Archive for the ‘Piss Christ’ Category

*Art* Depicting Christ Receiving Oral Sex On Display In Loveland, Colorado

Thursday, October 7th, 2010

An *art* exhibit on display in Loveland, Colorado that depicts Jesus Christ in various homosexual acts has caused an uproar, with proponents claiming, among other things, that the controversy in “necessary” to establish dialogue (??), and opponents claiming the piece entitled “The Misadventures of the Romantic Cannibals” is nothing more than tax-payer funded smut”:

“This is not art — it’s smut, pure and simple,” said Minto, who said he’s not against graphic art per se. “(But) this is a museum, not an X-rated bookstore.”

The lithograph, “The Misadventures of the Romantic Cannibals,” is part of a touring 10-artist exhibit titled “The Legend of Bud Shark and His Indelible Ink.”

Susan Ison, the city’s director of cultural services, said she asked Loveland’s cultural services board to review Chagoya’s work, and they didn’t have any problems with it. Ison said Chagoya was attempting to describe his “midlife crisis” in the piece.

“It’s very complex,” said Ison. “I really can’t describe simply what he’s trying to get at.”

Loveland resident Carol Ware said Chagoya’s piece is not something she’d want on her living room wall. But, she said, “it’s provocative and thought-provoking. I thought that is what art is all about.”

Susan Ison, the city’s director of cultural services admits openly that she has no idea what the piece represents. It’s about the artists “midlife crisis” supposedly; but we do know that Susan Ison must think the artistic piece isn’t wrapped in anti-Christian hate because if it was, there is no way the artistic piece would be displayed. You see, by definition, displaying anti-Christian hate would be a hate crime.

I’m sure Susan Ison has thought this out. If an artist came to her next month with a lithograph displaying the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) receiving anal sex from a squirrel, why that’s just artistic expression, too, “provocative and thought-provoking”. Perhaps the artist in question is having a midlife crisis, also. Since artists are so deep that no one can understand anything about the inner-workings of their collective minds, it would be wrong to judge what the Mohammad/squirrel artist held in his/her heart.

Art is subjective, so I’m told.

Sure, we see what  happened across the world when some Mohammad cartoons (artistic expression) were released, but again, not being able to get inside the brain of the cartoonist (true artists, one and all), I’m sure Susan Ison would be the first to defend the artistic expression of the cartoonist, and would proudly welcome the display to her city. Bomb scares and threats to her personal safety that would come? Think of that as more artistic expression.

If this exhibit wasn’t government funded, I wouldn’t care less where or when it was displayed. If the *artist* was touring his piece on his own dime, then he will either sink or swim on his ability as an artist. If you don’t like what he represents, don’t see it.

The Mayor has no doubt in his mind that the artist in question is little more than a weasley little coward. You see, this type of anti-Christian art has surfaced and resurfaced dozens of times over the years and has now hit the point where it’s boring and cliche. These *artists* think they are “pushing the envelope”, that they are “cutting edge”, but the reality of the matter is that they are basically little more than schoolyard bullies that take great pleasure is picking on those that won’t fight back.

The artist knows that Christians will turn the other cheek. We’ve seen this type of *art* before, and to my knowledge the artists that offended haven’t had their throats slashed for what they did. It’s easy being the hero when you know you won’t have to fight. If the artist wanted to impress The Mayor, his next piece would be about Mohammad and the squirrel I alluded to earlier.

But that would never happen, that would take guts, it would take an actual backbone.

For now, the artist will wrap himself up with all the various rights that protect him. The right to free speech, the right to this and the right to that. And that’s fine, we all get what he’s doing.

The only thing these *artists* don’t get is that when they go out of their way to offend Christians, it makes the Christian community stronger. It also opens the eyes to those outside the Christian community. But maybe, seeing as though this artist is soooooo deep, maybe that’s what he had intended in the first place.

Whoa, I just blew my own mind.

Gaia Jugend

Friday, July 3rd, 2009

Spotted at Belmont Club.

