Pharyngula

Posted by: LarianLeQuella | April 19, 2011 9:15 AM

And how are these people any different from the Taliban? Oh yeah, they aren't... Despicable hoodlums.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 19, 2011 9:22 AM

WTF

Fucking barbarians is right.

This hits home as I've mentions proably way to many times, I was volunteering at the museum (SECCA) where and when the whole Jessie Helms / NEA / Piss Christ kurfluffle started.

Motherfuckers.

Posted by: consciousness razor | April 19, 2011 9:24 AM

Please, "barbarians" is not the correct nomenclature. The crazed fundies are philistines, a delicious irony. Another is the Streisand effect, or at least it's not going away just because some nuts put a whole in it. It adds to the texture, gives the whole piece a bit more depth, if you ask me. Maybe next time they'll fly a plane into the museum, just to be sure the damn thing is disintegrated.

Posted by: Cowcakes | April 19, 2011 9:27 AM

They also smashed another work, which showed the hands of a meditating nun.

Are the hands of nuns as corrupt & evil as the hands of a priest? If so this other destruction may be symbolically acceptable.

Posted by: kieran | April 19, 2011 9:30 AM

Off topic, that's a lovely area of france.
This seems odd to me, I know I haven't been in the region for ten years but I find the age group involved odd for french catholics.

Posted by: consciousness razor | April 19, 2011 9:33 AM

In other blasphemy-related censorship news:

Censored Algerian Artist Mustapha Benfodil on His Part in the Sharjah Biennial Controversy

Posted by: Abdul Alhazred | April 19, 2011 9:36 AM

At least they spared Duchamp's urinal. :)

Posted by: theGobi | April 19, 2011 9:38 AM

Some artists destroy or alter the negatives after a set number of archival prints have been made. It is an integrity thing. I hope it can be replaced.

What is next? A good old book burning night? Hey! Maybe they can start on the creators of these 'offensive' things -- you know, round them up and put them in a camp or something. That'll stop it for good!

Bastards indeed.

Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente | April 19, 2011 9:43 AM

I would put this more in line with book burning - it's nasty and objectionable but, as Salmon Rushdie was reported to have said, they have to buy them in order to burn them, so the royalty is safe.

Posted by: Quidam | April 19, 2011 9:44 AM

I think taking the piss out of a work of 'art' like that is not unreasonable.

Posted by: consciousness razor | April 19, 2011 9:48 AM

yahoomess, #14:

To begin with, in the case of Piss Christ, the authorities -- likely Christian themselves -- tried to stop the attack; in Afghanistan, the Taliban WERE the authorities.

What a load. Who gives a fuck about authorities?

From the guardian article:

Asked by the daily Libération why the Piss Christ protest had happened now, Mézil pointed to Sarkozy's speech in March lauding "the Christian heritage of France" at Puy-en-Velay, where the first Crusades were preached.

He said: "Clearly we saw in Saturday's demonstration that a Catholic fringe wanted to take the president at his word, with extremely violent appeals." He said there was a climate of tension, with protesters insulting museum staff of north African origin. One guard said he heard: "I'm going to pour donkey piss on the Qur'an." An email to the museum talked about "plunging the diary of Anne Frank in urine".

Posted by: Otranreg | April 19, 2011 9:56 AM

Philistine motherfuckers.

Posted by: Abdul Alhazred | April 19, 2011 10:00 AM

Anything is art if the arstist says so, even a photograph of a glass of his own piss.

It's art and therefore a holy relic. ;)

Posted by: Abdul Alhazred | April 19, 2011 10:03 AM

Oh aren't we pleased by how soooperior we are.

Yes I understand that other people have come to other conclusions. Your smugness doesn't work on people who have utter contempt for your art culture.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkUL-U9MUY8KYyNdOz0mVLJQIOQ81UEVm8 | April 19, 2011 10:07 AM

The Orwellian cast of much secular thinking here is a marvel to behold, here.

First of all, putting a cross in your own piss is not "art," anymore than burning the president in effigy or using the Constitution for toilet paper. If one wants to compare the present to the Middle Ages, what does it say about the modern secular mindset that it calls that art, while the Middle Ages produced Michaelangelo and Leonardo Da Vince? Piss Christ is the genuine act of in-your-face vandalism, as the "artist" is no doubt himself aware -- that is its whole point.

Secondly, if you want to talk about vandalism, here's as an absurd a statement as one might like to see:

"It takes a religious mind to turn the demolition of art into a virtue."

Most atheists deny that an atheist can, by definition, be religious. Religion is usually defined, by atheists, as having to do with a supernatural belief.

If that is so, then who was responsible for the destruction of 4000 years of Chinese religious heritage? Was it angry Christians or Muslims? They were still picking up the pieces when I first went to China.

And who destroyed the great churches of Russia?

How quickly we forget.

Here's a primer on historical causation, for skeptics too eager to blame Christianity for stuff:

http://christthetao.blogspot.com/2010/10/new-atheism-and-ab-uses-of-history.html

David

Posted by: barfy | April 19, 2011 10:09 AM

If Serrano meant for his work to inflame or antagonize Christians, then we can hardly be surprised when they become inflamed.
Bhuddist statues were not intended to inflame the Taliban, so I feel this is an inappropriate comparison. Maybe if some Bhuddists had made a statue of a defecating Muhammed to emphasize his humanity, and then the Taliban tore it down, would the comparison be more apt.
Do I feel that Piss Christ is art? Absolutely.
Did the horde act appropriately? Absolutely not.
But this kind of expression is purposefully antagonistic on a base level. Akin to a painting of a man's mother being forced to eat her own afterbirth as a symbol of the further suffering women must endure by men even after giving life to one.
Might you find that objectionable?

Posted by: consciousness razor | April 19, 2011 10:11 AM

Harleif:

Yes, those poor, infantile Catholics just can't help themselves when something inflammatory is sitting in a museum somewhere. What gives anyone the right to provoke them? It's their planet, after all.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmVT1LBhwmO9ej9LNg7a5e9d-AVJ8ezfmE | April 19, 2011 10:12 AM

http://www.ranum.com/linkedimages/piss-christ-kit.jpg

Posted by: Dark Matter | April 19, 2011 10:15 AM

Always the "easy" targets first......expect them to work their way up to fossils next....by that time tv-addled viewers won't care about some "rocks" being sledgehammered into dust by a mob...

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | April 19, 2011 10:15 AM

I'm glad you posted this here.

The artist in an interview:

"Andres Serrano: I have always felt that my work is religious, not sacrilegious. I would say that there are many individuals in the Church who appreciate it and who do not have a problem with it. The best place for Piss Christ is in a church. In fact, I recently had a show in Marseilles in an actual church that also functions as an exhibition space, and the work looked great there. I think if the Vatican is smart, someday they'll collect my work.

CF: Does your interest in Catholicism have to do more with an attraction to the iconography or is it about wanting to make a social or political comment about what the Church represents?

AS: Look at my apartment. I am drawn to the symbols of the Church. I like the aesthetics of the Church. I like Church furniture. I like going to Church for aesthetic reasons, rather than spiritual ones. In my work, I explore my own Catholic obsessions. An artist is nothing without his or her obsessions, and I have mine. One of the things that always bothered me was the fundamentalist labeling of my work as "anti-Christian bigotry." As a former Catholic, and as someone who even today is not opposed to being called a Christian, I felt I had every right to use the symbols of the Church and resented being told not to.

