This by e-mail from a doctoral student in Canada:
I am writing to you because I have a couple of questions . . . about your recent (May 12) blog post, and I was curious to hear a bit more about your views. [. . .] My questions concern your assertion that "I also agree that if one is going to violate people's beliefs in the manner of that 'artist' Andres Serrano then one ought to do it on one's own time and with one's own dime, as the saying goes." I assume that you're referring to "Piss Christ" and the controversy that surrounded it.
That's right. Context is provided by Mike Valle's post to which I was responding.
1. Why do you feel that "Piss Christ" (or Serrano's other works--again, I assume you're referring here mostly to the religious icons and bodily fluids) is (are) a "[violation] of people's beliefs"? The claim that it "violates beliefs" is much stronger than simply saying that it is distasteful, since it ascribes an active quality to the work.
Of course, it is more than distasteful or disgusting, although it is that; it shows profound disrespect and contempt for Christianity. And it is not the work itself that violates the beliefs and sensibilities of Christians and plenty of non-Christians as well, but the work in the context of its production and public display. It should be offensive to any decent person, just as "Piss-Buddha," if there were such an 'art work,' would be offensive to me and other non-Buddhists. Buddha was a great teacher of humanity and should be honored as such. (That is why decent people were offended when the Taliban destroyed the ancient Buddhist statuary.) The same goes for Jesus and Socrates and so many others. Christians of course believe that Jesus was much more than a great teacher of humanity, but whether he was or not is immaterial to the point at issue. Or imagine "Piss-King" in which a figurine of Martin Luther King, Jr. is supended in urine. Everyone would take that, and rightly so, as expressive of contempt for the black American civil rights leader, as offensive as Southern racists' references to King back in the '60s as Martin Luther Coon.
The decadent art of the 20th century reflects not only the corruption of aesthetic sensibility but also a moral corruption. So my objection to Serrano is not merely aesthetic but moral. The purpose of art is not to debase but to elevate, refine, ennoble.
I'm going to assume, again, that the reason for thinking it a violation has to do with the materials used in its production, whose conjunction might be thought blasphemous (although not, I think, unequivocally so).
We can leave blasphemy to one side. To make my points I needn't assume that Jesus is divine.
Now, I can understand feeling an initial revulsion to the work--but that's not quite the case, since unless you're told, you have no way of knowing that the photograph was made with urine.
Be serious. The title is "Piss-Christ." You are aware, I hope, that such words as 'piss' and 'shit' are vulgar. They are used to express contempt as opposed to reasoned disagreement.
In fact, until you read the title or a description, it's just a beautiful image filled with pathos and pointing to Jesus' suffering. Of course, the means of production are (were) deliberately made known, and I can understand a certain revulsion at that revelation. What I don't understand, however, is why your reaction is to qualify it as an assault on Christianity/religious beliefs.
And what I don't understand is your failure to perceive the offensiveness of this so-called 'art.' First of all, this junk is not art in any legitimate sense of the term. Its sole purpose is to bring its creator empty celebrity and money. A vain pursuit of novelty for the sake of novelty -- as if novelty as such is a value -- it must constantly outdo itself in extremism to achieve any effect at all. It requires no talent or skill or courage. Any jerkoff can throw a crucifix in a bottle of urine. And it is not as if this 'artist' is taking a stand against an oppressive culture or government which disallows this form of puerile self-expression. Far from it. The culture is permissive in excelsis and there is no censorship. And it is precisely because the culture is ultra-permissive, that schlocksters like Serrano, Gilbert & George, and plenty of others can pass their stuff off as art. It is worth noting that there is no "Piss-Muhammad." If Serrano produced a "Piss-Muhammad," then at least I could credit him with courage. But our question is not whether "Piss-Christ" it counts as legitimate art but whether it expresses contempt for Christianity and its adherents.
And of course it does, in the same way that "Piss-Muhammad" would express contempt for Muhammad, and "Shit-Marx' for Marx. Leftists have their icons too, and if any of them were placed in bottles of urine, the howls of protest would be unceasing. The very fact that there are no such expressions of contempt for leftist heroes tells us something. It tells us that "Piss-Christ and the like are part of an assault on Christianity and religion in general which fits right in with the left-wing agenda. Most contemporary 'art' is left-wing propaganda as Roger Kimball observes:
When the artistic significance of art is at a minimum, politics rushes in to fill the void. From the crude political allegories of a Leon Golub or Hans Haacke to the feminist sloganeering of Jenny Holzer, Karen Finley, or Cindy Sherman, much that goes under the name of art today is incomprehensible without reference to its political content. Indeed, in many cases what we see are nothing but political gestures that poach on the prestige of art in order to enhance their authority. Another word for this activity is propaganda, although at a moment when so much of art is given over to propagandizing the word seems inadequate. It goes without saying that the politics in question are as predictable as clockwork. Not only are they standard items on the prevailing tablet of left-wing pieties, they are also cartoon versions of the same. It’s the political version of painting by number: AIDS, the homeless, “gender politics,” the Third World, and the environment line up on one side with white hats, while capitalism, patriarchy, the United States, and traditional morality and religion assemble yonder in black hats.
2.) This one is much shorter (I promise!) and broader: "Adolescent purveyors of schlock who delight in offending the sensibilities of the 'bourgeoisie' or the 'booboisie' in H. L. Mencken's phrase have no right to taxpayer money." Why not?
Taxation is a legitimate, but nonetheless coercive, taking of money from the productive members of society for the purposes of government. When money that is taken via taxation is used for purposes that are (i) not among the legitimate limited functions of government, and (ii) violate the beliefs and sensibilities of the people who pay the taxes in ways that are crude, offensive, and subserve no higher purpose, but instead contribute to cultural decline, then I say the money is misused.
Recent Comments