as oppressors. So who cares about that?
Blog hostess: I never speak ill of people who’ve posted for me.
So there are strict rules that artists follow for expression of intent and the creation of titles that Robert Cook understands as well as the engineers who designed the bridges and tunnels understand stresses and strength of materials? Learn something new every day.
If art were as simple as Cookie says, it would be too boring for words. It would be a craft, not art.
Robert Cook said...
"Perhaps the feeling is that if Serrano were trying to be truly provocative he'd do something to offend people who might fight back."
Who says Serrano was trying to be provocative or to offend anyone? That is your preconception.
That is just deliberately stupid.
Serrano could have put the symbol in any sort of amber dark liquid and got the same visual effect. There are a dozen brands of beer that would have worked. A wide variety of solvents.
He chose something he knew would piss people off. He got what he wanted.
I think the outrage was stupid too. But the outraged people got what they wanted.
The art piece and the reaction were all stupid.
Robert Cook said...
"'Those who think that just reveal their provincial biases.'
"What the heck is that supposed to mean?"
It it biased and provincial to ignore the primary aspect of the piece--it's beauty--and focus only on the title, (which reveals the means the pf its making), and assume the title is the primary element of the work. This reflects typically American exaggerated fastidiousness about the physical body, about bodily fluids, etc. We think all that is gross, so an artist using a bodily fluid as a medium must have a nefarious purpose to shock and offend.
You know you wouldn't have even heard about it or given two shits if Serrano used Amber Bock or Apple Cider or Ice Tea.
The visual effect line is absolute bullshit. This could have been done with any number of amber liquids.
You and Farmer are transparent.
"So there are strict rules that artists follow for expression of intent and the creation of titles that Robert Cook understands as well as the engineers who designed the bridges and tunnels understand stresses and strength of materials? Learn something new every day."
No strict rules. Just don't jump to conclusions because an impolite word drives you into hysteria. Don't be so childish as to made hysterical by an impolite word.
"If art were as simple as Cookie says, it would be too boring for words. It would be a craft, not art."
That's my point: it's not simple. So don't jump to simplistic conclusions about what the art means or what the artist's intentions were.
"You know you wouldn't have even heard about it or given two shits if Serrano used Amber Bock or Apple Cider or Ice Tea."
If the image looked the same with Amber Bock or Apple Cider or Ice Tea I'd still think it the most beautiful depiction of the Crucifixion I've ever seen.
@Achilles:
He chose something he knew would piss people off.
No pun intended?
Again, this ignores the fact that Piss Christ received no significant attention or protests for the first two years after it was exhibited.
Piss Christ is vapid dreck.
If Serrano hadn't done it, someone other banal hack would have. It's just too obvious -- low-hanging fruit for any artsy grifter with a camera and a lack of creativity who wants to establish their transgressive chops.
Whenever someone claims to admire it, I just feel embarrassed for them. Sometimes, I can shrug my shoulders and put it down to a Emperor-with-no-clothes effect - after all, who among us has never got caught up in one of those. And I know some people with a good eye that still somehow go loopy over Piss Christ,
But I still feel embarrassed for them.
So don't jump to simplistic conclusions about what the art means or what the artist's intentions were.
Res ipse loquitur, as they say in the old neighborhood.
@Achilles:
You and Farmer are transparent.
Since I have no desire to hide anything, I am happy to be called "transparent." In other words, I say what I think and am prepared to defend it. I've given links to the artist's words himself, to a Catholic nun, and to an art essay examining the work from a Christian perspective. Instead of fulminating, why don't you try reading and actually think about what these people are saying.
A rodeo clown makes fun of Obama and it's off to re-education camp! I understand that you are being obtuse in order to defend your position, but what you really mean is that the people offended are not the kind of people who have a right to take offense.
@TestTube:
What are your specific objections to the photograph, beyond the title and the materials used to create it?
“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what."
-Stephen Fry
The comments here just reinforce the fact that art is a bullshit medium. Everyone has a different interpretation of what the artist is conveying. Artists are like meek social losers. They don't have the balls to say outright what they mean, they hide behind colors. Who does that remind you of?
@Otto:
The comments here just reinforce the fact that art is a bullshit medium. Everyone has a different interpretation of what the artist is conveying.
