From: Steve in Arizona

 Subject: Shock art?

 Of course, not all shock art is great art. But some of it is.
 At it's premier performance, a shocked audience booed Samuel Beckett's "Waiting for Godot" off of the stage.

 Remember when Bob Dylan showed up at the Newport Jazz Festival with electric instruments?
 All his folkie-type fans thought it was the end of the world.

 Bart, everything that's different or new is a shock of some kind to the mainstream.
 Like when the Beatles intentionally used feedback from a guitar amplifier at the beginning of "I Feel Fine."
 

 Dude, it's not the same.
 There's the "Omigosh, you cut your hair?" kind of shock and then
 there's the  "Omigosh, you took a dump on my dining room table?" kind of shock
 I say the second one is uncool and it's hurting the Democrats, but that's just one Okie's opinion.
 

 The deliberate use of shock in art can empower the message and fire social change. In the context of
 religious-based shock art, if a work like "Piss Christ" can bring one person to enlightenment, if it can
 break the hold of the priests and mullahs on even one single mind, then it's worth it.

 <snippage>

 Even if it costs us an election?

 The talk radio Nazis spend 24 hours on multiple networks every day screaming,
 "You see? That's how liberals are! ...and they want control over your kid's lives."

 That scares the weak and the stupid, which is the majority.

 Comments?

Bart, you wrote:

> I have an opinion - here it is:
> This is another example of liberalism going so far that it makes people vote for Bush.
> Why do liberals always have to push things to the extreme?

I THINK THE ARTIST IS MEXICAN, OR FROM SOUTH AMERICA--SERRANO.

No need to shout, Dude.
I can read you just fine.
 

> And I don't care what his intended message was, the message received by
> most Americans is "There go those weirdo Democrats again."

WHO GIVES A FUCK WHAT THOSE IGNORANT, LAZY AND COORUPT
ASSHOLES THINK.  WHO GIVES A FUCK?     I DON'T.    FUCK 'EM.

<mega snippage>

ANGRY NEIL
 

Dude, with that attitude you could lose the election for us.
Would you stand by Piss Christ and give them four more years?

Bart, you've probably already had someone chime in about this.

The crucifix in urine is called "Piss Christ" and was done by Andres Serrano in 1989.

Robert Maplethorpe was the photographer whose exhibit "The Perfect Moment" depicted
sadomasochistic acts, which spurred charges of obscenity from places like Cincinnati.  He died in 1989.

Your (and many others) linking of the two is a testament to the long time success of the right wing
being able to frame the public discourse to their liking.  The Lynne Cheneys of the world, back then,
accused the NEA of providing funding for these artists which wasn't true.  Their goal was the end of the NEA.

It sounds like you see me as a victim of the GOP's game.
Maybe I just prefer my art without the piss - that would be OK, right?
 

(Museums regularly apply for and receive grants for operating funds from the NEA, and some of them happened
to display these works.)  The issue was tarred as "government funds being used to support perverts who make smut"
or "government funds to support atheists in their blasphemy," in the case of Serrano.

Is Serrano a Democrat?  I doubt it, as the typical Dem wouldn't have the cojones to name one of their works "Piss Christ."
He's still around. Why not ask him? He lives in Brooklyn, and he considers himself a devout Catholic. He does not regard
his work as blasphemy. Did it go too far?  Why not decide for yourself:

http://www.usc.edu/schools/annenberg/asc/projects/comm544/library/images/502bg.jpg

That's a different picture from the one I saw.
The one I saw looked like a Folger's coffee can with a wood crucifix and a metal Jesus on it.
And the contents of the can was that familiar stadium men's room color
 

What Democrats have done, and I hope will continue to do, is defend ALL Americans Constitutional right to free expression.
(Lord knows the Repugs won't.)  But it was a contrived controversy, defined on the far right's terms, merely intended to inflame
and outrage the regular folk, for the purpose of driving their agenda.

I don't want to defend the piss artist.
 

Same song the wingnuts have been playing all these years, just different verse.
Don't give the people an opportunity to think and reflect.
Just inflame them, outrage them, and scare them.
It has worked so perfectly for them for so long, I expect them to continue to use it until it is no longer successful.