CF: At the same time you have expressed concern about the Church's position on many contemporary issues.

AS: I am drawn to Christ but I have real problems with the Catholic Church. I don't go out of my way to be critical of the Church in my work, because I think that I make icons worthy of the Church. Oftentimes we love the thing we hate and vice versa. Unfortunately, the Church's position on most contemporary issues makes it hard to take them seriously.

CF: So you do see yourself carrying on a tradition of religious art?

AS: Absolutely. I am not a heretic. I like to believe that rather than destroy icons, I make new ones."

His photographs are challenging for everyone, that's a measure of how relevant the ideas in them are to culture.

Piss Christ, to me, is less similar to the urinal and more similar to Courbet's L'Origine du monde: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L'Origine_du_monde

If only in its ability to get under everyone's skin (deliberate attempt to not make a pun).

It's a shame that some people can't stand to think.

Perhaps they should have an exhibition of degenerate art.

Posted by: christophe-thill.myopenid.com | April 19, 2011 10:17 AM

You're absolutely right PZ, This is not an anti-religious work, or a provocation of any kind. Serrano defines himself as "a Christian, and even a Christian artist". For him, human secretations such as blood, tears and urine are a way to illustrate the suffering of Jesus. He has "no sympathy for blasphemy" (in which he's wrong, as we know, but that's his opinion). His dream is to be commissioned by the Vatican. The yahoos who attacked him in the name of religion completely missed his point.

http://next.liberation.fr/culture/01012332509-je-n-ai-aucune-sympathie-pour-le-blaspheme

Posted by: dsichel | April 19, 2011 10:19 AM

"An email to the museum talked about "plunging the diary of Anne Frank in urine"."

Category error. The diary isn't hieratic, it's just a diary. For that matter, the Koran isn't a hieratic symbol, it's a hieratic document. I'd be horrified if anyone did that to the original documents, mind you, because they're historic documents. But I'd also be horrified if anyone did that to an authentic Roman execution crucifix, because it would be a historic artifact.

When I first heard of "Piss Christ", I felt that he was just trying too hard. But the photo is really quite pretty, and it's the idea that makes it significant.

Hm. You know what could have been interesting? Instead of calling it "Piss Christ"...

he could have called it "Piss Christ?", and provided some mutually-exclusive descriptions. Is it actually a crucifix in a jar of urine? Or is it a crucifix in a jar of colored polymer resin? Or perhaps it's a crucifix photographed through a jar of urine? Or a composite photograph - a doubled exposure or some such?

I feel that this would have reinforced the notion that blasphemy is entirely within one's perceptions -- not to mention that, under such circumstances, I feel it much less likely that the artwork would have met the same fate.

Art is all about meaning. I've seen works which seemed simplistic and pointless until I read the description card explaining the idea, at which point I experienced significant perceptual shifts and realized the genius on display.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | April 19, 2011 10:21 AM

I'm torn on this one... As an artist myself, I've hated this work, merely because it is bad art passed off as genius. No technical skill was involved in its making, and Serrano's thought process must have been: "Great art is provocative. Great art denigrates religion. Great art must piss people off. A Jew placed on a torturing device is provocative. A Jew on a torturing device placed in a jar of piss is really provocative. Nobody has ever denigrated religion in art ever. Therefore it must be great art!" Wrong. It's just bad art. He did the same when he made "Madonna and Child II". No new innovative ideas. No boundaries pushed. A bad photograph. And as a medical scientist, no healthy urine specimen should look that colour. He should get that looked at. So, I'm kinda glad the Catholics ruined it... Or made it better. Art is open to interpretation.

As an artist, I roll my eyes in your general direction.

Your limited ability to interpret his work makes it clear thinking isn't your strong suit. Stick to the technical stuff.

By the way, photography is a skill.

Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu | April 19, 2011 10:22 AM

I am upset about this. I am supposed to attack a UN outpost and kill some people, right?

Well, we're short on UN outposts in this country. How about targeting a Unitarian Universalist church instead?

Posted by: jurroen | April 19, 2011 10:23 AM

Idiotic selfrighteous french bastards!

only too bad you felt the need to invoke a Godwin.

Posted by: octopod | April 19, 2011 10:25 AM

barfy: actually, that sounds like an interesting image that could make use of a kind of body-horror aesthetic that doesn't show up much among the various shock stuff we see on a daily basis; what seems un-artistic about that to you?

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | April 19, 2011 10:32 AM

Also now that I think about the Crucifix is itself grotesque! It's an image of an emaciated man nailed to a fucking cross and driven to exhaustion by torture with his scalp pierced by a crown of thorns. A) Completely Metal and B) How does adding "In piss" really make it that more grotesque!? The subject itself is already (by design) a hideous image...the addition of "in piss" really is dwarfed by the original uglyness.

That is why I'm going down in favor of Piss Christ.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlkFR1V44IOFU5jGVG4BOdPp9waC5YeJU8 | April 19, 2011 10:34 AM

Another artist here. So...now we're allowed to determine for everyone what "good" and "bad" art is? Um, NO. And we're allowed to destroy art we feel has provoked us? Um, NO. That's not how it works.

Posted by: Gus Snarp | April 19, 2011 10:36 AM

BTW, When the Soviets or the Maoists destroyed religious icons it wasn't a command of atheism. Like most everything evil done under Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot, it was done in the name of Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot, not in the name of atheism. It was done because worship of a god got in the way of the worship of Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot. The evil of those regimes was partly in their deification of their leaders. The state was most important, and the leader was the state. But I suppose if you're here posting crap about the evils of atheism based on the actions of followers of Chairman Mao, then the history lesson will be lost on you anyway.

Posted by: raven | April 19, 2011 10:39 AM

What is the difference between Moslems going berserk and violent over a Danish guy drawing a few cartoons and....xian death cultis going berserk and violent over a picture of jesus labeled Piss Jesus?

Nothing. None. Zero.

They are all over this thread demonstrating that other than a few details, Moslem kooks are just the same as xian kooks.

Nothing much has changed since the RCC was burning witches, heretics, and Protestants at the stake. Except we don't let them run around loose anymore since the Enlightenment.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | April 19, 2011 10:41 AM

Not to wax too geeky on one thread (like I can help it), but actually gruesome images of women being disemboweled were common in very old prayer books dedicated to the saints, typically for women. It's thought by some that this might be an attempt to reach women, who were often terrified of the pain and potential death that pregnancy meant for non-virgin mothers.

While the church couldn't represent birth outside of the idealized way, they rushed in with many a saint who had their bowels slowly pulled from their belly and so forth. Thus women could meditate on the suffering of the saints and imagine their pain would either be less or be an act of mortification and devotion to that saint.

Art: It's always been powerful and it's always been controversial.

If it isn't, then it's because you're just not thinking about it.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | April 19, 2011 10:42 AM

BTW, When the Soviets or the Maoists destroyed religious icons it wasn't a command of atheism. Like most everything evil done under Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot, it was done in the name of Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot, not in the name of atheism. It was done because worship of a god got in the way of the worship of Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot. The evil of those regimes was partly in their deification of their leaders. The state was most important, and the leader was the state. But I suppose if you're here posting crap about the evils of atheism based on the actions of followers of Chairman Mao, then the history lesson will be lost on you anyway.