I don't know what a "bullshit medium" is supposed to mean, but what the artist wants to convey isn't really relevant. It's about your reaction to what they created. An unintentionally funny movie is not made less funny by the fact that the director wasn't trying to make a comedy. The fact that people have "different interpretations" is the point, and it is true of every creative product.
p.s. Living in a world in which everyone agreed on what everything meant is not possible. And probably not even desirable.
@ J. Farmer- so your saying the artist has no message to convey.
That is illogical. You better believe that we all know what a red traffic light means!
J. Farmer:
We can't and shouldn't always agree, which is why this blog is so entertaining. It is good mental exercise having these types of discussions. As long as you come around to seeing things my way :)
Robert Cook:
What do you say about people who are "offended" by the black face of Governor Northam? Is it their problem that they were offended even though he didn't mean it to be?
For what it's worth, I think that whole situation is absurd.
@Otto:
@ J. Farmer- so your saying the artist has no message to convey. That is illogical.
No, I said that whatever message an artist may want to convey is irrelevant to my reaction to the artwork. The fact that The Police did not intend Every Breath You Take to be a romantic songs does not mean that the people who find it romantic are wrong. That people have "different interpretations" is true of everything in the humanities. People have "different interpretations" of sacred texts, of epic poems, of novels, of paintings, of photographs, of films, of music, of architecture, etc. etc. etc.
@nob490:
As long as you come around to seeing things my way :)
Ha. So long as I'm the dictator.
For what it's worth, I think that whole situation is absurd.
Agreed. It was one of the opening salvos of the culture war that would come to define the 1990s. That said, I am fine with Serrano making his own living off his artwork and not receiving taxpayer funded grants.
"A rodeo clown makes fun of Obama and it's off to re-education camp!"
Is this directed at me? If so, why do you presume I would be offended in the least by someone making fun of Obama? I never voted for him and I think he was a bad president, (and a war criminal and murderer).
(What "rodeo clown" do you refer to?)
OFFICIALS AT THE Missouri State Fair have banned for life a rodeo clown who entertained spectators during a bull riding contest while wearing a Barack Obama mask. "The rodeo clown won't be allowed to participate or perform at the fair again," the Associated Press reported Monday.
All I’m saying is that to pretend that only the hix in the stix are ever offended by jabs at their heroes is kind of parochial in and of itself.
Basically, christian cuckservatives want the protection of sharia law without having to kill their slut sisters. You have to go hard if you want to keep up with the muslims.
Tim has a very long memory and never forgets a slight, just like the ole ball an chain.
Blogger J. Farmer said...
@TestTube:
What are your specific objections to the photograph, beyond the title and the materials used to create it?
This is what I meant by trying to nail jello to a wall. “Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?"
Grownups are talking Howard.
(in your best Dick Button voice) Tim finishes strong with a hysterical triple salcow landing on murder for the win. The crowd goes wild. Oh, Peggy, I've never seen him display such flair and style. The judges are going to love him.
"All I’m saying is that to pretend that only the hix in the stix are ever offended by jabs at their heroes is kind of parochial in and of itself."
I never said that. There are plenty of people in the big cities that are provincial, too. Most people everywhere are stuck in simplistic binary thinking.
Yeah Tim, I can see that... but I'm not addressing Robert or J. Farmer.
@tim in vermont:
This is what I meant by trying to nail jello to a wall. “Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?"
Recall that the person I directed that question to described the photo as "vapid dreck." So if the photo had a different name, would it cease to be "vapid dreck?" In other words, you can look at the photo outside the context of the controversy. That was the entire point of my first comment to this thread. To take a small plastic crucifix and to use bodily fluids, which most people have a visceral reaction to, and create a photo that is rather beautiful to look at is no small feat.
Everyone getting a different message from the originator's message sounds like an epic fail to me. The artist didn't accomplish HIS goal. What is his value?
Most people everywhere are stuck in simplistic binary thinking.
Not like you:
“It it biased and provincial to ignore the primary aspect of the piece--it's beauty--and focus only on the title, (which reveals the means the pf its making), and assume the title is the primary element of the work.”
That seems kind of simplistic and binary to me. Obviously the use of piss was intended to have some kind of transgressive effect.
This reflects typically American exaggerated fastidiousness about the physical body, about bodily fluids, etc. We think all that is gross, so an artist using a bodily fluid as a medium must have a nefarious purpose to shock and offend.
