For what it's worth, I was teaching English classes at a community college
those many years ago when "Piss Christ" first made the news.

After finally seeing it printed in a magazine I found the image to be hauntingly beautiful.
To spark discussion, I showed the image to my class without telling them what it was.
Even those who had heard of "Piss Christ" (but never seen it, mind you) and were
up in arms about it found it to be a striking image.

Everyone, whether they were religious or not, generally agreed that it was a pretty cool photo.
Then I told them what it was and needless to say, the mood in the class changed.

Roughly half the class suddenly found the image offensive, disguisting and blasphemous.
Why was something that a moment ago beautiful suddenly terrible?

I can answer that.   See this image?

It's beautiful, right?
It's amaretto, the liquor, but would it be as pretty if it
was actually the ebola virus or a picture of a brain tumor?
 

Like it or not, accept it or not, Serranos' photo raises questions worth asking.

That's not the point - it has never been the point.
The Democrats currently "own" Piss Christ.
I'm trying to get someone to take it off our hands.
My angry e-mail tells me I'm not a good Democrat if I'm not a Serrano fan.
 

Does one find God only among cleanliness?

I'm not qualified to answer that.
 

Is something acceptable or not simply because of its name?

Sure.
The author was sure to give his work the most shocking name he could find.
His intention was to shock, and it's rare than one can tell another's intention.
He could've called it "Christ in Amber" and just let the cool people in on the secret.
 

Is is possible to find beauty in something ugly or dirty?

Is it possible?
Sure.
 

Does an ugly aspect of something completely destroy any beauty it has?

Webster's  thinks so and I agree with him/them
 

And if we can't see past the ugly to the beautiful, what does that say about us?

It says we might win an election if the Democrats can stop shooting themselves
by jumping into bed with Ramsey Clark, Saddam and Piss Christ.
 

"Piss Christ" is a valid work of art and the saddest damn thing about it is that it's
only an affront to Christianity if you want it to be and 99% of the conservative yahoos
out there DO want it to be because in their minds art is Thomas Kinkaid.

ha ha

Tim
Columbia SC
 

Tim, it may be a valid work of art,
but why does it have to belong to the Democrats?

I don't like it, and that's my opinion, which is how this mess got started.

I like Shirley, Chinaco and Van Gogh.
Maybe you like Britney, Patron and Serrano.
That doesn't mean one of us is wrong, but if Britney, Patron and Serrano scare
unthinking people into vote for a murdering monkey instead of a better candidate,
I'd say let's divorce ourselves from Britney, Patron and Serrano .

OK, so here's the deal:
 

Let's not argue about PC being a good painting or not.

I don't like it - but if you like it, I won't try to change your mind.
 

From now on, let's make the argument about losing votes.

This isn't what you said, but what I'm hearing is, "We can atract more voters with urine than honey."
I'm a honey man, myself.

If you think embracing PC will get us more votes, then that's your opinion.
I think it's another nail in our coffin and we have too many nails already.

I'm trying to avoid giving the BFEE more power to murder and destroy - not teach art class.

 Comments?

 Back to  bartcop.com