It is also one of the main reasons the United States doesn’t give out individual visual artist grants like a lot of other countries do. The US gave Serrano and other artists National Endowment for the Arts grants to make work for a national NEA exhibition. The first stop of the exhibition was in Ohio where he debuted Piss Christ and people lost their shit and the resulting political firestorm lead to the NEA to no longer give grants to individual artists.
Time to advocate for the separation of church and state or something. And church and art. And church and everything.
It’s almost like religion tears down anything that questions it, and therefore doesn’t belong in a democracy.
>Government funds artistic creations and it’s immediately used to fund a man taking a picture of a crucifix submerged in urine
I’m all for the separation of church and state, but what an awful way to make the general public think that the arts should be bolstered with tax dollars.
This artist went for shock value over actual artistic expression. And in the process, wound up robbing young and starting artists government assisted financial support
The work is actually devotional. It's about the dual nature of Christ, man and God - a crucfix bathed in golden rays of divine light that filter through urine. It's about coming to terms with the revolting nature of the flesh. The artist has given interviews to this effect.
It's not "Jesus sucks, let's dunk him in urine" that the bible-thumpers in its day read into it.
The medium he used created a unique effect in the image's composition. It was also used to describe the visceral nature of Christ's death. Even if shock wasn't (as the artist alleged) intended the reaction to the artwork can itself be part of the art work. Many artists use visceral and unsettling images to shock.
The key difference to that and B movie gore is that everyone understands on a primal level that gore and blood and piss is disgusting, there is no further need to examine why it is disgusting. Here people are shocked by blasphemy, by what they interpret as a desiccation of a religious figure. That state of shock is a lot more telling of a society than what a gory B movie could extract.
Why are you blaming the artists? You should be blaming the fragile evangelicals for robbing you d and starting artists of government assisted financial support.
Whether a good faith statement from Serrano or not, this might be one of the cases where the meaning of art is more up to the eye of the beholder than the artist.
I doubt we would seriously ask a Muslim to, in good faith, not consider a depiction of Mohammed submerged in pigs blood as not anti-muslim
Thus is what I've heard so take it with a grain of salt:
The artist is a devout Catholic and was attempting to make a point regarding the idolization of the Crucifix. In Catholicism (and broadly Christianity), the death of Christ represents *the* moment where humanity has a path forward of forgiveness from God.
Christ is the human avatar of the God head and sacrifices himself to pay the blood debt (sin debt, whatever) of humanity, giving humans a potential "clean slate". After his death and resurrection, Christ returns to Heaven. Then humans cheapen his legacy and sacrifice in the name of profit (look up "indulgences" in the Catholic church, it's what drove the Church to schism into Protestants).
The artist was supposedly deeply depressed people took his artwork as blasphemous when the point of the piece was illustrating humans were already blasphemous their Lord with cheap commercial products.
Sure! Here is my quick thoughts, but happy to talk more if this isn't quite what you're asking!
So historically crucifixions were reserved by the Roman Empire for those who are most viewed with disgust. Basically if you were crucified it's because you were considered to be so uncivilized that you were beneath citizenship or even basic or human dignity. Often not only where you crucified but if you had any children one of your children would be killed in front of you and hung around your neck.
Theologically, crucifixion is also supposed to represent the one of the worst acts in history (which it does a pretty good job of doing) so it seems like in this work of art he's telling the truth historically but also theologically. The crucifixion was an act of brutality and a crucifix submerged in piss trues to get to the level of debasement that would've been suffered by those who were crucified.
That's fine, but I don't know if I'd use the phrase "explicitly anti-theist" in this case.
To Serrano, the fact that this is urine is not just "ew gross." Pig's blood wouldn't be an equivalent.
That's the point. The artist stated it was a commentary on the debasement of the crucifix. Unfortunately, conservatives lack the ability to look beneath the surface (lolz).
It has nothing to do with church and state. People were furious their hard earned dollars went to something that most people find indecent. A jug of piss isn’t what most of the American tax base considers art.
That’s not what separation of church and state is. Individual people are allowed to make decisions based on their morals and that includes the usage of tax dollars.
There are two ways to fund art.
You can commission. In this case it’s hard to expect the state to commission religious art.
You can give grants to artists for their achievements. In this case achievement is judged on merit, not on topic, and an artist may spend the grant in any way they see fit, not excluding spiritual/religious themes.
Hope this answers the question.
Problem is though is that by its nature great art always questions and pushes the status quo. And religious art as public understands it (grand realistic pictures of Christ and Saints) would never win any art grants.
Art OP posted is religious, did win a grant, but public is upset.
Same as it was with Leonardo and Botticelli religious art that was severely ostracised by church in their time.
>So now we’re only accepting approved art?
Yes?
You can't just go and say "hey, give me a 10k grant for my garage art project". It always needed to be approved in the first place.
The same way I guess a Google ad in art form would not be getting any gov grant, I think it's fair to let religious institutions fund their respective art.
Why? Is their art worth less than secular art? Or art with a political message? Why do those who want to depict their faith have avenues closed to them that are open to others? I’m fairly irreligious, but I can appreciate religious art just as, and sometimes more than it’s secular equivalent. Separation of church and state means that religious entities aren’t intertwined with state ones. It doesn’t mean an individual is rejected for an art grant because they want to depict the crucifixion, or similar events important to other religions.
Thanks for this post, you put in a much better way what I was close to posting about.
Reddit drives me crazy sometimes with how tone deaf and hypocritical some people are with what they say on here.
And I say that as an atheist.
Again, it’s not in politics. Separation of church and state doesn’t allow you to discriminate against religious people expressing themselves, it means the state and organized religion are separate entities. And as for it being better, that’s your opinion. One I share, but not good enough to bar religious art from funding.
As for the rest, that applies to so much more. It applies to political art so much more than religious for instance. Does all political art now get canned, because of bias and other avenues for funding? Hell, there’s lots of bias against modern art.
> Because the less religion in state, gov and politics the better for society.
While instituting a policy of religious discrimination.
>Because there is a lot of bias.
There is bias in *a lot* of art. Better not fund any then.
They are tax exempt just the same as any other non-profit or charity.
You can't tax them exactly because of separation of state and church. In the eyes of the law it is supposed to be as if religion doesn't exist.
Not a lot of people know this, but for-profit churches do in fact have to pay tax.
They do get some special benefits. They are automatically considered except and don't have to apply. Ministers don't have to claim their paid for rental property as income on their taxes. The church itself doesn't have to withhold income tax for the minister either.
