All of the art, literature and architecture we have looked at this semester has been created within a specific religious context. Piss Christ is a 1987 photograph by artist and photographerAndres Serrano. It depicts a small plastic crucifix submerged in urine. Conservative Christian senator's criticism of the piece led to a heated US debate on public arts funding. Republican Jesse Helmes told the senate that Serrano was "not an artist, but a jerk." Serrano was awarded a prize partially funded by the National Endowment for the Arts. Many called for the dissolving of this tax funded agency. Serrano defended his photograph as a criticism of the "billion-dollar Christ- for- profit industry"and a "condemnation of those who abuse the teaching of Christ for their own ignoble ends." The photograph was vandalized in Australia and in Sweden (by neo-Nazis in 2007.) Controversy reached its peak on Palm Sunday this year when it was attacked with hammers after and "anti-blasphemy campaign by French Catholic fundamentalists while on display in an Avignon museum.Do you see this work as blasphemous? Has it crossed the line of what should be defended as "free speech?" Do you think it is "art?" If you came upon this work in a gallery and had no information about it, how do you think you might react to it?
Serrano has become a familiar figure in popular media, with interviews in Vogue and appearances on the Colbert Report. He is like a rock star, as are many in the modern art world, and has recently entered into the music scene with plans to release a CD under the alias "Brutus Faustus." At 60, Serrano feels he has accomplished everything he has wanted to accomplish except being a rock star. Does this change your impression of his Piss Christ, or of his defense of it?
I find this photograph offensive. Even if I was not Christian, it woud trigger unpleasant feelings in me. The photographer showed great disrespect towards religion in general and feelings of millions of people. Obscenity, defamation, child pornography, and other similar aspects are not protected as "freedom of speech" under the First Amendment. There are other ways to convey the message that Serrano wanted to convey, for example, writing articles, blogs, etc. Most of the people would be offended by this photograph, and that would prevent then from seeing a message or meaning behind it. Unfortunately, as I see it, I think Serrano just wanted to become famous and he could not achieve it with his music or other works. I believe that true art comes from the heart and from the admiration of beauty.
ReplyDeleteElizaveta G.
The photo is absolutely and offense to and anyone else that view the picture as fine art.But as a artist he was in title to his view and thought of any thing it wish to think of or view. Me every time i see a picture of Christ on the cross it give me a stomach ache feeling knowing that some people get joy out of it. Serrano is free to feel the way he feel but i wouldn't support anything he does with views and thoughts like this in mind..
ReplyDeleteMRS.BARRON LOVE THE CLASS! HAVE A GREAT ONE.
ReplyDeleteThe Piss Christ of 1987 photograph by artist and photographer Andres Serrano is a very disturbing piece of art. I believe this is great disrespect to all religious people. I understand that we all have the freedom of speech but it does not mean we should take it to a different level. People still need to respect the beliefs of others. This photograph brings tears to my eyes because I am a strong believer in GOD and to know that there are people out in this world that will paint such a crucial pictures makes me wonder about life all together. Just because someone does not have the same beliefs as someone else does not mean they should make disrespect them in this matter.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I think The Piss Christ by Andres Serrano is a very inappropriate and uncalled for piece of art. I definitely see this as blasphemous. I also think that "free speech" could be portrayed in a different and more appropriate manner. If I came across this in a gallery with no information about it, I would still find it disturbing. From knowing now that Andres Serrano wanted to be a rock star, it shows me exactly what I thought of him in the first place. He probably couldn't work out as that so lowered his standards.
ReplyDeleteThe Piss Christ is very disrespectful towards the Church and God. Even the name of the picture alone gives the impression that Andres Serrano does not take God or this religion seriously. Everyone is entitled to free speech so he did not cross the line as for his freedom to express himself but he did perform an act of blasphemy. He could have chosen another way to create the same effect for that picture but he intentionally chose to use urine. This is a huge insult to God and the religion.
ReplyDeletePersonally I feel that putting a crucifix in urine is a sin, however, the picture as a whole appears divine. The Piss Christ to me represents Christ at his time of death and God shining a golden light over him. This golden light also represents his resurrection. As the light shines over Christ at hi death, he is reborn and given eternal life. The most distinctive feature that leads me o believe this is the top left corner is dark and the golden light is angled downwards. To me this is acceptable art.
ReplyDeleteAndres Serrano's photograph Piss Christ is not only blasphemous, but disrespectful to God and religious people. I think, he crossed the line with presenting this photograph to public. In some cases, it is due to the artist to decide how far he can go with his work. I do not think it can be called "art." I believe, such works are the ways for the artist to draw attention to his/her persona, and become famous. If I came upon this work in an art gallery and had no information about it, most probably, the title of the photograph would trigger a negative reaction to the Andres Serrano's work.
ReplyDeleteI actually find this piece appealing to the eye. The urine gives off warm tones that are particularly lovely to me. I don't find this disrespectful at all. I personally could care less if someone decided to put a plastic crucifix in urine. It was an experiment and I like the effect achieved. If I saw this in a gallery without knowing anything about it, I'd still have the same exact attitude towards it. I find no harm in this photograph whatsoever, although I do agree it seems as if he took the picture to get fame. Either way, I like the picture!
