Blasphemous "P*** Jesus" exhibit shown at gallery in Texas

[Sparkythedog]

I suspected when I read that last post there was a little theist baiting going on. Riling people up to find humor in their reaction is not the act of an adult.

It’s easier to disparage the poster than actually have a conversation. My thoughts on God are just as legitimate as yours. But if you don’t want to step outside your litter box for two seconds to consider another side, we should probably not interact in the future.

 

[Entwhistler]

You miss my point. IMO the actual photo is “meh” at best. The humor is in the reaction.

Taking out the religious aspect just slightly, the crucifix is something that millions of people have a special in their heart for. You find it funny to see people’s reactions to something they hold very dear being beat down and crushed. I’m not talking about the death threats and all that. I’m talking about the sorrow people have in their hearts. As an analogy, would you still think it is funny is something equally of value is given the same treatment. What about the US flag in a bowl of urine? What about Dad’s old pocket knife in a bowl of urine? Is the fact that people get bent out of shape about this funny?

If you say that you don’t mean that and you are only talking about the death threats and such, I suppose you could say it is ironic. Christians willing to kill when their Church teaches otherwise. But you cannot say why they are mad is funny.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t know what the artist intended or if there was any intended meaning at all. In my opinion art should elicit thoughts and emotions on its own. To spoon feed the viewer artistic intent cheapens the experience. (IMHO)

As for the humor in the Castro kidnappings here’s what I find funny (It’s a bit blue but here goes):

In the minds of some Christians, it acceptable that an all powerful, all knowing, all compassionate God doesn’t lift a celestial finger to prevent 3 girls from being kidnapped and tortured for 10 years. But they believe he gets real angry when someone makes a strange picture. It’s a dark comedy but comedy none the less.

What is the atheistic answer to this?

Is it any better?

The thing is, Sparky, the problem of horrible things happening is a problem for you non-religious as well as for us religious.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t know what the artist intended or if there was any intended meaning at all. In my opinion art should elicit thoughts and emotions on its own. To spoon feed the viewer artistic intent cheapens the experience. (IMHO)

Fair enough.

But I think that an artist who is quite serious about his work would be aghast to find someone laughing out loud at its absurdity.

Imagine if you spent blood, sweat and tears writing some beautiful piece of poetry and someone guffawed when she read it. I wonder how you would react to that…

 

[Reuben_J]

In the minds of some Christians, it acceptable that an all powerful, all knowing, all compassionate God doesn’t lift a celestial finger to prevent 3 girls from being kidnapped and tortured for 10 years.

No, Christian teaching does not see it as such.

In the Parable of the Sower, he planted the seeds but at night the Devil came and planted the darnel. Then both the wheat and the darnel started to grow side by side.

Jesus said do not weed out the darnel but wait until harvest time to cut and burn them.

The Sower is God, the harvest is at end time. The darnel is evil of the world and the wheat are God’s people. God’s love is such that He allows even the darnel to grow because to weed it out may hurt the young wheat. And during harvest time, when both are fully grown, the differentiation is clear and they would be separated. The darnel is to be burnt and the wheat be stored in the barn.

Evil is not God’s plan. He planted the good seeds. But He allows the bad seeds to grow side by side.

The people have the freedom to choose but in the end their choice will determine who they are to God.

But they believe he gets real angry when someone makes a strange picture. It’s a dark comedy but comedy none the less.

\

Again, it is not about being angry or happy. It is about being with God or against Him.

If you are not with God, you are against Him. If you are against Him, you do not have a place in God’s Heavenly Kingdom. It is your choice.

That is why, Christians unlike Muslims, will not kill those who blaspheme the Lord. God can pretty well handle Himself. But even from the perspective of the world, it is bad manner to make fun of something that your neighbours love, worship, adore and hold in high honor and esteem in their life.

As it is bad manner, if I show you I p*ss on your mother’s or father’s grave. I am sorry to give this analogy but this is probably something you may be able to comprehend.

 

[Sparkythedog]

Fair enough.

But I think that an artist who is quite serious about his work would be aghast to find someone laughing out loud at its absurdity.

