Is this always true? What about a nice softly lit picture of a man caressing a naked six-year-old girl? I'm sure that would arouse strong emotion and reaction too. Does that make it excellent art? [/quote]
Now you raise the question of pornography, which has a similar "in the eye of the beholder" nature, no? Wasn't it a former Supreme Court justice who had to admit that he couldn't define it, but knew it when he saw it? Sorry doc, but anytime you try to subtract something from the umbrella of art because it's distasteful to you, you only run up against the blur of the definition. Your theoretical photo of a man caressing a naked child is just one of thousands of examples you could have chosen. Do you want to be the one sorting them into the "acceptable" and "unacceptable" bins? [/quote]
Not mutually exclusive. Art is art. Art can be reverent or it can be blasphemous.
If I create a beautiful painting depicting Mohammed as a sodomite -- it is art, but to a Muslim it would also be blasphemous -- and if they are really moronoic they threaten to kill the artist. They clearly have a right to be offended as the "art" is an offense to their faith.
Likewise, there is nothing AT ALL wrong with Christians taking proper offense to such art with a crappy theme. Doesn't it make it more or less artwork. But it certainly still makes it blasphemous to Christians.
One WRONG thought people have regarding freedom of speech is that they have a right to a venue for their art. Prohibiting an artist from creating a work is censorship. Preventing public viewing of such art is not.
Its blasphemy if you believe in all that mumbo jumbo, art if you don't! Simple, when you take religion out of the equation! I'd rather concern myself with 'What came first, the chicken or the egg?' Now that's worth discussing about!!!
It's all a bit cliche I suppose.. Few years back some guy in school painted "orgy of the saints" for an art competition.. heck compared to that this seems.. a little bland..
It's all a bit cliche I suppose.. Few years back some guy in school painted "orgy of the saints" for an art competition.. heck compared to that this seems.. a little bland..
Its blasphemy if you believe in all that mumbo jumbo, art if you don't! Simple, when you take religion out of the equation! I'd rather concern myself with 'What came first, the chicken or the egg?' Now that's worth discussing about!!!
God created the chicken.
In that case, he created famine, mass murder, in fact all the ill's of this earth. And before you start blaming mankind, let me remind you it was god that created man, and what a failure that was!!!;-)
Its blasphemy if you believe in all that mumbo jumbo, art if you don't! Simple, when you take religion out of the equation! I'd rather concern myself with 'What came first, the chicken or the egg?' Now that's worth discussing about!!!
God created the chicken.
In that case, he created famine, mass murder, in fact all the ill's of this earth. And before you start blaming mankind, let me remind you it was [God] that created man, and what a failure that was!!!;-)
God created man.
Man chose sin.
The problems you cite are because we live in a cursed world. Your weak argument has been debunked many times before.
Darn, here we go again...another thread turned into a my lack of god is better than your god. The whole conversation has become more trite than this "art".
Darn, here we go again...another thread turned into a my lack of god is better than your god. The whole conversation has become more trite than this "art".
It's all a bit cliche I suppose.. Few years back some guy in school painted "orgy of the saints" for an art competition.. heck compared to that this seems.. a little bland..
Back to being "not even good blasphemy" :-)
With so many issues that require angry mobs and burning villages, the mobs needed to become choosy...
Its blasphemy if you believe in all that mumbo jumbo, art if you don't! Simple, when you take religion out of the equation! I'd rather concern myself with 'What came first, the chicken or the egg?' Now that's worth discussing about!!!
God created the chicken.
In that case, he created famine, mass murder, in fact all the ill's of this earth. And before you start blaming mankind, let me remind you it was [God] that created man, and what a failure that was!!!;-)
God created man.
Man chose sin.
The problems you cite are because we live in a cursed world. Your weak argument has been debunked many times before.
Man chose sin because he was alowed to, something went wrong surely at that point of creation, god must have been a **** to allow that to happen. He isn't as almighty as he makes out, and I for one will be one of the first in line to give him a right good old kickin, should he make an appearance! Bring it on!!!
Darn, here we go again...another thread turned into a my lack of god is better than your god. The whole conversation has become more trite than this "art".
LOL. For some strange reason your post had me going into the gallery section to see how many photos are in the religion gallery vs nude gallery (umm don't ask) only to find that there isn't a religion gallery! However there is a Science and Technology gallery! Yes, I'm just now realizing this. So it's not just Art giving religion the back hand but Drew and Langdon as well! :P
For me, take the religious argument out and take the artistic argument out and both items look like some crap you may buy in a $2.oo shop...Just my thoughts
I only hope the "ARTIST" did not get a government grant to creat this rubbish!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's just a lame ploy to get attention. Do something that doesn't need to be done and that no one with an IQ over 80 should care for, but make it offensive so it gets the attention. I feel the same way about most movie sequels. Look at the sequel to Hostile, or even the first one for that matter. Lame, brainless garbage that the world would be better for if it were rid of it.
That's not very "blasphemous" art. Far more challenging is this.
Hmmm, gotta agree there. Speaking as a Christian, Piss Christ is thought-provoking in ways that the artworks the OP referred to simply aren't. If I was a gallery director, I'd probably exclude them on the grounds of not being good art (whether on art-as-statement or art-as-aesthetics grounds), not because of any supposed blasphemy or offensiveness.
As an aside, Australia will have its next federal (national) election some time between now and the end of January, with the best money betting on mid to late November. So it's only natural that politicians of all hues will try to weigh in on any debate, and portray outrage if they think it will resonate with some part of the electorate.