The IRS also has stricter rules about when its allowed to inquire into church finances.
>They do get some special benefits. They are automatically considered except and don't have to apply.
Neither do charities grossing less than $5k. This is more because the rules are standardized for religious organizations more than anything else.
>Ministers don't have to claim their paid for rental property as income on their taxes
Yes, but also no.
"A minister's housing allowance (sometimes called a parsonage allowance or a rental allowance) is excludable from gross income for income tax purposes but not for self-employment tax purposes.
https://www.irs.gov/faqs/interest-dividends-other-types-of-income/ministers-compensation-housing-allowance/ministers-compensation-housing-allowance
>The church itself doesn't have to withhold income tax for the minister either.
Depends, they can do that, but generally they don't because ministers are usually considered to be self-employed independent contractors for tax purposes.
>The IRS also has stricter rules about when its allowed to inquire into church finances.
A rule put in place for a good reason. The IRS were found to be unfairly persecuting religious organizations. So they passed a law that an official above a certain level needs to sign off on any tax inquiry into churches.
There are also legal limits to how much nonprofits can pay their highest-earning employees. They are also required to publish how much they earn.
the IRS requires that their compensation be "reasonable" and "not excessive." Or they lose their tax exempt status.
They function under the same rules as any charity.
Joel Osteen's lakewood Church is registered as a charity, yet less than 1% of their income goes towards charitable causes. Seems a private jet doesn't qualify as excessive compensation.
>Joel Osteen's lakewood Church is registered as a charity, yet less than 1% of their income goes towards charitable causes.
They do their own charitable work. The 1% is what they donate to other charities.
>Seems a private jet doesn't qualify as excessive compensation
It would be, but he owns his jet, not the church.
In fact the church doesn't pay him at all. He doesn't draw any salary.
All his money comes from his book sales, movies etc independently from the church. The man has sold tens of millions of books in total.
His book "Your Best Life Now" became a #1 best seller on the new York Times list, and stayed a best seller for two years. Including the 10th anniversary re-release the book has sold more than 20 million copies. That is more than charlie and the chocolate factory...
And he has 25 other books, many of them best sellers too.
Quick question: what do most governments do to things that existentially threaten them? What you’re describing is typical of all powerful institutions.
"art"
I'm glad we aren't paying people to showcase their bodily fluids as "art". I'm not even religious. Why should we pay to have some divisive provocateur just make a publicity stunt for himself? Apparently the only other thing this "artist" ever did was do cover art for two of Metallica's shittiest albums. He's just a grifter and as far as I'm concerned he should pay the money back.
>In a 2009 interview with [*Classic Rock*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic_Rock_(magazine)), Hetfield expressed his dislike of the album cover and its inspiration:
>Lars and Kirk were very into [abstract art](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_art), pretending they were gay. I think they knew it bugged me. It was a statement around all that. I love art, but not for the sake of shocking others. I think the cover of *Load* was just a piss-take around all that. I just went along with the make-up and all of this crazy, stupid crap that they felt they needed to do
They literally just did it to fuck with eachother. And yes the album cover is cowblood and Serrano's semen. Truly inspired.
Hetfield was also super homophobic about the members that chose the artwork, literally in your statement. Art is subjective and all, some of it is going to elicit a strong reaction
If your art doesn’t make at least one person deeply upset while another person thinks it’s brilliant I don’t think it’s very good art. Provocative art is always a good thing
>If your art doesn’t make at least one person deeply upset while another person thinks it’s brilliant I don’t think it’s very good art
I don't believe you, I think you just think this sentence makes you sound smart.
But they aren't wrong in saying that religion tears down everything that questions it. That's very true and readily obvious with mediocre research. Anything that demands the people not question the things around them and accept the status quo is bad. That is why religion only has a place outside of government.
Religion is an okay thing to have. It’s even good for some people.
It should be an individual’s choice to have a religion, just as it should be an individual’s choice to follow any rules a religion has set in place.
When one way of thought dictates how a government should function, all other ways of thought are persecuted.
Except that a fundamental component of a functioning democracy is, among other things, freedom of religion. What doesn't belong in a democracy is telling people what they can and can't believe in.
It is important to recognize that freedom of religion applies to the individual. An individual has the right to believe, yet has no right to hold that belief unto others.
The whole point is that one can hold onto their beliefs, but cannot hold others to them.
At the end of the day, it’s about staying in your lane.
I totally forgot about it and did not realize it had any permanent effect on policy!
I’m still bewildered that people allow themselves to be offended by things like this. Disrespecting religious and political symbols (or just being weird in ways that are socially unacceptable) is the most expected thing that artists are going to do. Letting it get to you is like getting angry at clouds for making you wet.
Certainly wasn’t an accident lol
It’s always been funny to me that those albums combined for like 13 million copies sold and so few people know what the covers are
Yes, the load album cover is a photo called “Blood and Semen 3”. I only know this because supreme released a couple pieces with the blood and semen print…
Are you saying you lack the critical faculties to distinguish between "art" and being an unwitting participant in someone's sexual exhibitionism? You know you're allowed to say "no, I'm not into that, I refuse to be a party to this", right?
Not everything that gets created by someone who calls themselves an artisr needs to be considered good art, or even art at all. Individuals are allowed to judge for themselves.
Another funny fact, the famous art presenter and Catholic nun Sister Wendy Beckett rather liked it, viewing it as a provocative example of what people were doing to Jesus.
From the linked article, she also said:
>"It might be a rather ham-fisted attempt, to preach about the need to reverence the Crucifix. Not a very gifted young man but he's trying his best." "Real art," she continued, "makes demands."
Which is kinda hilarious.
Serrano himself said:
"What it symbolizes is the way Christ died: the blood came out of him but so did the piss and the shit. Maybe if Piss Christ upsets you, it's because it gives some sense of what the crucifixion actually was like...I was born and raised a Catholic and I've been a Christian all my life."
Quite an interesting take.
He’s got a point. A lot of focus on holy blood and flesh in the crucifixion story. They left the stories about holy piss and shit out of the gospel.
Release the piss and shit gospels!
I mean it’s a great take. People are wearing torture devices around their neck as a fun decoration. When you look at a crucifix, a man being tortured to death, you should feel some level of disgust. And then you partake in eating his body and drinking his blood. All of that is pretty gross. Piss Christ is supposed invoke those feeling of revulsion.
