Is a dot just a dot?

[Celtic_Emperor]

Remember that old painting that got alot of publicity in the art world? Its that one where its a white canvas, and the only thing on it is a simple red dot in the middle.

This painting is has won acclaim the world over, and since then many copycats have tried to bank on the success of that simplicity so as to look and pass as sophsticated, deep, and spiritual.

When is a dot just a dot?

Is a dot never just a dot?

Is a dot never a dot?

So many can claim so much by even the slighest effort, and because nothing tangible exists to disprove them, we are forced to accept there is a possibility their attempt wasn't contrived, lame, or an excuse of an effort and they are simply trying to pass it off as art.

If a monkey in a zoo paints random colors on a canvas, is this art?

I think so. The monkey has demonstrated it's intelligence in the color spectrum, as often they choose colors that compliment eachother or work well together with other combinations. While their strokes are not guided by a higher genius, there is a method to how they apply their techniques and they are self-aware.

When a person, that is to say, a human being, just draws a dot on a picture, is this art, or is it just someone trying to whore up on some attention with little effort involved?

Posers are so rampant in the art community that its hard to tell a true talent from one who is not sometimes, especially in genres that are abstract and vague in nature. It doesn't take an artist or painter to draw a dot.

I'm not questioning the original, just everything that has followed.

Should we go along with things like this or laugh at them? Or, do we simply give them the benefit of the doubt and say nothing?

I'm guessing that if this is the only type of vague artwork they draw, and they just draw dots, and triangles, and kanji, etc, then its easier to evaluate them overall.

 

[David Tyler]

Wasn't that one of Yoko's pieces?

Another was the ladder that you climb and, when you reach the top, there is a peice of paper hanging with the word 'yes' on it.

I can get that one but what was with the condom tacked to the wall?

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

I wouldn't know. Someone should look up on that. I'm too lazy too

Yeah, I can understand the ladder one. It makes perfect sense.

As for a condom on the wall, I think I get that one, but it would take too long to explain. I think its either a bold statement for or against fornication, or its meant to show how generalized, commonplace, and casual fornication has become. We talk about people "wearing their hearts on their sleeves", in this case, we hang our fornication on the wall for all to see as if it's a badge of honor.

 

[Betchass1]

I read and talked a lot about this kind of stuff in 3 years (so far) of art school. I am going for music, but have taken Aesthetics, Modernism, and a few other courses that focus on visual arts. Teachers love to bring this up.
Essentially, this kind of stuff has usually been an attempt to force people to question "what is art." Marcel Duchamp, John Cage, Andy Warhol, and Jackson Pollock have all benefited from confronting people with this question.
But, imo, it isn't the artist's job to make me question that. People have been asking that question for a thousand years, and I was asking it long before coming across the work of any of these guys. I often come to art with that question already in mind. That question is for theorists and aestheticians. The artist's job is to produce.

Is it art? Who cares? I don't like it, I don't get anything out of it, and it doesn't make me ask any questions I wasn't already asking, and that's all I'm required to decide about it, not whether it is art. Whether the dot is art or not has no effect on my enjoyment of the art I do like, like Shakespeare, Tchaikovsky, Poe, Monet, Rodin, Keats, etc. All these artists and hundreds of others concerned themselves with both things they found interesting and how to present it so that I would find it interesting. And I find it interesting for what it is, not for the fact that it is or isn't art.
I think Southpark makes people question assumptions more than Cage or Duchamp or the red dot, at least these days.

 

[Cbarton]

Red dot? Sounds like someone is plagerizing the flag of Japan.....

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

I wasn't thinking this thread would get bumped, but thanks for the insight.

As for the flag of Japan, I suppose it is possible, but I doubt it. I think it has something to do with singularity, individuality, adversity, or something like that.

 

[Kenjisan]

The mainstream artist community is so far out there that nothing surprises me anymore. I remember that somebody threw crap (literally) on a statue of the virgin Mary and called it art to some critical acclaim(and many scratching heads). It seems like these people use this appreaciation as a way to feel *above other people, as if the average Joe is somehow less of a person because he cannot appreciate such simple, minimalist crap.

Thats kinda how I feel on the subject.

