It's smut, not art, Loveland protesters say

[larkin31]

I guess if you believe that Jesus is just another man then using his image in such a blasphemous way is no big deal. However if you think he is the son of God, the Savior the world and died on a cross to grant us eternal salvation then one should be absolutely outraged at his image being used in this manner.

I have no problem with outrage. I don’t share it, but I don’t object to the feeling.

What you accuse the man of, or what you justify as a response to the art, is a different matter.

But go ahead and have your outrage if that is how you feel.

 

[colmcille1]

I have no problem with outrage. I don’t share it, but I don’t object to the feeling.

What you accuse the man of, or what you justify as a response to the art, is a different matter.

But go ahead and have your outrage if that is how you feel.

Hi larkin,
If you don’t share the outrage, then you do not know what constitutes that outrage.
There are intellectual, emotional and spiritual sides to this outrage.
To explain the nuances of each would not only veer off topic but would take many many pages of thread.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[Elizabeth502]

You just are offended, so you call him “cowardly.” Kind of ironic, considering all the heat he’s taking. I don’t see him trying at all to run from this matter. Because he doesn’t answer or have the same answer as other artists, you call him “cowardly.” Because he did not depict Muslims in his piece, other posters here call him “cowardly.” And we sit here typing away on our anonymous keyboards throwing these aspersions around.

Interesting.

No, actually, it’s obvious that it’s you who refuses to argue on the points responded to. No, I’m not offended at the “art”; for the 3rd time, I am offended at the dishonesty. There is no “message” of “clerical sexual abuse” conveyed in the images. The artist invented that to deflect the anger that others felt about disrespect, sacrilege, blasphemy – however those are experienced, perceived. I, OTOH, expect true artists of any medium to be honest about their art, and when they are not, they are considered cowardly & coy, or dishonest – not just by me. Stand by your art, whatever it is, and if it has no “meaning,” than being a collection of unrelated images, than say so. (“I wanted to be fanciful and depict unrelated images,” or “I wanted to shatter expectations,” “I was toying with ‘untouchable’ subjects.” People can further respond with disapproval or disgust at such an intention, but it’s not cowardly.

Rather, to deflect criticism of those who did criticize it publicly (and attempted to vandalize it), the “artist” hid behind an unrelated public controversy, rather than the controversy of his own work.

I am detached from the work. I have zero respect for it; therefore I cannot get inflamed about it, as I do not respect it as “art,” and clearly I have even less respect for its author.

I have no clue why you randomly brought up other posters’ comments about Muslims, when addressing me. Do you have a problem following arguments of those who engage in conversation with you? It certainly seems that way – not just here, but on the many “gay” threads. You seem to have difficulty keeping straight the various positions, not to mention words, of your various opponents.

 

[larkin31]

No, actually, it’s obvious that it’s you who refuses to argue on the points responded to. No, I’m not offended at the “art”; for the 3rd time, I am offended at the dishonesty. There is no “message” of “clerical sexual abuse” conveyed in the images.

This is like saying that Picasso lied when he explained what Guernica was a criticism of war (there is no war in the painting). Your denial smacks of religious affront. It does not matter what you think artists should do or paint or say.

 

[estesbob]

This is like saying that Picasso lied when he explained what Guernica was a criticism of war (there is no war in the painting). Your denial smacks of religious affront. It does not matter what you think artists should do or paint or say.

The artist didn’t say the panel was a comment on the homosexual abuse scandaL. That was a comment by a patron who viewed the panel and said that was her interpretation.

 

[Elizabeth502]

The artist didn’t say the panel was a comment on the homosexual abuse scandaL. That was a comment by a patron who viewed the panel and said that was her interpretation.

Then I will have to find my source, which stated that that was not the observation of a patron, but of the artist, in defending his work against those who objected to the content. Very possibly my source was incorrect, and if so, I will correct my belief that the author was too cowardly to defend his work on more relevant merits as he perceived them.

 

[estesbob]

Then I will have to find my source, which stated that that was not the observation of a patron, but of the artist, in defending his work against those who objected to the content. Very possibly my source was incorrect, and if so, I will correct my belief that the author was too cowardly to defend his work on more relevant merits as he perceived them.