And based upon the Dems' continued failure to frame the debate on their terms,
I don't see the repugs ever changing their ways, or their tactics for the for seeable future. alas.

Mark T
 

I admit, if it wasn't Piss Christ, they would just bitch about something else,
so why don't we give them that opportunity?

Bart,

"Piss Christ" is the work of Andre Serrano, not Robert Mapplethorpe.

Like Bush talking to China in 2001, I'm sorry.
I'm very sorry.
I'm very, very sorry.
 

Viewing the work without knowing the title, one could almost find a reverence in the presentation.
(There is an ethereal, golden glow associated with the figure.) It was, and is, an obscure piece of photography.
If it never existed, it's critics would have created its equal out of some other piece.

Fine - why don't we give them that opportunity?
 

You can argue that this and Mapplethorpe's bullwhip picture make it too easy. That's a valid point.
Were the works produced with a mass audience in mind or merely as personal expressions?
In Mapplethorpe's case, based on his extensive body of work, I would guess the latter.
If Maxfield Parrish were alive and producing art today, they would have his hide as a child pornographer.

Is it art? yes. Is it good art? I'm not in a position to make that judgement.
Is it art I would have in my home? Maybe. (Not that I could afford it)

Damn, I'm sounding rumsfeldian.

ha ha

Shall we agree to disagree?
mj
 

MJ, I think embracing piss art is hurting us politically.
You'll have to tell me if we agree or disagree on that.

Hey, Bart:

I saw Piss Christ and some Red Popes by the same artist about fifteen years ago.
I hadn’t realized they were in the museum I was going to until I came upon them
and something clicked that I’d read about them.

First of all, to see them face to face is astonishing.
Your mouth drops open at the intensity—of the color, of the statement.
You can’t just glance at it and walk on—it grabs you and hits you with waves of revulsion.
It’s beautiful in terms of the color, and then you start thinking about how it’s naughty or 4
dirty or forbidden. The pictures of the pope in blood are amazing, transforming this icon into pure evil.
He could have done the same thing with fluids that were not bodily, but the point would be different.

Basically, I am obviously no art critic either, but Serrano’s work is really amazing because you have
an experience with it, a frozen moment where it’s you and the art and it’s speaking to you and you’re
just not the same after seeing it as you were before, and you think about it for like a day after you’ve seen it.

ha ha

Van Gogh's Wheatfield with Crows had that effect on me - and he did it without urine.
Besides, I don't want the urine to speak to me.
 

Anyway, I can’t remember why you brought it up, but I’m glad you did because I’m glad to be reminded
of the experience I had with these images. Oh, I ran into a short paper online about these that gives some
perspective on them:    http://www.nd.edu/~ndethics/archives/documents/Bleem.pdf.

Thanks for reminding me about Serrano’s work. I’m pretty sure people said that Van Gogh or Picasso
or just about anyone else should have gone back to painting garages. Artists push the envelope—it’s their job.

That can't be right.
Pushing the envelope for the sake of pushing the envelope isn't art.

Someone mentioned the Beatles using feedback.
If they released a four album set with nothing but feedback on all eight sides,
would that be "pushing the envelope?"  Or would that be four albums of shitty feedback?
 

And if it weren’t for them making such strong statements, we’d all be lameass
corporate-bought moderates like today’s democrats.
Hammer on and thanks for the page.
kelly
 

Kelly, did you mean to say "corporate-bought moderates like today’s democrats
who have lost the confidence of the middle class and can't win an election?"

Thanks for your thoughts.

Bart, you need more rest

You wrote:
 
> Mapplethorp intentionally pissed on everyone
> who believes in Jesus for the sake of "art" and that makes all liberals look bad.
 
And then you wrote:
 
>Religion is always the problem.
 
Now, while I generally agree with that second statement,
I gotta wonder what "everyone who believes in Jesus" thinks about it.

Dan Leahy
 

The majority of voters believe in Christ.
Why piss them off (no pun intended) and lose an election?

Bart,
It is apparent that you "refuse to get it"...in your words.