Yes, I see now. This was not intended as transgressive at all. The artist obviously had no desire to be noticed by a larger audience and the fact that his simple use of urine, which one can after all drink, I suppose, and the use of a symbol sacred to people other than the artist himself was just coincidence, he could have as easily made a “Piss JFK” or a “Piss Ché” and it was simple random chance that he fell upon a crucifix for his picture.
What you are doing, Robert, could be called gaslighting.
Nothing binary about the gestalt of beauty.
@Otto:
Everyone getting a different message from the originator's message sounds like an epic fail to me. The artist didn't accomplish HIS goal. What is his value?
People get different messages from The Brothers Karamazov. Does that make the book an epic fail? Does Dostoevsky have no value?
Robert's gaslighting is more tolerable than Tim's gasbagging.
Any successful piece of art should be more than a piece of well crafted propaganda, which seems to be what Otto is suggesting a piece of art should be. Obviously there is more to his picture than a pretty picture of a crucifix, which appropriates its beauty from a couple of millennia of Christianity, BTW. And there is more to his picture than the title and the urine he used.
BTW, if the title were really about the medium, why would he use the term “piss” rather than “Crucifix in Urine”? These are all choices. He chose to personify the crucifix as “Christ” and he chose to call the urine “piss.”
@tim in vermont:
and the use of a symbol sacred to people other than the artist himself was just coincidence
Serrano was raised Roman Catholic and professes to be a Christian. He himself said that he considers the work a celebration of Christianity and did not intend it to be blasphemous or anti-religious. It is of course possible that he is simply lying or being disingenuous but considering that there is no evidence of this, I don't have a problem taking the artist at his word.
I don't have a problem taking the artist at his word.
So you think “Piss Christ” is exactly semantically, denotatively and connotatively identical to “Crucifix in Urine”? That the title carries no additional freight other than to convey the medium and the subject.
Serrano and Helms are equivalent to Batman and the Joker, as in The Dark Knight. They need each other. "You complete me."
It's possible for an artist to be deliberately sensationalist and provocative, while still creating beautiful works of art. They don't need to be mutually exclusive.
Serrano could have used a different liquid. He used urine instead, and created something both beautiful, and (in my mind) theologically profound. Christ who was sinless became immersed in a world of sin. Which is why He died on the cross.
And that photo of Trump is excellent too.
@tim in vermont:
So you think “Piss Christ” is exactly semantically, denotatively and connotatively identical to “Crucifix in Urine”? That the title carries no additional freight other than to convey the medium and the subject.
According to Serrano, the title was meant to convey the reality of the destruction of Christ's body through crucifixion. Depicting the physical suffering of Christ in extreme and gory terms has been a part of Western art since the Renaissance.
@Andrew:
Serrano could have used a different liquid. He used urine instead, and created something both beautiful, and (in my mind) theologically profound. Christ who was sinless became immersed in a world of sin. Which is why He died on the cross.
I agree. The intention of the author is independent of the aesthetic quality of the work. Devoutly religious people, such as Wendy Beckett, who I reference above, have also had the theological reaction to it you did. I'm not a Christian, but I find the work to be quite powerful. Of course, the gulf between the physical beauty of the photograph and the crudeness of the title and materials is also fodder for interpretation.
Well, J Farmer, you finally make a point that I agree with. But usually the depictions are of others inflicting suffering on the Christ, not of the artist himself joining the fun. But that is not to say it isn’t an excellent piece of art, because it is, if only for the reason that we are still discussing it.
@J.Farmer,
Thanks for posting those articles. I haven't had time to read them yet, but I will later. It's gratifying to know that others have had similar reactions. That also is a testament to the artist's effectiveness.
@tim in vermont:
Well, J Farmer, you finally make a point that I agree with.
Nice to bring our dialogue to a point of agreement. Now let's just hope Chris Ofili doesn't get himself in the news. For those who don't recall, Ofili is a British-Nigerian who caused an outrage in 1999 when one of his works was exhibited at the Brooklyn Museum and depicted a black Madonna with elephant dung for breasts and surrounded by cutouts of female genitalia from porno magazines.
How could it be powerful to you if you are not a Christian. You don't even believe that Jesus Christ died on a cross for our sins. To you it is just another person who may or not exist that was crucified by the Romans. You are a phony.