I am pretty sure one of the articles linked in this thread quotes to patron… I recall being as upset with her as I was with the artist.

 

[Elizabeth502]

The artist didn’t say the panel was a comment on the homosexual abuse scandaL. That was a comment by a patron who viewed the panel and said that was her interpretation.

Several citizens even called the police regarding the exhibit, asking for an investigation into whether it violates a Colorado law that protects children from obscenity, the Reporter Herald reported. The city attorney determined it did not.

But the artist, a professor at Stanford University, said he was simply making a statement on problems he sees with religious institutions, including the sex-abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic church.

"My intention is to critique religious institutions, since they affect everybody’s lives (even people outside the religious sects)," Chagoya told FoxNews.com.

“In my work mentioned above I address the role of the Catholic Church (among other religious groups) imposing its credo on Native American cultures all over the Americas. I also critique the Church’s position against same-sex marriage while allowing pedophiles to exist within its ranks for decades and keeping it quiet.”

Please get your facts straight when you come onto a thread to discuss a serious issue Thanks.

 

[Elizabeth502]

This is like saying that Picasso lied when he explained what Guernica was a criticism of war (there is no war in the painting). Your denial smacks of religious affront. It does not matter what you think artists should do or paint or say.

No. That’s a non sequitor on your part. Again, you seem to have trouble following arguments logically and engaging in parallel discussion.

Picasso would have lied if he had tried to dismiss his work as not being a criticism of the atrocities of war, and instead hid behind his work as a statement about a different aspect of politics, society, civilization, humanity which were not represented in the piece of art.

 

[larkin31]

No. That’s a non sequitor on your part. Again, you seem to have trouble following arguments logically and engaging in parallel discussion.

Picasso would have lied if he had tried to dismiss his work as not being a criticism of the atrocities of war, and instead hid behind his work as a statement about a different aspect of politics, society, civilization, humanity which were not represented in the piece of art.

So, you don’t question, from the art, the point of his painting even though it has no war in it? But yet you call this other man a “liar” based ONLY on the fact that you don’t see priest abuse in it. THAT is my point. I question YOUR judgment on the purpose of the art simply because you don’t see it in it. I would never presume that an artist is a LIAR because he tells me it’s point was something that I did not see.

 

[colmcille1]

So, you don’t question, from the art, the point of his painting even though it has no war in it? But yet you call this other man a “liar” based ONLY on the fact that you don’t see priest abuse in it. THAT is my point. I question YOUR judgment on the purpose of the art simply because you don’t see it in it. I would never presume that an artist is a LIAR because he tells me it’s point was something that I did not see.

Hi larkin,
Again, you have completely missed Elizabeth’s point.
She stated quite clearly that the artist hid behind an unrelated public controversy rather than the controversy of his own art. This is cowardice ugly and simple.
Artists should be willing to defend what they produce. The fact that he was not willing to do so calls into question his claim to be an “artist”.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Hi larkin,
Again, you have completely missed Elizabeth’s point.
She stated quite clearly that the artist hid behind an unrelated public controversy rather than the controversy of his own art. This is cowardice ugly and simple.
Artists should be willing to defend what they produce. The fact that he was not willing to do so calls into question his claim to be an “artist”.

Thank you. Further, genuine artists pride themselves on being truthful, not only in their art but in their explanation of their art. It’s a matter of the integrity of the artist as communicator.

larkin31:

So, you don’t question, from the art, the point of his painting even though it has no war in it?

