Today in class we began a discussion on the definition of art. The two questions addressed the function and role of art, as well as the role of censorship in the United States. One of the articles in our textbook mentioned an artist whose works are generally considered offensive and obscene. This led to a discussion on Andres Serrano who became notorious for his controversial pieces, his most famous being "Piss Christ" which depicts a crucifix completely submerged in Serrano's urine. My immediate reaction to this photo is similar to most people: it is deliberately crossing a line that should not be tampered with, is nasty and inappropriate, illicits the wrong emotions in the viewer, etc.. The list goes on. However, after my teacher asked us to consider it as art rather than something undeserving of that classification, I realized that it actually provokes a plethora of thoughts, and could be considered art. As well, it might not even be offensive after all. Maybe it depicts the story of Christ's crucifixion more accurately than any other crucifix. Maybe it is giving us the truth.
If art is to illicit emotion, externalize the internal desires and thoughts, or challenge others to think more deeply of issues foreign to their comfort zone, then this piece should undoubtably be considered art. I think to understand this, it's important to understand that art does not have to be beautiful or aesthetically pleasing. Is a National Geographic photo of a tarantula art? Most would say yes, even though the image of a huge, hairy spider is not particularly comforting. In addition, I believe that art does not have to be complex. Anyone can be an artist. Though this photo of a defiled crucifix is not an innately complicated idea or particularly demanding in terms of skill, the photo itself is intriguing. The light strikes the crucifix at the perfect angle, so its cross and body are lit while the surroundings remain somewhat dark. The flaws of the glass of the container are also reflected into the photograph, drawing attention away from what is within the glass and onto the fact that this image is ultimately enclosed and bound. It is surrounded with flaws in the glass--could this perhaps symbolize more than just its container? To appreciate art fully, we must accept that not all art is going to please us, but may still affect us. While some art is meant to be deliberately offensive (and only offensive), I think there is a difference between Serrano's "Piss Christ" and other forms of anti-religious art, such as Lady Gaga's music video for her hit, "Alejandro", which I find to be completely worthless in its lack of an original, personal attack on religion. Nonetheless, please know that I do sympathize with those who find this offensive, as that was my initial reaction.
In class, I briefly gave a potential defense of the "Piss Christ" by saying that through the urine, Serrano may actually be trying to depict the humanity of Christ in a more complete manner. If Jesus Christ was truly fully man and fully God, then wouldn't it make sense to juxtapose the holiness that Christ could have enjoyed without coming to give salvation to Christians with the raw, disgusting human nature he ultimately accepted for out sake? Urinating, sneezing, coughing, crying, hurting, bleeding--these are the most nasty, human functions of the human body. When Christ accepted humanity, he accepted the raw, terrible, ugly parts of it. Not just the beautiful hair, soft skin, bright eyes. He lived like us. Animal-like. I think one interpretation of this photograph could be this: that by accepting humanity knowing that he would be crucified on a cross 33 years later, Christ was submerging himself in the ugliness of our world, the ugliness of our lives, and of ourselves. This is the fully-developed thought of what I briefly mentioned in class today.
A second interpretation I have of this artwork, is that the defilement of the crucifix by the artist (because he submerged a holy relic in his urine) is actually a representation of the the defilement of Christ by the majority of his own people when he was crucified. At the time, he was even denied by his own disciple, Peter. In the Bible, when Jesus Christ was crucified, each of the four gospels places a particular emphasis on the fact that those around him- friends and foes alike- mocked and ridiculed him. Proof:
Matthew 27: 28-31: "And they stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him, and twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on his head and took a reed and struck him on the head. And when they had mocked him, they stripped him of the robe...".
Mark 15: 29-30: "And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads and saying, 'Aha! You who would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save yourself, and come down from the cross!'"
Luke 23: 18-25: "But they all cried out together, 'Away with this man, and release to us Barabbas'--a man who had been thrown into prison for an insurrection started in the city and for murder. Pilate addressed them once more, desiring to release Jesus, but they kept shouting, 'Crucify him! Crucify him!' A third time, he said to them, 'Why, what evil has he done? I have found in him no guilt deserving death. I will therefore punish and release him.' But they were urgent, demanding with loud cries that he should be crucified. And their voices prevailed."
John 19: 6-7: "When the chief priests and the officers saw him, they cried out, 'Crucify him, crucify him!' Pilate said to them, 'Take him yourselves and crucify him, for I find no guilt in him.' The Jews answered him, 'We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God.'"
As you can see, it was not only the chief priests and soldiers who wanted him crucified, but the Jews themselves: God's own people. I guess my point is that urinating on a crucifix is nothing compared to ordering that same depicted man, a perfect God, to be crucified. What makes this photograph so shocking and offensive is its truthful portrayal of the people that once denied and murdered Christ...the same people that now claim to have his grace. Of any viewer of "Piss Christ", I'd argue that Christians and Catholics should feel the most guilt, because it was for their sins that Christ sacrificed himself, and because of their misunderstanding that he died.