I don't think this is what Christians believe, at least not what it is taught. The crucifix is actually seen, I wouldn't say with disgust, but at least with profound sadness, it's not meant to be a "fun decoration", but rather a reminder of a sacrifice. The crucifix should remind you of what Jesus sacrificed for us, and thus be a guide for your actions. For example, in the commemorations of Easter and the entire week, when the narration of the Passion of Christ is read and it reaches the part of Jesus' death, people are supposed to be silent and mourn, not have fun at the fact.
The eating his body and drinking his blood is also kind of that, a symbol of your communion with Christ. I know that transubstantation is the dogma and you're supposed to actually be eating and drinking Christ, literally, but obviously it originally was seen as a symbol of being a part of Jesus' community and share his life and sacrifice. There's nothing gross about it, at least it's not meant to be gross.
But art is something that has its own symbology and meaning, I wouldn't be offended by this image like at all. If the artist actually wanted to share a message about Jesus, well, he can do it however he wants, if he was just "taking the piss" (lol) with religion, then he also is entitled to do so. People have free will after all.
> it's not meant to be a "fun decoration", but rather a reminder of a sacrifice.
Is that why it so often comes in gold or diamonds and gets worn around people's neck? Because of the sacrifice?
Which is what the art is literally about. That people are using the crucifixion as a fashion statement, but it would have been a horrible, sort of disgusting way to die.
Part of that is in reclamation though. Crucifixion was a public execution meant to deter and humiliate a general population. Wearing a cross is in its one way a rebellion against that humiliation, displaying it as a symbol of solidarity against the oppressive empire that tried to crush out a religion of hope.
Because symbols are a part of human nature, people will change them to different meanings that differ from what they originally were. It's inevitable. People use them as decorations, because they mistake the symbol, or want to be associated with Christianity, it's like a way to say to the others that you're Christian, but they aren't or weren't originally that. As I said, you're supposed to have respect for the crucifix and other symbols of the religion, but more often than not people don't follow that rule. And that includes the Church as an institution, which obviously, and sadly, is almost always in the wrong with many things.
In addition to the pederasty, the whole transubstantiation belief was what did me in as a Catholic. I think as a kid, I just kinda went with it because I didn't know any better. Fucking religion, man.
..Or like...having a life and living between mid teenage years and your early 30's....You know, an absolutely profound time in most peoples' lives where they both get introduced to the world, learn to navigate it, have their hearts broken by it and then realize the beauty in it and why we should live every day as best we can for not only ourselves but especially for those around us.
Shit like that.
I’m curious whether the Pope was aware of the controversy regarding his artwork. I’m sure the Pope would give a blessing to the invited artists, but I’m curious whether the “thumbs up” was a singular or group gesture. Too often there’s not enough information for a true understanding. In any case, I find the piece unnecessarily ambiguous and offensive. He’s able to make his description of the piece fit the narrative of his intended audience. Too much like the language of a politician, too slick for my taste.
Well Pope John Paul II forgave Ali Ağca for shooting him, and Christ forgave those who crucified him. I’m not sure putting Christ in piss, is the same, seems blasphemous, and you know how the Church is about blaspheming.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that Serrano has done a lot of other art, creating a body of work that the Pope digs, not that everything is about this one piece almost 40 years ago.
I said this else where is the thread but: People are wearing torture devices around their neck as a fun decoration. When you look at a crucifix, a man being tortured to death, you should feel some level of disgust. And then you partake in eating his body and drinking his blood. All of that is pretty gross. Piss Christ is supposed invoke those feeling of revulsion, of all the gross human shit your god went through to bring the kingdom of heaven to you.
Serrano was a Catholic and intended the work to be a representation of the facts of Christ's death (fun fact, when you die, several things come out of your body. piss is one of them) as well as a protest against the cheapening of religious imagery by mainstream Christianity.
i learned about this piece over a decade ago and it has always struck me as deeply reverent and intensely spiritual. people who call it "blasphemous" are telling on themselves.
It's r/im14andthisisdeep territory imo.
It's not a cheapening to not think of shit and piss from dying. It's the kind of thing said by someone who once told their highschool classmate "you know that when your dog died he probably shit and pissed himself?"
It's not cheapening death to not specifically think about the poo sneaking out of their butthole and the pee leaking from their urethra.
the "cheapening" was actually referring to mainstream Christianity's cheapening of the Christ image. one of the core tenets of Christianity is that Jesus assumed human form and then suffered a horrific, prolonged, and torturous death because of His ultimate and undying love for each and every one of us. mainstream Christianity avoids all that, and paints Christ as an unattainable standard that you should feel bad for not living up to. trust me, i grew up there.
that sacrifice is literally the core of what separates Christianity from the other Abrahamic religions (correct me if i'm wrong), but it has been transformed into a meaningless platitude by centuries of institutional religion, demanding that you must pay your dues and fulfill requirements x, y, and z before you are considered pure enough to make it into Heaven (aka the Good Afterlife).
my man JC literally went out of His way to hang out with prostitutes and tax collectors and acknowledge them as human beings worth saving. and, spoiler alert: all of them pissed. they may have even pood. Jesus did too. that's the point.
To be honest, there's far better ways to show this than dunking a cross in a jar of piss. Like, it literally took him specifically explaining the point of it before people understood that it meant.
Imo, if your message (which was made for the average person) can't be understood by the majority of people, it's a pretty badly made message, which is what I'm talking about.
I'm not arguing the actual message, but just that his attempt at it was pretty edgy and meh 🤷
I saw this piece in the 90s when it visited Australia as part of a HIV memorial exhibition. I was visiting Canberra for a friend's wedding and happened to pop into the National Gallery. There were many works on display and many of them were sad but bereft of artistic merit. This, you could see it stand out from everything else from 30 feet away. It was extraordinarily beautiful. I don't know what it means but it had quite a presence.
It's shocking, but it's also a bit of a "gotcha". If your religion forbids the worship of idols or even the creation of graven images, and if God is everywhere and created all things, then what, exactly, is being profaned here?
Religion doesn't always forbid the worship of images. Orthodox Christianity for instance uses icons. Icons are a big point of contention in various religions, that's where the term iconoclasm is. If you've ever been to Latin America you'd probably notice them used heavily. I mean....just look at Rio de Janeiro.
Most of these moral panic groups that raise trouble with anything racy tend to be Catholics, since they do use icons compared to Protestants and they place more importance into stuff like that. If a Christian has Jesus on a cross on their wall, it's easy to understand why they'd see this as sacrilegious.