 

[Cbarton]

The mainstream artist community is so far out there that nothing surprises me anymore. I remember that somebody threw crap (literally) on a statue of the virgin Mary and called it art to some critical acclaim(and many scratching heads). It seems like these people use this appreaciation as a way to feel *above other people, as if the average Joe is somehow less of a person because he cannot appreciate such simple, minimalist crap.

Thats kinda how I feel on the subject.

You are assuming, of course that 'artists' such as they are part of the real mainsteam. They are the ones so out of touch with the real world that they don't understand that such stuff is offensive to those of faith. To me they are as mainstream as the stars in Hollywierd are. In otherwords, not even close.

Red dot on a white square? Art? Innovention? Sounds more like a no talent hack trying to pull one over on everyone. That's it! It's the "Emperor's New Dot!"

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

Well thats a clear case of just wanting to get attention by desecrating a religious figure, and feeling as though you've done something artistic simply because there will be those who applaud such actions and will tell you how they feel about it.

Just because you got a reaction out of someone, even a group of people, doesn't make it art, in my opinion. All it means is you've displayed the ability to force a reaction out of people by doing something vulgar. People choose religious targets, and churches, mosks, and temples as targets of vandalism because they know people will react to that.

It's just vandalism.

If someone burned down a mosk or buddhist temple and called it art, then they'd be in the wrong too. Sure, people will definitely have something to say about it, especially the media. They'd hype the story and the vandal would benefit from it before and after they're arrested and tried.

"My burning down this church/temple/mosk is my art! It symbolises my disdain for eastern religion because philosophically speaking.....so I cut the head off the statue because....and I pissed on the altar to show that....and I spray painted the windows to represent....and I took a dump in the collection basket to express...."

To say something like that, for example, is just plain foolish and stupid to an incalculable degree. Theres really no way for you to explain your behavior rationally.

It's not art to anyone but heretics, sick people, radical extremists, or some punk looking for his fifteen minutes of fame (they don't even get that much).

It's not art and he is NOT an artist. It's a form of expression, but it itself is not art because he did not create it or use his own materials or property. It is just plain vandalism. Even if you can explain the nuances of why you did it and what it meant artistically to you, theres no merit or value to it, because you destroyed or desecrated something that belongs to someone else to make your point.

 

[Cbarton]

My opinion (all $0.02 worth of it) is that most of what is pushed as "art' these days is just garbage. No artistic value, but hyped as such because "they are true artists, and you're not.." kind of attitude. They seem to be the art equivalent of shockjocks on radio: no real talent other than to offend.

Real art appeals to all, not just the radical freaks. I may not get 'into' artist like Picasso, but I can see something of worth in it. Things like "Piss Christ" has no value. The artists seem to think that their right to "free speech and expression" guarantees the mandate that we all listen.

I choose the right to point out their hypocrisy. Of course, people like me are painted as narrow-minded, etc. I just tell them we all have standards. mine are just a lot higher than theirs

 

[morgandee]

............................................________
....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,
.............................,.-”...................................“-.,
.........................,/...............................................”:,
.....................,?......................................................\,
.................../...........................................................,}
................./......................................................,:`^`..}
.............../...................................................,:”........./
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}
...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../
...,,,___.\`~,......“~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”
............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\
.............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__
,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\
...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\
................................`:,,...........................`\..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_\..........._,-%.......`\.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

My opinion (all $0.02 worth of it) is that most of what is pushed as "art' these days is just garbage. No artistic value, but hyped as such because "they are true artists, and you're not.." kind of attitude. They seem to be the art equivalent of shockjocks on radio: no real talent other than to offend.

Real art appeals to all, not just the radical freaks. I may not get 'into' artist like Picasso, but I can see something of worth in it. Things like "Piss Christ" has no value. The artists seem to think that their right to "free speech and expression" guarantees the mandate that we all listen.

I choose the right to point out their hypocrisy. Of course, people like me are painted as narrow-minded, etc. I just tell them we all have standards. mine are just a lot higher than theirs

They would only call you narrow-minded because you struck a nerve and exposed their hypocrisy in such a straight-forward and honest way. There's very little way for a poser to counter that, because a great deal of what they do is so superficial.

Real art and real artists move people (however little or greatly) through the honesty of their art and their individual integrity, love, and commitment to their craft.