That reminds me of criticism on the Family/Fellowship: They want to use the methods and techniques of Stalin, Hitler and the Mafia and believe they are different because they want godly and good ends rather than evil...but they don't realize the techniques and means in question are what MADE Stalin and Hitler evil.

This may actually be illustrating to me some valid to PZ's "Dictionary Atheists" arguement. The Gnu Atheists are not argueing FOR the methods of the Family/Hitler/Stalin, they are philisophically against them. Argueing that Atheism as a monolith is to blame for the evils caused by those means to an end is both dishonest and unwise; it is playing into the rhetoric of the Family and denying that the wickedness was in the nature of the actions themselves, not whatever idealogical purpose it was seeking to achieve.

Say I support world peace. I want to achieve it by killing all but the 10% of the most pacifistic people on earth. Despite my goal I am not a good person...my mission is not good...my means are not just.

Posted by: bananacat | April 19, 2011 10:45 AM

We're gonna have some fun when Lady Gaga's Judas video comes out. Rumor is that Bill Donahue is already getting worked up about it, and it's a type of art that is basically impossible to destroy.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | April 19, 2011 10:46 AM

Oh god...I just realized how I'm potentially going to be horribly quote mined

Ing: Feminazi Atheist Genocide Apologist Wrote

...I support world peace. I want to achieve it by killing all but the 10% of the most pacifistic people on earth. ...I am not a good person...my mission is not good...my means are not just.

Posted by: raven | April 19, 2011 10:47 AM

Whether Serranos art is good, bad, or not art is a personal opinion.

Whatever one's personal opinion, that doesn't give anyone the right to destroy it. That is just vandalism.

I find a lot of church buildings rather bland and uninspired, especially the smaller and poorer ones. But I have zero interest in fixing that with a bulldozer.

Posted by: bananacat | April 19, 2011 10:50 AM

In essence this article is complaining about getting bitten by a bulldog you've just been teasing.

Silly me, demanding that people be held to a higher standard than dogs.

Posted by: greame | April 19, 2011 10:52 AM

I never really got much modern art. I'm sure I'm in a minority here, but most of it...meh. Like what's his name painting a soup can? wtf is that and why is it so popular? I can look in my cupboard and see a soup can.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | April 19, 2011 10:54 AM

What does it even matter if it was good art, bad art, or art at all. I would bet that in France it is unlawful to destroy shit that doesn't belong to you. People who do things like that are...what's French for asshole?

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkUL-U9MUY8KYyNdOz0mVLJQIOQ81UEVm8 | April 19, 2011 10:57 AM

Gus: I assume the lecture on how the evils of communism had NOTHING to do with atheism was meant for me.

First of all, if true, so what? Myers claimed that "it takes a religious mind to turn the demolition of art into a virtue." The fact is, "non-religious" atheists destroyed enormous amounts of the most wonderful art. As a China scholar, I am particularly offended by what they did in China. Clearly, Myers is being selective, here.

Secondly, I know what the communists did, and why they did it. That kind of spin might work for your fellow atheists, but it won't convince anyone who knows the facts, and is fair in evaluating them. The communists destroyed religious art because they hated religion. I'm sure they would have loved Piss Christ; in fact some anticipated it by forcing priests to use feces in communion in torture cells.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | April 19, 2011 11:00 AM

I don't like most early Modern art. In fact I think Cubist paintings are ugly in general. I'm not crazy about figuration, and I absolutely hate looking at Renoir.

However, that does not make any of those things bad art or not art. Furthermore, since I'm aware of the relevance of these things, am capable of analyzing them with a variety of methodologies independent of my personal tastes, and and can identify reasons for including them in museum collections easily, I don't even consider my view uninformed.

What I'd hang on my wall is not necessarily what I'd travel to another country to see is not necessarily what I'd write an essay about is not necessarily what I'd expect to see in a collection of art that informed/responded to a specific place and time, is not necessarily what I'd suggest some one start collecting, is not necessarily what I'd imagine my neighbor would love, etc.

Posted by: Personal Failure | April 19, 2011 11:00 AM

It's remarkably ignorant to say "Oh, it's just a photograph, who cares?" The point isn't the photograph, although it is a beautiful work of art destroyed, the point is that Christians feel justified in invading a museum, threatening people with potentially deadly weapons and then destroying a work of art.

That should be terrifying to you, no matter what the work of art in question was.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | April 19, 2011 11:02 AM

By the way, what all those art destroyers (religious ones included) have in common is authoritarianism because control of aesthetics is control of cultural identity.

Posted by: tink | April 19, 2011 11:05 AM

so ashamed for France... And we are supposed to be an example of secular democracy.
At least, the gallery director didn't cave in and wants to reopen and show the vandalized photograph to everybody.

I see that as the last acts of a religious group close to oblivion in France.

David, ... history is really not one of my strength but it looks like you are using the old argument that communists are atheists and they did bad things so atheists should be ashamed...
The soviets were as different from atheists as we, Gnu atheists, are from evangelical Christians.

I don't know what's the definition of atheism in the Oxford dictionary. But I am sure that atheism is not only denouncing every religion, it's also opposing any mindset which does not place critical thinking and the scientific method above all.
So NO. I am not taking shame for something some communist fanatic did 50 years ago.

Ok maybe believing in a magic old man is not necessary to turn destroying art into a virtue. But you need at least the same level of stupidity and fanatism that religion thrives on. So we could rephrase it as :

It takes a batsh*t crazy mind to turn the demolition of art into a virtue

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmVT1LBhwmO9ej9LNg7a5e9d-AVJ8ezfmE | April 19, 2011 11:08 AM

I've hated this work, merely because it is bad art passed off as genius.

There is no bad art. Nor is there good art. There's just art that some people have opinions about, and not all those opinions are in agreement.

The problem here is that some people raise their opinion about an artwork to the point where they feel justified in doing something to it, or its creator, or its translator, ad nauseam. Acting out one's opinion on "piss christ" is part of a continuum with suborning murder against Salman Rushdie for writing a novel. The line in the sand is at the point where it's yours to destroy - one can buy all the copies of "Satanic Verses" that one wishes to, and burn them (thereby increasing one's carbon footprint) - or even buy the original "piss christ" and burn it - but destroying a copy in a museum is destroying someone else's property, and a valuable property, at that. Since it's all revolving around a matter of opinion, if you were to accept that it's OK to destroy art that is - in my opinion - "bad" then it's OK for me to destroy cars that are - in my opinion - gas guzzlers (or not gas guzzling enough) or anything else that annoys me. This isn't an issue of artistic liberty or free speech, it's deeper than that; it's on a continuum of the rights of an individual opposed to the opinions of a multitude. If you want to allow destruction of art that in your opinion is bad, then you're implicitly putting your own art on the chopping-block if someone else dislikes it similarly in turn.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | April 19, 2011 11:12 AM

If you want to allow destruction of art that in your opinion is bad, then you're implicitly putting your own art on the chopping-block if someone else dislikes it similarly in turn.

Or some one like me who would orchestrate a random art destruction league as an act of art and wait for the war of chaos to begin!