I am waiting for the painting of Ché walking away from the bloody wall where he just executed another dissident personally, with a smoking gun in one hand and a mojito in the other. Not expecting any such painting to hang in any museum ever though.
Or maybe a Stalin soaked in blood. Or Mao deflowering this or that beautiful virgin rounded up for him from some remote village.
Max Ernst chimes in
@Otto:
How could it be powerful to you if you are not a Christian. You don't even believe that Jesus Christ died on a cross for our sins. To you it is just another person who may or not exist that was crucified by the Romans. You are a phony.
Are you serious?
I also found the Sistine Chapel powerful. Am I lying about that, too? I found Wat Pho and Wat Arun in Bangkok very powerful, too. And I'm not a Buddhist. So is my reaction to those places also a lie? I was impressed by the Parthenon despite not believing in Athena. I found the Hagia Sophia to be a beautiful building even though I've never been Catholic, Greek Orthodox, or Muslim.
In other words, you don't have to believe in the underlying theology to be moved by a piece of art. I didn't actually think that needed explaining.
@J.Farmer,
LOL. I guess you're not part of the in-group.
As a Christian, I hereby give you permission to be emotionnaly affected and intellectually stimulated by Christian works of art.
Otto, please make a note of this.
"The artist...could have as easily made a “Piss JFK” or a “Piss Ché”...."
Actually, Serrano did make other images using urine, such as PISS DISCUS, (scroll down) PISS ELEGANCE, and PISS THINKER.
He also made images using blood and semen.
First Piss on Christ. Now, an anti-Trump something.
Wow, Artists. They are so shocking. Pushing the envelope baby!
Nothing can hold American artists back. Crazy, new perspectives. Stuff average people would never expect and will make them think.
Rebels.
@rcocean:
First Piss on Christ. Now, an anti-Trump something.
What has Serrano ever said that is "anti-Trump?" When Serrano was pushed by the Guardian interviewer to say negative things about Trump, he declined to do so.
This kind of 'art' is like the emperor's new clothes. Many are gulled into thinking it worthy of praise and adulation just because they're afraid to tell the truth and being thought provincial.
@mockturtle:
How do you know whose been gulled and who is giving their honest opinion? If you like it, you're being gulled, but if you dislike it, you're honest?
Still waiting for Piss Koran.
I guess he’s not really bold and transgressive after all.
@Lexington Green:
Still waiting for Piss Koran.
I guess he’s not really bold and transgressive after all.
Serrano is a Roman Catholic who is making a pro-Christian message about the crucifixion. He has never claimed he was trying to be "bold" or "transgressive." Those are motives that are simply ascribed to him. Why is a Christian artist obligated to comment on Islam? Here is Serrano's Madonna and Child. Do you think the artist is trying to be transgressive here?
"Still waiting for Piss Koran."
Serrano is a Catholic, so the image of Christ on the cross has meaning for him. Presumably, the Koran does not. Also, probably more pertinent, that wouldn't make an interesting visual image.
Laughable. He pisses on Christ because he knows the followers of Christ won’t hurt him for his despicable insult to them, their faith and to God.
Other faith communities are very likely to respond more robustly to any such affront.
Thanks for the picture of the Madonna and child Jesus. I assume it, too, is immersed in urine?
@Lexington Green:
You're point of view only makes sense if you totally ignore what the artist himself has said about the piece for 30 years. Some could argue that reducing the crucifixion to a tiny plastic trinket sold for profit is more of an affront to God than what Serrano did. There is nothing inherently insulting about submerging a plastic crucifix into a beaker of urine for the purpose of taking a photograph of it. Especially considering that many devoutly Christian people have had a positive response to the piece.
Other faith communities are very likely to respond more robustly to any such affront.
Well, Serrano did receive death threats for the piece, and several attempts were made to deface it, including a successful one by a group of Catholics in Avignon.
Maybe "Urinal Cake" is being assembled
@walter:
Maybe "Urinal Cake" is being assembled
Serrano has not worked in that medium since the 1980s. It was part of two series he did, "Bodily Fluids" and "Immersions."
For anyone interested, you can see all of Serrano's work here.
Serrano received money from the National Endowment for the Arts for the Piss Christ piece and that in turn caused an uproar over the use of taxpayer money. Many felt the NEA was pissing away taxpayers' money on sewer waste and made their voices heard.
Post a Comment