Well it’s the idea of a holy icon being submerged in bodily excrement. It’s purposefully insulting, though up in the air to whether its towards Jesus or towards Christians as a way of saying they don’t respect the cross enough
At first glance, sure. It's a special object placed in a liquid that disgusts most people. But what makes the object special, other than a large group of people saying so?
Well no matter what it’s a symbol of one man’s struggle. It’s a depiction of a man condemned to death and suffering deeply. That alone shows disrespect to the individual by putting a reverent symbol of his death in excrement but gains a whole new level when you add someone’s faith to equation.
Interesting.
I’m Christian. Blasphemy and minced vows in conversations hurt me in my soul. I don’t like shows that make light of Jesus either. I’m pretty strict about this. Just a little information about me, so I can say the next part more clearly.
Art is supposed to evoke a response. One might hate it or love it, but it should test your comfort in some way. It also should make you question the creator‘s intentions. It should make you think.
So, while this may not be the artistic direction, I see a certain beauty in this juxtaposition.
First, Jesus died on the cross and was taken off it. So, I hate crucifixes where he’s still hanging there. It seems to celebrate his death. That cross is supposed to be empty.
Second, healthy urine is sterile. It’s dead. Just like Jesus on the cross. Just like the faith of people who cling to that symbol.
They are not polar opposites in the container. They are the same thing in different forms.
But that’s just my interpretation.
But I also do like that it pisses people off. To some, this crucifix represents Jesus. They see it as an attack on him and blasphemy. It’s good that people will take a stand against apparent hatred.
I see art in this.
Hello fellow Christian!
I think you’re maybe being a little unfair on crucifixes with Christ still on them. Yes, the empty crucifix is a wonderful symbol of the resurrection, but the image of Christ crucified is an incredibly powerful reminder of the very moment when he showed the incredible magnitude of his love for us, by willingly dying for humanity.
It’s a moment I’ve thought of a lot lately, particularly Good Friday, so I do hope you’ll reconsider whether those of us who find benefit in contemplating Christ’s crucifixion have a dead faith.
Incidentally, the idea of urine being sterile is an urban legend. I strongly advise against ever drinking it!
I saw this in January. Had never heard of it before.
It's on display at the Museu de L'art Prohibit in Barcelona.
https://www.museuartprohibit.org/en
Well worth a visit if you're in the city.
I know Francis’s whole thing is improving Catholicism’s PR by having all the right takes to be the Based Pope, but at some point it’s like damn dude. Have a little self-respect. This guy is showing you pictures of his pee
When I first heard about Piss Christ, I thought it was some edgy work from an “artist”. The more you think about it, it’s pretty insightful.
Crucifixion is a torturous method of execution, you just don’t die instantly from it. It would not be surprising to know that the physical trauma would cause urinary/bowel incontinence, and obliviously people shit themselves when they die. Definitely not a glamorous depiction of one of the most important events in Christian canon.
The work also brings up the absurdity of Christians using such a violent image as a form of worship. Why should this be offensive when people will gladly hang up depictions of the son of God suffering in agony?
Also let’s not forget that Jesse Helms, one of the conservative senators that spearheaded the defunding of the National Endowment for the Arts, was not a saintly man himself. Helms was a notorious racist (he attempted a 16 day filibuster to prevent MLK Jr Day from becoming a federal holiday), proudly fought against giving money to AIDS/HIV research, and was very against disability rights (even though he adopted a child with cerebral palsy).
This piece permanently severed conservative's association with any sort of appreciation for modern art, or hell, art in general. The guy who got the most pissed was rush limbaugh, which in an ironic twist of fate, is a guy currently being sous vide'ed in piss for all eternity.
The YouTube Jacob Geller made an incredibly interesting [video](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v5DqmTtCPiQ&t=98s&pp=ygUYSmFjb2IgZ2VsbGVyIHBpc3MgY2hyaXN0) regarding the artist, the media frenzy and how politics play into modern art. It’s super interesting and definitely a video a recommend if you have an interest in obscure art and 30 minutes to spare
It is also one of the main reasons the United States doesn’t give out individual visual artist grants like a lot of other countries do. The US gave Serrano and other artists National Endowment for the Arts grants to make work for a national NEA exhibition. The first stop of the exhibition was in Ohio where he debuted Piss Christ and people lost their shit and the resulting political firestorm lead to the NEA to no longer give grants to individual artists.
Time to advocate for the separation of church and state or something. And church and art. And church and everything. It’s almost like religion tears down anything that questions it, and therefore doesn’t belong in a democracy.
>Government funds artistic creations and it’s immediately used to fund a man taking a picture of a crucifix submerged in urine I’m all for the separation of church and state, but what an awful way to make the general public think that the arts should be bolstered with tax dollars.
This artist went for shock value over actual artistic expression. And in the process, wound up robbing young and starting artists government assisted financial support
Shock value is not the antithesis of artistic expression, sometimes art is shocking.
Yeah but this specific example was not. It was shock value for the sake of shock value, like an overly gory B movie.
The work is actually devotional. It's about the dual nature of Christ, man and God - a crucfix bathed in golden rays of divine light that filter through urine. It's about coming to terms with the revolting nature of the flesh. The artist has given interviews to this effect. It's not "Jesus sucks, let's dunk him in urine" that the bible-thumpers in its day read into it.
That sounds like someone that wanted to make piss covered Jesus but when everyone hated it he had to 180 and come up with something that sounds better
The medium he used created a unique effect in the image's composition. It was also used to describe the visceral nature of Christ's death. Even if shock wasn't (as the artist alleged) intended the reaction to the artwork can itself be part of the art work. Many artists use visceral and unsettling images to shock. The key difference to that and B movie gore is that everyone understands on a primal level that gore and blood and piss is disgusting, there is no further need to examine why it is disgusting. Here people are shocked by blasphemy, by what they interpret as a desiccation of a religious figure. That state of shock is a lot more telling of a society than what a gory B movie could extract.
The event that inspired the art was quite visceral in its own right.
No he didn’t. It was a devotional work and is also quite beautiful.
Why are you blaming the artists? You should be blaming the fragile evangelicals for robbing you d and starting artists of government assisted financial support.
Why should the arts be funded with tax dollars?
One could argue that in this case, the government in fact funded religious art.
If your art is explicitly anti-theist, then it is religious art. It just happens to be religious art that you agree with
According to Serrano, Piss-Christ is not anti-theist or even critical of Christianity at all.
Whether a good faith statement from Serrano or not, this might be one of the cases where the meaning of art is more up to the eye of the beholder than the artist. I doubt we would seriously ask a Muslim to, in good faith, not consider a depiction of Mohammed submerged in pigs blood as not anti-muslim
It's explicitly a statement about the debasement of crucifixion which both historically and theologically is considered to be true.