Imagine if you spent blood, sweat and tears writing some beautiful piece of poetry and someone guffawed when she read it. I wonder how you would react to that…

Unfortunately (or not) that’s the nature of art. Once you put it out there people will interpret it as they please. No one sets out to make a movie saying, “I hope people hate this and tell their friends not to go see it.” But that happens regardless. Who would have thought that people would love Doña Cecilia Giménez botched restoration of the painting Ecce Homo, but it became a piece of pop art.

The end result was not the author’s intent and these works take on a life of their own.

Maybe Immersion was supposed to be Serrano’s expression of faith in God. I don’t know, and it doesn’t seem to matter. People will feel how they feel about it.

 

[PRmerger]

Unfortunately (or not) that’s the nature of art.

Of course it isn’t.

No artist wants his work laughed at.

Unless he specifically intends amusement.

That’s just common sense.

(I continue to be amazed at all the things atheist profess here, ostensibly with a straight face.)

 

[Sparkythedog]

Of course it isn’t.

No artist wants his work laughed at.

Unless he specifically intends amusement.

That’s just common sense.

(I continue to be amazed at all the things atheist profess here, ostensibly with a straight face.)

You don’t think that people interpret art in there own way?

 

[PRmerger]

You don’t think that people interpret art in there own way?

Yes, people interpret art in their own way.

That’s not up for debate.

Do you think an artist who has invested 3 months of his blood, sweat and tears in to a project would find it ok if someone guffawed at his final work and found it absurd?

 

[Sparkythedog]

Yes, people interpret art in their own way.

That’s not up for debate.

Do you think an artist who has invested 3 months of his blood, sweat and tears in to a project would find it ok if someone guffawed at his final work and found it absurd?

You’re responding to a comment I didn’t make. I’m not saying the artist wants or doesn’t want something. An artist may have a clear message or emotion they are trying to convey. People may or may not feel that emotion from the piece. Whether the artist is hurt by his or her audience’s reaction is a whole different issue.

I’m sure some artists would be deeply hurt if people thought that a work meant to convey deep meaningful emotions was regarded as silly. The Ecce Homo restoration in Spain is a good example of this. Other artists, myself included, tend to see the meaning in their work as fluid and open to interpretation.

 

[Sparkythedog]

Taking out the religious aspect just slightly, the crucifix is something that millions of people have a special in their heart for. You find it funny to see people’s reactions to something they hold very dear being beat down and crushed. I’m not talking about the death threats and all that. I’m talking about the sorrow people have in their hearts. As an analogy, would you still think it is funny is something equally of value is given the same treatment. What about the US flag in a bowl of urine? What about Dad’s old pocket knife in a bowl of urine? Is the fact that people get bent out of shape about this funny?

If you say that you don’t mean that and you are only talking about the death threats and such, I suppose you could say it is ironic. Christians willing to kill when their Church teaches otherwise. But you cannot say why they are mad is funny.

Again, let me clarify. I find the idea that God is offended absurd. Of course people will be offended if you put their favorite symbol on urine. (BTW side note: if that was the actual color of Serrano’s urine, I hope he went to see a doctor)

Anyways, people get offended over anything. But they keep saying that Jesus or God is offended. First, how do they know that? And second, why would God be offended? This is the same God who created the universe. What would he care if someone put a plastic likeness of Himself in slightly tainted water.

That would be like if a mouse made a picture of my mother out of its own feces. I wouldn’t be offended or angry - maybe slightly intrigued.

What are human symbols of disgust to an infinite being. It seems to me like people are ascribing their feeling to God.

 

[Entwhistler]

Again, let me clarify. I find the idea that God is offended absurd. Of course people will be offended if you put their favorite symbol on urine. (BTW side note: if that was the actual color of Serrano’s urine, I hope he went to see a doctor)

Anyways, people get offended over anything. But they keep saying that Jesus or God is offended. First, how do they know that? And second, why would God be offended? This is the same God who created the universe. What would he care if someone put a plastic likeness of Himself in slightly tainted water.

That would be like if a mouse made a picture of my mother out of its own feces. I wouldn’t be offended or angry - maybe slightly intrigued.

What are human symbols of disgust to an infinite being. It seems to me like people are ascribing their feeling to God.

