Talk:Piss Christ

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This page is within the scope of WikiProject History of photography, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on the history of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Often compared to "Piss Christ", when the topic arises, "Stripping Jesus" by Athen Grey (www.maleperfection.net) challenges the some same questions of freedom of expression that Piss Christ originally did. Is the nun stuffing a dollar bill in Jesus' waistband or taking one? Is it her hand, or because of the subtle disconnect, is she merely watching someone else steal from or contribute to the world's wealthiest organization? Is her other hand fondling Christ's leg. Or is she watching the ambiguous third hand reaching to touch Jesus' erection, symbolic of what her male counterparts, the priests, are doing to the innocents within the church? View 'Stripping Christ'

If there was an actual organized boycott against this image, don't you think it would be mentioned somewhere on the Internet? Rhobite 07:20, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)


Is there any proof that it is actual urine, or just the word of the artist?

Contents

[edit] Piss Koran?

I've just come from the page Piss Koran as a work of art compared to Serrano's. Can anyone verify this? Flatbush 22:37, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Piss Koran merge

Considering merging Piss Koran with this page. I envision a note at the end of this article describing ongoing Christian resentment of Piss Christ, and then briefly describing the formulation of Piss Koran photograph/concept in aftermath of allegations of Quran desecration at Guantanamo Bay. Any comments, suggestions or objections? Thanks. Babajobu 15:47, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revert of:This artwork's message

Hi,

I have reverted this twice:

This artwork's message is that while people from all over the world proclaim themselves as "Christians," followers of Jesus Christ, they often act contrarily to his messages and teachings; therefore, in colloquial terms, many Christians "piss" on Christ and his peaceful ideology of reconciliation over retribution and revenge on those whom wrong others. One example would be the fact that many Christians support the death penalty - even going as far as using The Bible to support justification of the punishment, which according to many theologians - including the Pope - absolutely goes against what Jesus Christ lived and died for. In other words, Serrano's "Piss Christ" denounces the hypocracy that many call themselves "Christians," but in reality act with incongruity to Jesus Christ and his teachings.

-on the basis that it sounds like the opinion of the editior who has entered it. That doesn't mean that it is nessecarly incorrect, but Wikipedia strives for a neutral point of view. If the text above is a summary of a widely held view, or even better the artist's intention, then it should be possible to come up with some references to support it. If this is the case please include them. Thanks AntiVan 07:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind that inclusion but perhaps it can abstracted it to make it NPOV. I'd phrase it something like: "One possible interpretation of this work is as a statement against hypocracy of those who state they are christian but do not follow christ's teachings. Of course like AntiVan said, if quotes can be found that is better in all cases. Otherwise we could go down the road of possibly having multiple interpretations of each person who edits this article and that is original research which is on the list of things not allowed in an article.
Other sections need to be abstracted out since it reads in the first person as if someone has done research such as: "many Christians "piss" on Christ and his peaceful ideology". If terms like many are used then it needs to be backed up with sources. I'd also remove some of the quotations and italics since it's reading as if to be ironic. --ShaunMacPherson 19:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted that opinion for the same reasons AntiVan gave. I have a book on Serrano and believe someone made that interpretation up. It is not "generally accepted". Piss Christ was one of a series of images combining bodily fluids and religious imagery, and has more to do with the body and with the contrast between the beauty of the images and social attitudes toward the body.

the conflict during the nea debacle wasn't "free speech versus blasphemy" but one of free speech versus publicly-funded speech. i see that people who are aggressively confused on the point have written this article.

[edit] Jesus voiding his bowels

Can someone please give us a citation for the comment about people seeing humanity in Jesus's voiding of bowels? Babajobu 09:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The Catholic User:Rchamberlain (see his page history) has removed this section claiming that is pov:

"Piss Christ" is also said to highlight the humanity of Jesus. While some see the submersion of the crucifix in urine as a debasement of Christ, some supporters see it as an illumination of Jesus' connection to man. They contend that "Piss Christ" reminds viewers of the most basic and biological functions that made Christ human and the fact that during the crucifixion, Jesus would probably have voided his bowels; therefore reinforcing the connection between Christ and man. [citation needed]
"oscar said that her majesty is like a stream of bat piss."
"is that so? explain yourself!"
"your majesty, i only meant to suggest that your wit cuts the darkness..."
in monty python, its comedy. here its just plain propagandising.