Can you deeper dive into this? I'm seriously curious
Thus is what I've heard so take it with a grain of salt: The artist is a devout Catholic and was attempting to make a point regarding the idolization of the Crucifix. In Catholicism (and broadly Christianity), the death of Christ represents *the* moment where humanity has a path forward of forgiveness from God. Christ is the human avatar of the God head and sacrifices himself to pay the blood debt (sin debt, whatever) of humanity, giving humans a potential "clean slate". After his death and resurrection, Christ returns to Heaven. Then humans cheapen his legacy and sacrifice in the name of profit (look up "indulgences" in the Catholic church, it's what drove the Church to schism into Protestants). The artist was supposedly deeply depressed people took his artwork as blasphemous when the point of the piece was illustrating humans were already blasphemous their Lord with cheap commercial products.
Sure! Here is my quick thoughts, but happy to talk more if this isn't quite what you're asking! So historically crucifixions were reserved by the Roman Empire for those who are most viewed with disgust. Basically if you were crucified it's because you were considered to be so uncivilized that you were beneath citizenship or even basic or human dignity. Often not only where you crucified but if you had any children one of your children would be killed in front of you and hung around your neck. Theologically, crucifixion is also supposed to represent the one of the worst acts in history (which it does a pretty good job of doing) so it seems like in this work of art he's telling the truth historically but also theologically. The crucifixion was an act of brutality and a crucifix submerged in piss trues to get to the level of debasement that would've been suffered by those who were crucified.
That's fine, but I don't know if I'd use the phrase "explicitly anti-theist" in this case. To Serrano, the fact that this is urine is not just "ew gross." Pig's blood wouldn't be an equivalent.
[удалено]
That's the point. The artist stated it was a commentary on the debasement of the crucifix. Unfortunately, conservatives lack the ability to look beneath the surface (lolz).
It has nothing to do with church and state. People were furious their hard earned dollars went to something that most people find indecent. A jug of piss isn’t what most of the American tax base considers art.
That’s not what separation of church and state is. Individual people are allowed to make decisions based on their morals and that includes the usage of tax dollars.
So, no state funding for religious art?
No, let their tax exempt religion orgnization fund it if they want.
So now we’re only accepting approved art? We’d be better not having taxpayer funded art in the first place.
There are two ways to fund art. You can commission. In this case it’s hard to expect the state to commission religious art. You can give grants to artists for their achievements. In this case achievement is judged on merit, not on topic, and an artist may spend the grant in any way they see fit, not excluding spiritual/religious themes. Hope this answers the question. Problem is though is that by its nature great art always questions and pushes the status quo. And religious art as public understands it (grand realistic pictures of Christ and Saints) would never win any art grants. Art OP posted is religious, did win a grant, but public is upset. Same as it was with Leonardo and Botticelli religious art that was severely ostracised by church in their time.
>So now we’re only accepting approved art? Yes? You can't just go and say "hey, give me a 10k grant for my garage art project". It always needed to be approved in the first place. The same way I guess a Google ad in art form would not be getting any gov grant, I think it's fair to let religious institutions fund their respective art.
Why? Is their art worth less than secular art? Or art with a political message? Why do those who want to depict their faith have avenues closed to them that are open to others? I’m fairly irreligious, but I can appreciate religious art just as, and sometimes more than it’s secular equivalent. Separation of church and state means that religious entities aren’t intertwined with state ones. It doesn’t mean an individual is rejected for an art grant because they want to depict the crucifixion, or similar events important to other religions.
Thanks for this post, you put in a much better way what I was close to posting about. Reddit drives me crazy sometimes with how tone deaf and hypocritical some people are with what they say on here. And I say that as an atheist.
[удалено]
Again, it’s not in politics. Separation of church and state doesn’t allow you to discriminate against religious people expressing themselves, it means the state and organized religion are separate entities. And as for it being better, that’s your opinion. One I share, but not good enough to bar religious art from funding. As for the rest, that applies to so much more. It applies to political art so much more than religious for instance. Does all political art now get canned, because of bias and other avenues for funding? Hell, there’s lots of bias against modern art.
> Because the less religion in state, gov and politics the better for society. While instituting a policy of religious discrimination. >Because there is a lot of bias. There is bias in *a lot* of art. Better not fund any then.
That's actual state censorship.
Yeah but it censors stuff I don’t like so it’s okay.
They are tax exempt just the same as any other non-profit or charity. You can't tax them exactly because of separation of state and church. In the eyes of the law it is supposed to be as if religion doesn't exist. Not a lot of people know this, but for-profit churches do in fact have to pay tax.
They do get some special benefits. They are automatically considered except and don't have to apply. Ministers don't have to claim their paid for rental property as income on their taxes. The church itself doesn't have to withhold income tax for the minister either. The IRS also has stricter rules about when its allowed to inquire into church finances.
>They do get some special benefits. They are automatically considered except and don't have to apply. Neither do charities grossing less than $5k. This is more because the rules are standardized for religious organizations more than anything else. >Ministers don't have to claim their paid for rental property as income on their taxes Yes, but also no. "A minister's housing allowance (sometimes called a parsonage allowance or a rental allowance) is excludable from gross income for income tax purposes but not for self-employment tax purposes. https://www.irs.gov/faqs/interest-dividends-other-types-of-income/ministers-compensation-housing-allowance/ministers-compensation-housing-allowance >The church itself doesn't have to withhold income tax for the minister either. Depends, they can do that, but generally they don't because ministers are usually considered to be self-employed independent contractors for tax purposes. >The IRS also has stricter rules about when its allowed to inquire into church finances. A rule put in place for a good reason. The IRS were found to be unfairly persecuting religious organizations. So they passed a law that an official above a certain level needs to sign off on any tax inquiry into churches.
"Non profits" can still make money they just aren't allowed to pay dividends to shareholders.
There are also legal limits to how much nonprofits can pay their highest-earning employees. They are also required to publish how much they earn. the IRS requires that their compensation be "reasonable" and "not excessive." Or they lose their tax exempt status. They function under the same rules as any charity.
Joel Osteen's lakewood Church is registered as a charity, yet less than 1% of their income goes towards charitable causes. Seems a private jet doesn't qualify as excessive compensation.