A poser, only being superficial, relies completely on what people say about them because their art is neither self-supportive or even truely enjoyable for them. They're doing it for idle praise, and some don't care how far they have to stoop to get someone's attention.

 

[juggernaut]

Ugh. I tried not to...but I had to reply.

The red dot [and anything like it] is not art. It's a conversation piece. The same way a turd in a punchbowl would be a conversation piece. I pay it no attention and I don't get riled up thinking someone's trying to pull one on me. People are willing to have pointless, overthought conversations about it and some will say "maybe it's sooo deep, I just can't understand it. I'm no artist, so I must be missing something."

So what's art? They say dance [tap for this illustration] is an art. So in the same fashion, if I just stand in one spot and tap my foot once, is that art? No. It's crap. Cooking is an art, they say. Is a single pea on a plate a masterpiece you'd pay for at the nicest restaurant in New York?

Just out of morbid curiosity, I went to the art festival here a couple years ago. There are $XXXX.00 price tags on garbage. I saw a broken piece of a wooden palette that looked like they laid it down to paint something on it with a $900 tag. I've thrown stuff out in the garage that was more interesting. This stuff literally looked like it was pulled from a trash heap. There was an old bike tire nailed to a window frame. WTF!?!? Art? So you'd decorate your living room with this shit? You'd look like the set of Sanford and Son. Would you be willing to give that to someone as a gift?

I agree with a statement above that it should evoke some emotion. Shit like that, from me, only evokes "Nice try, loser." I think one of the best principles in art is tell the story with as little as possible. But there has to be a message there. I dig it when someone can capture a natural and relaxed posture in a human figure with just a couple lines.

I'm a musician as well, and I tell people... you don't have to be a classically trained Juliard graduate to hear a wrong note. And you don't have to be an "artist" to spot crap. We do, however, all have personal tastes in what we like. Some minimalist, some in high detail.

Did you know that art critics are not artists? That food/restaurant critics are not trained chefs? But there's an element of society that needs unusual distinction in an upper class, and they can find it in their adoration of a red dot, the emblem on their car, the club they belong to, an over-priced bottle of wine, etc. And balancing out the equation are the people so desperate to be viewed as "cultured" that they'll wear the same dirty clothes for a week and sit around with their other deep thinking friends in a coffee house pretending to be big Jack Kerouac fans.

For me, it's a really easy means to an end. My artistic integrity is for sale to the highest bidder. You can have some bullshit explaination or viewpoint about everything for the sake of your reputation, or you can do like I do an and just crank stuff out, solve people's problems, and get paid. If I did a red dot for someone and they said "You know, I think I'd like two dots. Go put another one on it and I'll be back with the checkbook"... I'm doing it. Gimme the money and tell your friends how easy I was to work with.

My opinion, and all of yours, mean nothing. If you wanna be successful in it, you help people reach their needs with it. I almost look at it as providing a service, not a product. If you went to a restaurant and ordered a chicken sandwich and they bring you a cheesburger, you tell them to fix it and bring you what you asked for. They shouldn't tell you "Trust me... this is a much smarter choice. Just eat it". Then I split and they make no money. Some bullshit rationale for the sandwich they brought me isn't gonna keep the lights on.


Bah. Long rant. It's late. I'm bored. I went way off topic. Sue me.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

And why, pray tell, do you feel as though you should have avoided trying to post here, or that anything you just said was a long rant?

Posts like yours are exactly of the substance I'm looking for (in any situation or topic), and though this topic is actually old, I'm glad it was bumped by others and that you subsequentaly replied to it as well.

I've noticed, with every thought-out post you make, that you tend to verbally sabotage (ok, maybe sabotage is a bit much to discribe it) your own posts and thoughts to the point of trivializing them.

Things like "Long rant" "It's late" "I'm bored" (and other things you have said before)...make it seem like you enjoyed saying something but have no interest in making it seem that way, or that you're indifferent when you clearly are not.

I've noticed this habit every time you have something to say thats semi-serious or relevant.

Is something the matter, or is that just a habit and the way you express yourself?