Posted by: raven | April 19, 2011 11:15 AM

Piss Christ isn't any more "art" than PZ's own cracker.

Not necessarily.

Performance art - Definition and More from the Free Merriam ...

a nontraditional art form often with political or topical themes that typically features a live presentation to an audience or onlookers (as on a street) ...
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/performance%2Bart - Cached

Is there a real artist in the house? Doesn't look like it.

Both Serrano's and Myers' acts could be considered as Performance Art. A definition of such is given above. And both could be considered highly successful. They got people to look and to think. The enemy of art isn't hatred, it is indifference.

The destruction by the RCC Talibani could also be considered Performance Art. The point they are making is simple. Xians can be barbarians. They are also very stupid and ignorant. They should have had a high quality video camera going to record it and taken a zillion good photos.

Posted by: Quodlibet | April 19, 2011 11:17 AM

Ing....digo Montoya: You Killed My Father, Prepare to Die @ 53

Also now that I think about the Crucifix is itself grotesque! It's an image of an emaciated man nailed to a fucking cross and driven to exhaustion by torture with his scalp pierced by a crown of thorns. A) Completely Metal and B) How does adding "In piss" really make it that more grotesque!? The subject itself is already (by design) a hideous image...the addition of "in piss" really is dwarfed by the original uglyness.

That's interesting. From the first time I learned about "Piss Christ," I thought that was the whole idea: That no matter how distatesful or disgusting one might think urine is, the torture and murder of a man is far, far worse; and that we are falsely disgusted by urine (and here, distracted by it) when we should focus our disgust appalled by torture and murder, and we should condemn a religion that cherishes this murder as a Special Event to be contemplated with holy bliss. Eew.

Algernon @ 61: "...bowels slowly pulled from their belly and so forth" -- Hmm. Sounds like the drawing and quartering that was also part of many public executions in "modern" Europe.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | April 19, 2011 11:29 AM

Rachel Maddow covered this story.

In her segment, she summarized other recent attacks on art. Her summary included the story of John Boehner and Eric Cantor demanding that a certain work of art be removed from a show at the Smithsonian. The work was about AIDS. The Smithsonian caved and removed the work.

One theme common to all of the attacks was that religious conservatives were behind all of them.

These people are not adults. And they don't want anyone else to grow up either.

Posted by: Labdude | April 19, 2011 11:38 AM

@Algernon
Limited ability to interpret his work? Remove shock and what have you? No emotional response. Had he named it anything but "Piss Christ", would it have gained so much attention? The work does not stand on its own. Post-modernistic thought is so entrenched in the notion that art must shock the viewer but that in itself does not constitute "Great Art", but merely the paradigm's view of what is art at one given moment in time that can fade away as quickly as a new shift in consciousness takes over. For example, the wealthiest and most well-known artist in Europe in the 1860s was none other than Ernest Meissonier, a French Classicist painter. Even Delacroix himself predicted "Surely it is he who is most certain to survive!"

Wait. Who? Even though Manet, Degas, Monet, Morisot all lived at the same time? No shit... the Eighteen Hundreds were wrong? That couldn't possibly happen today...

Now as for the reasons behind the defacement, I can't condone them. Silly Catholics.

By the way... I'm fully aware that photography is a great skill. You must have mistakenly jumped to conclusions that since I don't like one photograph, I must hate all instances of photographic art. Don't beat yourself up over it. Thinking may not be your strong suit either.

@Ind-igo Montoya:
It's Mr. Dunce to you. From what I can gather through your mumbly-type, I proved my point. Art is subjective. I don't like Piss Christ, but many art PhDs think they "get" it. And they like it. You seem to like it. However, the religious are an easy target. They can get angry over anything. *Think: cracker + PZ*

...And one more thing: don't jump to conclusions... I don't like stuffy little vases of flowers/vase with oranges/horses backsides, etc. It's called "Saturn Devouring His Son" and it's one of my favourite pieces ever. So I must have some taste, eh?

Posted by: Daz | April 19, 2011 11:42 AM

Labdude:

Surely the purpose of art is to get people thinking about, and discussing something. Seems to have worked a treat with you, eh?

Posted by: CuriousGuru | April 19, 2011 11:45 AM

A google user wrote:

PZ: Apparently we were at the UW at the same time. I ended up studying history, and wrote my BA thesis on a closely-related subject, under the head of the History Department. Do you want to explain exactly where my alleged "stupidities" lie?

Wow, you have a BA in history? You must be the least stupid person on the planet. Seriously. You all round subject knowledge is likely to be unparalleled anywhere in the English speaking world.

I bow to your expert knowledge on every subject.

Or if you don't want to answer the "stupidities," would you mind explaining the etymology? What is a "cracker apologist," exactly? I've only been to the South twice, and didn't pick up on that phrase in the short periods I was there.

I think that cleaned the rust of my iron E.

I just love how you have taken offence at a post that may, or may not, have been pointed at you and tried to defend with an appeal to your education as proof you arent stupid. Amazing.

You are my new hero.

Posted by: tomdunlap1 | April 19, 2011 11:52 AM

If something is art just because someone says it is, then the whole notion of "art" is devalued. How many times have you heard, "my kid could do that"? There are "artists" who created the Buddhist monoliths and the Mona Lisa and there are people who call themselves artists and who stick a crucifix in piss. I guess everyone is entitled to their own standards of what constitutes "art".

Posted by: consciousness razor | April 19, 2011 11:55 AM

Labdude:

Had he named it anything but "Piss Christ", would it have gained so much attention? The work does not stand on its own.

So I guess that works for program music too, since it "does not stand on its own." Or do we need your esteemed opinion on each piece? Here's a wiki list of some more well-known pieces. Have fun storming the castle!

Posted by: consciousness razor | April 19, 2011 11:58 AM

How many times have you heard, "my kid could do that"?

The same number of times I've said, "who fucking cares?"

Posted by: Brownian | April 19, 2011 12:03 PM

Wow, you have a BA in history? You must be the least stupid person on the planet. Seriously. You all round subject knowledge is likely to be unparalleled anywhere in the English speaking world.

I've encountered that attitude among history undergrads. One would think, after having solved all other mysteries of human experience by knowing more or less how the Mongol invasions went down, they'd set their sights on solving the problem of why other fields of study exist.

Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente | April 19, 2011 12:04 PM

If something is art just because someone says it is, then the whole notion of "art" is devalued. How many times have you heard, "my kid could do that"? There are "artists" who created the Buddhist monoliths and the Mona Lisa and there are people who call themselves artists and who stick a crucifix in piss. I guess everyone is entitled to their own standards of what constitutes "art".

Posted by: Quodlibet | April 19, 2011 12:07 PM

Labdude @ #97

Post-modernistic thought is so entrenched in the notion that art must shock the viewer but that in itself does not constitute "Great Art", but merely the paradigm's view of what is art at one given moment in time that can fade away as quickly as a new shift in consciousness takes over.

That could apply to much of the art/music/theatre of the past 300 years. "Shock" value is nothing new - it's just that what has shocked some people over the past 200 years is standard practice now.