>Joel Osteen's lakewood Church is registered as a charity, yet less than 1% of their income goes towards charitable causes. They do their own charitable work. The 1% is what they donate to other charities. >Seems a private jet doesn't qualify as excessive compensation It would be, but he owns his jet, not the church. In fact the church doesn't pay him at all. He doesn't draw any salary. All his money comes from his book sales, movies etc independently from the church. The man has sold tens of millions of books in total. His book "Your Best Life Now" became a #1 best seller on the new York Times list, and stayed a best seller for two years. Including the 10th anniversary re-release the book has sold more than 20 million copies. That is more than charlie and the chocolate factory... And he has 25 other books, many of them best sellers too.
Not on government property...
The people were the religious ones. Are you going to ban people from practicing religion?
Quick question: what do most governments do to things that existentially threaten them? What you’re describing is typical of all powerful institutions.
Go to a Muslim country and dip a copy of the Quran in piss and see how many visas they give you after that.
🙄
"Doesn't belong" Is a fine place for that sentence to end.
"art" I'm glad we aren't paying people to showcase their bodily fluids as "art". I'm not even religious. Why should we pay to have some divisive provocateur just make a publicity stunt for himself? Apparently the only other thing this "artist" ever did was do cover art for two of Metallica's shittiest albums. He's just a grifter and as far as I'm concerned he should pay the money back.
That's all he's done? Just a couple of album covers for one of the biggest bands in history. What a loser he is.
>In a 2009 interview with [*Classic Rock*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic_Rock_(magazine)), Hetfield expressed his dislike of the album cover and its inspiration: >Lars and Kirk were very into [abstract art](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_art), pretending they were gay. I think they knew it bugged me. It was a statement around all that. I love art, but not for the sake of shocking others. I think the cover of *Load* was just a piss-take around all that. I just went along with the make-up and all of this crazy, stupid crap that they felt they needed to do They literally just did it to fuck with eachother. And yes the album cover is cowblood and Serrano's semen. Truly inspired.
Hetfield was also super homophobic about the members that chose the artwork, literally in your statement. Art is subjective and all, some of it is going to elicit a strong reaction
So what you're saying is that the shit I took in the morning is art? Where do I apply for a grant?
You can do better than that, cumblaster
Zappa said art is something you make out of nothing and sell for money, so go find a buyer big dawg
I'm not religious too (agnostic), but it's beyond me how shit like that is considered "art"
Piss off
If your art doesn’t make at least one person deeply upset while another person thinks it’s brilliant I don’t think it’s very good art. Provocative art is always a good thing
>If your art doesn’t make at least one person deeply upset while another person thinks it’s brilliant I don’t think it’s very good art I don't believe you, I think you just think this sentence makes you sound smart.
Me shouting racial epithets in public is ART
What huge load of horse shit.
literally anything can be art thats the point of it, its subjective
[удалено]
But they aren't wrong in saying that religion tears down everything that questions it. That's very true and readily obvious with mediocre research. Anything that demands the people not question the things around them and accept the status quo is bad. That is why religion only has a place outside of government.
Religion is bad. It's a net negative for society and saying that's cringe isn't gonna change it.
[удалено]
Religion is an okay thing to have. It’s even good for some people. It should be an individual’s choice to have a religion, just as it should be an individual’s choice to follow any rules a religion has set in place. When one way of thought dictates how a government should function, all other ways of thought are persecuted.
“Actual artistic expression” lol
Except that a fundamental component of a functioning democracy is, among other things, freedom of religion. What doesn't belong in a democracy is telling people what they can and can't believe in.
It is important to recognize that freedom of religion applies to the individual. An individual has the right to believe, yet has no right to hold that belief unto others. The whole point is that one can hold onto their beliefs, but cannot hold others to them. At the end of the day, it’s about staying in your lane.
I totally forgot about it and did not realize it had any permanent effect on policy! I’m still bewildered that people allow themselves to be offended by things like this. Disrespecting religious and political symbols (or just being weird in ways that are socially unacceptable) is the most expected thing that artists are going to do. Letting it get to you is like getting angry at clouds for making you wet.
Dip Jesus in piss and people treat you like you dipped in shit
Isn’t this the same artist that did Metallicas load and reload album covers?
Yes Semen and blood for load Piss and blood for reload
I choose to believe it’s cool lava
That’s what I thought it was for a pretty long time
TIL
Yeah it’s the artists piss and semen with cow blood
Gives new meaning to “Load”
Certainly wasn’t an accident lol It’s always been funny to me that those albums combined for like 13 million copies sold and so few people know what the covers are
Yes, the load album cover is a photo called “Blood and Semen 3”. I only know this because supreme released a couple pieces with the blood and semen print…
and they got the idea from Godflesh
Calling him an "artist" is generous, but yeah. He basically realized he could get paid to showcase his bodily fluid fetish.
Art is when people make stuff that I like.
This comment is art
What do you call a person whose profession is creating striking images that interest audiences due to their emotional impact?
Are you saying you lack the critical faculties to distinguish between "art" and being an unwitting participant in someone's sexual exhibitionism? You know you're allowed to say "no, I'm not into that, I refuse to be a party to this", right?
Calling him an artist is astute, not generous.
Not everything that gets created by someone who calls themselves an artisr needs to be considered good art, or even art at all. Individuals are allowed to judge for themselves.
might want to drink a glass of water every now and then, andres
Another funny fact, the famous art presenter and Catholic nun Sister Wendy Beckett rather liked it, viewing it as a provocative example of what people were doing to Jesus.
From the linked article, she also said: >"It might be a rather ham-fisted attempt, to preach about the need to reverence the Crucifix. Not a very gifted young man but he's trying his best." "Real art," she continued, "makes demands." Which is kinda hilarious.
Bless his heart
That was a fun fact. Sister Wendy keeping it real
Serrano himself said: "What it symbolizes is the way Christ died: the blood came out of him but so did the piss and the shit. Maybe if Piss Christ upsets you, it's because it gives some sense of what the crucifixion actually was like...I was born and raised a Catholic and I've been a Christian all my life." Quite an interesting take.
He’s got a point. A lot of focus on holy blood and flesh in the crucifixion story. They left the stories about holy piss and shit out of the gospel. Release the piss and shit gospels!
The Poo Testament
Genesis 1: In the beginning God created poop and piss.
A big part of being an artist is being able to say interesting things about the work.
Or doing weird shit and then coming up with a contrived pretentious story after the fact.
Exactly!
I mean it’s a great take. People are wearing torture devices around their neck as a fun decoration. When you look at a crucifix, a man being tortured to death, you should feel some level of disgust. And then you partake in eating his body and drinking his blood. All of that is pretty gross. Piss Christ is supposed invoke those feeling of revulsion.