 

[waddleman1]

Personally, it's not art. To be honest, I think it's complete crap. Art should be something that not everyone in the world could go out and do right after you make it. I bet you put a bunch of dots of a piece of paper when you were a kid, or scribbled or something, but that isn't considered art by anyone is it? So why after someone reaches a set age, does it become art? I honestly think that the children's drawings are better. They aren't sitting there wondering what they could make up to say they were drawing, they had an idea, and whatever it turned out like, that wasn't based on money, other people, or anything but what they wanted to draw. Art should be something that actually takes tallent, not just knowing what people will be stupid enough to buy.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

Children make such beautiful pictures because they're so naive, pure, and innocent. It's adorable. Without even trying they create little masterpieces and its not hard to feel the goodness in their art.

Like I said earlier, its because they're honest with others and with themselves.

Its the same for children who sing (unless pressured into it by their parents). Children in a choir are exceptionally wonderful to listen to and you can feel and sense the sincerity in the room and in them.

 

[juggernaut]

And why, pray tell, do you feel as though you should have avoided trying to post here, or that anything you just said was a long rant?

Posts like yours are exactly of the substance I'm looking for (in any situation or topic), and though this topic is actually old, I'm glad it was bumped by others and that you subsequentaly replied to it as well.

I've noticed, with every thought-out post you make, that you tend to verbally sabotage (ok, maybe sabotage is a bit much to discribe it) your own posts and thoughts to the point of trivializing them.

Things like "Long rant" "It's late" "I'm bored" (and other things you have said before)...make it seem like you enjoyed saying something but have no interest in making it seem that way, or that you're indifferent when you clearly are not.

I've noticed this habit every time you have something to say thats semi-serious or relevant.

Is something the matter, or is that just a habit and the way you express yourself?

That's an interesting observation.

I don't try to minimalize anything. In the bigger scheme, I'm just another faceless person entitled to an opinion like every other one of the 40,000 that drop by. My opinion is not important. It may be different, but not more important. In some of these art related threads, I have insight or experience. But I don't pretend to have all the answers and wouldn't wanna come off that way. My mom decorates her house with lighthouses. It looks really stupid... in my opinion. But since she lives there and pays the bills, she can decorate any way she wants. And she wouldn't change it if I gave her my honest opinion anyway, so why stir the pot?

Back in college, a philosphy prof was going over relativism and absolutism. He said absolutists unshakably believe that there's only one way to think of things, there's only one approach, one way things can be. A relativist will deny that and accept that there are several possibilities and options and there is no absolute. I asked him "If each of them thinks that their school of thought is the only way it can be, doesn't that make them both absolutists?". He thought for a minute and said that in 25 years of teaching, he'd never thought of that and then he dismissed the class.

I'm a relativist in most cases except where my Bible is concerned. I encourage dialog and enjoy a debate. But I also try very carefully to not project an image of omniscience. Yeah, I can draw. That doesn't make me the most valid artist or critic here. Whether or not I liked the X3 plot doesn't make it good or bad. So what's a good movie? To Hollywood, it's a nice day at the boxoffice. To me, it's being entertained for two hours. Relativism.

Sorry the response was so long. I always ramble like this.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

That's an interesting observation.

I don't try to minimalize anything. In the bigger scheme, I'm just another faceless person entitled to an opinion like every other one of the 40,000 that drop by. My opinion is not important. It may be different, but not more important. In some of these art related threads, I have insight or experience. But I don't pretend to have all the answers and wouldn't wanna come off that way. My mom decorates her house with lighthouses. It looks really stupid... in my opinion. But since she lives there and pays the bills, she can decorate any way she wants. And she wouldn't change it if I gave her my honest opinion anyway, so why stir the pot?

Back in college, a philosphy prof was going over relativism and absolutism. He said absolutists unshakably believe that there's only one way to think of things, there's only one approach, one way things can be. A relativist will deny that and accept that there are several possibilities and options and there is no absolute. I asked him "If each of them thinks that their school of thought is the only way it can be, doesn't that make them both absolutists?". He thought for a minute and said that in 25 years of teaching, he'd never thought of that and then he dismissed the class.

I'm a relativist in most cases except where my Bible is concerned. I encourage dialog and enjoy a debate. But I also try very carefully to not project an image of omniscience. Yeah, I can draw. That doesn't make me the most valid artist or critic here. Whether or not I liked the X3 plot doesn't make it good or bad. So what's a good movie? To Hollywood, it's a nice day at the boxoffice. To me, it's being entertained for two hours. Relativism.