Although I do not agree with the removal, which in this case is very close to vandalism, I ask the author of the paragraph to provide a source for that analysis of Piss Christ.--BMF81 09:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Rchamberlain was right to remove it. Assume good faith. If we say 'it is said' then we should find somewhere that it is said. Otherwise it's opinion and doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. --Malthusian (talk) 10:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with RChamberlain. That section looked like Original Research, and unless someone can find a citation, we should keep it out. Babajobu 10:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Art?

If piece of crap is what qualifies as "art" these days, then I am offended on that basis alone. Is this unimaginative puerile trash the culmination of 30,000 years of human artistic achievement? And we wonder why they call Western culture morally and aesthetically rotten. 198.142.44.23 09:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This is the talk page for Piss Christ, not an Internet forum. Please restrict comments to suggesting changes or additions to the article. (P.S. I agree with you.) --Malthusian (talk) 10:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I think its awesome. --Vagodin Talk 19:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Cartoon controversy

I will not get into a revert war over it, but I do think that mentioning the fact that the reaction was peaceful is providing context for why this piece has regained notoriety. That is not POV, it is explanation of why something was brought up by people of a certain POV. I'll let someone who agrees with me reinsert an appropriate reference. PhatJew 07:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The Jylland's-Posten nonsense is an event that took place 15 years after this one. There's no conceivable relevance to it in this article, except for the fact that both were religious in nature and both caused controversy. No-one's going to even think about adding it into this article 5 years or even 5 months from today, and it shouldn't be added now. Are we going to insert a link to every single other religious-related art controversy? "Unlike when Jerry Springer: The Opera came out, no Christians sent death threads to the people that put it on television." That would be far too bloated and serve no purpose except to fuel a "But the Christians" "But the Muslims" argument. Let's stick to the 'art'. --Malthusian (talk) 08:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
please yes, but may we also remove all of the silly references to a mythological battle between supporters and opponents of free speech which never occured? these inferences are as silly as the others. i remember only a debate in which progressives insisted that public funds must be used to subsidise bigoted artwork.

[edit] Hate Crimes

So what difference is there logically from this, a defiling of ones religion.. not controversial at all but yet seriously seriously insulting and wrong to many many Christians, and the insults or suggested hate toward ones race weather it be in pictures or words? Are you telling me that I can draw a painting of an Black man with a leash and collar on while a White man holds the end of the leash and whips the Black man into submission and I can call this "controversial art"? This should not be allowed. It teaches hate and it is wrong, this article needs to remove "Controversial" and instead say "Distasteful" or "Hateful" This so called "Art" is nothing more than a utility for causing hate crimes. 71.112.224.112

well, it depends on who you are. for instance, when a student artist made a satirical painting of chicago's progressive mayor harold washington, progressives threw a riot, damaging the school's exhibition space as they struggled to physically destroy the painting. the administration held scolding teach-in's to discuss that iconclasm is only good going in the other direction.

Relax... it's just Jesus in piss. What property of piss makes it insulting to whatever happens to be dunked in it? Jesus actually looks very mystical if you forget that you're looking at piss, it's actually a very cool-looking work.
(P.S. Your Hateful/Distasteful art suggestion would go against wikipedia neutral point of view policy.) --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 20:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "free speech"

I had discussed this before and no one seemed to dissagree with me. To say that the controversy over Piss Christ was one of whether he was within his first ammendment rights to create and display the work is a distortion, and one which serves a bigoted pov. the "free speech" issue was a red herring developed by defenders of non-accountability and non-oversight of the publicly funded NEA. It is simply not accurate to frame the controversy surrounding Piss Christ as a "free speech" issue. It follows further that it is not accurate to say that the Piss Christ controversy represents a "test case" for free speech.

I made a minor change to the article which described the controversey more accurately and removewd the See Also" section which similarly reinforsed this false assertion, and i was blocked for "vandalism". that kind of bullying should not be used to keep POV in an article. I'm making the changes again, and if you have a factual dispute, please address them here before abusing the wiki system.

I agree at some level. If we find a statement linking free speech to PissChrist we can quote it.--BMF81 14:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
The anon deleted the source that was there. There are many other sources; obviously this was a free speech discussion. It's not about non-accountability and non-oversight; it was about a "decency" veto. The Supreme Court found the veto constitutional (though many, including me, disagree), but it was clearly treated as a free speech issue (see NEA v. Finley).--csloat 00:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
(Here's the case if anyone cares.)--csloat 00:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

I've added two 2004 articles—one pro, one anti—from Arts and Opinion. I suspect that if someone is interested in expanding discussion on critical reactions to the piece, they would find quite a bit to mine in the two articles. - Jmabel | Talk 07:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/i/s/Talk%7EPiss_Christ_5350.html"