Religion, Ethics, and.... Art?

[Transtic Nerve]

In my aesthetics class, which to you who don't know what that is is basically a philosophy class on what we see as beautiful in whatever sense of the word you see it.... anyway... we talked about this piece below. And before I explain anything, I want you to look at the picture and tell me: Do you find this work of art to be beautiful to you? Would you want this picture to hang on your wall? If your religious or not, this isn't a religious question. Based on your sense of beauty, do you find this to be beautiful? Write it down or remember, I will ask you to write it down in your reply to this.

[img]http://www.thecityreview.com/s00conc2.jpg[/img]

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Now before I begin, this work is entitled [i]Piss Christ[/i] by Andres Serrano.

Piss Christ you ask? Yes, it's actually a cheap wooden or plastic statue or a crucified Christ which Serrano then preceeded to put in a jar (apparently a rather big jar) of his own urine. Hence the appropiate title.

Now, I want you to write down what you originally though about this work, and now that you know the title of the work and what it actually is, I want you to tell me if because of the nature of the work, does it still retain your original reaction to the piece... if you thought it was beautiful before, do you still think the same now that you know Christ is indeed in a jar of piss?

This is not a religious thread, although I do realize that your faith in whatever religion I'm sure will play a toll in answering the questions I have asked. Andres Serrano himself is Catholic I do believe and this was done to criticize the commercialism of religion, or so he said... he's a weird fellow. Anyway, the picture stirred up wuite the controversy in the art world and in the US dealing with funds towards artists who "do stuff like this."

Few more questions: Do you think this is art, regardless if it's beautiful or not and regardless what you know about the piece. Would you consider this art? Is it worth being in a museum? And should art take into the consideration of ethics? Or does it reach beyond ethics and morals? Taking what is unethical to many and making it into beauty.

Also, some Aussies may remember this seeing as how it created a big stir in Melbourne in 1997 if anyone remembers that far back.

[DeadSeraphim]

I honestly did think it was beautiful when I first saw it, but when I found out the nature of the piece I kind of urked a bit. i'm not sure why, it may be my natural response to things my morals deem as 'dirty', but after finding out what it was... i didn't see it in the same light.

I originally thought it was a digitally minipualted photo/painting framed. But when I found out I decided it was just not my kind of art. My kind of art is... paintings and screen-prints. Not urine-soaked statues. I don't know it it deserves to be in a museum though, I wouldn't go that far. It just crosses my moralistic line so I really don't think very highly of it.

Art can cross any boundaries it wants and still be art. it doesn't mean it has to appeal to me, nor does it have to appeal to anyone. Art is what the individual thinks it is, so if the creator thinks its art, so be it. There is a German man (yes, its always the Germans) who 'plastecizes' dead bodies, chops them up and poses them. This same man did a public autopsy as performance art. Like people say, whatever spins your wheels...

[G/S/B Master]

This is going to just be full of flame from Catholics or confused people. But it's a bliss of joy for anti-christ :devil:. It is not beautiful. I see hatred towards all that loves this dude called "Jesus". XD

[quote name='Transtic Nerve']Do you think this is art, regardless if it's beautiful or not and regardless what you know about the piece. [/quote]

I don't think this is art. Its like hatred.

[quote name='Transtic Nerve'] Would you consider this art? Is it worth being in a museum?[/quote]

Not in a snowball's chance in hell. Not art, and if it goes to the museum. They'll be chaos in the museum that rivals the action during the Iraq raid O.O


[quote name='Transtic Nerve'] And should art take into the consideration of ethics? Or does it reach beyond ethics and morals? Taking what is unethical to many and making it into beauty.[/quote]

......................Huh? It's not immoral. People can do whatever they want to Jesus. He can't do anything to us. But we can't do anything to him :p.

TN, what is your purpouse of this thread, and art has no boundaries. And this piece of "art" proves it.