Gesualdo's or Marenzio's madrigals
Michelangelo's "Last Judgement"
Rodin's "The Kiss"
Beethoven's 9th Symphony
Mozart's "Marriage of Figaro"
Berg's "Lulu"
Peter Shaffer's "Equus"
D.H. Lawrence's "Lady Chatterly's Lover"
Georgia O'Keefe's flower paintings
Many performances by Diaghilev's Ballet Russes, especially the music for, and dances to, Debussy's "Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune" and Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring"
etc

These works, which were considered shocking when they were introduced, are now standard in canon of human artistic achievement.

N.B.: Not all great art is shocking. Not all shocking art is great.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkUL-U9MUY8KYyNdOz0mVLJQIOQ81UEVm8 | April 19, 2011 12:11 PM

Tink: I'm not asking you to feel guilt for what the communists did; I'm responding to a specific, (IMO) myopic comment by Dr. Myers, and asking you to put the alleged barbarity of a few French Catholics into proper perspective.

No, the definition of atheism does not include either "critical thinking" or a "scientific mindset," any more than the definition of Scotsmen includes an inability to commit ignoble deeds. Nice try, though.

Posted by: Svetogorsk | April 19, 2011 12:16 PM

All this has reminded me vividly of a similar incident in a British art gallery a decade or so ago in which a statue was seriously vandalised - beheaded, in fact - by a protester.

But the reaction couldn't have been more different. In fact, a large number of people (in many cases precisely the same people who denounced the Taliban actions and who would almost certainly react the same way to the Piss Christ attack), applauded the gesture. One prominent critic (Brian Sewell) even argued that the beheading had resulted in a far superior work of art. You can see "before" and "after" images here, though the Sewell piece sadly doesn't seem to be available.

The primary reason for the vandal briefly becoming pretty close to a national hero was that the statue in question was of Margaret Thatcher, and it was truly ghastly - one of those monolithic, vaguely Stalinist effigies of a kind that Russia and its former satellites had spent the previous decade knocking down.

I freely admit to being one of the people who cheered on the vandal. On the other hand, I'm disturbed by the attack on Serrano's piece, and I'm not really sure why. Perhaps it's because I'm generally pretty indifferent to images of Jesus Christ (talk about over-saturation), and therefore have no problem defending Piss Christ as a legitimate work of art on principle, whereas I still have vivid memories of what Thatcher did to my native country and therefore instinctively regard any attempt at glorifying her as being artistically worthless. But is there really a difference?

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkUL-U9MUY8KYyNdOz0mVLJQIOQ81UEVm8 | April 19, 2011 12:26 PM

Curious Guru: Cheap sarcasm in lieu of an argument! How impressive is that?

Yes, I think my BA in Marxism, under the founding editor of the Slavic Review, does qualify me to say I have some idea of what I'm talking about when it comes to communism. But yes, I've moved on since then, and acquired more credentials. Do you have an actual, relevant point, or is it ad hom all the way down?

David

Posted by: Randomfactor | April 19, 2011 12:27 PM

Somewhere, Lazlo Toth is applauding these guys.

Posted by: StevoR | April 19, 2011 12:33 PM

Well on the (slight) positive side there's the fact that it should be easy enough to replicate the work again or at least a version thereof - in fact I can imagine a whole art gallery full of different versions of PissChrist being produced each with their distinctive differences - we could have an installation exhibit where an actual crucifix in urine is displayed. That could be broken, tipped out, sniffed like a wine glass, whatever folks choose and continually replenished and made anew a smelly interactive idea-reality that cannot be permanently destroyed.

Plus some extreme Christians seem to be thinking the Piss Christ was done just to offend them. Yet if so, isn't this proof it worked effectively and thus marks its ultimate success? ;-)

Still, bloody stupid philistine vandals. :-(

*****

"I don't know much about art but I know what I like"
- "Pope" Johnny Cleese.

Posted by: Victor | April 19, 2011 12:38 PM

These people are all anti-world ascetics, believing that all things bodily are evil, while at the same time believing that the human body was made in their god's image. And that is why they're so fraking confused all the time.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | April 19, 2011 12:40 PM

Woohooo! I love you Brownian.

Posted by: StevoR | April 19, 2011 12:47 PM

I think I recall reading somewhere that one of the things that made crucification such a horrific and humiliating death in the first place - and thus one reason why the Romans used it as a deterrent - was that the victims would publicly soil themselves before (and during / after as their bladders and bowel sphinecters inevitably loosened) they died.

It was literally an unclean stinking shameful way to die.

How many depictions of Christ on the Cross show that?

Posted by: Abdul Alhazred | April 19, 2011 12:53 PM

What is the difference between Moslems going berserk and violent over a Danish guy drawing a few cartoons and....xian death cultis going berserk and violent over a picture of jesus labeled Piss Jesus?

Nothing. None. Zero.

You might appreciate the difference if you personally knew some of the people who were killed by those Muslims.

I don't need to know the victims. They were human beings. As for Piss Christ -- It's just a photograph of some guy's piss.

You have really warped priorities if you can't appreciate that.

Posted by: Steve Fisher | April 19, 2011 12:58 PM

Why does the rise of all this religious fanaticism in the world these days remind me of Mrs. Carmody in Stephen King's The Mist?

Posted by: frankenstein monster | April 19, 2011 1:03 PM

Provided a plastic statue in urine created as a little more than a fundie bait, can be counted as 'art' at all,
comparing it to the Buddhas of Bamiyan statues is a ridiculous hyperbole so overblown that you could comfortably hide several of them under it.

Of course, destroying other people's property is evil, regardless of its artistic value. And if there are crazy fundamentalist vandals out to destroy even the cheapest things they don't like, people should be concerned. Because, if left unopposed, those lunatics will inevitably start attacking more valuable targets all the way up to other people themselves.

But trying to whip up cheap outrage by making such ridiculously overblown comparisons, just makes you sound hysterical .

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | April 19, 2011 1:06 PM

The act of destroying that photograph -- let's call it piss-picture-gate -- was an instance of performance art.

It might have been if they'd bought it first.

But this is just vandalism since it was some one else's property.

Nice try though.

People are certainly free to print out their own little copies of the work and slash them up. Might even be therapeutic for them.

Posted by: consciousness razor | April 19, 2011 1:11 PM

I'm going to have to side with the argument that things are not people.

I agree.

How about that? Abdul Alhazred got one thing right in this thread....

The act of destroying that photograph -- let's call it piss-picture-gate -- was an instance of performance art.

Sure, why not? Nobody has said performance art can't involve destroying others' property. The problem, as far as I can tell, is that someone's property was destroyed. Do you understand why that's a bad thing, or I need to draw you a picture?

Posted by: davric | April 19, 2011 1:20 PM

… and this is the point at which we acknowledge that Christians are just as crazy as Muslims. Complaining about caricatures of Mohammed and smashing sculptures about Christ are just as stupid as each other.

Yes, I know about the death threats against Danish cartoonists, but Christians aren't exactly immune from such actions either (vide the murder of doctors who carry out abortions by Christians). If you were to do a body count, I don't think there'd be much to choose between Christians and Muslims in terms of mass murder.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | April 19, 2011 1:24 PM

Nobody has said performance art can't involve destroying others' property.

Actually there was just an artist couple who was put in prison for overturning police cars during a performance.