ReplyDeleteI think the picture is actually really beautiful. The lighting spotlights on Jesus Christ, almost giving the appearance of hope or the rebirth of Christ. I don't think that the way the portrait was taking was offending, because it was a way of capturing a feeling. I do not think the artist was being blasphemous. The picture is marvelous and even with knowing how the picture was taken I would still like it.
ReplyDeleteThe picture is absolutely beautiful. I was completely shocked to learn what it was. The cat has my tongue. If I didn’t know what it was, all I see is the crucifix in the warm toned glow having a divine look to it as arspatola86 has stated. I’m glad Serrano gave us some insight into what he was trying to say. I think if you are going to put out work like that, then you need to be able to defend it. Without having an explanation, if someone told me “Oh, by the way, I dunked this crucifix in piss and took a picture of it” I would think that person meant some real harm and insult. It sounds to me like his defense was in saying that this is what opportunists have been doing with the Christ figure, and that it is not something acceptable. Poor Shanade O Connor has not been so lucky as Serrano, after ripping a photo of the pope on live TV, it destroyed her career. Yet I found that way less offensive than attacking a figure some people consider as god and dipping it in pee. I would hear this and think what other purpose could he possibly have other than to offend? Really now, how often do we incorporate urine into any art? That’s just gross anyway. It only makes since with an explanation. Public Money should not fund things like this. I wouldn’t want to see anything that is sacred to anyone be displayed soaked in urine. That’s just wrong and better judgment should have been used before public money was put into it. It’s hard to say where we draw the line because intentions matter. We really have to understand what the intention is before we judge one way or the other.
ReplyDeleteI don't even know why this picture taken by Serrano was even called art. If I had seen this in a museum without knowing the meaning of this piece (according to Serrano) it would have certainly been an insult, not only for Catholics but for all Christians. There is not doubt that the picture looks good, but in my point of view there are many other ways to defend the fact that people use the name of Christ to make money for their own benefit, he didn't have to submerge the crucifix in urine. I think that Serrano got where he wanted to be, in TV shows and magazines, he just had to be controversial to acquire this, he didn't respected the followers of Christ, he definitely crossed the line.
ReplyDeleteIn an away its look blasphemous, just because you don’t like or practice something, it doesn’t mean that you have to show violence reaction against it. When it comes to free speech I don’t think he crossed the line. Because he didn’t actually burn it, he simply painted. And yes, it is an art. And if I would come upon this work in a gallery, I might not have any reaction, except to think that people have different point of view when it come to God. Also Serrano, point of view on his accomplishment doesn’t have any impact in mind point of view, because if I was in a position of commented on his pierce, I would not painted how he want it to be.
ReplyDeleteI have mixed emotions about this picture. I am Christian and to me sticking a cross in urine is extremely offensive. I understand free speech and I also understand that there are many people out there that take advantage of Christianity and use it as a "billion-dollar Christ-for-profit industry". I still wouldn't look at this as art though. Especially after reading about Andres Serrano trying to release a CD and how the controversy of this has made him a popular public figure, I don't believe he is any different than the people he claims this picture is about. He is using this as a way to develop a name for himself and make money.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I don't think this is near as blasphemous as the record of hatred Jesse Helms has; although he still claims to be a christian. And this is completely within the rights of free speech, he COULD burn it and it would still be legal. It's not my cup of tea, but it is "art", simply because the person who made it feels it is. If I were to see it in a gallery, I probably wouldn't look twice at it if I didn't know the background of it.
ReplyDeleteAs for his 'future album', I don't think it adds or detracts anything from his defense. Mainly because I think everyone can tell he's already full of it and himself and he just wanted to put the crucifix in piss.
Even though we live in a country with freedom of speech, I think that artist's expression was distasteful.One would think that he has no respect for Christ or the teaching of Jesus or any other form of deity.
ReplyDeleteI do not know if is considered blasphemous, but I would argue that with all the suffering and shame that Jesus bore for us, which christians observe every Easter; this artist could have done a better portrait of Christ. This shows lack of respect and like he was betrayed all over again. When we see the painting of Christ on a cross, we remember how the people spat in his face, place the crown of thorns on his head, and all the agony he went through; and to see this painting showing him submerged in urine, appears to be done by someone who is an atheist or agnostic, Nothing can compare to what we to what Christ has done for His people or followers...
I do see this work as blasphemous. Some things are suppose to be off limits, and I think that anything dealing with god is off limits. Pushing the envelope, like Serrano did, is not good because not everyone is going to understand the symbolisms of the photo. However, I do not feel that he crossed the line of free speech. As Americans we can say what ever we want and are always protected because of our right to free speech. I would consider this a peace of art; there is something really interesting about this peace. Even though, Serrano was considered a rock star, it doesn’t change the way I feel about the photo. He should have not messed with something so sacrilegious. Leonard S.
ReplyDelete