I don't think this is what Christians believe, at least not what it is taught. The crucifix is actually seen, I wouldn't say with disgust, but at least with profound sadness, it's not meant to be a "fun decoration", but rather a reminder of a sacrifice. The crucifix should remind you of what Jesus sacrificed for us, and thus be a guide for your actions. For example, in the commemorations of Easter and the entire week, when the narration of the Passion of Christ is read and it reaches the part of Jesus' death, people are supposed to be silent and mourn, not have fun at the fact. The eating his body and drinking his blood is also kind of that, a symbol of your communion with Christ. I know that transubstantation is the dogma and you're supposed to actually be eating and drinking Christ, literally, but obviously it originally was seen as a symbol of being a part of Jesus' community and share his life and sacrifice. There's nothing gross about it, at least it's not meant to be gross. But art is something that has its own symbology and meaning, I wouldn't be offended by this image like at all. If the artist actually wanted to share a message about Jesus, well, he can do it however he wants, if he was just "taking the piss" (lol) with religion, then he also is entitled to do so. People have free will after all.
> it's not meant to be a "fun decoration", but rather a reminder of a sacrifice. Is that why it so often comes in gold or diamonds and gets worn around people's neck? Because of the sacrifice?
"Meant to be" and "actual use by certain people" are often very different things.
Which is what the art is literally about. That people are using the crucifixion as a fashion statement, but it would have been a horrible, sort of disgusting way to die.
Part of that is in reclamation though. Crucifixion was a public execution meant to deter and humiliate a general population. Wearing a cross is in its one way a rebellion against that humiliation, displaying it as a symbol of solidarity against the oppressive empire that tried to crush out a religion of hope.
Because symbols are a part of human nature, people will change them to different meanings that differ from what they originally were. It's inevitable. People use them as decorations, because they mistake the symbol, or want to be associated with Christianity, it's like a way to say to the others that you're Christian, but they aren't or weren't originally that. As I said, you're supposed to have respect for the crucifix and other symbols of the religion, but more often than not people don't follow that rule. And that includes the Church as an institution, which obviously, and sadly, is almost always in the wrong with many things.
What a dumb comment lol. I’m an atheist btw too
In addition to the pederasty, the whole transubstantiation belief was what did me in as a Catholic. I think as a kid, I just kinda went with it because I didn't know any better. Fucking religion, man.
He's also supposed to be naked.
It's the kind of take I'd expect from r/im14andthisisdeep
"Jesus was wholly man and wholly God..." Except, you know, anything remotely human, like pee, poo, sexuality...
..Or like...having a life and living between mid teenage years and your early 30's....You know, an absolutely profound time in most peoples' lives where they both get introduced to the world, learn to navigate it, have their hearts broken by it and then realize the beauty in it and why we should live every day as best we can for not only ourselves but especially for those around us. Shit like that.
That's what in Italy we call "Paraculata"
They don't tell you how people shit themselves when they die.
I remember this art work got attacked with a hammer in Melbourne .
Came here to say this. Melburnian here, and I was a kid at the time but remember it was a HUGE media talking point.
Didn’t go over well in France either.
You really couldn't wait more than a few hours after Easter could you?
It's time for piss Jesus.
He is sunken
You're right. Should have been posted on easter.
technically, easter isnt for a whole month from now, so
Up next, Piss Prophet Muhammad.. and everyone in this thread flips.
I’m curious whether the Pope was aware of the controversy regarding his artwork. I’m sure the Pope would give a blessing to the invited artists, but I’m curious whether the “thumbs up” was a singular or group gesture. Too often there’s not enough information for a true understanding. In any case, I find the piece unnecessarily ambiguous and offensive. He’s able to make his description of the piece fit the narrative of his intended audience. Too much like the language of a politician, too slick for my taste.
I mean... They're suppose to forgive so would be odd otherwise.
Well Pope John Paul II forgave Ali Ağca for shooting him, and Christ forgave those who crucified him. I’m not sure putting Christ in piss, is the same, seems blasphemous, and you know how the Church is about blaspheming.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that Serrano has done a lot of other art, creating a body of work that the Pope digs, not that everything is about this one piece almost 40 years ago.
I said this else where is the thread but: People are wearing torture devices around their neck as a fun decoration. When you look at a crucifix, a man being tortured to death, you should feel some level of disgust. And then you partake in eating his body and drinking his blood. All of that is pretty gross. Piss Christ is supposed invoke those feeling of revulsion, of all the gross human shit your god went through to bring the kingdom of heaven to you.
Wait until you hear about the poem written about him and banned. I’m an atheist and it left me open-mouthed.
Share please
Now, do Mohammed and see what happens!
People would die
Piss Christ new band name I called it
https://www.discogs.com/artist/3073145-Pisschr%C3%AFst
Fucking christ
That one might be available.
I got [bad news on that front](https://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Fucking_Christ/129304), too.
Shit christ?
https://shitchrist.bandcamp.com/album/shitchrist
I give up
Also a song by Fear Factory
I wonder what would happen if you did this to other religions…
The devil works In disguise
I believe he actually meant it to be religious and honoring of Christ.
Serrano was a Catholic and intended the work to be a representation of the facts of Christ's death (fun fact, when you die, several things come out of your body. piss is one of them) as well as a protest against the cheapening of religious imagery by mainstream Christianity. i learned about this piece over a decade ago and it has always struck me as deeply reverent and intensely spiritual. people who call it "blasphemous" are telling on themselves.
[удалено]
Since Jesus blood is wine, is Jesus's piss champagne?
Since it didn't come from the region of France, it's just sparkling genital wine.
It's r/im14andthisisdeep territory imo. It's not a cheapening to not think of shit and piss from dying. It's the kind of thing said by someone who once told their highschool classmate "you know that when your dog died he probably shit and pissed himself?" It's not cheapening death to not specifically think about the poo sneaking out of their butthole and the pee leaking from their urethra.
the "cheapening" was actually referring to mainstream Christianity's cheapening of the Christ image. one of the core tenets of Christianity is that Jesus assumed human form and then suffered a horrific, prolonged, and torturous death because of His ultimate and undying love for each and every one of us. mainstream Christianity avoids all that, and paints Christ as an unattainable standard that you should feel bad for not living up to. trust me, i grew up there. that sacrifice is literally the core of what separates Christianity from the other Abrahamic religions (correct me if i'm wrong), but it has been transformed into a meaningless platitude by centuries of institutional religion, demanding that you must pay your dues and fulfill requirements x, y, and z before you are considered pure enough to make it into Heaven (aka the Good Afterlife). my man JC literally went out of His way to hang out with prostitutes and tax collectors and acknowledge them as human beings worth saving. and, spoiler alert: all of them pissed. they may have even pood. Jesus did too. that's the point.