You consistantly refuse to understand basic issues.
Always shooting the messenger named Nader, while missing the obvious...Kerry was a sell out, a con job!

Now with this "issue", it's the same thing, you refuse to get it! I'm glad you've FINALLY decided to be honest.

Bart, "liberals" don't  "refuse to get it", but redneck okies might. When you say "Sometimes we liberals
forget the common sense part", actually your saying, "Low I.Q. Okies forget the common sense part".

Many self identified "liberals" are idiots, like you who, "refuse to get it".
Refuse to understand that the "New World Order" is Total Fascism.
Can't grasp how BOTH the Democrats & Republicans are SELL OUTS.

People like YOU are the FUCKING PROBLEM!
Damn Sheeple Idiots Wake Up!!!

Best Regards!
Rob
 

Rob, best regards to you too, Dude :)

OK, from now on, maybe I shouldn't say what I think.
Maybe I should say what the kooky, left-wing fringe wants to hear.

And I should stop having opinions that don't conform to the majority.
And whatever I do, I should stop telling the truth as I see it.

Who do I think I am, anyway?

Subject: so nice, he wrote twice

BC:

The artist was NOT Mapplethorpe.

Sorry, I didn't know there was more than one.
I'm very sorry.
 

And you are sounding like a hysterical Rudi G. when he tried to ban art
from the Brooklyn museum that he didn't agree with

I didn't say ban the art, I just like winning elections more than I like Piss Christ.
BTW, wasn't Rudy trying to ban a picture of Jesus's mother made of cow shit?

To be a good Democrat, I have to like shit art AND piss art?
Am I the last sane man left in this once-popular political party?
 

Here are the details:

Artist: Andres Serrano
Title: Piss Christ
Date: 1989
Material: Plastic crucifix in urine with cow¹s blood

Since when should WE worry about what the Right Wing rants?  They are crazy bastards, and will distor
ANYTHING the left, or middle says--anything.  So to "check" ourselves is cowardly, and counter productive.

People who don't want to jump into bed with Piss Christ are cowards?
 

You seem to be worried about what the great unwashed middle America thinks.

They are the people who pick the president - why rub piss in their face?
 

They are IGNORANT FUCKS, the majority of them.  Lazy, pathetic, ignorant fucks.  Screw them.
THey are sending thier kids to be cannon fodder, out of ignorance.  Only when enough young soldiers
and Iraqis die will they wake up.  And then it will be too late. Print this, and my email:  nrmurray@sover.net

Man, you are losing it, getting so reactionary.  Think before you write.

I wish I could be more like you, Neil
 

And take a trip OUTSIDE the damn country.  Fuck Vegas.
Go to London, Paris, Amsterdam, stay out of southern Asia.
Just get out of that stinking ignorant shithole.  You'll be amazed.
The world IS different from America, refreshingly so.

I'm in Baja California Sur for a month.
Angry Neil
 

If I take a trip outside the country, will I appreciate piss art more?

Re: Art & Liberalism
Your small minded Okie roots are showing again.

Art is about self expression. Mapplethorpe's ART was pretty much apolitical
but even the controversial material was considered homo-erotic by most people.

By now, I'm so confused.
Are you saying that's a good thing or a bad thing?
 

I'm not sure what a bullwhip coming out of his ass has to do with politics.
Many of Mapplethorp's photos are still life. You know--of flowers.
He was actually quite a brilliant photographer. Have you seen much of his work?

No.
We went to the Guggenheim in New York and they had his work on exhibit,
but my Okie roots told me I wouldn't enjoy it so was passed on it.
 

There ARE Conservative homosexuals--apparently, about 10% voted for Bush
(which is an entirely different letter). The crucifix in the jar of pee is actually one of my favorites,
although it has become the poster boy for cutting public money for the Arts.

I feel a dizzy spell coming on.
 

Are you suggesting artists should censor their work so as not to offend the moronic conservatives?
This isn't really a Liberal/Conservative issue but a free spech issue.

I have two main points, I think.
1. I don't care for piss and shit art.
2. The Democrats don't need to be the party where piss and shit art have a home.

For a guy with dozens of readers, sometimes I feel really alone talking to "my people."
 
