"... and that the crucifixion is a really ugly way to die. And all your fluids come out, your piss, your blood, and even your excrement."
Said Andres Serrano, recently, quoted in a New York Magazine article titled "Medieval in Manhattan Artist Andres Serrano’s ecclesiastical Greenwich Village home is not a museum."
“I realized that the things that made the most sense here were religious in nature. They were Christian paintings, Christian statues, even furniture that looks ecclesiastical, that sometimes. actually came from a church, but it made sense because the Renaissance and the medieval period were all about Christian objects and paintings.”
Serrano was raised Catholic in Williamsburg and became one of the most famous artists in the world during the ’80s “culture wars,” after his 1987 photograph Piss Christ enraged Senator Jesse Helms.
Posts
63 comments:
I worked for a small federal agency in the 1990s. An African-American liberal was forced to remove a print of Norman Rockwell's The Problem We All Live With, because in the background one could faintly make out the "n" word. It offended a white progressive. Tell me about sanctimony.
Paint the Prophet Muhammed and then immerse the painting in a jar of piss, or something that symbolizes piss.
Advertise you 'artwork' far and wide.
I give you two weeks to live.
Christians? Piss Christ? Muslims? Old Mo displayed in urine? Pshaw, I say. Let's get unreal.
“Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn. In his house at R'lyeh dead Cthulhu waits dreaming.” Pray to Cthulu that you may be driven mad immediately upon his rising, and eaten first, rather than suffering until your inevitable death.
“Bunch together a group of people deliberately chosen for strong religious feelings, and you have a practical guarantee of dark morbidities expressed in crime, perversion, and insanity.” And the Flying Spaghetti Monster requires we all polish our colanders before church services.
Give me some of that 1980s Mapplethorpe BDSM photography, or even a Christo-wrapped desert island, before I have to suffer any more of the shallow puddle that constitutes Serrano's transgressive use of urine.
Next put a Star of David in a jar of piss. Lets see how many NYC musuems put in on display. And you know how you could be really anti-racist. Carve the Nword or BLM in wood, then put it in a jar of piss.
And presto- a statement against racism. And will be snatched up by Musuems everywhere.
This brings me back to pre-9/11 NYC, our problems were much simpler then
I was never offended by "Piss Christ;" couldn't care less. Nonetheless, I think his explanation - "think about what the photograph symbolizes and that the crucifixion is a really ugly way to die. And all your fluids come out, your piss, your blood, and even your excrement” - rings hollow. A latter-day subterfuge that he has come up with simply to get people off the tedious to him subject of "Piss Christ" and back to the rest of his work. Strange that he didn't swirl in blood and excrement with the urine and maybe call it "BloodyShitPiss Christ" or something. I think, fwiw, that "Piss Christ" was simply amateur "edginess" attention-grabbing for a young artist. It certainly worked, didn't it.
1) I understand the symbolism and it is intriguing to think of it that way, as the crucifixion was extremely scandalous and we've very much tamed it, so having something that gets people back to the earliest emotions about it is interesting, if offensive. Modern art is about evoking emotions more than delivering content.
2) It's interesting to me that the reaction against Serrano by conservatives is very similar to the reaction against Mel Gibson by progressives. They were hyperbolic in condemning the violence of the crucifixion in The Passion of the Christ (even as they celebrate similar violence in other movies/shows) and likewise didn't understand that Gibson was creating an emotional response to the crucifixion that broke the romantic perception of the cross.
Both are confronting the very strange reality that we use one of the most dehumanizing and painful methods of execution as a form of religious sentimentality or , at worst, personal decoration.
3) If we see Serrano simply as insulting Jesus in the art, it makes sense to suggest he try it with other religious figures to be brave. But, taking his meaning here, only Piss Christ makes sense, because only Christianity believes in a humiliated, suffering savior. Understanding the shame and insult of the cross as the due penalty of our sins is at the heart of Christianity. In effect, Serrano is inviting people to realize that you are the one that put Jesus in urine, that is your sin he is surrounded by, your shame, your perversity.
