Why are "ideas" so threatening to some?

[acco40 95]

Hey, why did so many get their undies in a knot when Government funds were used to support an artistic depiction of cross (or was it a crucifix?) in a jar of urine made by a gay artist? It's just a symbol?

[Beavah 205]

Hey, why did so many get their undies in a knot when Government funds were used to support an artistic depiction of cross (or was it a crucifix?) in a jar of urine made by a gay artist? It's just a symbol?

 

Can't speak for anybody else. I got upset because it was lousy art. I figure if you're goin' to take my tax dollars to do art, I know a lot of really creative and talented artists who could use the help.

 

But yeh gotta admit, since it was a crucifix, that the Catholics might be understandably a bit upset, eh? I reckon there's a difference between peeing on somebody else's symbol and just lettin' it sit on public property. I wouldn't be troubled at all by a Buddha on the lawn down at city hall. Especially if we had a large Buddhist population in the city, and they were payin' the taxes for city hall, eh? But I reckon I'd be a bit annoyed by somebody dumping urine on that Buddha. And I'm not even Buddhist.

 

Beavah

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Serrano IS Catholic; many of his photographs use religious imagery and/or human body fluids. And tax dollars weren't used to make Piss Christ, though it has been on exhibit in US art museums, many of which get some funding from the National Endowment for the Arts.

[LongHaul 10]

I agree with you Beav but as far as my tax dollars going to artistic expressions I.....understand(?)......appreciate(?).....even find appealing, for me puts drastic limits on art. I have few if any art appreciation genes. Had a friend in college that majored in expressive dance. She won many awards and made a very nice living at it and what's more important she loves what she does. I think she looks like she is making fun of the mentally and physically impaired. When we "censor" we limit others to our level.

LongHaul

[TheScout 10]

Its still bad art.

 

This is what Western Culture has come to?

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

What makes it "bad art"? Have you even seen it?

[evmori 11]

I gotta agree on the bad art comment. I saw photos of it and it was not pleasing to the eye.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[funscout 11]

I agree with Beavah that a religious symbol, by itself shouldn't be offensive to anyone. However, when someone takes a religious symbol and uses it in a mean spirited, disrespectful, or disgusting way, then that is offensive. It doesn't matter if the artist was Christian or not, it still offends me that the cross was used in a disgusting manner. I would be disgusted if a symbol from ANY religion had been used in this way. I would also be offended if the USA flag had been treated in a disrespectful manner.

 

I am not against promoting art, but I think that government funding of artists is an example of "pork barrell" spending. It just added insult to injury when it came out, in the 1990's, about some of the extremely offensive pieces of art that were being funded. I recall that one was a portrait of the Virgin Mary with elephant dung thrown on it. Another was of one man urinating into the mouth of another man. If a child had done "art" like this one at school, he would have been reprimanded and probably sent for psychological counseling. But, since this was an adult who called himself an artist, we had to accept it as "art."

 

I would much rather have the money that went to these "artists" go to worthy causes such as helping the poor, homeless, disabled, etc. Even artists that most people don't find offensive should not be getting tax payer money when there are too many other truly needy people in our country.

[Lisabob 13]

Fascinating turn of the threads. Piss Christ was certainly offensive to a lot of folks, so was the more recent painting of Mary smeared with elephant dung. And it may also not be pleasing to the eye (or nose?). But does art have to be beautiful to be art? I think there is a pretty strong tradition of art being something other than eye candy, although I can't pretend to always understand/appreciate/agree/care whether something should "qualify" as art vs. rubbish. Doors painted brown and laid on saw horses, for example. But then, I love Jackson Pollock and his is hardly "art" in some people's eyes. Lots of people felt that Picasso's cubist work wasn't "art" at the time too, because it didn't portray a realistic image of the human body.

 

Anyway about the Piss Christ, I seem to recall that then-mayor Guiliani wanted to yank all funding from one of the NYC art museums for displaying it, using the argument that public dollars should not support obscenity which, in his view, Piss Christ was. I also seem to recall he lost in court when he tried that - that pesky 1st amendment bit about gov't not limiting freedom of expression again. And I can certainly imagine, though I may not necessarily agree, how such an artistic rendering could have deeper religious or even political interpretations about religion and society. So if it makes a person *think,* even if the thoughts are angry ones, then is it art? Hmm.

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Mapplethorpe's photos and Ofili's painting of the virgin mary are again examples that were NOT created using public money, but only exhibited at galleries that (like a lot of galleries) get some public funding.

[FScouter 24]

So why doesn't he just come out and say what he wants to say, instead of forcing the viewer to "think" about it? Personally, I don't think much about urine or elephant poop and if a person attempts to communicate using those terms, he failed. It looks more like he was looking for a reaction, and he got it.

[Lisabob 13]

interesting question FScouter. I guess I never thought it was a bad thing for people to think on their own, rather than to be told what to think. And I guess there are also lots of different ways to think about such a work. Perhaps that's part of the point? We could say the same thing about a lot of Andy Warhol art. I mean really, why couldn't he have just told us his thoughts about commercialism and mass consumer culture, rather than doing his (now) iconic portrayal of the Campbell's soup cans, right?

 

But I think it would be a good deal more boring if everyone were required to communicate in the same way. I like the notion that we can spark ideas, new thoughts, or even just plain old emotions, using a variety of media besides talking heads or straightforward explanatory prose. Not to say I'm especially enamored of these couple of examples of art, but I'd really rather not have Rudy Guiliani (or anybody else from the gov't) telling me which pieces of art are "art" and which ones aren't. I like to humor myself that I'm smart enough and mature enough to make that determination on my own, thanks.

 

And hey, if I don't like it, well I can always move on to another exhibit more to my tastes.

[FScouter 24]

I suppose there is nothing "bad" about that form of communication. It seems rather ineffective however to attempt to communicate an idea using a language that a good chunk of people don't understand.

 

I've seen the soup can painting, meant nothing to me even after pondering it. I did read somewhere that it mean he hates commercialism. So I guess he got the message across, it just took a 3rd party interpreter to make it happen. I also read that Warhol did not even paint it; it was just his idea and he directed someone else to do the painting. I suppose there may be a hidden message there too.

 

Does anyone have an idea about what Serrano is really trying to communicate? It seems obvious to me, but I have no gift of discerning the messages in art. (no fair googling it, just look at the picture)

[OldGreyEagle 5]

There was the art display that had an American flag on the floor and positioned so if you wanted to see the exhibit, you had to stand on the flag. Offensive to some, art to others.

 

Lets see, if a piece of art is exhibited in a public art gallery, and I find the art offensive, I am within my rights to protest that art. After all, its my money making that available to be seen so if I dont like, I should be allowed to say so, right?

 

And dont say move on to the next exhibit, my money is still being spent to allow that which I call trash to be seen

[scoutingagain 20]

I forget who said it but there is a quote that goes something along the lines of, a true measure of how much we support freedom of speech or expression is not the support of the expression of ideas or speech we agree with but how much we support the expression of ideas or speech we find abhorrent.

 

SA