 

Yes, I'm aware that ALL Art can be considered  political.
Bob

PS. Vegas is a PISS HOLE...

Considering the present topic, is that a good thing or a bad thing?
 

PS. Vegas is a PISS HOLE  of tacky, tastless, gauche, over the top mind numbing, excessive Americana.
I can't imagine how one could build a better more accurate icon of everything disgusting about American culture.

I disagree, but I guess if I were more of a liberal, I'd pass judgment on you and insult you
and call you names because you have that opinion?  I choose not to.

Two people on this page equate me with the Giggling Murderer because I'm not into piss art.
I'm so out of touch - I can't believe how bad a person I am.
I'll pray on that.

Bart,
I absolutely agree with you there....."liberal" or "progressive" art gets to a point that it's
so ridiculously stupid that it just makes everyone look like a friggin idiot, and that really starts to piss me off.

Yes, Mapplethorp's message is clear, and he's making some kind of point, but does that mean
that we should all be associated with it? I sure wish it wasn't that way.

keep swingin
Brad
 

Brad, you and I must be two right-wing, reactionary fascists.
Thanks.

Bart, you wrote:

> "Paul, it's not that I don't get it, I refuse to get it."

If Dubya ever had a genuine moment, this is exactly what he'd say
about Iraq, terrorism, deficits, Social Security, etc.

What?
 

>"I have an opinion - here it is:
> This is another example of liberalism going so far that it makes people vote for Bush."

So suddenly you're of the opinion that artists should tailor their messages so as to not offend the wrong people?
You hate that when Gore, Kerry and other liberals do it.

Why can't an artist make art with pencils, inks, paint and stuff like that?
Are you saying piss has the exact amount of liquidity he needed to make this "art?"

No, he was trying to shock people by putting Jesus in the piss.
Geez, you make Neil look like a righty :)
 

> "Why do liberals always have to push things to the extreme?"

The use of "always" and "never" in arguments are generally the province of those who can only argue
when they bend reality to support their claims. If someone "always" does something, there is no possible rebuttal.
Your statement above is obviously untrue.

You are 100 percent correct.
I should have said, "Why do liberals push things to the extreme so often?"
 
 

> "And I don't care what his intended message was, the message received by most Americans is
> 'There go those weirdo Democrats again.'  Mapplethorp intentionally pissed on everyone who
>  believes in Jesus for the sake of "art" and that makes all liberals look bad."

You must understand that anyone whose work is let loose on the world in any significant volume will
eventually feature a work/statement/idea that gives the wrong impression to the wrong audience (and
sometimes, the right audience - plenty of examples of that on your site over the years, I'm sure).
You don't care what the artist's intentions were?

Since we're in the realm of gross-outs and being extreme - if I took a dump on your dining room table
and told you it was art - would you argue with me?    Or would you accept and defend my "work of art?"

Why don't you feel jacked-around when an artist speaks to you that way?
Why don't you tell the piss and shit artists "Go away, I don't like your art,
and I don't want my political party associated with piss and shit art?"
 

Repeat:  You don't care what the artist's intentions were?
That implies that they could've been completely non-malicious (even allowing your suggestion that they
are beside the point). But in nearly the same breath, it seems that you've made up your mind what they were after all.
Don't bother me with the facts, indeed.

Even when I oh-so-clearly labeled it "my opinion," I'm still wrong?
I like my cheeseburgers medium well - am I a bad Democrat?

This is kinda where the argument started.
I'm a "bad Democrat" because I don't like the piss/shit art.
ALL good Democrats like piss and shit art, right?

How did our extremism get us into this, pardon the pun, mess?
 

And the artist is Andres Serrano. Serrano's point wasn't to "piss" on people who believe in Christ.
Educate yourself a bit (it is, of course what separates us from the monkeys):

http://www.communityarts.net/readingroom/archive/ca/fusco-serrano.php

If getting more educated means enjoying piss and shit art, I choose to remain ignorant.
 

> "Who decided that shock art equalled great art?
>  If Christ in urine is great art, would "partial birth abortion" photos be great art, too?"

Excellent knee-jerk. I can imagine a righty employing similar logic...
 

