Is this Jesus painting pornographic? [MSNBC]

[tafan]

Biggie:

My opinion? The exact problem is that Christ is not nude in this portrait, but that the “nudity” exists in the opinion of some in the form of a code. When some look at the portrait and decipher the code, they realize that unless others also crack the code the fact that the person himself did says more about him than it does about the portrait. Others must see the hidden nudity and it must be an objective fact else the shameful thought came subjectively from the person himself. When another person points out that Christ is objectively covered in the portrait and that the nude parts perceived are not objectively nude parts, it is tantamount to accusing the person who originally saw the hidden phallus of having unthinkable dirty thoughts****

BS. Accuse me of having dirty thoughts all you want, but it is garbage. I am no prude. And I have suffered from the sin of impure thoughts. So I am not ignorant on the topic. When I looked at the painting in question, I had no dirty/impure thought. I was disgusted by the vularity of it. I was sickened to see the obviously phallic simply made the prominent part of the picture. Nothing impure entered my mind.
The more I see the arguments from the other side on this, the more I question their motives. It makes absolutly no sense. We have people defending it by only providing links to the original art that the paiting was based on. We have people defending it by admittedly accusing others of simply having a dirty mind.
I cannot imagine defending this painting and I cannot imagine why anyone would have painted it or hung it up in a church.

 

[Biggie]

BS. Accuse me of having dirty thoughts all you want, but it is garbage. I am no prude. And I have suffered from the sin of impure thoughts. So I am not ignorant on the topic. When I looked at the painting in question, I had no dirty/impure thought. I was disgusted by the vularity of it. I was sickened to see the obviously phallic simply made the prominent part of the picture. Nothing impure entered my mind.
The more I see the arguments from the other side on this, the more I question their motives. It makes absolutly no sense. We have people defending it by only providing links to the original art that the paiting was based on. We have people defending it by admittedly accusing others of simply having a dirty mind.
I cannot imagine defending this painting and I cannot imagine why anyone would have painted it or hung it up in a church.

A measured response that, I think, supports my premise.

 

[FromTheAshes777]

Nope, that is not a male organ. That is an abdomen.

As for the “pornographic” part, I think the Miller test can be applied.

* Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
* Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions
* Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

And I think that:

I. No, taken as a whole, it doesn’t appeal to prurient interests. I don’t think it was meant to in the first place. It only appeals to prurient interests to some people who see things which aren’t there.

II. No, it does not depict sexual conduct or excretory functions in a patently offensive way.

III. Yes, it does have a serious artistic value.

Therefore, unless my weak and errant logic fails me, I don’t think it’s pornographic.

 

[vz71]

I too am sorry, but this is all subjective. Vulgarity comprises a moral judgement. Inspiration is a matter of taste. In the above, the two are confused, one to justify the other. It would simply be enough to say, “I don’t like the portrait.” That is not sufficient in this case because when asked, “Why?” one has to give an answer that reveals what exists in one’s subjective thoughts and in this case one cannot own the thoughts.

For one that is defending a portrait because you believe people are looking at more then really is there you sure do a lot of reading into something what is not there.

Vulgarity does not comprise a moral judgement. You can look it up if you don’t believe me.
dictionary.reference.com/browse/vulgar

And you are incorrect, it is not enough to simply say “I don’t like the portrait.”
I do not like it. I also don’t like black velvet dipictions of Elvis.
And I also don’t like the portrait of ‘Jesus, the King’ placed in the side room of my own parish. I find it ugly beyond belief and the depiction of Christ with white hair surrounded by a bunch of disembodied hands just plain creepy.
But there is more going on here then just a dislike.

It is a distorted depiction of my Lord, it is prominetly displayed in church, and it is causing a very public scandal among those that attend Mass there.
Action is required above and beyond the simple realization of the vulgarity that is.

 

[Biggie]

I could be convinced of this were it not for the defense of the indefensibly vulgar painting.

Cute.
So people object to it because it brings up some impure thought in their own head.
What an ideal way to defend the painting…it isn’t the painting that is vulgar, it is the thoughts of those that look upon it.

I have a better idea…the phallus was drawn into the painting as a disrespect towards God, his church, and all of those that attend that church.

Yes, now you have it exactly. It isn’t the painting. Is it more likely it is a diabolical conspiracy or until the vision came out of someone’s head a bunch of other people didn’t see it either?

 

[vz71]

Yes, now you have it exactly. It isn’t the painting. Is it more likely it is a diabolical conspiracy or until the vision came out of someone’s head a bunch of other people didn’t see it either?

No one mentioned a diabolical conspiracy at all.

You are attempting to argue with a straw man.

 

[Biggie]

No one mentioned a diabolical conspiracy at all.

You are attempting to argue with a straw man.

I have a better idea…the phallus was drawn into the painting as a disrespect towards God, his church, and all of those that attend that church.