Mohammed wouldn't make sense in this respect because Mohammed wasn't counterintuitive in his approach to salvation. He was a victor and conqueror, who achieved influence and empire in the ways that the world recognizes.
The cross is a scandal and a shame, and doesn't make sense as a form of salvation in the methods of the world, to die in a shameful way is not the way of a King. But, with the resurrection we see that the way of insult and shame and death is not just countering our sins, but also the whole powers and methods of the world. It was the ultimate confrontation between the ways of the world and the ways of God's Kingdom, and the resurrection is the statement that in this confrontation Jesus won over Rome's power, religion's legalism, society's patterns.
The trouble with leaving the imagery at the crucifix is that it stays in the shame and seeming defeat.
The truth is he doesn't stay in the piss and Jesus forgave those who did it to him, so we shouldn't stay obsessed about it either and forgive those who celebrate it without knowing how or who they offended
Morning Prayer
I kiss the Wounds of Your Sacred Head,
with sorrow deep and true,
may every thought of my mind today
be an act of love for You.
I kiss the Wounds of Your Sacred Feet,
with sorrow deep and true,
may every step I take today
be an act of love for You.
I kiss the Wounds of Your Sacred Hands,
with sorrow deep and true,
may every touch of my hands today
be an act of love for You.
I kiss the Wound of Your Sacred Shoulder,
with sorrow deep and true,
may every cross I bear today
be an act of love for You.
I kiss the Wounds of Your Sacred Heart,
with sorrow deep and true,
may every beat of my heart today
be an act of love for You.
I don’t give a tinker’s damn about piss Christ or the shit Madonna or any other attention seeking stunt done by the talentless. The only thing I kind of liked was the artist who mounted a rifle in a machine aimed at a chair allegedly triggered by a timer, and people would sit in the chair and face death. Pretty funny stuff, no one died.
Revisionist Art History.
https://www.thedivinemercy.org/articles/passion-christ-and-beauty-cross
St Faustina
We only worship G*d- the Trinitarian G*d.
We venerate the cross.
Piss Christ is shock art- so very brave…
He’s an ass.
Josephbleau: shock art?
Or, shot art…
So, "piss Christ" on the cross is an avant-garde interpretation of planned child on slab. A flash mob has been triggered to cancel this socially forward person of craft.
Note that much of the outrage related to the fact that taxpayers were being forced to subsidize this work.
I agree with Paddy O. Whether the artist intended it or not, I think Piss Christ is a profound religious statement.
I also think, if you purposely put aside the knowledge of how the artist created the photograph, that it is strikingly beautiful.
Christ's death was ugly and brutal. It was what we would now call a lynching. Because of His resurrection, we can turn the cross into something of a victory symbol. But the reality of his gruesome death, and the purpose behind it, remains.
His death was by immersion.
Sin is worse than urine.
"Piss Christ" is negative as is the artist's intent.
Note that much of the outrage related to the fact that taxpayers were being forced to subsidize this work.
Yep.
This creep seems to need more publicity.
Well, it's the right city for it.
Art not done and displayed in a museum anywhere in time or place: a Koran in a bottle of piss; a statuette of Martin Luther King in a bottle of piss.
I have no problem with Serrano's piece- never did, but it seems weak tea when the obvious reason to do it was to shock sensibilities and skirt on a dangerous edge of acceptibility. There are actually more daring things to put in a bottle of urine and put it up for display.
Paddy O- there is the Copus of Christ on that cross- hence: crucifix.
The body of Christ is undeserved of such sacrilege…
You know, at best I'm an agnostic atheist but, these responses are, seemingly. without the left's favorite excuse, context. The Crucifixion of Jesus wasn't about his corporeal body's reaction to death, but about his spiritual overcoming of this material world. The "piss Christ" tries to demean the spiritual with the material.
I had never heard his explanation before. Thanks.
If he wants to impress me, let him stick a model of Muhammad in a glass of piss.......