You would be unique if you think that Guernica “has no war in it.” It is a melange of images, deliberately fragmented to mirror the fragmentation caused by war, of the atrocities of which war consists, including those effects on civilians. And those images are understandable to anyone who views the piece of art. Those recognizable images include
–broken sword
–buildings aflame
–walls crumbling
–woman shrieking in horror
–somber colors
–allusions, via language, to “bomb” (bombilia – Spanish for lighbulb)
–the timing of the work, during the same year of the bombing and the prominence of that event in public consciousness

By contrast, the last image I saw of all the panels of “Misadventures of Romantic Cannibals,” including the controversial terminal panel, did not include anything recognizable by the public as “clergy sexual abuse.” If anything, my impression of the last panel was that it was
–mocking Jesus as a person and icon,
–interjecting the possibility that Jesus was female or effeminate (female body)
–introducing the possibility that Jesus was transgendered,
–aligning the figure of Jesus with non-coital sexuality
–expressly implying that Jesus was sexually active, in some pan-sexual way (reinforced by the appearance of the word ‘orgasm’ in capital letters on that last panel)

Here’s what I do not see:
A crozier, miter, cassock, alb, chasuble, or any other clerically identifiable symbol – let alone such a symbol being attached to any human being in the panel.

Given the last panel, if the artist had said, “My work was intended to deconstruct traditional sexual values and support the notions of sexual freedom for individuals, in contrast to how the Catholic Church draws sexual boundaries, and in contrast to the ascetism attached to Jesus by the Church,” then I would have respected the statement, even though I don’t happen to agree with his views and his goals, and his manner of expressing those.

Inventing connections that are not apparent to any careful observer is why anyone can justifiably call him a liar. And when people lie for political safety reasons, the public legitimately recognizes that as cowardice. That’s what politicians do all the time. That makes the artist, btw, very much part of The Establishment, despite how he might fancy himself as counter-cultural and an iconoclast. He just represents the same culture of lies, cowardice, and sexualizing of every minor aspect of human exisence for prurient reasons.

 

[larkin31]

Thank you. Further, genuine artists pride themselves on being truthful, not only in their art but in their explanation of their art. It’s a matter of the integrity of the artist as communicator.

You would be unique if you think that Guernica “has no war in it.” It is a melange of images, deliberately fragmented to mirror the fragmentation caused by war, of the atrocities of which war consists, including those effects on civilians. And those images are understandable to anyone who views the piece of art. Those recognizable images include
–broken sword
–buildings aflame
–walls crumbling
–woman shrieking in horror
–somber colors
–allusions, via language, to “bomb” (bombilia – Spanish for lighbulb)
–the timing of the work, during the same year of the bombing and the prominence of that event in public consciousness

By contrast, the last image I saw of all the panels of “Misadventures of Romantic Cannibals,” including the controversial terminal panel, did not include anything recognizable by the public as “clergy sexual abuse.” If anything, my impression of the last panel was that it was
–mocking Jesus as a person and icon,
–interjecting the possibility that Jesus was female or effeminate (female body)
–introducing the possibility that Jesus was transgendered,
–aligning the figure of Jesus with non-coital sexuality
–expressly implying that Jesus was sexually active, in some pan-sexual way (reinforced by the appearance of the word ‘orgasm’ in capital letters on that last panel)

Here’s what I do not see:
A crozier, miter, cassock, alb, chasuble, or any other clerically identifiable symbol – let alone such a symbol being attached to any human being in the panel.

Given the last panel, if the artist had said, “My work was intended to deconstruct traditional sexual values and support the notions of sexual freedom for individuals, in contrast to how the Catholic Church draws sexual boundaries, and in contrast to the ascetism attached to Jesus by the Church,” then I would have respected the statement, even though I don’t happen to agree with his views and his goals, and his manner of expressing those.

Inventing connections that are not apparent to any careful observer is why anyone can justifiably call him a liar. And when people lie for political safety reasons, the public legitimately recognizes that as cowardice. That’s what politicians do all the time. That makes the artist, btw, very much part of The Establishment, despite how he might fancy himself as counter-cultural and an iconoclast. He just represents the same culture of lies, cowardice, and sexualizing of every minor aspect of human exisence for prurient reasons.

hahaha

So, now he has to have painted the metaphor according to your more literal rules. It is painfully obvious to me that you simply loath the man for having painted this, and are finding an acceptable way for your conscience to vent said anger. Now you are even describing how he should have painted his metaphor for the twisted repressed and hidden sexuality of the Church! And you claim to respect and understand the work of art and the independence of the artist! That is just very funny to me.

as I said, I find the art in question very unlikable, even uninteresting and scattered pastiche. But to rave like this about an artist’s dishonesty and cowardice is just silly.