Did you write this? If the artist deliberately drew a “disrespectful” portrait of Christ, and priests, architects and parishioners, whoever was involved in the selection and display of the portrait, deliberately selected an objectively, so you say, disrespectful portrait of Our Lord, that is a conspiracy. Where’s the straw? And yes, this is improbable, which would mean that responsible others had no idea what you see in this portrait until it came out of someone’s head.

 

[Newbie2]

Methinks it’s not pornographic.

However…a reasonable person could/should/might have a problem with it.

At the very least, it’s causing distraction, and that distraction needs to be removed.

It should be removed or modified.

 

[tafan]

A measured response that, I think, supports my premise.

Ok, Biggie, lets pretend to concede your point for a second. Those of us who dislike this picture simply have dirty, distorted minds. Why do you support the picutre? Is it because you like those of us who are weak and sick to be forced to struggle with our derilictions at church? That seems to be your point. But enlighten me. You seem to be dodging the issue.

 

[cctabb]

I do not find the painting pornographic, but I do find it disturbing. The painting does not cause arousal so it isn’t porn. It is awkward to say the least. I do not think that Jesus (or any man really) would be so aroused while being hung from a cross. And, no, that is not a 4- or 6-pack of abs.

That is what disturbs me about the painting. Then again, I’ve always liked my art to be more realistic than symbolic.

I also think that with it being hung in a church it is causing unnecessary scandal (controversy).

 

[vz71]

Did you write this?

Yes.

If the artist deliberately drew a “disrespectful” portrait of Christ, and priests, architects and parishioners, whoever was involved in the selection and display of the portrait, deliberately selected an objectively, so you say, disrespectful portrait of Our Lord, that is a conspiracy.

No, two sins from two people does not constitute a conspiracy.

Where’s the straw?

The straw man is the point at which you attempted to place words in the mouth of the opposition.

And yes, this is improbable, which would mean that responsible others…

As opposed to who?
Who exactly is irresponsible here?
First you claimed that the vulgarity was only in the mind of those finding offense in the painting, now it would appear that these same are irresponsible as well.
Why are you implying such things about the opposition?
Can’t your argument stand on its own?
Perhaps there is a shade of ad hominem to add to the straw man argument.
These are truly the tactics of one who is realizing the sand under the foundation of their argument is washing away.

 

[Newbie2]

If we are about the business of eradicating everything that arouses puerile thoughts in the human mind, we have much to do. Where to begin? Whitewash the Sistine Chapel? What about those Cherubs? Candles? Perhaps the Iconoclasts were right all along.

Nothing in my posts would indicate that I believe there are no limits to what can be displayed in church nor that I reject the concept of objective beauty in art. In fact, the Sistine Chapel contains displays of nudity. In fact, David is nude. And in fact, Christ crucified in this portrait is not nude.

My opinion? ***The exact problem is that Christ is not nude in this portrait, but that the “nudity” exists in the opinion of some in the form of a code. ***When some look at the portrait and decipher the code, they realize that unless others also crack the code the fact that the person himself did says more about him than it does about the portrait. Others must see the hidden nudity and it must be an objective fact else the shameful thought came subjectively from the person himself. When another person points out that Christ is objectively covered in the portrait and that the nude parts perceived are not objectively nude parts, it is tantamount to accusing the person who originally saw the hidden phallus of having unthinkable dirty thoughts.

The phallus simply must be in the portrait because if it is not it is in the mind of the observer.

Code? Please elaborate.

 

[Biggie]

Code? Please elaborate.

A code, a hidden message, a secret message the meaning of which is not explicit.

 

[Biggie]

Yes.

No, two sins from two people does not constitute a conspiracy.

The straw man is the point at which you attempted to place words in the mouth of the opposition.

As opposed to who?
Who exactly is irresponsible here?
First you claimed that the vulgarity was only in the mind of those finding offense in the painting, now it would appear that these same are irresponsible as well.
Why are you implying such things about the opposition?
Can’t your argument stand on its own?
Perhaps there is a shade of ad hominem to add to the straw man argument.
These are truly the tactics of one who is realizing the sand under the foundation of their argument is washing away.

Ok, let’s review. You believe the representation of a phallus was intentionally placed on the abdomen of our Lord by an artist out of disrespect or contempt for our Lord. You further believe that at least one priest conspired - no, wrong word because you have assessed that two people do not constitute a conspiracy - and a monsignor (that’s at least three), uh collaborated - what word should I chose if conspiracy is not correct? - to prominently hang this objectively offensive painting to disrespect the Lord - or what on earth are you thinking?

I gave a reasonable option that these others do not objectively find anything of the sort on the painting evidencing that what you are seeing is not objectively there but subjectively perceived. And your opinion that I have built a straw man and find shades of ad hominem in all that notwithstanding, you have actually not explained how you think such a painting was prominently displayed and approved by at least one priest and a monsignor.

