AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Another "blasphamus" art work destroyed.

84 16405
314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

Yep. Another insane Christian destroyed the artwork. This time it was "Piss Christ"

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/de/Piss_Christ_by_Serrano_Andres_%281987%29.jpg

Depicting a cross in a glass of the painter's urine. If you are wondering what the "Another" was for, I am referring the the Loveland (I think that was the place) place which had it's artwork showing Jesus in a bad light, receiving a blowjob if I remember correctly. Though from what I hear, this one is still going to be shown. In it's destroyed state.

What do you think of this attack? Insane borderline terrorist attack? Insane normal attack? Or are any of you insane enough to state these attacks where good things?

  • 84 Replies
master565
offline
master565
4,104 posts
Nomad

The only time I have had anything happen to me is only within my own religion and when people come to my door step asking for charity for a religious establishment i don't care about.

I'm still more interested in why he painted it. While i am figuring that out I'm going to paint naked pictures of random peoples parents and make thousands of dollars off them to see how they react.

Highfire
offline
Highfire
3,025 posts
Nomad

How am I supposed to post on this forum when people think a statue of Christ engulfed in piss is good?

You just did it.
Type it, click submit.

Or are you offended? If so, it's the Internet, you can get over it or don't deal with it

While i am figuring that out I'm going to paint naked pictures of random peoples parents and make thousands of dollars off them to see how they react.

You could just splash 5 buckets of paint onto a board, smudge it randomly, call it art and make money then.

That actually has happened, so yeah. Try it.

Seriously, if your faith is so weak that you have destroy things which you perceive to be in opposition to it then you might want to reevaluate your position.

You know what's ironic? They are what's making the religion so powerful. If it were a small handful of people they would be known as a cult.

- H
qwerty1011
offline
qwerty1011
554 posts
Peasant

How am I supposed to post on this forum when people think a statue of Christ engulfed in piss is good?


Why isn't it. The artist is free to express whatever he wants through his art.
master565
offline
master565
4,104 posts
Nomad

You could just splash 5 buckets of paint onto a board, smudge it randomly, call it art and make money then.

That actually has happened, so yeah. Try it.


Not even close to the point.
Highfire
offline
Highfire
3,025 posts
Nomad

Not even close to the point.

Neither was that, but yeah, let's go back on topic

There isn't much else for me to say since there haven't been any opposing points, but this freedom of expression of the artist should be allowed - the destroying of it certainly shouldn't. It's like me breaking someones phone because they made a text message about Muhammad or Moses.

- H
master565
offline
master565
4,104 posts
Nomad

My point is if you paint something to piss someone off of course they are going to get angry.

RugRat
offline
RugRat
340 posts
Nomad

My point is if you paint something to piss someone off of course they are going to get angry.


Sooo destroying something is justified if it makes me angry?
BRB, making petrol bombs.
master565
offline
master565
4,104 posts
Nomad

Sooo destroying something is justified if it makes me angry?


First of all i said "if you paint something to piss someone off" not "some random thing angers you", second, i never said destroying it is justified.
redbedhead
offline
redbedhead
341 posts
Nomad

Good. If it was a homosexual doing something that isn't politically correct and it had some offensive term on the bottom, say a certain 3 letter word, and it was destroyed everyone would be raising hell about it. That is offensive and I for one am glad it was destroyed.

RugRat
offline
RugRat
340 posts
Nomad

First of all i said "if you paint something to piss someone off" not "some random thing angers you", second, i never said destroying it is justified.

Oh sorry, my mistake for adding that onto what you said, but still it should not matter if a work of art pisses someone off. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech.
They could have simply voiced their disapproval and try to reason with the artist, not just destroy the piece outright. If that didn't work, they try again or just harden the **** up and accept that there is a cross covered in piss in the world.
master565
offline
master565
4,104 posts
Nomad

They could have simply voiced their disapproval and try to reason with the artist, not just destroy the piece outright. If that didn't work, they try again or just harden the **** up and accept that there is a cross covered in piss in the world.


I completely agree.

Also, this is interesting.
"The gallery director, Eric Mézil, said it would reopen with the destroyed works on show "so people can see what barbarians can do". He said there had been a kind of "inquisition" against the art work."
master565
offline
master565
4,104 posts
Nomad

A faith shouldn't be mocked at like this, even if you don't believe in that religion.


Exactly.

My stand on this is that both sides did wrong.
redbedhead
offline
redbedhead
341 posts
Nomad

When these are at museums it doesn't matter what religion or the lack of religion in which you believe, but what does matter is the 1st Amendment. Artists have no more right to use public space or public money to promulgate religious propaganda than the Pope, the Dalai Lama or Osama bin Laden.

Artists have the right to produce any bizarre thing they can imagine, fabricate, fake, manipulate or pull out of thin Quixotic air. What they're not entitled to, is for any entity to coerce public support for their efforts. Especially art that expresses political or religious beliefs. Offensive religious satire is a social issue. Until public space or public money enters the picture. The most innocuous government intrusion in art is a travesty. For government to use public money for religious-­oriented art is a blatant 1st Amendment violation. When public space is used to promote, when public money is injected into art, the political and religious aspects of art are subject to the same 1st Amendment laws that pertain to any other exploratio­n of these passionate themes. Public space and public money must not be used to advance any religious thought. Sincere 1st Amendment advocates, regardless of political or religious affiliatio­n, must demand an end to illegal government activity related to religious subjects. why 1st Amendment scholars have neglected illegal government arrogance for so long is curious.

qwerty1011
offline
qwerty1011
554 posts
Peasant

There isn't much else for me to say since there haven't been any opposing points, but this freedom of expression of the artist should be allowed - the destroying of it certainly shouldn't. It's like me breaking someones phone because they made a text message about Muhammad or Moses.


This metaphor isn't really right. Maybe grabbing your phone and deleting the text would be a better metaphor.
A faith shouldn't be mocked at like this, even if you don't believe in that religion.


Why? It should be mocked as much as people are allowed to mock, for example, communism. Why does faith have this special protection.
My point is if you paint something to piss someone off of course they are going to get angry.


And? Polititians piss me off sometimes but I don't got to the houses of parliament to blow them up.
Highfire
offline
Highfire
3,025 posts
Nomad

This metaphor isn't really right. Maybe grabbing your phone and deleting the text would be a better metaphor.

Right, thanks man. But I guess I need a more harsh sounding metaphor to put out the picture the best I could. That was a fairly mediocre response, the art one was "medium", and now we need a very harsh one lol.

Why? It should be mocked as much as people are allowed to mock, for example, communism. Why does faith have this special protection.

It shouldn't be done for the sake of it, mind. I don't believe this were it - to be honest, that picture the OP posted was pretty amazing. Religion does get special protection - I don't know why, but they do, and personally I think they shouldn't.

And? Polititians piss me off sometimes but I don't got to the houses of parliament to blow them up.

Indeed politicians are worse. You realize they promise the changes you want to get into power and then the time arises they need to fulfill said promises and bam - they can't do it, apparently. Either they're a little too tunnel-visioned, and can't see that some things don't happen because of unknown reasons, or they do it to intentionally get into power.

Both? I don't know.

- H
Showing 31-45 of 84