Sorry the response was so long. I always ramble like this.

*points at him* See! There you go again!

Why are you apologizing and saying you were rambling? Do you honestly think I, of all people, am going to hold it against you when everyone knows I'm the King of long posts?

It's people like you that make me want to even bother socializing at all online. You show me that I'm not alone and that it's not hopeless, useless, or a waste of my time. It's always a treat when I can meet an intellectual equal. It doesn't happen often.

Your opinion certainly is of more value than you give it credit for. Of course in the greater scheme of things what I think of you isn't important, but it's worthwhile here and now because I'd like to think we've exchanged something good.

Isn't that acceptable?

 

[Betchass1]

Real art appeals to all, not just the radical freaks. I may not get 'into' artist like Picasso, but I can see something of worth in it. Things like "Piss Christ" has no value. The artists seem to think that their right to "free speech and expression" guarantees the mandate that we all listen.

I strongly disagree that real art appeals to all. Bestsellers are not necessarily the be-all and end-all of artistic value. Real art, even great art, often goes unnoticed for the duration of the artist's life or longer, while many of the works lauded by the masses during their day are completely forgotten later, to the point that you have never even heard of them. Artists who created such works often ridiculed the ones whose names you know.

I also disagree about Piss Christ. If not for the title, anyone seeing it would say, "wow, look at how beautifully the figure of Jesus radiates its warmth" etc etc. Just because some people find it insulting doesn't mean it ISN'T art, and it doesn't mean he meant it the way you think... why is urine treated as such a taboo, horrible subject anyway? Did your god not make it? The word "piss" is in the Bible. It's only in your mind that the one thing is sacrosanct and the other is base. Might as well condemn Salmon Rushdie or John Lennon or Frank Zappa for saying things that got people's panties in a bunch. They're all still artists, and some of the greatest.

 

[Betchass1]

It's ironic. Some of the artists who do the dots and common household items are/were doing so to rebel against snobby, elitist high-minded art groups that were seen as being, basically, the establishment. They quickly became the ones who were seen as being snobby, elitist high-minded people.
I pointed out in class that in, say, 1935, the majority of Americans were not affected at all by the museum-running people, and had little interest in their pursuits, being more concerned with survival, and so it's not like the museum people were some world power that needed to be dethroned. A fraction of the public has ever been interested in art museums at all.

I guess everyone is exposed to whatever they're exposed to, and judges it according to their experience. Like I said, I don't care for the red dot or much Duchamp or Cage or minimalism (I really don't care for Philip Glass), but hell if I care if someone wants to call it art.
Just like the thousands of music albums that have been released since the invention of the phonograph: I'll never hear most of them, and I don't intend to, and they were never under obligation to appeal to me.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

Subject matter doesn't have as much to do with art being successful then the process or method itself does, a majority of the time.

I think that to draw Jesus like that, for example, only works because of the subject matter. It doesn't say anything about the process and it doesn't allow viewers to tap into it necessarily just because it's Jesus (if theres anything to even tap into). They are more likely to be overcome by anger and resentment to appriciate any artistic worth the piece may have or to inquire why the artist drew it at all.

Such pictures are double-edged swords upon themselves. The artist surely makes a point, maybe even a good one that the viewer just doesn't get, but few care what that point could possibly be; they are too distracted by the superficial obscenity of the gesture itself to even see it as art. People liken such attempts to those of a vandal, they don't consider it art at all because it was only so creative to begin with and relied completely on it's shock value to get attention rather than it's actual presense and feeling.

The controversy has overshadowed and consumed the value of the piece and has taken it's place, regardless of what the original messege or intent was (which in this case I think was obvious or at least should be). In a reversed way, the artist may benefit from that, but it seems like a rather bitter-sweet success to me. They love the controversy you inadvertently created around the picture, but they don't love the picture itself.

The value of the picture is lost somewhere along the line.

It's not that people are that close-minded or aren't trying to see something more, they simply were not moved by the picture for the right reasons or in ways they could appriciate it.

This is why controversial art (especially religious) rarely pays dividends to the artist and is a real gamble. It's best they use these themes sparingly, lest they face isolation in their future amateur or professional career.