The "piss Christ" tries to demean the spiritual with the material.
Yes, as corporeal beings, as moral entities, we attempt to mitigate material depravity and suffering. However, limiting inspection to the material undermines our appreciation and understanding of our limitations and potential. Science does not, cannot, offer insight into phenomenon and processes outside of a limited frame of reference in time and space. Science offers correlations with varying degrees of fidelity. Creative constructs of human depravity are reflections of depravity, and, for the sake of mitigating their progress, should not be used to elicit depravity that denies individual dignity, individual conscience, and intrinsic value of human life, first, and general tenor for all life and creation.
Serrano was raised Catholic in Williamsburg and became one of the most famous artists in the world during the ’80s “culture wars,” after his 1987 photograph Piss Christ enraged Senator Jesse Helms.
The just can't report anything honestly, can they?
What quite properly pissed a lot of us off was that he got government funding for that trash work.
What should have happened was that every single person involved with giving him money shoudl have been fired
Because it's not the proper role of the government to fund that kind of "art"
I prefer Mel Gibson's S&M Christ to the Golden Shower Christ. The best is the Marty Scorsese Christ who gets to have his way with Mary Magdalene.
Paddy O said...
2) It's interesting to me that the reaction against Serrano by conservatives is very similar to the reaction against Mel Gibson by progressives.
No, it isn't.
Conservatives were criticizing the fact that we were forced to pay for that shit.
"Progressives" were complaining that anyone was allowed to pay their own money to see Mel.
There's a rather large difference between the two
Serrano is an idiot or a provocateur, and I don't think he's an idiot. The death of Christ, the passion of the Christ, is a horrific image that drives home the enormity of cost, the sacrifice, required to pave the path to salvation for untold sinners for eons to come. Pissing on that sacrifice denegrates it and is intended to be an afront to Christians who understand the sacrifice. Do it or do not; free society (at least, it used to be) but don't hem and haw about the intent.
Throughout the European Middle Ages, medieval lyric poets often depicted the passion of Christ in grotesque, painful ways. Their
passion imagery featured blood, puncture wounds, marks from scourging, and close up views of the crown of thorns. These depictions were meant to teach; they were didactic and often designed to promote meditation. The brutal imagery was a path
to understanding the more abstract doctrine, from meditation to doctrine. Mel Gibson's film The Passion of Christ is in this tradition. In this context, the "Piss Christ" doesn't really bother me, except that it is mediocre art. Most protestant traditions
tend to portray the passion in comfortable, sanitized form, while Catholicism has historically promoted a more blunt and realistic version. See the translation of the Old English "Dream of the Rood" for an example. Rood means cross. Medieval visual treatments
of the passion also tend to emphasize the realistic, brutal view of the passion. "The Rood" poem is too long to copy here, however.
If the Christ myth was actually a real true magical event, then nothing could possibly denigrate the Passion of the Christ. However because it's a made up story about someone who never existed, you people get overly defensive at the slightest provocative act.
“Crucifixion of Jesus wasn't about his corporeal body's reaction to death, but about his spiritual overcoming of this material world.”
I would sooner think it was about our spiritual overcoming of this material world. Through His death- and resurrection.
That doesn’t mean it’s ok to display the symbol of such triumph in a bottle of piss.
Beauty must certainly be in the eye of the beholder.
I’m not saying the artist shouldn’t have done this.
I’m saying: the artist should have known better than to do this.
But then, nothing is sacred…
"Conservatives were criticizing the fact that we were forced to pay for that shit."
Weird the reactions whenever it comes up always seem to be about how insulting it is to Jesus.
Describing it as "that shit" is the critique around which the paying for it part is constructed.
It's a wrong critique too as it's that piss that is the offensive medium.
Or are the conservatives you have in mind just protesting government funded religious imagery?
If the Westboro Baptist Church was any damned good they’d have taken care of Serrano a long time ago.