 

[livnlern]

hahaha

So, now he has to have painted the metaphor according to your more literal rules. It is painfully obvious to me that you simply loath the man for having painted this, and are finding an acceptable way for your conscience to vent said anger. Now you are even describing how he should have painted his metaphor for the twisted repressed and hidden sexuality of the Church! And you claim to respect and understand the work of art and the independence of the artist! That is just very funny to me.

as I said, I find the art in question very unlikable, even uninteresting and scattered pastiche. But to rave like this about an artist’s dishonesty and cowardice is just silly.

Larkin you pretend to not having feelings on this subject, but your anger at and disdain for the Catholic church is obvious.

 

[larkin31]

Larkin you pretend to not having feelings on this subject, but your anger at and disdain for the Catholic church is obvious.

My point isn’t about the Catholic Church at ALL! Where do you get this? I am very specifically responding to what this poster has been doing: calling this artist a “liar” on false grounds. IF the Catholic Church has also been calling him a “liar,” then, yes, I will also disagree with the Catholic Church. Otherwise, the CC has nothing to do with my remarks whatsoever here.

I FULLY understand the offense that some people are taking here. But THAT is very different from calling the artist a “liar.”

My disdain (no anger) is entirely toward the poster who made these specious claims.

 

[livnlern]

My point isn’t about the Catholic Church at ALL! Where do you get this? I am very specifically responding to what this poster has been doing: calling this artist a “liar” on false grounds. IF the Catholic Church has also been calling him a “liar,” then, yes, I will also disagree with the Catholic Church. Otherwise, the CC has nothing to do with my remarks whatsoever here.

I FULLY understand the offense that some people are taking here. But THAT is very different from calling the artist a “liar.”

My disdain (no anger) is entirely toward the poster who made these specious claims.

In your last post you referred to the “twisted repressed and hidden sexuality of the Church”, which sounds rather uncomplimentary. Maybe you were quoting someone else?

 

[larkin31]

In your last post you referred to the “twisted repressed and hidden sexuality of the Church”, which sounds rather uncomplimentary. Maybe you were quoting someone else?

that was the artist’s point, not mine

 

[Dale_M]

Update:

The woman who attacked the artwork is free, after her bail was paid for by an anonymous benefactor. She has presumably has returned to her job as a trucker.
uscatholic.org/news/2010/10/colorado-parish-spearheads-prayerful-protest-pornographic-art

I am pretty sure one of the articles linked in this thread quotes to patron… I recall being as upset with her as I was with the artist.

Yes, her name is Nancy Kain. She was quoted in two different news stories:

9news.com/seenon9news/article.aspx?storyid=156691&catid=509

thedenverchannel.com/news/25299995/detail.html

No doubt she is echoing a statement by Chagoya (the artist), but I didn’t see his explanation of the work’s meaning when I skimmed through the articles posted in this thread.

A local pastor recently contacted the artist to get an explanation of the work:

The artist’s 12-panel work “is not about attacking anyone’s faith or offending people’s beliefs,” Chagoya replied to Wiggins.

Viewers of the image at the center of the controversy “may see a corrupted religious icon, but it is not the icon itself. It is not Christ. It is my way of saying that something precious got corrupted,” Chagoya wrote.

“I have nothing against the benevolent image of Christ, which is about love and understanding among people, and I respect people’s beliefs,” the artist said in his message to Wiggins.

reporterherald.com/news_story.asp?ID=29769

The artist has offered to produce a religious painting for the pastor’s church, if the congregation agrees to accept it.

 

[livnlern]

that was the artist’s point, not mine

So the artist said this originally? I didn’t see that in the articles. Which one did you get that from?

 

[comrade1789]

Yes, it’s called irony. If she did not like it, she could have just stayed away. She should be prosecuted, the same as if someone were to desecrate one’s church or synagogue. Protest is fine. Defacement of private property is not.

If a person or group of people cannot take pastiche cartoonism, then, well, they are behaving like the Muslims all fired up and mental over the cartoon of Mohammed.

mushy, gushy…may God forgive the sin, and reward the heart of Kathleen Folden. I for one shamlessly applaud you!