[Bio]

[color=sienna][size=2][b]Original Response:[/b] I don't know... I like the orange aura. It makes it seem like sunset or something.[/size][/color]

[color=#a0522d][size=2][b]Post Reaction: [/b]Now, I'm not so sure I'd want that hanging on my wall, considering the that I now know what produces that glow that I previously viewed as beautiful. It makes me wonder wether or not they should have tied the straps that held this artist down just a little tighter.[/size][/color]

[size=2][color=#a0522d]I suppose that it is art, seeing how art is mainly opinion. Personally, I wouldn't be interested in viewing this piece in a gallery if it were the original. [/color][/size]

[size=2][color=#a0522d]EDIT: G/S/B Master, the purpose of this thread is relatively clear. He's experimenting with what he learned in aesthetics, probably to further confirm that it's true.[/color][/size]

[wiccansamurai]

Initial reaction: Nice color scheme, but I don't really like religous art.

Aftermath: Eh, still don't care. Urine is urine. Its a bit disgusting, nothing I'd want to play around with, but I don't care if someone wants to make artwork from it.

And about the wether or not its art, art isn't about beauty. Its about the message from the artist, and what the viewer interprets it as. From this, I guess its supposed to... Well, I'm not sure what it was supposed to convey if he loved his religon, but if not, then I guess you can probably guess what it was supposed to say. :babble:

[Delian]

Ah yes, I remember this so called artwork. Caused a lot of controversy when it came out.

Artistically speaking, I don't find it beautiful simply because it is not the kind of art that i'm drawn to. I'm not a religious person, but I do have an interest in art and i've seen quite a few religious paintings...Some of them were embracing a certain religion....and others were mocking it, but they all had a certain meaning and were beautiful in their own way. I never found any meaning in this picture, and after I realised how it was created I was rather disgusted by it.

[Kinetic]

[font=Verdana][size=2][color=slategray]When I first saw it, I wasn't particularly drawn to it simply because it's not that aesthetically pleasing to me. It was quite blurry and grainy, and the color scheme didn't really appeal to me. [/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#708090]I didn't take the time to study the political or religious symbolism in the piece because I myself am not very religious, although I should be. [/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#708090]I then proceeded to read your post and when I heard the term Piss Christ, I suddenly thought it was just another teenage atheist trying to fit in with the other, "goths," if there is such a thing in the US. To me, it's just punk kids who think the idea is cool. We don't get along well.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#708090]However, I continued reading and found that disgracing the name of Christ was not the intention of the piece. [/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#708090]You ask if it is really art. Of course. When it comes down to it, art is only intent. A monkey could fling poo at a wall and it would make an amazing composition, but it would not be art because that was not the monkey's intent. Serrano (I think that was his name) had the intent of making a political piece of art and he succeeded. [/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#708090]Whether it is museum-worthy or not, I have no idea. I honestly don't know what a museum's standards are in terms of art.[/color][/size][/font]

[DeathBug]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=century]My first response to the question was, "No, I wouldn't like to own the picture. why? Because I think it's ugly. Also, religious or not, I really don't want to display pictures of people in incredible pain."

Now knowing what it is, my answer is still the same, except I'm a wee bit grossed out. It is "art" by the definition of the term, but, to me, it's crappy art. I personally wouldn't put something so ugly in a musuem, but others might.[/color][/size][/font]

[Semjaza]

You know, I honestly can't say I'd find anything soaked in piss to be all that "beautiful". Whatever point he is trying to make is fine by me and I think the colors that are pulled off are pretty interesting, but that's about as far as my interest can go with anything made out of human waste.

[Artemis]