 

[Cbarton]

I also disagree about Piss Christ. If not for the title, anyone seeing it would say, "wow, look at how beautifully the figure of Jesus radiates its warmth" etc etc. Just because some people find it insulting doesn't mean it ISN'T art, and it doesn't mean he meant it the way you think... why is urine treated as such a taboo, horrible subject anyway? Did your god not make it? The word "piss" is in the Bible. It's only in your mind that the one thing is sacrosanct and the other is base. Might as well condemn Salmon Rushdie or John Lennon or Frank Zappa for saying things that got people's panties in a bunch. They're all still artists, and some of the greatest.

Um...when you urinate on something, it's to denigrate it, not amplify it. The place of a representation of my Lord and Savior in a container of urine to a believer like myself is an insult, a slap in the face, and sacriledge. People in the US are lucky that Christians don't react like the Moslems did ove that editorial cartoon of Mohammed. The artist meant it EXACTLY as we interpreted it : I PISS ON YOUR FAITH AND YOUR GOD.

What is it supposed to be? "A melding of God with man and nature? Embracing Christ in a warm fluid to show the artist's love and devotion?

Come on, get real. You don't have to be an art major to figure out the message

 

[juggernaut]

*points at him* See! There you go again!

Why are you apologizing and saying you were rambling? Do you honestly think I, of all people, am going to hold it against you when everyone knows I'm the King of long posts?

It's people like you that make me want to even bother socializing at all online. You show me that I'm not alone and that it's not hopeless, useless, or a waste of my time. It's always a treat when I can meet an intellectual equal. It doesn't happen often.

Your opinion certainly is of more value than you give it credit for. Of course in the greater scheme of things what I think of you isn't important, but it's worthwhile here and now because I'd like to think we've exchanged something good.

Isn't that acceptable?

lol The last line of my post was just a joke to bring it full circle. I wasn't "doing it again".

That's a nice compliment, thank you. You're an exception to the general practice of alot of forums. The posts are usually shorter and the responses not as detailed. It's good that you have your own thread or art forum to do this, though, because imagine if everyone posted like we sometimes do. And I'll say that I do have to respect you can still find objectivity and converse with me despite our heated sparse history of past posts.

I've been quick to sum people up based on what they write or chime in with, sometimes in an unnecessary or unsolicited fashion. But hey... what else have I got? This is the first and only representation of most of these people I'll ever have, so I think what I think based on what they write/don't write. But you definitely have the gift of articulation, as noted by other people who read your stuff. It's true that you become like those you associate with, I think I even do it here. I'm a clown by nature, but in your threads I tend to get a little more serious. I guess that's because your threads always start with something detailed and they're not the three word "Great find, Vlad!"-type responses. And Ness, for example... I can tell she's as sharp as anyone here, but she's more likely to joke a little. If I were to sculpt both of you, she'd be a Precious Moment-esque cat figurine and you'd be Rodin's Thinker. I typically read everything you post just to see how far into you get, but I don't always join in.

So again, I appreciate your acknowledgement [damn, that's a long word] as a worthy chatterbox and I apologize for this being so lo...

Oops.

 

[Betchass1]

Um...when you urinate on something, it's to denigrate it, not amplify it. The place of a representation of my Lord and Savior in a container of urine to a believer like myself is an insult, a slap in the face, and sacriledge. People in the US are lucky that Christians don't react like the Moslems did ove that editorial cartoon of Mohammed. The artist meant it EXACTLY as we interpreted it : I PISS ON YOUR FAITH AND YOUR GOD.

What is it supposed to be? "A melding of God with man and nature? Embracing Christ in a warm fluid to show the artist's love and devotion?

Come on, get real. You don't have to be an art major to figure out the message

I give you "Piss Discus" by Andres Serrano:
http://www.thecityreview.com/f00ph2con11.jpg
Who's he insulting now? The Olympics?

*Serrano has received plenty of death threats from Christians over 'Piss Christ.'*
And 'Piss Christ' was PHYSICALLY DESTROYED by Christians.
http://myblahg.com/?p=573
Violence has more to do with an individual's level of maturity than the name of their faith.