I don’t know too much about this Climate Change thing that so many people have gotten into over the past decade or so. I know some folks say it is a religion of peace. Me, I’ve never had much of a religious/apocalyptic bent, so it’s just never interested me enough to look into it any deeper than I have, say, Scientology or palmistry.

But, whatever the truth or falsity of their promises of salvation: I do know that I would far, far rather the earth spirits’ wrath burn the planet to a crisp than see these people and their thoroughly fascist aesthetic succeed. Better to be slightly warmer on one’s feet than be pressed into a chanting, letter-shaped mob of anonymous, faceless Action-Takers on one’s knees.

The Irrelevance of Modern Art and Aliza Shvarts

Monday, April 21st, 2008

The world of art has long been so irrelevant that it regularly resorts to shock theater. Sadly, legitimate and talented artists toil in obscurity while juvenile hacks are elevated to national attention.

A famous example of such faux-art is “Piss Christ” by Catholic and photographer Andres Serrano. Serrano, who was the recipient of a grant by the U.S. National Endowment for the Humanities (also known as “the American taxpayer”), depicted a small plastic crucifix submerged in a glass of his urine. As planned, the “Piss Christ” image stirred much controversy.

Piss Christ

Serrano’s work confirmed one of the most reliable rules in the art world: if you lack talent and are desperate for immediate publicity, insult Catholicism.

Another artist utilizing shock sans substance is Karen Finley. The “performance artist” has “smeared herself with chocolate, painted with her own breast milk, [and] put Winnie the Pooh in S&M gear…”

(Which must have thrilled the suits at Disney.)

Karen Finley

In contrast to Serrano’s success at the public trough, Finley’s application for the National Endowment for the Arts was rejected. As is common among liberals who feel entitled to government funds, Finley threw a hissy fit and sued the government. Due to the free speech/1st Amendment ramifications involved, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley, in 1998. By a razor-thin margin, Finley lost 8-1. Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, in a concurring opinion, interpreted the relevant law plainly by declaring that “decency and respect are to be taken into account in evaluating applications.”

Little surprise that Finley sued considering that liberals accept no objective standard for decency (except that there is no objective standard).

Which brings us to the latest court jester in the art world: Aliza Shvarts. A Yale art student, Ms. Shvarts, whose last name could only have led to years of therapy, has stirred controversy with her most recent work.

A Yale University student’s senior art project, which she said documented her bleeding during repeated self-induced abortions, sparked a protest on campus, an outcry on the Internet and debates over morality, medicine, art and academia.

And — it was all faked. Senior Aliza Shvarts told Yale officials Thursday that she didn’t get pregnant and didn’t have abortions. [...]

Shvarts told classmates that she had herself artificially inseminated as often as possible for much of this past year, then took legal, herbal abortifacient drugs and filmed herself in her bathtub cramping and bleeding from the miscarriages. She said her work will include video, a sculpture incorporating her blood mixed with Vaseline wrapped in plastic, and a spoken piece describing what she had done.

[She] told the Yale Daily News that she wanted to provoke debate about the relationship between art and the human body but that the intention of the piece was not to scandalize anyone.

Indeed, who could possibly be scandalized by filming do-it-yourself abortions?


Aliza Shvarts

“Provoking debate” is the convenient shibboleth of those who are caught committing acts of gross idiocy. Apparently as long as society is forced to jabber about something, the underlying controversy, filming your faked abortions and expecting people to believe that it’s art, is somehow justified.

Shvarts’s art (“Shv_art”?) has created an outcry (and rightly so), but the project shouldn’t surprise anyone. Faked or not, Shvarts’s hideous brain child is the logical and natural result of decades of policies and laws which debase abortion to a common surgery with little or no moral ramification. In such an environment, a faked abortion is a mundane enough act to be worthy of filming and exposition. If you are offended, well, Shvarts merely intended to provoke debate.

As one of the premier and selective universities on the planet (charging around $45,000 USD a year), it would be reasonable to expect the art from any Yale student should reflect some maturity and talent. Apart from the her shameless dishonesty, Shvarts lacked taste, talent and judgment.

So she’d certainly fit in the art world.

~ Sisyphus, cross-posted at The Sisyphus Files.