That's a legitimate question that YOU refused to answer.
Was the thought of answering the question scary?
Did you have to avoid answering to maintain your smarter-than-Bart status?
 

"If condoms for high school kids is a great idea, why not just set up bordellos for them too?"

That's not mine.
You made that up.
If some righty asked me that question, I'd have the balls to answer it.
 

> "Mapplethorp's other "masterpiece" is a picture of a fist up a man's ass."

Since you insist on bringing Mapplethorpe into the picture (guilt by the slenderest thread of association
- rock on, reactionary!), the picture you describe was part of a small fraction of his work.

If I could go back in time and erase that mistake, I would.
Jesus Christ - I haven't taken this much shit since yesterday.
It seems every Democrat is more familiar with those artists than me.
 

Most of his photographic work centered around portraiture, simple nude studies and his
most well-know works (among the artistic community, at least) were of flowers.

By the by, I'm curious where the descriptors "masterpiece" and "great art" come from?

Neither Mapplethorpe's nor Serrano's works are viewed as such in the art community.
This appears to me (a little aside for my own attempt at mind reading) to be the product of the
kind of misplaced frustration and condescension Dennis Miller unleashed on Dennis Hopper
years ago on the subject of modern art - and Hopper did a fine job of putting the haircut in his place.

> "Oh gee, can I get a giant print of that to hang in my living room?
>  That way, all my friends will be impressed at how liberal I am."

This is so ridiculous a statement, I don't even know where to begin.

The general thread of this page seems to be if I had more education, and if I was farther to the left,
I would appreciate and maybe even enjoy the shit and piss art.
Excuse me for breaking the mold..
How dare I have an opinion that doesn't pass muster with the lefty elite.
 

> "Sometimes we liberals forget the common sense part."

This is perhaps the most tragically funny thing I've read on your site. Catering to those who have lost
(or never had) the ability to think critically is exactly what has gotten our country into its current mess.
To equate cowtowing with common sense is diabolically ignorant.

Chris Clark
 

There you go again.
What I'm hearing is "You're another Dubya if you don't like shit and piss art."

My opinion of art didn't kill 1325 soldiers and 100,000 Iraqis.
Can you wrap your superiority around that concept?

We disagree on the value of certain pieces of art, so I'm a mass murderer?

It wasn't Maplethorpe who did the "Piss Christ".
Guy had an Italian name I think (its probably googlable).

It actually toured Australia where it generated the same heat.
I think that was its only purpose really.
I've never heard of it being auctioned at Sothebys or anything like that.
(maybe the piss turned to wine and spoiled the effect.

paul
Australia
 

Paul, that took guts.
Me, you and Brad seem to be the only ignorant, uneducated mass murderers :)

From: Dan

Mapplethorpe did a lot of photos of naked men getting it on with objects
and each other, which are truly disgusting, if not perfectly crafted photos.

OK...
 

He also took a number of photos of flowers which were also not only perfect
in every aspect of a photographer’s skill and technique, but simply far and away
the most thrilling photos of flowers I have ever seen.

I'm still with you...
 

In order to save your citation just a little, at the same time Jesse Helms was attacking “piss Christ”,
he was also attacking Mapplethorpe’s nudes. Mapplethorpe had received some grants from the
National Endowment for the Arts, but I don’t remember if they were for the nudes, or showing
the nudes, or just the flowers. I’ve never seen anything impressive by Serrano, but Mapplethorpe
was to photography as Jordan was to basketball in his prime.

I hear what you're saying.
I never said Mapplethorpe was talentless.
 
But how can we ignore the reality that mainstream Christians don't want to vote for the "Piss Jesus party?"
Again - am I the last sane Democrat in this party of extremists?
How do I end up in the minority on this fight?
 
OK, all the "Piss Christ" people please move to the left side of the room.
and all the don't-wanna "Piss Christ" people move to the right side of the room.

I'll stand on the f-king right side of the room,
and if I lose as many subscribers as I did with Pat Tillman - so be it.

I'm not for sale.
If you convince me, I'll change.

Until then, you're wrong.

 Back to  bartcop.com