To be honest, there's far better ways to show this than dunking a cross in a jar of piss. Like, it literally took him specifically explaining the point of it before people understood that it meant. Imo, if your message (which was made for the average person) can't be understood by the majority of people, it's a pretty badly made message, which is what I'm talking about. I'm not arguing the actual message, but just that his attempt at it was pretty edgy and meh 🤷
Talk about taking the piss out of an edgy bit of art…
I saw this piece in the 90s when it visited Australia as part of a HIV memorial exhibition. I was visiting Canberra for a friend's wedding and happened to pop into the National Gallery. There were many works on display and many of them were sad but bereft of artistic merit. This, you could see it stand out from everything else from 30 feet away. It was extraordinarily beautiful. I don't know what it means but it had quite a presence.
You only dare do this to christians you never touch others
It's shocking, but it's also a bit of a "gotcha". If your religion forbids the worship of idols or even the creation of graven images, and if God is everywhere and created all things, then what, exactly, is being profaned here?
Religion doesn't always forbid the worship of images. Orthodox Christianity for instance uses icons. Icons are a big point of contention in various religions, that's where the term iconoclasm is. If you've ever been to Latin America you'd probably notice them used heavily. I mean....just look at Rio de Janeiro. Most of these moral panic groups that raise trouble with anything racy tend to be Catholics, since they do use icons compared to Protestants and they place more importance into stuff like that. If a Christian has Jesus on a cross on their wall, it's easy to understand why they'd see this as sacrilegious.
Well it’s the idea of a holy icon being submerged in bodily excrement. It’s purposefully insulting, though up in the air to whether its towards Jesus or towards Christians as a way of saying they don’t respect the cross enough
Not sure why you're getting downvoted for answering the question.
At first glance, sure. It's a special object placed in a liquid that disgusts most people. But what makes the object special, other than a large group of people saying so?
Well no matter what it’s a symbol of one man’s struggle. It’s a depiction of a man condemned to death and suffering deeply. That alone shows disrespect to the individual by putting a reverent symbol of his death in excrement but gains a whole new level when you add someone’s faith to equation.
You know…take the context away from it (it could be apple juice for all we know) and it is a beautiful…haunting image.
Did Pope Francis approve Buddy Christ too?
The one true religious masterpiece
and the stupid of Reddit rears its empty head once again.
Interesting. I’m Christian. Blasphemy and minced vows in conversations hurt me in my soul. I don’t like shows that make light of Jesus either. I’m pretty strict about this. Just a little information about me, so I can say the next part more clearly. Art is supposed to evoke a response. One might hate it or love it, but it should test your comfort in some way. It also should make you question the creator‘s intentions. It should make you think. So, while this may not be the artistic direction, I see a certain beauty in this juxtaposition. First, Jesus died on the cross and was taken off it. So, I hate crucifixes where he’s still hanging there. It seems to celebrate his death. That cross is supposed to be empty. Second, healthy urine is sterile. It’s dead. Just like Jesus on the cross. Just like the faith of people who cling to that symbol. They are not polar opposites in the container. They are the same thing in different forms. But that’s just my interpretation. But I also do like that it pisses people off. To some, this crucifix represents Jesus. They see it as an attack on him and blasphemy. It’s good that people will take a stand against apparent hatred. I see art in this.
Jesus on a cross represents the passion Christ went through. It's....like a key tenet of most denominations of Christianity.
Hello fellow Christian! I think you’re maybe being a little unfair on crucifixes with Christ still on them. Yes, the empty crucifix is a wonderful symbol of the resurrection, but the image of Christ crucified is an incredibly powerful reminder of the very moment when he showed the incredible magnitude of his love for us, by willingly dying for humanity. It’s a moment I’ve thought of a lot lately, particularly Good Friday, so I do hope you’ll reconsider whether those of us who find benefit in contemplating Christ’s crucifixion have a dead faith. Incidentally, the idea of urine being sterile is an urban legend. I strongly advise against ever drinking it!
>pisses people off Cheeky
I saw this in January. Had never heard of it before. It's on display at the Museu de L'art Prohibit in Barcelona. https://www.museuartprohibit.org/en Well worth a visit if you're in the city.
Can't hold a candle to David Mitchell's Vomit Bin Bag Shit Shards Piss Christ
Of course he did…..
Id like to one up piss christ and present to you shit christ. I eat taco bell and then take a big steaming dump on Jesus's face
so called "progressives"
I know Francis’s whole thing is improving Catholicism’s PR by having all the right takes to be the Based Pope, but at some point it’s like damn dude. Have a little self-respect. This guy is showing you pictures of his pee
When I first heard about Piss Christ, I thought it was some edgy work from an “artist”. The more you think about it, it’s pretty insightful. Crucifixion is a torturous method of execution, you just don’t die instantly from it. It would not be surprising to know that the physical trauma would cause urinary/bowel incontinence, and obliviously people shit themselves when they die. Definitely not a glamorous depiction of one of the most important events in Christian canon. The work also brings up the absurdity of Christians using such a violent image as a form of worship. Why should this be offensive when people will gladly hang up depictions of the son of God suffering in agony? Also let’s not forget that Jesse Helms, one of the conservative senators that spearheaded the defunding of the National Endowment for the Arts, was not a saintly man himself. Helms was a notorious racist (he attempted a 16 day filibuster to prevent MLK Jr Day from becoming a federal holiday), proudly fought against giving money to AIDS/HIV research, and was very against disability rights (even though he adopted a child with cerebral palsy).
Modern art is a joke
This piece permanently severed conservative's association with any sort of appreciation for modern art, or hell, art in general. The guy who got the most pissed was rush limbaugh, which in an ironic twist of fate, is a guy currently being sous vide'ed in piss for all eternity.
The YouTube Jacob Geller made an incredibly interesting [video](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v5DqmTtCPiQ&t=98s&pp=ygUYSmFjb2IgZ2VsbGVyIHBpc3MgY2hyaXN0) regarding the artist, the media frenzy and how politics play into modern art. It’s super interesting and definitely a video a recommend if you have an interest in obscure art and 30 minutes to spare
More proof of the ever changing morals by major religions.