[FONT=Arial][COLOR=DarkSlateBlue]Wow, I'm going to have to admit right now, that as an intense Catholic, I can't help being slightly biased.
My initial reaction was, admittedly, "yes. I could consider that beautiful." There was no way of telling at first how they'd created the picture. The red/orange in the background made me think of the blood and suffering of Christ.
Upon reading the title and realizing it was the work of "art" I'd heard about, it was all I could do to keep from puking. It was like receiving a physical blow. I think it's quite insulting to be shown something like that.
I've also taken philosophy classes, and I'm currently taking Apologetics. We're reading [i]The Evidential Power of Beauty[/i] by Thomas Dubay. It takes everything back to the classical sense of beauty and art, the four Transcendentals: The One, The Good, The True, and The Beautiful. All for reside within each other. Therefore, anything completely beautiful is unified, truthful, and good. Clearly, this "art" is not truthful. It does not portray Jesus as He truly was. Anyone can see it's not "good" either, in the sense of morally good.
As far as I can tell, we're accepting far too much as "art" these days. Often times, it has no meaning, and it's completely subjective. We base everything on the "artist" not on what he/she is portraying. True art should capture the essence of what is being portrayed.
No, I do not think something like this should be in a museum, but there's a lot of "art" in museums that really doesn't belong there. At the Wichita Art Museum, there's a large canvas with a bunch of paint just thrown on, brushed around here and there with obviously no rhyme or reason. This piece of crap is supposed to be "the energy of New York City." I think it's a waste of wall space.
I don't think all art has to be initially eye pleasing though. If I saw a good painting that was a true portrayal of the soldiers in Vietnam or WWII, I would call it good art. Something like that would take on a very mournful, sad sort of beauty.
Wow, I've rambled on for far too long :babble: without really saying anything. This wasn't all as well put as I would have liked, but I think I'm gonna leave it this way.[/color][/font]

[Boba Fett]

[quote name='Transtic Nerve']Do you find this work of art to be beautiful to you? [/quote]

[color=green]Yes, I find this piece of artwork to be beautiful. I especailly like the blurred effect in front of the cross.[/color]

[quote name='Transtic Nerve']Would you want this picture to hang on your wall?[/quote]

[color=green]Not being a religious person, I would not want this picture hanging on my wall. It?s simply not the kind of artwork that I display in my personal space.[/color]

[quote name='Transtic Nerve']Based on your sense of beauty, do you find this to be beautiful?[/quote]

[color=green]Yes, I find this picture beautiful based on my sense of beauty. It?s an interesting piece that?s certainly worth further thought.[/color]

--- --- --- --- ---

[quote name='Transtic Nerve']Do you think this is art, regardless if it's beautiful or not and regardless what you know about the piece. Would you consider this art? Is it worth being in a museum? And should art take into the consideration of ethics? Or does it reach beyond ethics and morals?[/quote]

[color=green]This work is most definitely art. I understand that it may offend some people, but it still retains artistic qualities. It?s though provoking, expresses a message, took thought to create and looks beautiful. This guy, twisted as he may seem, has created an interesting work of art. As for whether is should reside in a museum, that is the prerogative of the particular gallery. If the museum decides the artwork is either too offensive, it should have the ability to decline to show the piece. After all, I?d imagine Christians wouldn?t take too kindly to their savior in his defining moment portrayed as immersed in bodily waste.

I don?t think that art should show more concern for cultural sensitivities than ethics. The artist should consider how people will react to his work and whether he?s willing to offend some people to get his message across.

Overall, I think this is an interesting piece of modern art.[/color]

[Transtic Nerve]

My meaning behind this thread is simple... I'm writing a paper and one of the quesions I posed in my paper is 'how can a simple title and medium of an artwork discourage the actual beauty of an artwork?'

My paper also includes reactions from two philosophers, in this case Platonis and Emanuel Cont, and we're suppose to argue that our chosen work of art should or should not be considered beautiful. To these two philosophers, beauty is beyond ethics and morals, we must look at the work with our sense of sight, not with our mind and thoughts.... to find true beauty we must see it, not think it. Which is why I asked if you thought the work was beautiful just from looking at it, then told you what it actually was.

I think it's interesting to read reactions to something like this and then the meaning behind your reactions. I also find it interesting in alot of bias against a medium of artwork. If he had painted this piece (exactly how it is shown: lets say he did his urine thing and then paintied what he saw instead of leaving it as what he actually did), I think the reactions to this work would have been totally different.

Like I said in my first post, it's not deterring religion, Andres Serrano is a Catholic himself... the meaning behind the work was to show how commercialized religion is. He was actually concerned about his faith by doing this piece. Anyway...