"As a former Catholic, and as someone who even today is not opposed to being called a Christian, I felt I had every right to use the symbols of the Church and resented being told not to." -Andres Serrano

History is full of instances of people judging other people based on their own cultural background without bothering to learn about the others' viewpoints. I don't know what his "meaning" was, but the same artist has done plenty of pictures involving all sorts of symbols and icons, and plenty involving semen, (menstrual or other) blood, and mother's milk as well. Chances are you were never part of his intended audience.

BTW, I'm *not* saying I like his work or I think he's a genius. I just don't think some people taking offense to something determines whether it is art. I don't take offense to it and no one can make me.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

Um...when you urinate on something, it's to denigrate it, not amplify it. The place of a representation of my Lord and Savior in a container of urine to a believer like myself is an insult, a slap in the face, and sacriledge. People in the US are lucky that Christians don't react like the Moslems did ove that editorial cartoon of Mohammed. The artist meant it EXACTLY as we interpreted it : I PISS ON YOUR FAITH AND YOUR GOD.

What is it supposed to be? "A melding of God with man and nature? Embracing Christ in a warm fluid to show the artist's love and devotion?

Come on, get real. You don't have to be an art major to figure out the message

While I felt exactly as you did when I first saw the picture, being a christian (catholic specifically) AND an artist, I was willing to try and understand if the artist meant anything other than what you're saying.

The only thing I could come up with is that Jesus in a bottle of urine represents how he was treated during the Passion. He submitted his will over to that of men and allowed himself to be persecuted for a cause. It's possible he was literally urinated on as well. There are many offenses against our Lord which are not recorded, many of which were perpetrated by his own people before calvary. He was not just whipped and flogged. He was treated like waste, which is why he is in a bottle of it.

For Jesus to be in the bottle of urine is representive of his captivity and the dominance that was allowed over him and his sorrowful state of being at that time.The urine itself is the offenses against him and the bottle is his prison.

It makes sense.

HOWEVER, I do not personally think that it had to be done this way, nor should it have been. There are many other unique and different ways you could have displayed Christ that would have allowed anyone to love it. The counter arguement would be that to draw a typical picture that is not unique and different and is contrary to artistic muse and individual expression.

What I completely agree with you about is the fact that its possible it was just a slap in the face and a mockery of all we believe. Just because I and others have made reasonable guesses as to the point, it does not mean its anything more than you're saying.

It may just be as simple as that: F*CK YOU CHRISTIANS!

Given the choice of urine, of all things, is so unique and bizarre that the line is so blurred for anyone to really tell. Did the artist really mean something by it, or is it really just urine?

In any event, I hold that controversy has so enveloped pieces like this that the original messege is either lost or so obscured that any wholesome value you could get out of it is taken away by the blasphemy of the picture.

In the end, I look at it this way:

Part of being a Christian is never forgetting what Christ did for you by dying. To recall this, either in written, vocal, musical, or artistic form is a manner in which you could do that.

However, if theres one thing I think upsets Christ, it's when you intentionally and willingly commit acts of blasphemy, even to make a point or statement that you think it rightious.

To draw him in a bottle of urine is blasphemous.

To draw him bleeding and suffering isn't necessarily, because we know that much happened and he wouldn't be opposed to a fact. He wants us to recollect his suffering because it is an essential part of the key in connecting with him in our human suffering, in all it's forms.

To presume however to draw him in a state that is blasphemous to a fault, is wrong though. It is not necessary. It is choosing sinfully blasphemous imagery over God's rightiousness, even in suffering.

Alas....trying telling that to a non-christian, athiest, or your basic non-believer. They're more willing to let it slide because it either doesn't affect them or mean anything to them. If this guy doesn't believe then it could have been God Himself in that bottle of urine, along with Buddha and co. It wouldn't have mattered to him. It's his art and he's expressing himself any way he damn well pleases. That's the mentality, but what a way to get attention.

As I do not know the man and cannot pick his brain, I withhold condemning him. I'll let the Lord do that if He sees fit. It's not my deal or problem. When you're offended by something like this, its best to forgive the person in your mind (since you can't do it in person), and just move on. Forgiving them frees you of your anger.

That's what I did, and its why the piece doesn't bother me unless I think about it.

*gives kyhawkeye a cookie if he read all of this*