Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Andres Serrano's picture of Christ suspended in urine is destroyed in France
American Thinker ^ | 04/19/2011 | Rick Moran

Posted on 04/19/2011 7:13:13 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

I thought that this topic might make for a lively debate in the comments.

Artist Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ" photo has caused more anguish, more anger that just about any piece of art in American history. Yesterday, while on display in France, it was destroyed by a fundamentalist Christian group:

Controversy has followed the work ever since, but reached an unprecedented peak on Palm Sunday when it was attacked with hammers and destroyed after an "anti-blasphemy" campaign by French Catholic fundamentalists in the southern city of Avignon.

The violent slashing of the picture, and another Serrano photograph of a meditating nun, has plunged secular France into soul-searching about Christian fundamentalism and Nicolas Sarkozy's use of religious populism in his bid for re-election next year.

It also marks a return to an old standoff between Serrano and the religious right that dates back more than 20 years, to Reagan-era Republicanism in the US.

The photograph, full title Immersion (Piss Christ), was made in 1987 as part of Serrano's series showing religious objects submerged in fluids such as blood and milk. In 1989, rightwing Christian senators' criticism of Piss Christ led to a heated US debate on public arts funding. Republican Jesse James told the senate Serrano was "not an artist. He's a jerk."

Serrano defended his photograph as a criticism of the "billion-dollar Christ-for-profit industry" and a "condemnation of those who abuse the teachings of Christ for their own ignoble ends". It was vandalised in Australia, and neo-Nazis ransacked a Serrano show in Sweden in 2007.

Inevitable comparisons with fundamentalist Muslims by secularists are wrong. Destroying a piece of art is not the same as rioting and murdering innocents and only a moral relativist would make such a wrongheaded argument.

But there are other disturbing aspects to this controversy that need addressing. Did the French Christians have a right to destroy it? Art, as we learned when growing up, is in the eye of the beholder. You and I might not see eye to eye on whether Serrano's hateful photo was "art" or not, but does that give you the right to destroy it? And if not, isn't it suppressing free speech?

Interesting thing about free speech; you either have it, or you don't. Serrano had a million other ways to express his disaffection with the charlatans, the TV evangelist fakirs in Christian ministries that are set up to serve Mammom and not God. He can be criticized for his horrible artistic choice in expressing this view, but we have no right to tell him how to express it.

We can show our displeasure by refusing to attend his shows, urge others not to buy his art, show up wherever he appears in public and peacefully protest, and a hundred other actions we can take - including defunding the government program that paid him to display it.

But we can't destroy what many consider to be art. There is no "majority rule" in judging artistic expression. There is no threshold of support that an artist must cross before his work is protected as legitimate expression. The French vandals were dead wrong in destroying the work. Their attack was an assault on free speech itself - something we either have, or don't. The vandals say we don't. I say we do, and consequently, must condemn all such acts - whether performed by the Taliban or fundamentalist Christians - as an attack on our most cherished beliefs.

Living in a free society is not easy. Destroying art makes it even harder.



TOPICS: Arts/Photography; Religion; Society
KEYWORDS: andresserrano; art; pisschrist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-34 last
To: SeekAndFind

I’m sorry, but the people who destroyed this “art” have as much a right to do so as Serrano had to create it.
The artist has no right to expect his work will be protected or respected.
The government has no business funding art in any form.

I am an artist. I do not want or expect government largesse. If I sell a piece of art it is because some likes it enough to want to live with it. That’s enough for me.


21 posted on 04/19/2011 8:28:28 AM PDT by Wiser now (Liberalism is immaturity, cloaked with the pretense of moral and intellectual superiority.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2banana

Try burning a koran and calling it art...

People like serrano don’t have the guts for that.


22 posted on 04/19/2011 8:28:35 AM PDT by Bitsy ( i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

This utterly devoid of talent poseur, couldn’t even qualify to clean the toilets in Norman Rockwell’s studio.


23 posted on 04/19/2011 8:33:26 AM PDT by EyeGuy (Gimme Shelter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sportutegrl

RE: It wasn’t destroyed. It was ‘de-constructed’.