It's art, it's just also illegal.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | April 19, 2011 1:35 PM

Googlemess:

Yes, I think my BA in Marxism, under the founding editor of the Slavic Review, does qualify me to say I have some idea of what I'm talking about when it comes to communism.

Wow, do you have a genuwhine bachelors of art in Marxism? That's really impressive. It must have taken you years and years of edumacation to get a BA. I'm sure I speak for everyone else here at Pharyngula that I'm really blown away by your academic achievement.

Posted by: Andyo | April 19, 2011 1:38 PM

PZ #12

Try this: do a google image search for "piss christ". You will discover lots and lots of images of that one photo...and they're all different.

Piss Christ is a traditional, old-school photograph produced using chemicals and paper. It has unique properties that you can't just casually duplicate by running off another copy (which is not to say that another print wouldn't have any artistic value). There's actually a reason you can't just take a bunch of digital photographs and throw away all the canvas and paper physically stored in museums.

Posted by: Chaos Cryptic | April 19, 2011 1:45 PM

Perhaps next Serrano should dunk a golden calf in his own piss. I doubt more than fifty Christians world-wide would get it, but at least it would give the rest of us another reason to point and laugh.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | April 19, 2011 1:47 PM

What is the difference between Moslems going berserk and violent over a Danish guy drawing a few cartoons and....xian death cultis going berserk and violent over a picture of jesus labeled Piss Jesus?

Nothing. None. Zero.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | April 19, 2011 1:51 PM

This thread has led me to purpose a new definition of art

That which, upon discussion, exploration, interpretation etc, increases in value.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | April 19, 2011 1:55 PM

@Rutee

However, actually firing such a laser would probably break quite a few health and safety laws.

Posted by: chigau (◦_◦) | April 19, 2011 2:00 PM

1987!
It's been around since 1987.
Why did these folks wait 24 years to destroy it?
Was standing up for god too inconvenient before now?

Posted by: azumahazuki | April 19, 2011 2:09 PM

Bleh, no big loss. This was tasteless and whatever point was trying to be made with it, well, it's nothing we haven't said here before.

PZ, come on, I can't believe you are seriously equating this piece of modern trolling masquerading as art with the Bamiyan Buddhas. This is low.

Posted by: Amphiox, OM | April 19, 2011 2:11 PM

It was also a hostile act against everyone else's right to view it.

I heard about this on Maddow yesterday, and according to her, the French museum is going to respond to this by continuing to display the artworks mob-damaged as they are, for all to see.

If this is true, then I've got to say, this is an awesome response. Because this means the work of art has not been destroyed. So long as it is still regarded as a work of art and displayed as such, it's still art! And now it has even deeper and more profound meaning than it did before.

(Who said the French aren't awesome?)

Posted by: Andyo | April 19, 2011 2:12 PM

chigau #157

Why did these folks wait 24 years to destroy it?

four people in sunglasses aged between 18 and 25 entered the exhibition

Posted by: Ye Olde Blacksmith | April 19, 2011 2:15 PM

As an artist too, you must heed my opinion about what art is! HEED ME!

Wait, what? It takes more than simply declaring one has" insight into teh true" before anyone listens? Poopy. :-(

Posted by: Chaos Cryptic | April 19, 2011 2:18 PM

someone might consider a photograph of a plastic statue in urine absolutely beautiful

Posted by: Gus Snarp | April 19, 2011 2:22 PM

@amphiox

the French museum is going to respond to this by continuing to display the artworks mob-damaged as they are, for all to see.
If this is true, then I've got to say, this is an awesome response. Because this means the work of art has not been destroyed. So long as it is still regarded as a work of art and displayed as such, it's still art! And now it has even deeper and more profound meaning than it did before.

Posted by: CJO | April 19, 2011 2:23 PM

Bleh, no big loss.

First of all, there is more involved here than the object that was defaced. The episode involved mob violence and intimidation in the service of restricting expression and the public's right to view and appreciate, or not, others' expression.

This was tasteless and whatever point was trying to be made with it, well, it's nothing we haven't said here before.

That's your fucking pig-ignorant aesthetic judgment, and on its basis you condone fucking authoritarian terrorism and mob censorship?

PZ, come on, I can't believe you are seriously equating this piece of modern trolling masquerading as art with the Bamiyan Buddhas. This is low.

I see no such equation. I see a perfectly reasonable comparison between two acts of censorious, terroristic violence that culminated in the destruction of others' valued expressions. Your subjective perception of the seriousness or worth of the expressions involved is worth a great deal less than a jar of piss.

Posted by: frankenstein monster | April 19, 2011 2:26 PM

What insights can you offer into the creative process generally? What's that? None?

well, what about :
It makes fundies go bonkers, it is otherwise disgusting, cheap and aesthetically near worthless.

The author is a smart guy, so we can rule out lack of skill and insight. That rules out genuine intent to create something of artistic value. And also we can assume that the author was aware of the offensive nature of his creation unless we assume he lacked any information about the society he lives in.
That leaves fundie baiting as the most probable motive tho create this... well. this bucket full of naked chimp piss.

Then fuck off. Don't like it? don't look at it.

well, I didn't.

I'd much prefer that those who obstinately refuse to make an effort to appreciate anything that takes them out of their comfort zone find other ways to spend their time.

There goes the politeness. If I may suggest a better way for you to spend you time, bend over and go fuck yourself instead of making such baseless accusations :P

Posted by: frankenstein monster | April 19, 2011 2:32 PM

But the problem is, that if everyone is fucking, the word 'fucking' loses every meaning.

Bzzzt... wrong. unless literally every action you make counts as 'fucking' too. Then, and only then the word 'fucking' really loses its meaning.

Posted by: frankenstein monster | April 19, 2011 2:35 PM

A lot of things that are otherwise ugly or unremarkable can be rendered beautiful by a photographer, just as they can be by a painter.

agree.but this one is not the case.

Posted by: Quodlibet | April 19, 2011 2:38 PM

Good riddance to that shitty so-called art. Can someone smash up Duchamps urinal next please.

So...if anyone doesn't care for any work of art, it's OK to smash it up? Who decides? You? Me? The person who walks into a museum with a knife, hammer, or can of spray paint? Would you feel the same if someone "smashed up" a work of art that you happen to like, but that the smasher thinks is "shitty"? Is that OK, too?

Last weekend I attended a concert that included a performance of Brahms' Piano Concerto No.1. This work had been widely criticized after its premier as being [paraphrasing you] "shitty so-called music." Should the manuscript and all copies have been destroyed, because some people, including contemporary music critics, did not care for it? It took several years for public taste and understanding to catch up to Brahms' innovative work. The concerto has had a lasting influence on concerto form, and is now a staple in the symphonic and piano literature. (Personally, I find it the least successful of all his symphonic works, but I did not storm on stage and demand that the performance be stopped. No one forced me to go to the concert hall!)(I went to hear Hindemith.)

FYI, "In December 2004, Duchamp's 'Fountain' [the urinal] was voted the most influential artwork of the 20th century by 500 selected British art world professionals."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)

Posted by: Quodlibet | April 19, 2011 2:42 PM

#173:

Can someone smash up Duchamps urinal next please.

Please see info at #100, above.

Posted by: CJO | April 19, 2011 2:45 PM

The Catholics who damaged his poxy confection acted as defenders of civilisation.

Civilization was under threat from a photograph? The way to defend civilization from static, two-dimensional chemical prints is to storm a public building in a mob, threaten the caretakers, and deface a valuable piece of property? Civilization is made safe by fucking mob rule? What would that word even mean, if so?

I'm not even going to ask; I think I know what the fuck is wrong with you.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | April 19, 2011 2:46 PM

I hate to Godwin it but...

The attitudes seen here "I don't like it so I cheer on the vandals" IS a big part of the festering endemic small mindedness that lets fascism take root. Really look at your selves, what you're saying is "rights are for the people in MY group, those that deviate from my values are fair game". Shame on you. Shame the fuck on you.

Not that you are fascists or all that jaz, chaps. But you're obliviously humming along with the drum beat.

Posted by: Hieronymus The Troll Braintree | April 19, 2011 2:47 PM

PZ,

You're not really comparing the destructions of the Buddhas of Bamiyan to a destruction of "Piss Christ" as a sign of Christian intolerance, are you? Seriously?

Um, in the first place "Piss Christ" is a copy of a photograph. Easily replaced.

In the second place "Piss Christ" is a visual desecration of the holiest of holies in the Christian religion: Old J.H.C. Himself. That's deliberate, provocative desecration. I don't believe in that shit, but is it really so impossible for you to see why someone who does believe in that shit would be understandably provoked?

PZ, you're not just an asshole, you're something of a nut.

Posted by: Chaos Cryptic | April 19, 2011 2:48 PM

consciousness razor, I love that image. I see that it's from SA, but what was the context in which that was produced? Was it a Photoshop Phriday, and if so, which one?

Posted by: btthegeek | April 19, 2011 2:51 PM

The only barbarian is Serrano. The Catholics who damaged his poxy confection acted as defenders of civilisation.

Yeah, because that whole defending civilization thing that the Catholic Church was doing went so well in the dark ages. BTW you must listen to me because I have a BA in history just like googlemess above, so that makes me super smart.

As an aside, I just had a fabulous idea for crucifix-shaped pregnancy tests. Maybe ones that play the song from The Omen if it's positive. Do you think hospitals associated with Catholic churches have little crosses emblazoned on their labels so every specimen jar is blessed? Hrm.

Posted by: CJO | April 19, 2011 2:52 PM

agree.but this one is not the case.

So says... you, the clueless know-it-all self-appointed art expert.

Anyway, who said the only or even the primary function of art is to "render [something] beautiful" in the first place? I get that clueless know-it-alls don't like the work (a point in its favor, from my point of view). What I missed is where individuals' aesthetic judgments justify violence.

Posted by: azumahazuki | April 19, 2011 2:54 PM

@182

I never thought I'd say this to you, Ing, but get bent. I disagree with what was done; it's an assault on expression and artistic freedom, and shows a worrying (but very, VERY deep-rooted) tendency to mob "justice."

At the same time, though, what the fuck was the artist trying to do with this but generate controversy? I could see creating this to do that deliberately, and have had similar ideas, but is it worth it? It's a troll, pure and simple. If this is some giant Xanatos Gambit, I can get behind it, but wow does he play the long game...

This thing is nothing like the Bamiyan Buddhas. The destruction of those status was done with a deliberate intention to rewrite history, and furthermore those statues had stood there for centuries. The original artists are gone. And perhaps most germane to this conversation, none of the artists created them to be a troll. It was FOR something they believed, not AGAINST something they didn't

Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente | April 19, 2011 2:56 PM

I just finished a small bowl of popcorn. Is it time to make more?

Question for said art critics: If everyone destroyed any and all art they didn't like, do you think there would be any pieces of art left?

Posted by: frankenstein monster | April 19, 2011 2:57 PM

I get that you feel that way, but the fact that ugly things can be photographed beautifully makes it disingenuous to act like it's patently absurd to find this piece beautiful in its own right just because a jar of piss is involved.

Stop twisting my words. I agree that a skilled photographer can turn an otherwise ugly thing into a beautiful photograph, if he wants. But unless the spell really works, the photo shows just the plain ugly thing with no value added. And the pissing christ is just the case. a plastic cross submerged in a bucket full of piss and that's it.

Posted by: legistech | April 19, 2011 2:59 PM

The gallery's director, Eric Mezil, said he would keep the exhibition open to the public with the destroyed work on show ''so people can see what barbarians can do''.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/serrano-piss-christ-slashed-20110419-1dnd6.html#ixzz1Jzs7RZOf

That really is awesome...

Posted by: consciousness razor | April 19, 2011 3:00 PM

consciousness razor, I love that image. I see that it's from SA, but what was the context in which that was produced? Was it a Photoshop Phriday, and if so, which one?

Yes, it's from this one. There have been some others featuring Kinkade parodies, here and here. You haven't been warned.

Posted by: Quodlibet | April 19, 2011 3:01 PM

Sorry, beatrice, at #202 I meant to credit your comment at #199.

Posted by: azumahazuki | April 19, 2011 3:03 PM

Controversy can be a goal in itself. Point taken. But controversial things deliberately put themselves in the line of fire like this.

No one should be surprised (though outrage is fine) that this happened. It's mostly the comparison with the Bamiyan statues that got my goat, since among other things I spent a semester studying those. There is no equivalence here. The medium is not the message.

I am a philistine, it's true. Ha ha, lookit that, let's all laugh at the stupid dyke who can't appreciate a tank of stale urine with a cross in it. Classy, guys.

Posted by: frankenstein monster | April 19, 2011 3:04 PM

Translation: DAMN IT you may be right but My aesthetic values are INFALLIBLE!!!

What one should do if the other side complains that you put b/s in his mouth ?
Put some more b/s in his mouth !

Posted by: Chaos Cryptic | April 19, 2011 3:07 PM

many people can and do idiosyncratically like something otherwise unambiguously ugly. Someone might be thrilled by a stain on the wall , someone might like the smell of dog poop, someone might consider a plastic statue in urine absolutely beautiful

I am a philistine, it's true. Ha ha, lookit that, let's all laugh at the stupid dyke who can't appreciate a tank of stale urine with a cross in it. Classy, guys.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | April 19, 2011 3:07 PM

What one should do if the other side complains that you put b/s in his mouth ? Put some more b/s in his mouth !

When you stop spewing BS out of your mouth I'll stop shoving it back in.

Posted by: azumahazuki | April 19, 2011 3:10 PM

@212

HOW are they in any way equivalent?! Is any woman's body being violated by this act of vandalism? Can the photograph feel pain?

I am more or less on your side here. I just think the only reason for making something like this is a deliberate troll. The other possible motivations are completely obscure to me.

Was he trying to make this happen? If that's the case, hasn't his work succeeded masterfully? Sometimes destruction of a single item to release something into the collective consciousness IS the point. Maybe the artist was banking on someone doing this.

Posted by: Hieronymus The Troll Braintree | April 19, 2011 3:12 PM

I've been reading through this thread after commenting and I can't believe the level of outright Orwellian denial.

"Piss Christ" not a a sacrilegious work just because the photographer says so? Wow. You guys really are nuts. I mean, you'll buy any brand of bullshit so long as it conforms to your prejudices, won't you?