Back in the day I bought an otherwise forgettable paperback to read on the plane during a business trip. One passage really struck me — it was describing one of the characters as a great artist by saying that he could paint a Madonna without using excrement. Could Andres Serrano do that?
Yancey Ward said...
Art not done and displayed in a museum anywhere in time or place: a Koran in a bottle of piss;
-----------
FYI = US soldier[s] have been punished for ?/flushing Koran in toilet/?
Howard said...
If the Christ myth ...
---------
what is at issue here? of being myth
crucifixion or resurrection?
""I feel that if someone looking at Piss Christ is affected by it in a negative way, or upset by it, they should think about what the photograph symbolizes...""
======
may be this artist can explain difference between
'homage'(hŏm′ĭj, ŏm′-) NOUN
Special honor or respect shown or expressed publicly. See Synonyms at honor.'
and
roast NOUN
to subject to severe criticism or ridicule
It was done to be offensive and to show that the Christians can be demeaned and have to pay for being demeaned with their tax money and that the person who demeans them will be approved by NYC Dems and allies and never suffer any consequences. It's an example what of "Hate Has No Home Here" really means. That's all it means. It isn't deep, it's being ugly because you can. Post it with the label "Serrano's Selfie" and see how it does.
"Conservatives were criticizing the fact that we were forced to pay for that shit."
Weird the reactions whenever it comes up always seem to be about how insulting it is to Jesus.
It is a chicken/egg sort of thing. I am old enough to remember the original controversy- it came into the news as an NEA funded project that was raising hackles. Now, would it have even made the news if it were just an exhibit that, let's say, an anonymous benefactor funded? I doubt it, but who really knows.
Helms’ objection was to taxpayers money supporting the exhibition of Serrano’s work. But claiming Helms was enraged at the art fits his mythmaking purposes now. You’re pissing on a straw man now Andres!
Funny how the same crowd who get the vapors at a cross, not even a crucifix but simply a cross, erected on public land somehow violates their rights are so quick to defend government assets used to create the submerged crucifix, a symbol closely identified with one sect of Christianity. Puzzling inconsistency.
Paddy O said...
"Conservatives were criticizing the fact that we were forced to pay for that shit."
Weird the reactions whenever it comes up always seem to be about how insulting it is to Jesus.
Describing it as "that shit" is the critique around which the paying for it part is constructed.
It's a wrong critique too as it's that piss that is the offensive medium.
Or are the conservatives you have in mind just protesting government funded religious imagery?
We're objecting to government funded sacrilege, esp. when it's only targeted at Christianity.
We'll listen to arguments about how it's perfectly reasonable for the Federal government to be funding attacks on Christianity when it starts funding just as many attacks on Islam, Buddhism, and the various Native American religions.
But until the US government is funding "piss Mohammed" and "piss Buddha", it has no business funding "piss Christ".
Yancey Ward said...
"Conservatives were criticizing the fact that we were forced to pay for that shit."
Weird the reactions whenever it comes up always seem to be about how insulting it is to Jesus.
It is a chicken/egg sort of thing. I am old enough to remember the original controversy- it came into the news as an NEA funded project that was raising hackles. Now, would it have even made the news if it were just an exhibit that, let's say, an anonymous benefactor funded? I doubt it, but who really knows.
I would bet there were a dozen more obnoxious projects that never made any national waves, because they weren't funded by our tax dollars.
So I think we really do know, and the answer is no
Howard said...
If the Christ myth was actually a real true magical event, then nothing could possibly denigrate the Passion of the Christ. However because it's a made up story about someone who never existed, you people get overly defensive at the slightest provocative act.
Now do Mathew Shepard's death
Actually, heck with Mathew Shepard.
Let's have the Federal Government fund "druggie George Floyd", with "fentanyl" pills dribbling out of his mouth. We'll put it on a national tour, show it in museums in every large city in America.
That work for you?
No?
Then piss off about doing it to Christians
Some Christians focus on Christ suffering on the cross. Other Christians, such as myself, center our faith on the empty cross.