POST OF THE DAY !! (CLAP CLAP ).


24 posted on 04/19/2011 8:34:38 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

This article missing the most salient points

1. The ‘art’ was in France when it was destroyed. Our American 1st Amendment rights are not extended to other countries. France has its own laws (I don’t know what they are).

2. Even if this had happened in the U.S.A, as long as the government did not destroy the ‘art’ or prevent it being displayed, then this would not be a 1st Amendment issue free speech issue.

3. The destruction of the ‘art’ is a property crime, not a free speech infringement.

“Free speech” as Americans should strive to remember, applies strictly to the right to express oneself without GOVERNMENT censorship or reprisal. There is NOTHING in the 1st Amendment which protects one from censorship from non-government entities and persons.

Other than the government being involved in infringing free speech, you have zero protection from repercussions to your speech. Zero. Nada. Zip.

It really makes me angry when people don’t understand this. Even many Conservatives refuse to acknowledge the limits our our 1A rights.


25 posted on 04/19/2011 8:50:41 AM PDT by Lorianne (o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoGOP

The work of ‘art’ in question consists of a photograph and a signature of the artist of an object or “performance” that no longer exists. But the negative does; the artist can print as many copies as he likes, and he can still sign them. In the perverse logic of today’s art market the new copy may be even more valuable, augmented by the historical record of this latest event. Maybe they can take the remains of the first version and store them in a reliquary, to be displayed alongside the replacement

Look—I’m just trying to be fair: let the perpetrator of the second abomination compensate the owner of the first abomination for the costs of reprinting, the frame, and of course, the artist’s signature.Here’s a fair estimate of the costs: $25 for the print,$125 for the frame, and $.50 for the signature.On the other hand, if the value of the object increases, then the perpetrator deserves a share for his contribution if and when the object is sold— about 50% of the augmented market value.

Aren’t you glad I was around to straighten this out?


26 posted on 04/19/2011 9:01:52 AM PDT by tsomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

From the article: “...we have no right to tell him how to express it.”

That means we have no freedom of speech to tell him how to use freedom of speech. That’s nonsense.

Note that just because we use freedom of speech “to tell him how to express it” does not in and of itself mean he has to comply.


27 posted on 04/19/2011 9:01:52 AM PDT by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
Yes, Rick Moran of the American Thinker isn't a deep thinker.

I think he misspelled his last name. ;)

28 posted on 04/19/2011 9:08:00 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Rick Moran

Did the French Christians have a right to destroy it?

Yes. Christ gave up His life for us. The least Christians can do is resist blasphemy against Him.

Art, as we learned when growing up, is in the eye of the beholder.

That is pure modernist-subjective balderdash. Art can be objectively detected by anyone.

Interesting thing about free speech; you either have it, or you don't.

No. The double standards of political correctness and hate speech laws have exposed sixties-style "free speech" as a weapon aimed at Christianity and traditional morality.

29 posted on 04/19/2011 9:21:19 AM PDT by mas cerveza por favor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I am waiting for the picture of Mohammed to be so submerged.

Still waiting.


30 posted on 04/19/2011 9:53:42 AM PDT by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Persevero

RE: I am waiting for the picture of Mohammed to be so submerged.

Nobody knows how he looks like.


31 posted on 04/19/2011 9:57:09 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Republican Jesse James told the senate [...]

Now those nasty Pubbies are digging old outlaws to be their mouthpiece!

32 posted on 04/19/2011 10:03:39 AM PDT by Erasmus (I love "The Raven," but then what do I know? I'm just a poetaster.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“Nobody knows how he looks like.”

Nobody knows what Jesus looks like, either.

Yet people are killed/threatened with death over Mohammed cartoons.


33 posted on 04/19/2011 10:07:27 AM PDT by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: GonzoGOP

Excellent points. 30 years of “pushing the envelope” finally had a small push back. This is not the same as the nut case who attacked the Pieta with a hammer many years ago. Mr. Serrano can easily get a pretty picture of Jesus and dunk it in his own urine but the breathtaking Pieta is permanently scarred.


34 posted on 04/19/2011 10:27:47 AM PDT by miss marmelstein (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-34 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson