AmericanPapist Comments
It's not art. It's crud (to put it mildly).
I don't know if B16 has spoken against specific works of art. I know that as Pre-16 he has strongly critiqued a particular art form: rock music, which (22 or so years ago) he described as "completely antithetical to the Christian concept of redemption and freedom, indeed its exact opposite."
This "art" is a leftie method of bashing the Church. A Crucifix stuck in a jar of urine is also called "art" - the Holy Mother covered with dung is also called "art". One could go on but the bottom-line is evident.
The art-world version of trolling. Don't fee it.
It is disgusting and outrageous what people do in the name of "art" and "creativity"! Let's see if any "artist" have the guts to have a frog holding the Koran!! It sure does annoying, but at the same time, whatever these ppl exhibit is just trash in its many forms why should we waste time and energy for it.
If Pope Benedict has not spoken out about it - he should!
It's trash!
If "artists" made similar works using Muslim or Jewish symbolism, or certain social groups like homosexuals or wiccans, they would not only not be allowed public display, but would universally be denounced. Only Catholic symbols can be misused and if we complain it's "censorship." So muuch for tolerance.
I think I have to disagree with you, aine.
A crucifix in a jar of urine or the Holy Mother in a pile of dung actually depicts sacred art, the likeness of Christ or his mother.
The artist is making a dumb, rather ugly metaphorical statement. I don't know that I'd stone him to death for it.
That being said, what is with some of the crap that passes for art these days? If you can get paid millions of dollars for putting a red circle on a blank white canvas, how do I get into that line of work?
Please remove this horrible image, Thomas.
I agree with Betty. The image is disturbing and I'd rather I had not seen it.
Thanks.
I third the comments from Betty and Donald. The Church has religious art because of its power in our experience; Satan knows that power, too. His best weapon is to twist our greatest gifts and blacken them in our minds.
I agree with Steph Schmude that the two brands of blasphemous art are different, but not that this one is any less evil. The dung and urine express an honest, violent hatred for God and his Mother; they are a stabbing at the Heart of Christ and of His faithful. But this is not even an honest attack, it truly smears dung on the way we concieve of holy things in a way the rather naive lashing-out of the first type is only playing at.
I agree with the others: please take this image down.
I think the language in this story is problematic. My first impression in reading this was that Benedict was personally on a crusade to get the sculpture removed. Looking at it more closely, I now think it's unlikely that this is true and that the story is just an instance of sloppiness combined with the usual bias of journalists. Depicting free expression as being under attack from the Church is like crack to these people. I honestly find the story more offensive than the sculpture, which I think is hilarious. I mean, why's he holding a beer mug and an egg? It's too funny.
i'd leave it there, but for reasons hard to express, and not without sympathy (in the classical sense) for those who would it dropped.
I would love to see what this "brave" artist plans to do with the Koran from an artistic perspective. Probably nothing, since he wants to live. Tom
Is this supposed to mean anything? I could compare it to Lewis' Aslan, who represented Chirst, but this is more puzzling to me. Of course, I'm a Protestant, what do I know?
I was wondering something similar, Panda Rose.
I always thought art was supposed to say something, or represent something...the artist is attempting to convey meaning...even if the meaning is something as simple as "this is a beautiful landscape".
I wonder what the artist is trying to say...if anything.
His Holiness has spoken out about it!
That thing looks really wierd!
I would say to go ahead and leave it up and display it in a place where it is visible to all who would bother entering the museum where it is displayed...
Why?
In no uncertain terms people will no up front what a passes for art there... and no people can opt to not waste time and money.
Plus, it only reveals in no uncertain terms how immature and childish these folks are.
Well, the artist is described as "the late German artist, Martin Kippenberger" so I presume Herr K has since received a more, erm, searching review of his oeuvre...
Commenting by HaloScan