To me this is one of the most beautiful works I've ever seen. I'm not religious and I'm not Christian but if I came across a photo of this work or a good print of it, I'd like to have it in my room. And I wouldn't have it because I'm not Christian, I'd have it because I think it's beautiful to look at, and it is.

On a side note I'd like to say that alot of you brought up 'meaning' as one of your key words... that art has to have meaning. I'd have to disagree. Art doesn't have to have a set meaning, which is why this piece was so controversial, but the meaning is instilled by the viewer, reader, or listener of art. Art is all about how someone reacts to your piece, at least to me it is, others would disagree.

Thanks to those of you who replied, it'll probably help a bit in writing my paper. I'm still interestd in seeing how others reply as well.

[Deedlit]

[color=#009966][B]At First Glance:[/B] It's beautiful, and I loved the red-yellow glow. To me, it had several symbolic meanings.

[B]After Reading the Title:[/B] Now that I know what created the glow, I'm kinda thinking along the lines of "ick." I certainly wouldn't think of putting Jesus and urine together in the same picture. x.X; Heck, I don't even clearly see [i]why[/i] he put the two together in the same picture yet.

As for the image itself, it's beautiful, but the thought of urine in the picture itself kinda changes that a bit.[/color]

[Sui Generis]

[color=indigo] Well my first reaction was..."Is there a guy's reflection in the picture?" If you look closely it looks like that.....

Anyways, did I find this picture beautiful before? Honestly, not really. I don't know for something to be beautiful to me it has to strike a chord, and/or intereset in my heart. This just didn't do that, it looked too confused when I first saw it. Although I will admit it had an interesting shading and color scheme to it, I still wouldn't consider it beautiful.

Well considering I really didn't think much of the painting or whatever it is before I knew it was...well filled with piss my mind didn't change that much. All I really want to know is, what made him do that? Where in the world did he come up with the idea of "Hey lets piss in a jar with Jesus in it!" Doesn't make sense, but hey thats why he is the artist and I'm not. If anything him pissing in a jar almost makes the whole thing interesting ([i]almost[/i]). Oh well in a strange sense I think its funny, but as I said before not beautiful and seeing as it wouldn't have been on my wall before, its still not going to be on my wall.

I consider it art, simply because there is emotions trapped up inside it. Be it hate or rebellion or love (in some strange sadistic way) I believe it is art. Its an expression of a belief, and to me thats art.

[i]G/S/B Master[/i]
[quote]I don't think this is art. Its like hatred.[/quote]

I'd have to disagree with you simply with stating what I said before, art is an expression of feeling. Hatred is also a feeling so I believe that does count as art, he was expressing himself, and I don't see the hatred, but thats in the eye of the beholder I guess.


[quote]
Originally Posted by [b]Transtic Nerve[/b]
[i] And should art take into the consideration of ethics? Or does it reach beyond ethics and morals?[/i][/quote]

I think in a strange sense art stretches beyound societies usual thoughts of ethics and morals. Art has its own ethics and morals in a sense, but pissing in a jar doesn't really cross the lines. Really I don't think that this would cross any lines of ethics besides societies view of sanitation and being polite (lack of single word to describe that). I don't know; to me art has a more powerful meaning than "What should be." After all art is essentially rebelling something or another, its expressing youreslf when others would rather you be quiet. To be an artist is sometimes to be...well weird compared to society, and the ethics and morals of an artistic object are also...weird. Sorry for the use of such a dry adjective but its really all I could come up with.

Basically what I'm stating is that art is only limited by the minds of its creator. Art is endless and I see no reason to restrict it, so yes art goes beyound usual ethics and morals, and yes its art.




So even though I really don't have much of a high opinion on this art piece, I have a high opinion of art itself, and this is art.

