You did not describe the art work, only the medium. Recall if you will that the work was a photograph of a urine filled jar with a Crucifix within.
The photo of the combination was deemed art because it conveyed a message. Many considered blasphemy while others considered the message to be the ultimate in liberal dissent against Christianity.
A similar message in rebuttal would be a photo of a bearded professor drug with a chain behind a battered pickup. That also would be art and deliver an anti academicprogressiveliberal message
A similar message in rebuttal would be:
an icon of a figure important to the left dying, said icon being immersed in urine.
Hmmm....
and a religious teacher, as was Jesus
and one dying in pain, as was Jesus
and a member of a persecuted group (Jesus was Jewish)
and one who was killed arbitrarily because he offended the powers that be (just like Jesus)
and one who preached nonviolence (just like Jesus)
How would it be if Serrano had put a photo of the late Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. bleeding to death into a jar of urine and asked the left to fund it -- he could even have named it "Piss King" and drawn the contrast between the nonviolence advocated by the late Rev. King and the publicized "motorist RODNEY King" -- thereby making the analogy to Serrano's "Piss Christ" exact.
Gee, and King was a Christian minister, so equally worthy of contempt as Christ (John 15:20 ff)...I wonder why Serrano, in his avant-garde condition, didn't make that artwork as well? Was he afraid he wouldn't get a grant for it?
Or why just pick on Christians? Why not a photo of corpses from a Nazi death camp, stacked like cordwood, into a jar of urine?
Or...to be *really* daring...why didn't he do something to offend Muslims, who like to stone and burn alive homosexuals?
"Political courage on the left stops with the first threat of *real* consequences."
NO cheers, unfortunately.