I imagine the urine is cloudy and clotted by now, if it hasn't all dried away. There should be a museum of bad conceptual art.
Piss Christ is a photograph.
Piss Jesus was a way to gain attention by being provocative.
Click bait before the internet.
I didn’t know it was a photo- but, it still was an actuality of submersion in urine.
It’d be worth its weight in liquid gold(colored piss) if he still had it as such.
PISS CHRIST is a beautiful image...the most mysterious and entrancing depiction of the crucifixion I know. I wanted to have an image of the crucifixion in my home for some reason, this is the one I would select.
If Serrano had not named the image PISS CHRIST, and had not identified the fluid in which the crucifix was immersed, many of those condemning it then and now would see its innate beauty and would probably have wanted prints of it to hang in their homes.
Instead, they maintain childish outrage that the fluid is urine, a bodily fluid we (and most animals) produce, as if this is somehow a desecration.
It shows the primitive emotionalism of religious belief, a refusal of rationality.
Paddy O.'s comment at 6:08 PM is quite striking and thoughtful.
Kay, it was circulated as a photograph. It is pure prejudice against Catholics that would be deemed unacceptable if used against any other religion.
If he wasn't targeting Catholics, he would have suspended one of those asinine "coexist" bumper stickers in urine. In fact, I wish someone would. It would end up being more meaningfully uniting among members of the religious groups depicted, because no actually religious person I know wants their unique iconography hijacked for some dumb atheist or Unitarian bumper sticker virtue signalling, no matter how much they practice real ecumenicalism in their own lives.
"'Piss Christ' is negative as is the artist's intent."
"It was done to be offensive and to show that the Christians can be demeaned and have to pay for being demeaned with their tax money...."
Neither of you have any knowledge of Serrano's intent. You are both voicing your own assumptions, without knowing anything about the artist or his body of work.
The Ten Commandments forbid the making of graven images. Why aren't you outraged Christians fulminating against all the other depictions of Christ that have been produced over the ages, (not to mention, all other pictures of anything in the world) .
They're all violations of God's laws.
The first commandment:
"I am the Lord your God. You shall not have strange gods before me. You shall not make to thyself any graven thing; nor the likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth. You shall not adore them nor serve them."
We do well to remember that Christ's suffering was far greater than the suffering that we endure by seeing "piss Christ," and that he willingly subjected himself to that suffering out of love for Serrano.
Piss Christ, a black Klansman, etc etc etc.
How about a black man in piss and Christ as a Klansman?
Hey, this shit is easy.
Robert Cook said...
The Ten Commandments forbid the making of graven images. Why aren't you outraged Christians fulminating against all the other depictions of Christ that have been produced over the ages, (not to mention, all other pictures of anything in the world) .
Because, you ignorant little twat, Jesus was both God and Man. Refusing to allow "graven images" of Jesus is a rejection of the Human half of his nature.
That's known as the Monophysite heresy
Besides which, "My Father gave you ten laws, I give you but one. Love one another as I have loved you."
For actual Christians (unlike you), Jesus supersedes the 10 Commandments
The old 'you are looking at it wrong' argument.
How about George Floyd instead of Christ?
"Because, you ignorant little twat, Jesus was both God and Man. Refusing to allow 'graven images' of Jesus is a rejection of the Human half of his nature."
The commandment forbids making images of anything and everything, god, man, beast, plant, mountain, etc.
"You shall not make to thyself any graven thing; nor the likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth."
So, frankly, I can't understand what this Monophysite heresy has to do with the matter.
"How about George Floyd instead of Christ?"
He would likely have used blood for that. Serrano did a series of images using blood as the bodily fluid, (and another series using semen). The image of crucified Christ was not the only image he made using urine.
This was an early chapter in what Glenn Reynolds calls "The suicide of expertise"
Here we had the most highly credentialed, lavishly paid, magnificently funded art "experts" in the entire history of the world.
Not a single one of them could tell the difference between art and a bucket of piss.
Post a Comment