Although what makes no sense in my mind is how beauty can be changed by its creation, I really don' t understand that too much. Even if it had piss on it, if something was beautiful its still beautiful, its just like eating food. Some things you really just don't want to know what you're eating even if it is good. I mean it takes odd combinations to make great stuff sometimes, and the final product is the important part, to a viewer in my opinion. Really as strange as it seems I see no reason to change my view on this painting because it has urine in it, sure its not exactly the most lovely thought, but the picture is (to other people) beautiful, and the initial feeling of beauty should be what matters, not societies retraints kicking in.

Art [i]IS[/i] that initial feeling, it goes beyound society as I said, and you have to let go of those restraints to truly love art. So if initially you thought this piece was beautiful I think (in my mind) that there really should be no change in your mind, after all its art, and it represents what the artist wanted it to represent.

Did all of that make sense?[/color]

[shahi]

Origanal thoughts: Its a picture that I've seen many times before in church I've seen better. I don't like the color and I like pictures of " The last supper" better

Thoughts now: I wonder want kind of mental state you have to be in to take the time to do something like that. Thats nasty and disrespectful in my opinon. It was okay before now its just gross. Who actually takes the time to do some thing like that. Honesty after I read what was in the jar I actually thought it was kinda demonic but that may just be my religous side talking.



[QUOTE]Few more questions: Do you think this is art, regardless if it's beautiful or not and regardless what you know about the piece. Would you consider this art? Is it worth being in a museum? And should art take into the consideration of ethics? Or does it reach beyond ethics and morals? Taking what is unethical to many and making it into beauty.[/QUOTE]

1. I don't think its beautiful

2.No I don't consider this art

3.Its not worth being in a museum if I wanted to see pee I'd look in the toilet after my 3 year old sister goes in there and I'd probably be pissed if I saw it in a museum.

4. I don't consider it moral in fact it's hardly hygienic but I know some people do that type of stuff what they do is their business. Worst things have been done to people in this world. Who am I to judge whats moral and not moral for that reson I have no say on how moral this is.

[amibasuki]

[font=Arial]I honestly didn't care that much for it the first time I saw it. it was a little interesting to look at, but certainly not enough to hang in my house. and after reading the description of the picture, I couldn't help but not like it even more. religion [i]is[/i] part of my reason for that, but seeing as that's what's been a pretty big part of my life since I've committed myself to it, it can't help but affect my opinion on it. on a different note, if religion wasn't an issue, seeing an unappealing picture of a figurine in urine isn't really all that great anyway. you could drop one of those green army men in there instead, and I'd have the same opinion on it, lol. I don't think I'd care much about the urine thing if I actually liked how it looked to begin with though.[/font]

[font=Arial]I think for a picture to be considered a piece of art, it has to be pleasing to look at, if not a good deal interesting at least. saying that, I also think that art is more of an opinion than an absolute thing. I may happen to like a picture that's totally off-the-wall and think it's the greatest thing ever created, but if someone else was to look at at, they could think it was the biggest piece of tripe they'd ever seen. meanings/symbolism may make some art more important, but if I don't like the way it looks, I can just read up on a couple of essays about what the picture stands for, and be perfectly content to never look at it again, lol. which would kind of defeat the purpose, seeing as pictures are made to be looked at. :whoops: [/font]

[Godelsensei]

[COLOR=Gray][SIZE=2][FONT=Courier New]Icky. Not in reference to the "piss" part, but towards the colour scheme. Also, I wouldn't display relgious art of my own will, seeing as I am not religious. Thirdly, regardless of what it reprisents, I don't like the overall idea of having some one being crucified hanging on my wall. It's just not my "thing", if you get what I mean.

I find the nature of the piece extrordinarily odd, and, to be honest, quite unpleasant. Aside from the overall lack of asthetic appeal, to agree with whoever stated it first, I have limited intrest in things floating in human waste.

As far as art goes, my opinion has already been stated. The whole monkey-throwing-crap-at-the-wall point that some one made. That's how I feel, though I wouldn't pay for something just because it had intent. Not all art is worth paying any mind to, as far as I'm concearned.

Seems like kind of a senseless thing to make a controversy out of. After all, even if it offends you, the guy's already soaked the icon in liquid excretement. Not much point in creating a ruccus over something like that, as far as I'm concearned...then again, not much makes me want to start a ruccus at all. Heh.[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Dan L]

Why not...?

