Quite beautiful. The kind of thing I imagine I'd see hanging on the wall in a religious Christian household. It's Jesus on the cross, of course. He's in some murky substance, could be lucite, or liquid. It's yellowish-red, suggesting blood--the human side--against shafts of light from above--the heavenly side.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:33 AM
8 Comments:
I don't think you can divorce this piece from its political content-If the visual image had been made available without the title and publicity about its urine and blood content, I would agree with LAGuy's comments about it being a nice little picture. The whole context of the work was designed to offend or show repugnance for Christianity. Imagine if "American Gothic" had been titled "Farmers After A Lynching" or "Koran in a Toilet" or some such. Or if a sculptor built a memorial to war dead out of used condoms and fecal matter? The message seems to be the point not the art. The quality of Mr. Serano's picture is secondary.
That being said, it leads to the queston about what is art in this case? Is it just the image or all the stuff that goes with it?
I personally believe Mr. Serrano's work, considered as a whole, was ineffective agitprop. After all, his work resulted in a huge amount of support and donations to religious and conservative groups.
He's making a statement, that's obvious, and the medium is the message. It's not against Jesus, it's just trying to shock us out the complacency with which we think about Jesus. What Jesus said was revolutionary at the time, and regular iconography comforts us, whereas Serrano says we should feel more strongly than that.
Was this displayed as a photo or as a cross dropped into fluid?
I would very much disagree with the second poster:
It's not against Jesus, it's just trying to shock us out the complacency with which we think about Jesus. What Jesus said was revolutionary at the time....
Martin Luther King was a great prophet of societal change, and now we have MLK-Day Sales and J.C. Penney.
Suppose a white man created a photo of King, made out of dung or soaked in urine, and named it "Martin Luther Piss." Would you suggest this art was "not against Martin Luther King"?
Remember, there's a reason that artists title their works. The work is meant to be understood in the context of the work and the title. Serrano's work -- which was displayed as a photograph, not an object in a bottle -- would hardly have been realized to involve urine, except for the name and except for the artist's long history of using bodily fluids in his art: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andres_Serrano
Actually, it sometimes happens that paintings are known by their popular names rather than their real ones, such as "Whistler's Mother." If we called this photo something else (the name is striking but doesn't really make sense), suddenly it wouldn't feel so offensive any more?
Also, colors of paint have always come from things of the earth, we just forget that in our present-day sterile world.
You know, in black vernacular, "blood" means "brother." I could imagine a painting about the assassination of MLK, jr., using real blood in the painting, entitled "Martin Luther Blood," could be considered a touching tribute. (And why does it matter if a white man created it or not? Anyway, aren't these artists Christians?)
Many Christians venerate the Shroud Of Turin, which supposedly had blood on it. Actual physical reminders of life don't prevent people from liking something.
As to an earlier comment calling this work "ineffective," huh? How can such a famous work be ineffective. (And what sort of "effect" does he think the work was supposed to have--that Christians would stop donating to their churches?!)
I think the phrase was "ineffective agitprop" which I maintain it still is. I believe (and could very well be wrong ) that the work was intended to "piss on Christ" so to speak and it had the effect of of galvanizing opposition to his position. When you agitate for one point of view and cause the opposite, I would call that "ineffective"
On the other hand, it was certainly very effective at getting Mr. Serrano's name and work noticed.
I'm not sure what either point has to do with art. I still thinks its a pretty picture if you don't know about the piss. Perhaps the point I'm getting at is mixing politics and art -whether through funding or through prostituting it for the the political cause du jour-seems to demean both.
To beat the "ineffective" argument to death, if "Shocking us out of complacency" about Jesus was the message of Mr. Serrano, I would say he was a particularily ineffective communicator.
Like many others, I have seen this image reproduced many, many times, although I have not viewed the original work. Without the title, it is a fairly dull piece - basically a yellow tinged crucifix - that probably would not even be picked up by a dealer for sale. The punch is all in the performance - the title making the politics.
Post a Comment
<< Home