|
(before we start, steve or joanna if you read this then congrats and God's richest blessings on you both, hope to see you soon)
THE DEBATE:
Hey all, prepare for a long one. To keep you up to speed, my
friends Dominick Gagne, Andrew W. Krahn and I have had a little debate
going when it comes to Andy Serrano's "Piss Christ". If you
are unfamiliar with it then google that shit up, unless Joel Remple has
changed the world via the internet so much that he has deleted Serrano
from our world database, but it any case, look at it. Here have
been our written comments about it, I would love to see way more input
on it, so read on and think:
DOMINICK:
I
wasn't sure whether or not anyone would recognise the crucifix in my
pictures, but apparently some do. This picture is offensive, and that
is what Andres Serrano, the artist, intended. If you check out his
other work, which I don't necessarily recommend, I guess you could say
it's not really ..."uplifting." I had heard about it as a teenager,
from church people. They were horrified that anyone could possibly
dip a crucifix of our Lord into a vat of urine and call it art, and then, there are people willing to display it and pay money to look at it! What is our world coming to, we thought.
I was struck by the violence of disrespect that has been paid to
this symbol of my faith, and at the same time, I remembered The Passion of the Christ, in which Mel Gibson wanted to portray his own hands putting the nails into Jesus' hands.
Am I any better than Andres Serrano? Are we not responsible for the violence on the cross as much as any other? Sure, Piss Christ
is offensive and vile, but which of my own selfish actions aren't?
Pretending that I am better than the man making this statement, or to
push another man into a sort of "evil" or "them" category because he is
doing what I do every day, but in a fashion that makes people react, I
think is arrogance. Jesus' criticism was often against the people who
thought that another's sin was worse than their own. We think we know
better than the "evil" Pharisees, but I'm not really sure we do.
I look at Piss Christ and I am reminded.
ANDREW KRAHN:
I think Serrano would be pissed off that you took his piece of art and
interpreted it in a fashion that bolstered your faith. I'm pretty sure
there's irony in there somewhere.
Oh, and despite the truth that Serrano's Piss Christ
may reveal, I can't handle looking at it. I think there is a
difference between Serrano's art and your interpretation of it. It
seems to me that Serrano did what he did out of hate. Your
interpretation stems from a desire to love Christ and to better
understand your own sin. I don't think I can respect Serrano's art,
but I can respect your interpretation. I have the feeling, though,
that people will fail to see the difference, and maybe there is none.
<>DOMINICK:
I
think that Serrano would think I'm an idiot ...and maybe others do as
well. Sometimes, too, I don't want to look at the picture either, but
other times I love it. Either way, though, it isn't really good art. Is
it?
JARED:
If I may so kindly add my two cents. 1cent : Dom I think your
interpretation is amazing, very Augustine-esque. Although,
Andrew, I'm
not sure Serrano would be offended in this interpretation and if he is
so, he has no right to be, just as we have no right to be offended by
the depiction. Once an artist creates and presents it no longer becomes
a part of the artist, regardless of it's purpose it becomes subject to
relative interpretation. And the only offensive power that this peice
has is the power that we chose to give it by claiming it
"offensive".
To generalize for a second, artists have one of two main purposes
in
mind, self therapy/release and social therapy/release. This to me
seems to be of the second account, and if his purpose was as simple as
"i'm gonna soak a crucifix in piss and cows blood, just cause i hate
those muthaeffin christians so much", that purpose does not transcend
into the public eye and can not be a tool of facism. 2cent : I
don't
think it qualifies as bad art either. Serrano's method to
me seems
to be one matching Antonin Artaud's "Theatre of Cruelty". It's
main goal is to defy spectacle so as to show itself as a power used to
futher the audience to an absolute, for social change or social
therapy. It uses images that are ugly and painful to stimulate
the
audience into releasing it's subconcious to step towards ultimate
truth. Good art only asks questions, it does not answer
them. In this
sense, Dom, you have accomplished all that Artaud intended and perhaps
Serrano too, to look towards the self for social change. Unless
perhaps Serrano's purpose was to disgust Christians just as they
disgust him, this to me seems like a lazy interpretation and only to
further the separation between our love for Christ and our love for the
world. Unfortunately we can not tell, but we do have discussions
and
steps towards absolutes, although we will never accomplish them.
So
then is it useless to try? No, I believe it is God-honouring to
continuely attempt perfection and continuely seek ultimate truth.
If
only society would teach art value and intelligent
intepretation,......imagine.
thats all we got, thanks for reading. maybe more will come later.
|
