Offensive cartoons, get 'em while they're hot

[ceebeegee]

In the name of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and in memory of Theo Van Gogh:







For the rest, click here.

Oh, and so no one can accuse me of favoring my own religion:



Which, looking at it now--ugh, it really is appalling. Sorry, dry_2olives, it is offensive offends me. But I don't have to buy it, I don't have to look at it and I'm certainly not going to call for the guy's death because of it. Most importantly--my faith is not threatened by this idea.

Comments

[xinher.livejournal.com]

Perhaps it's because I don't follow the news and perhaps it's because I'm not religious, but what offends you about the cross picture?
Am I missing something?

[malphoof-speaks.livejournal.com]

I am curious too. What offends you?

[ceebeegee.livejournal.com]

Well, it's a depiction of Christ on the cross, dipped in urine. URINE. Shudder.

[malphoof-speaks.livejournal.com]

I didn't see URINE. I'll have to look again.

[ceebeegee.livejournal.com]

This is a well-known photo from the early '90s--Piss Christ (as Duncan linked below). It was a huge cause celebre because it was funded in part by a grant from the NEA.

[xinher.livejournal.com]

Eww...what was the point of that? Did the artist ever say?

[dry-2olives.livejournal.com]

I think your reaction to the photo is an example of what Andres Serrano was saying. You saw nothing wrong with it until you found out how it was made. Would you have a negative reaction if it were made with lemonade? Or wine? There's no "correct" response, of course. Personally I see nothing wrong with urine. I wouldn't want to be immersed in a vat of it, but if someone, for example, took a photograph of the Bill of Rights immersed in urine I wouldn't think the action alone to be disrespectful. If someone denied someone else of their rights, that would be offensive to me.

[dry-2olives.livejournal.com]

Around the same time there was a similiar piece called "The Proper Way to Display The Flag" by an artist who went by the name of Dred Scott. A book was placed on a table in the corner of a room with an American flag on the floor in front of it. You could not see what was in the book without stepping on the flag. Those who did could write anything they wanted in the book, but the artist wanted them to write how the felt about stepping on a flag. It caused a lot of discussion. That was the idea.

[xinher.livejournal.com]

I'm more ewww'd by the urine as unhygenic. I'm not against the artist using it as a medium.

What I want to know was why the artist chose urine and not some other liquid. Was it just to get a knee jerk reaction or was it some kind of statement about the church and/or religion?

[ceebeegee.livejournal.com]

Urine is actually pretty hygenic, isn't it? Since it's mostly ammpnia? But the thought repulses me--I mean, you don't know how badly I wanted to put that picture behind a cut--just looking at it makes me feel sick.

[dry-2olives.livejournal.com]

By the way, I'm sorry I brought up a subject on your own livejournal that repulses you so. But I appreciate your defense of freedom of speech. You're like the ACLU having to defend the rights of that nazi group in Skokie.

[dry-2olives.livejournal.com]

It was his own urine. I assume there would be nothing unhygenic about that, but I could be wrong.

Here's a link to an interview with Andres Serrano. It doesn't directly answer your question but can get an idea of what he was going for. http://www.communityarts.net/readingroom/archivefiles/2002/09/shooting_the_kl.php

[king-duncan.livejournal.com]

It's Piss Christ.