I pray you're joking because I surely loved it. Thanks for posting, Mouth O' The Mule -- my life is always -- without exception -- better for having visited your place
Crickey, "Anarchy in the UK" on ukelele -- it's either brilliantly subversive, or a condescending shite on one of the greatest songs of my lifetime.Let's put it this way -- I understand now on a visceral level what Catholics were on about when they complained back in the day about "Piss Christ" ...
Well, to be fair, what Catholics were saying was, you'd never in a million years do the same to Mohammed, peace be upon him etc., but for some turn the other cheek reason it's always Jesus you're shitting & pissing on isn't it?
i won't enter the piss shit conversation, but I will say that I kinda liked the performance [title o' my post notwithstanding]okay, maybe I will enter the conversationif the artist was pissing and shitting on christ [well, christ's image], then why do it? JC is either dead or knows what you're thinking, so why?if the artist was inquiring why people who had " a relationship" with Christ [people of faith] gave a damn what someone else said or thought about JC, then I'm interested.it seems to me [at this moment, typing out m' arse] that people who care what an artist says about their deity are caught up in their relationship with other people, and not particularly in their relationship with their deity.the closest earthly comparison I can make iswell, if I heard an artist had submerged a photo of the beatles in urine, I would think and say "what a fuckin' idiot" if I devoted more than a moment's scrunched-up face to the subject.You know, since I type these things while watching TV, or conversing with people, you'd think I'd learn [or remember] that I have no need to / no business comment[ing] on anything seriousSince I don't have that relationship with a deity, I have no idea what it feels like.
I do like to hump broads, though. . . .
To be honest, I always understood why people were irked at "Piss Christ," although I myself just rolled my eyes and thought, "Here's another half-assed provocateur taking up space at an art gallery."I think the best way to deal with that sort of thing is to greet it with silence and the chirping of crickets.But I am admittedly not a fan of such things (I was about to say "modern art," but I'm not inclined to lump it all together and dismiss it -- just the "it's not really art, just a clever explanation" movement. Is there a name for that?)
I agree with all of the above. It's just that, knowing as I do some good people who were quite upset, I'm convinced that it's the wild double standard that's at work in the art world that freaks them out more than anything else. Christianity -- and Catholicism in particular -- is fair game in ways that no other religion is. I personally am merely peeved by the artist pose that it is at once "brave" to be provocative about Christ and at the same time equally "brave" to avoid giving even the slightest perceived offense to Islam etc. Artists always want to see themselves as brave even when they are, as Myth points out, squarely in the middle of boring and predictable.
Who and Parkmeister: agreed and agreed.Who, my boredom, irritation, and complaint essentially begin at the moment the artist confuses provocation for bravery. In this day and age, being provocative or "edgy" is really about as mainstream as you can get.I guess it's "brave" to risk you taxpayer-funded grant or exhibition, though.That Serrano was a regular Audie Murphy. . . .
Post a Comment