I do not know why Serrano made this piece of art, but yes, I do think it is art. As you can see, there is not just one layer to this photograph, and certainly cannot be judged based on its title. Without it in fact, I do not even think I would have found the image remotely offensive. It is actually quite beautiful and stunning, because it shows a glowing, golden Christ. Through all the mutilation and pain Christ had to suffer as a human, his glory shines through. Perhaps this initally offensive photograph is actually the closest thing we have to understanding through art, the true beauty of what Christ accomplished.
This is only one interpretation, just one opinion. I'm not asking you to embrace it. Maybe just think about it?
If art is to illicit emotion, externalize the internal desires and thoughts, or challenge others to think more deeply of issues foreign to their comfort zone, then this piece should undoubtably be considered art. I think to understand this, it's important to understand that art does not have to be beautiful or aesthetically pleasing. Is a National Geographic photo of a tarantula art? Most would say yes, even though the image of a huge, hairy spider is not particularly comforting. In addition, I believe that art does not have to be complex. Anyone can be an artist. Though this photo of a defiled crucifix is not an innately complicated idea or particularly demanding in terms of skill, the photo itself is intriguing. The light strikes the crucifix at the perfect angle, so its cross and body are lit while the surroundings remain somewhat dark. The flaws of the glass of the container are also reflected into the photograph, drawing attention away from what is within the glass and onto the fact that this image is ultimately enclosed and bound. It is surrounded with flaws in the glass--could this perhaps symbolize more than just its container? To appreciate art fully, we must accept that not all art is going to please us, but may still affect us. While some art is meant to be deliberately offensive (and only offensive), I think there is a difference between Serrano's "Piss Christ" and other forms of anti-religious art, such as Lady Gaga's music video for her hit, "Alejandro", which I find to be completely worthless in its lack of an original, personal attack on religion. Nonetheless, please know that I do sympathize with those who find this offensive, as that was my initial reaction.
In class, I briefly gave a potential defense of the "Piss Christ" by saying that through the urine, Serrano may actually be trying to depict the humanity of Christ in a more complete manner. If Jesus Christ was truly fully man and fully God, then wouldn't it make sense to juxtapose the holiness that Christ could have enjoyed without coming to give salvation to Christians with the raw, disgusting human nature he ultimately accepted for out sake? Urinating, sneezing, coughing, crying, hurting, bleeding--these are the most nasty, human functions of the human body. When Christ accepted humanity, he accepted the raw, terrible, ugly parts of it. Not just the beautiful hair, soft skin, bright eyes. He lived like us. Animal-like. I think one interpretation of this photograph could be this: that by accepting humanity knowing that he would be crucified on a cross 33 years later, Christ was submerging himself in the ugliness of our world, the ugliness of our lives, and of ourselves. This is the fully-developed thought of what I briefly mentioned in class today.
A second interpretation I have of this artwork, is that the defilement of the crucifix by the artist (because he submerged a holy relic in his urine) is actually a representation of the the defilement of Christ by the majority of his own people when he was crucified. At the time, he was even denied by his own disciple, Peter. In the Bible, when Jesus Christ was crucified, each of the four gospels places a particular emphasis on the fact that those around him- friends and foes alike- mocked and ridiculed him. Proof:
Matthew 27: 28-31: "And they stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him, and twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on his head and took a reed and struck him on the head. And when they had mocked him, they stripped him of the robe...".
Mark 15: 29-30: "And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads and saying, 'Aha! You who would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save yourself, and come down from the cross!'"
Luke 23: 18-25: "But they all cried out together, 'Away with this man, and release to us Barabbas'--a man who had been thrown into prison for an insurrection started in the city and for murder. Pilate addressed them once more, desiring to release Jesus, but they kept shouting, 'Crucify him! Crucify him!' A third time, he said to them, 'Why, what evil has he done? I have found in him no guilt deserving death. I will therefore punish and release him.' But they were urgent, demanding with loud cries that he should be crucified. And their voices prevailed."
John 19: 6-7: "When the chief priests and the officers saw him, they cried out, 'Crucify him, crucify him!' Pilate said to them, 'Take him yourselves and crucify him, for I find no guilt in him.' The Jews answered him, 'We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God.'"
As you can see, it was not only the chief priests and soldiers who wanted him crucified, but the Jews themselves: God's own people. I guess my point is that urinating on a crucifix is nothing compared to ordering that same depicted man, a perfect God, to be crucified. What makes this photograph so shocking and offensive is its truthful portrayal of the people that once denied and murdered Christ...the same people that now claim to have his grace. Of any viewer of "Piss Christ", I'd argue that Christians and Catholics should feel the most guilt, because it was for their sins that Christ sacrificed himself, and because of their misunderstanding that he died.
I do not know why Serrano made this piece of art, but yes, I do think it is art. As you can see, there is not just one layer to this photograph, and certainly cannot be judged based on its title. Without it in fact, I do not even think I would have found the image remotely offensive. It is actually quite beautiful and stunning, because it shows a glowing, golden Christ. Through all the mutilation and pain Christ had to suffer as a human, his glory shines through. Perhaps this initally offensive photograph is actually the closest thing we have to understanding through art, the true beauty of what Christ accomplished.
This is only one interpretation, just one opinion. I'm not asking you to embrace it. Maybe just think about it?