I wasn’t commenting on whether God was offended or not. I was commenting on why you thought people getting out of shape about it was funny. Obviously, God isn’t offended by it. He is saddened by it for the creator’s sake. Lack of respect for the Almighty. It’s quite natural for a person to be horrified when the “thing” he believes to have created the universe is mocked in such a way. Just as natural if someone spit out that one’s parents were not up to the task (you get my drift there?).

It’s just as natural as 21 year old Will who still thinks he has a ghost friend. You and I both know he doesn’t, but no one would ever pretend to catch the ghost in a glass jar and then go number 1 in it. That would be stupid. And hurtful to Will. The best bet is to talk to Will in a sensible way and convince him that the ghost is make believe. One shouldn’t laugh at Will’s reaction to the urine in the jar. And then to pass the jar off as art is…well, weird. Maybe we can change what goes in the jar to make the art appeal to different people. Help people interpret it in different ways. The rich meaning one can get from a jar of urine.

 

[PRmerger]

You’re responding to a comment I didn’t make. I’m not saying the artist wants or doesn’t want something. An artist may have a clear message or emotion they are trying to convey. People may or may not feel that emotion from the piece. Whether the artist is hurt by his or her audience’s reaction is a whole different issue.

I’m sure some artists would be deeply hurt if people thought that a work meant to convey deep meaningful emotions was regarded as silly. The Ecce Homo restoration in Spain is a good example of this. Other artists, myself included, tend to see the meaning in their work as fluid and open to interpretation.

So there you go: you find Serrano’s work hi-larious. I think he would be deeply hurt.

 

[PRmerger]

Other artists, myself included, tend to see the meaning in their work as fluid and open to interpretation.

Just curious. Picture a work you’ve done which is your most prized work–something you’re quite proud of.

Imagine someone looks at it and does this:



How would you feel?

 

[Sparkythedog]

So there you go: you find Serrano’s work hi-larious. I think he would be deeply hurt.

If you’re not interested in actually engaging in conversation, that’s fine. But I’m not going to go back and forth with you when you’re reading what I’m writing.

 

[Sparkythedog]

I wasn’t commenting on whether God was offended or not. I was commenting on why you thought people getting out of shape about it was funny. Obviously, God isn’t offended by it. He is saddened by it for the creator’s sake. Lack of respect for the Almighty. It’s quite natural for a person to be horrified when the “thing” he believes to have created the universe is mocked in such a way. Just as natural if someone spit out that one’s parents were not up to the task (you get my drift there?).

I’m talking about God, not people. Going back to my original question: Why is God offended?

It’s just as natural as 21 year old Will who still thinks he has a ghost friend. You and I both know he doesn’t, but no one would ever pretend to catch the ghost in a glass jar and then go number 1 in it. That would be stupid. And hurtful to Will. The best bet is to talk to Will in a sensible way and convince him that the ghost is make believe. One shouldn’t laugh at Will’s reaction to the urine in the jar. And then to pass the jar off as art is…well, weird. Maybe we can change what goes in the jar to make the art appeal to different people. Help people interpret it in different ways. The rich meaning one can get from a jar of urine.

You lost me with this one.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Taking the religious and morality issues out of it completely, why would this even be considered art to begin with? anyone over the age of 10 could create this same piece in about 5 minutes on any given day.

I took a stroll through the Museum of Modern Art (MODA) in L.A. There were a lot of art pieces there that would invoke the same question of “why is this considered art.” A stack of broken glass was the one that I found the strangest.

 

[pnewton]

It’s easier to disparage the poster than actually have a conversation.

But if you don’t want to step outside your litter box for two seconds…

Pot meet kettle.

And, no.

 

[PRmerger]

If you’re not interested in actually engaging in conversation, that’s fine. But I’m not going to go back and forth with you when you’re reading what I’m writing.

You’re not going to back and forth with me when I’m reading what you’re writing?

That makes no sense.

I think you just realize that you’ve been put into a logical conundrum, and now you’re looking for a (weird) excuse to back out.

We all know that you would not like it, not one whit, if someone guffawed at your work.

So…QED.

 

[Holly3278]

This is definitely not art. It’s nothing more than an example of blasphemous hate speech.