Controversial Artistic Representations of Religion: Is this Art?
Religion has long been a controversial topic for artists. On the one hand there is art focused on religious themes where the general consensus (today) seems to be one of appreciation -see da Vinci’s Last Supper, liturgical chants, and Persian miniatures. On the other hand there is art that can raise the ire of both the religiously devout and nonreligious. I’m thinking here of Ofili’s collage of the Virgin Mary which incorporates Elephant feces or Serrano’s Piss Christ which is a photo of small plastic crucifix submerged in a glass of the artist’s urine.
Do you think this is art? Are there limits as to what an artist should do with their art when their chosen theme is religious?
Tags: Ofili, Piss Christ, artist, artists, culture
Replies to This Post
-
Permalink Reply by Abby Levine on
-
The idea that there are taboo subjects is idiotic. Perhaps Serrano's work was intended to be shocking, but it carries meaning beyond its shock value ("this is my body...") I've always liked Ofili's piece and did not find it offensive: rather, I had a hard time understanding why anyone would.
-
Permalink Reply by Flo Oy Wong on
-
No! Artists should not have limits when their topic of focus is religion. Whether viewers agree with the final product of artists who talk about religion artists should have the freedom to pursue the content according to their perceptions. This includes artists who might come from a conservative right wing position. Art as a cultural phenomenon is a big enough area for all to express their thoughts through skilled and talented creativity. We don't need a Big Brother censorship mentality intruding into the area of religious themes in art. Personally, I much prefer art that addresses the intersection of art and spirituality without a specific reference to a belief system. As long as transformation is part of a piece it's good enough for me.
-
Permalink Reply by John Rouse on -
Can you give me an example of some art work you like that addresses the intersection of art and spirituality?
-
Permalink Reply by Revelation on -
Religion and Spirituality are two very different things:
RELIGION: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
SPIRITUAL: 1.of, pertaining to, or consisting of spirit; incorporeal.
2.of or pertaining to the spirit or soul, as distinguished from the physical nature: a spiritual approach to life.
3.closely akin in interests, attitude, outlook, etc.: the professor's spiritual heir in linguistics.
4.of or pertaining to spirits or to spiritualists; supernatural or spiritualistic.
5.characterized by or suggesting predominance of the spirit; ethereal or delicately refined: She is more of a spiritual type than her rowdy brother.
6.of or pertaining to the spirit as the seat of the moral or religious nature.
7.of or pertaining to sacred things or matters; religious; devotional; sacred.
8.of or belonging to the church; ecclesiastical: lords spiritual and temporal.
9.of or relating to the mind or intellect.
Religion appears to be the "moral outside"-the interactions w/people.
Spiritual appears to be the "moral inside"-what makes you the person within.
I may be wrong and have been battling this for a long time, a life time. Religious is a "matter" and spiritual is a feeling.
-
Permalink Reply by John Rouse on
-
No boundaries? I'm playing devil's advocate here. But, what about art that was clearly racist?
-
Permalink Reply by Revelation on
-
Can you please post a link for evaluation of the "art" you are referring to? Sometimes what may appear as clearly racist to some or most, it is like the old saying goes: "You can see racism in some of the people some of the time, but you cannot see racism in all of the people all of the time." Meaning what may appear as racism at first glance may not be at all if we were to reach the core of the matter. I am also not naive enough to believe that it is not racist either. I would like to see the work. Are you referring to The Holy Virgin Mary by Ofili? I am curious now.
-
Permalink Reply by Mary M on -
Art was and is also used for political purposes. I believe the art you are referring to was placed in the Brooklyn Museum in order to get attn from politicians and media , which would get more funding for the Museum. It worked.
So yes, I think it's art. Not great art though.
And I believe art should have no limits. I dont think one can put limits on creativity.
-
Permalink Reply by Revelation on
-
In your later examples, elephant feces and urine, I would consider these more of angered statements. Although powerful in nature, it seems to me that art requires some level of intelligence and the later 2 examples do not. Human beings are supposed to be higher level thinking animals and those examples indicate raw impulse and ignorance with no "thinking" at all, just emotion-like a beast. Imagine the guy standing there peeing in a glass, that is lower level functioning, like a wild animal. I once heard that artist view the world differently from other people and those examples show me that those "artist" view the world like most. If they were to take the time to find resolve and turn their anger into a well thought out representation of how they feel, they would certainly gain respect. Oddly enough, both artist have met the definition of "art": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art
-
Permalink Reply by Revelation on
-
I am somehow in the same boat with a very controversial painting within a painting which is religion and politics. On my website, I password protected Truth-The Hemorrhage of Pigs! which is the political side of the painting. My art is even controversial to me, the artist, and I anticipate the worst reaction, yet in that anticipation I found a way to tell a "story" of what is ailing me in politics and religion through my art. The painting is alive, it moves, it breathes and even bleeds-just like us. There are mysteries throughout the painting which gives the audience an opportunity to think and make rational decisions for themselves. I could have pee'd in a glass and splashed it all over the canvas to magnify my "raw" feelings but I did not. I used emotion in an intelligent way, strived to touch the heart and the mind of the audience and they will walk away thinking, hopefully of change and how to make this world a better place for all of us, not walk away feeling dirty wondering if they got any excretions on themselves. That is is difference between a raw and angered statement (short term response) v.s profound inspiration (long term response). Profound inspiration exist in a world not so far from your own. This is my inspiration:
Putitzer Prize winning photography by Kevin Carter who at 33 commited suicide because of the controvery which arose from not helping this little girl. She was 4 years old, trying to make her way to the food bank during the war in Sudan. No one knows if she lived or died. But we know for a fact the photographer died. Prehaps he knew he could not save the world by himself, prehaps he thought about people like us-the artist who can see what he screamed through his art, maybe he wondered if he was able to save anyone. Just maybe he realized he couldn't even save himself. This photo should have been in every school book, on the front page of every newspaper, in every television ad, it should have created raw emotion and intelligent thinking, it should have created change! I am far more inspired by the photograph and its story that I would be by a glass of pee. This is the difference.
-
Permalink Reply by Gail Troutman on -
YES
-
Permalink Reply by marceau verdiere on -
it still blows my mind that nowadays religion can claim to have immunity from criticism in any form despite the incredible suffering it caused itself...I know it does some good, but believing in god is just that, a belief, and it has been too often imposed upon others for it not to create strong counter reactions. Why should it be "protected" from reactions, and art is the most personal and powerful reaction to something. I had to react to recent news and cold not help but to link religion as a cause to what happened in Abu ghraib in a piece called "Absentee Father" (http://www.marceauverdiere.com/absenteefather.html). It came after hearing some of the Iraqi prisoner abusers saying that god knows what they are going through and would forgive them.....??? How can you not react to such BS???
Serrano's piece, correct me if I am wrong, was actually a piece in which he was reacting to what his religion is being used for and therefore being done to!, I do not like to look at Piss Christ, but admire the thought process. Too bad it is misinterpreted...
-
Permalink Reply by Revelation on
-
Your passion is beautiful! A wonderful and refreshing presence!
Stay In Touch
Follow Create Culture
Get Started
© 2012 Created by Create Culture.
<