We beat him, spat on him, and put him on a cross for commiting no crime at all. Why not put him in a pint of piss too.

The more ugly, smelly, and painful we make the image of the cross, the closer we get to realising just what the whole thing about grace is.

I think the imagery is very good- Here is the saviour of the world, bruised beated, hung, and pissed on, and he still decided to save us.

Granted, it's not the kind of thing I'd do to a crucifix, but it makes a good point if you're willing to see it.

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

At first, I didn't think it was beautiful at all. It takes something really awesome for me to think it's "beautiful." At first I did think it was a painting that was maybe manipulated somehow. But I didn't think it was a beautiful painting.

After reading that it's a statue in urine, I think it's freakin gorgeous! No, just kidding. I still don't think it's beautiful. I also like it less as a work of ..."art"... because it obviously took less effort and skill than I had initially figured.

I suppose you could call this art, because there's a good deal of personal interpretation in it (that's my own definition for art). I wouldn't want it in a museum because museums have limited space and for every "Piss Christ" they display they have to not display something better (and there's ALWAYS something better, or at least better than "Piss Christ").

But this piece inspired me and now I'm gonna go take a Matrix DVD box and put it into a big jar and barf in it. I'll call it "The Matrix Revolting".

[Maully]

[color=green]I cannot give you an honest first impression, because I knew what it was the moment I saw the picture. I've read a great deal about it.

As far as other things,

Did I think it was beautiful?

Not really. I dislike the color orange, so the color scheme did not draw mein, not did the fuzzy/grainy quality.

Is it art? Should it be posted in a museum?

Yes, I would considerate it art, though it does not call to my tastes. If people are offended by it, that does not make it not-art. Art is meant to stir emotion, not just good ones. This piece will strike most people in some way or another. As to museums, I really don't think it shouldn't be displayed, I guess. Display it, if people don't want to see it, they don't have to go to the museum.

And should art take into the consideration of ethics? Or does it reach beyond ethics and morals?

As I said before, art is meant to stir emotions. Artists have a history of portraying things that are otherwise swept under rugs or ignored or covered up. A lot of artists feel they have a moral obligation to give these work to the public. They should, in turn though, be ready to deal with the ramifications of their art, and those with a distaste for it.

I am not a fan of this work of art, really on any level. I just kind of feel it's icky, for lack of a better term. I am not a fan of any art containing mass amounts of body waste, human or otherwise. [/color]

[Manic Webb]

[b]First Reaction:[/b] Um. It's pretty good. It's maybe a little blurry and orangy. And I'm almost sure there's something in the background. It's grainy, too. If I were going to get a painting of Jesus to hang on my wall, I'd probably choose something with a less intense hue.

[b]After Reading On:[/b] I'll never get modern art. A statue in a jar of man-water? I just don't get it.

[b]Beautiful?[/b] Given, I'm no art expert. Nope. Not me. No freaking way. But I do know what I like. And I don't like statues in jars of urine-- regardless of who the statue is of.

You know, someone once said that Jesus was nailed hand-and-foot to a giant cross-- what makes everyone think he wants to see one of those around everyone's necks?

[lea]

[COLOR=DarkSlateBlue]When I first saw it, I didn't really like it...I know I personally wouldn't hang up Jesus pictures/ paraphinilia in my house. When I read that it was a statue in a jar of urine, I gagged. It made it so much more unappealing to me, not that it was all very appealing to me to begin with. I am not anti Christain, every time I see pictures like that, I remember people who would repeatedly tell me that I am going to burn in hell, while they watch from heaven, because I never accepted Jesus "into my heart" . That was about it. [/COLOR]

[Guest lavalamp]

After reading through this thread and seeing the same excuses for disliking it to "begin with" I'd have to say that you should've made two different posts TN.

The first one shouldn't have brought up the urine and then after a few you should have brought it up.

It's so obvious so many of you are suddenly changing your first impressions after you read on. I think the point was made and it was a good one at that.