Let’s try a little exercise:

Here are three examples of San Damiano Crucifixes. I chose these at random from internet images. Are they all offensive?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

http://www.stfrancisofassisifranklin.org/images/large San Damiano Crucifix2.jpg

 

[Biggie]

Ok, Biggie, lets pretend to concede your point for a second. Those of us who dislike this picture simply have dirty, distorted minds. Why do you support the picutre? Is it because you like those of us who are weak and sick to be forced to struggle with our derilictions at church? That seems to be your point. But enlighten me. You seem to be dodging the issue.

Represent my point correctly. I see this as strictly Freudian. It is also human behavior. Where I lose patience is when people are willing to rearrange the whole world rather than confront their own weaknesses and work quietly to accept and reform them. In the process a Catholic priest and his Monsignor is maligned, the Church is dragged through the media, the crucifix is actually mocked in public media. It is an exercise in human frailty, and the lack of courage just disturbs me, the courage to look oneself in the eye.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the picture. I support it out of honesty. I have a similar crucifix on my wall and have provided other examples above.

 

[vz71]

Ok, let’s review. You believe the representation of a phallus was intentionally placed on the abdomen of our Lord by an artist out of disrespect or contempt for our Lord.

Nope, never said I did.
What I did do was introduce an alternate explanation.
One I believe to be much better then the “the offended all have dirty minds” explanation.

You further believe that at least one priest conspired - no, wrong word because you have assessed that two people do not constitute a conspiracy - and a monsignor (that’s at least three), uh collaborated - what word should I chose if conspiracy is not correct? - to prominently hang this objectively offensive painting to disrespect the Lord - or what on earth are you thinking?

You can argue about it all day, but at the end of the day, you are still the only one seeing a conspiracy.

I gave a reasonable option that these others do not objectively find anything of the sort on the painting evidencing that what you are seeing is not objectively there but subjectively perceived.

It is truly unfortunate that in doing so you labelled each person finding offense in the painting as having a vulgar mind.

And your opinion that I have built a straw man and find shades of ad hominem in all that notwithstanding, you have actually not explained how you think such a painting was prominently displayed and approved by at least one priest and a monsignor.

I don’t need to.
You are the one insisting on the conspiracy.

Let’s try a little exercise:
Here are three examples of San Damiano Crucifixes. I chose these at random from internet images. Are they all offensive?

No, I do not find offense in the images.
And one interesting thing, you did not post the image that is causing the scandal.
Perhaps if you did I would have found offense in one of the images.

 

[Biggie]

Allow me:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/newsok-photos/912545/medium.jpg

 

[tafan]

Represent my point correctly. I see this as strictly Freudian. It is also human behavior. Where I lose patience is when people are willing to rearrange the whole world rather than confront their own weaknesses and work quietly to accept and reform them. In the process a Catholic priest and his Monsignor is maligned, the Church is dragged through the media, the crucifix is actually mocked in public media. It is an exercise in human frailty, and the lack of courage just disturbs me, the courage to look oneself in the eye.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the picture. I support it out of honesty. I have a similar crucifix on my wall and have provided other examples above.

I guess I represented it pretty well. I need to address my weakness quietly and deal with it. Sounds the same as what I said What utter garbage.

'You accuse us of being sickos, I have do doubt your “honesty” answer. You say you have a similiar image on your wall, you post three versions of the cruxifix just now, NONE OF THEM IS THE ONE THAT IS UNDER DISPUTE.

The Monsignor was never maligned, he was criticized, and rightly so. He had a chance to deal with this in the proper way and his pride got in the way. Listen to his initial interview and that is evident.

This has nothing to do with some people’s perversions, your modern-day psycho bable theories not withstanding. The picture in question is vulgar and offensive, objectively so. At least one early defender on this thread was honest enough to admit they saw the same image as everyone else.

I am done with this discussion.

 

[Biggie]

I guess I represented it pretty well. I need to address my weakness quietly and deal with it. Sounds the same as what I said What utter garbage.

'You accuse us of being sickos, I have do doubt your “honesty” answer. You say you have a similiar image on your wall, you post three versions of the cruxifix just now, NONE OF THEM IS THE ONE THAT IS UNDER DISPUTE.

The Monsignor was never maligned, he was criticized, and rightly so. He had a chance to deal with this in the proper way and his pride got in the way. Listen to his initial interview and that is evident.

This has nothing to do with some people’s perversions, your modern-day psycho bable theories not withstanding. The picture in question is vulgar and offensive, objectively so. At least one early defender on this thread was honest enough to admit they saw the same image as everyone else.

I am done with this discussion.

And that confirmed you and therefore was honest. I see.

 

[wisdomseeker]

It is my opinion that there is such a thing is bad art. i have little doubt that satan also can work through artists. our biggest probably now and days is that we no longer believe that satan still roaming around in our midst.