Pissing on someone is considered worldwide to be among the most insulting, degrading things one can do to another, which, among some mutually consenting adults is the very thing that makes it hot.

Dunking someone in piss has got to be at least if not more insulting. Dunking and photographing the holiest figure in all of Christianity is a direct, insulting provocation and PZ and his supporters are ridiculously pretending that it isn't so.

Seriously, there's something wrong with you people. You're exactly the kind of assholes who drive people into the arms of Republicans.

You know what I'd like to do? I'd like to go to Minnesota, find PZ Myers' wife and piss on her. Then when he wants to punch me out, I'll tell him he doesn't appreciate art.

Posted by: chigau (◦_◦) | April 19, 2011 3:13 PM

We're posting links to ART?

http://stores.ebay.com/Black-Velvet-Paintings

http://www.keane-eyes.com/

Posted by: btthegeek | April 19, 2011 3:15 PM

I am a philistine, it's true. Ha ha, lookit that, let's all laugh at the stupid dyke who can't appreciate a tank of stale urine with a cross in it. Classy, guys.

That's not what's being said, so stop making shit up. I'll agree with you that I don't appreciate it either. In my opinion, it's ugly, disgusting, rank and vile, and has every right to be afforded the same degree of protection as every other controversial and provoking piece of art. Art is subjective; the value of protecting art, and the rights of the artists who make it, is not.

Posted by: Chaos Cryptic | April 19, 2011 3:16 PM

"Piss Christ" not a a sacrilegious work just because the photographer says so? Wow. You guys really are nuts. I mean, you'll buy any brand of bullshit so long as it conforms to your prejudices, won't you?

Sister Wendy Beckett, an art critic and Catholic nun, stated in a television interview with Bill Moyers that she regarded the work as not blasphemous but a statement on "what we have done to Christ": that is, the way contemporary society has come to regard Christ and the values he represents

Posted by: azumahazuki | April 19, 2011 3:17 PM

@220

Do NOT play the "beaten for being gay" card with me. Do not. Talk about a tin ear...

Fuck it, I give up. Obviously it's True Art, and True Art Is Incomprehensible (TM) so I haven't got the brains to appreciate it.

Posted by: frankenstein monster | April 19, 2011 3:18 PM

Why? That's the best chance they'll ever have of being art.

But I don't want my words to be 'art', so stop vandalizing them by trying to turn them into art :)

Posted by: CJO | April 19, 2011 3:19 PM

Dunking and photographing the holiest figure in all of Christianity is a direct, insulting provocation and PZ and his supporters are ridiculously pretending that it isn't so.

I'm not pretending anything. I support direct, insulting (non-violent) provocation of authoritarian kooks like you.

You know what I'd like to do? I'd like to go to Minnesota, find PZ Myers' wife and piss on her.

So a plastic crucifix is due the same protections as a person whose spouse holds ideas diffreent from your own? Something is very wrong with you.

Posted by: Midnight Rambler | April 19, 2011 3:20 PM

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the one good part of the Guardian article:

This article was amended on 19 April 2011. The original referred to the Senator Jesse Helms as Jesse James. This has been corrected.

Posted by: Brownian | April 19, 2011 3:22 PM

I am more or less on your side here. I just think the only reason for making something like this is a deliberate troll. The other possible motivations are completely obscure to me.

How about "the crass commercialization of religious iconography to the point where a representation of the Creator of the Universe's personification on Earth can be bought in cheap plastic from a factory in China for $1.99 has so destroyed the possibility of reverence for such an object that I actually add value to it by dunking it in a vat of my own urine that I've been saving for weeks and then photographing it under exquisite lighting"?

In this case, the medium is the message.

Posted by: azumahazuki | April 19, 2011 3:23 PM

Dammit, Ing.

I never said this was excusable. I said it was basically inevitable. That, and it's nothing like the Bamiyan statues. More than anything, THAT comparison is what got me annoyed.

Posted by: consciousness razor | April 19, 2011 3:26 PM

Yeah, those fuckin' nuns and their adherence to atheistic prejudices... Wait, what?

Totally. I mean, just look at them, so sweet and innocent.

Posted by: frankenstein monster | April 19, 2011 3:27 PM

When you stop spewing BS out of your mouth I'll stop shoving it back in.

Apparently the pot calling the kettle black counts in your circles as art too.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | April 19, 2011 3:30 PM

@Rutee

I'm not trying to trivialize rape or violence...I'm trying to demonstrate that that same logic of rape/queer bashing apology is being used here.

"They deserved it!" is bullshit and is bullshit for the same reason it is for any other atrocious act it's used to minimize. And we've been well over HOW it minimizes the act.

Posted by: Brownian | April 19, 2011 3:30 PM

Dunking and photographing the holiest figure in all of Christianity is a direct, insulting provocation and PZ and his supporters are ridiculously pretending that it isn't so.

Who? The holiest figure in all of Christianity who famously said "turn the other cheek" and "forgive them Father, for they know not what they do"?

Every fucking Christian alive today is a living affront to Jesus, you fucking dolt, and if Christians really revered him like they demand everybody else pretend that they do, they'd say "point taken" and shut their fucking mouths.

I'd like to punch you in the throat because you're a goddamn affront to thinking Hieronymous, but I don't, because that would be downright Christian of me. (Or Muslim. Yes, can't forget the brown menace that makes it possible for Christians everywhere to act like as murderous thugs and then say, "Hey, at least we're not them.")

Posted by: charlystone | April 19, 2011 3:35 PM

I am not suprised by this at the least. What disgusts me the most is the fact, that ca. one year ago it was an atheist, who told me that desecration of a cracker is indeed on the same level as destruction of Budhas of Bamyian. I ended the conversation after he esentially said that murder differs from slander only in degree, because the "perceived pain" of those slandered is just as real as the pain of those who lost loved ones due to murder. I have seen no point in contiuing debate with someone whom I perceive as raving lunatic.

Because really, how much lower can you intelectually sink, if you put destruction of unique physical object of art on the same level as disrecpecting mass produced piece of bread? I get it, when catholics think this, but when I hear the same from atheists, it makes me think. Perhaps there is some brain damage involved in both cases...

Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right | April 19, 2011 3:39 PM

This fits in nicely with the burning of library books by polygynous Mormons who want to keep their victims sheep members from finding out about the real world.

We don't even know what the fluid really is: it could be something more stable than urine, like an artful mixture of yellow and orange Gatorade or coloured rubbing alcohol.

The secondary lesson of the piece could be, "Look at you getting all upset when this is really sterile alcohol or coloured holy water."

It's all in the interpretation, too--if the artist had spun an apologetic tale about how human sinfulness grieved and demeaned Christ, a urine-soaked crucifix might be accepted by the religious as deeply symbolic of Christ in our world. Would it be disrespectful to soak a cross in rum to symbolize West Indian slavery and the church's intoxication with worldly power? blood? priestly semen? Gold dust?

Posted by: consciousness razor | April 19, 2011 3:42 PM

Brownian, way back at #94:

Should I still feel guilty about the priest fighting ring Michael Vick and I have been running in select basements?

No, you can say it was "an obvious act of provocation" when the Catholics went batshit crazy over a fucking picture. All your sins will be washed away.

Posted by: CJO | April 19, 2011 3:45 PM

Is not dunking an icon of Christ and inherently insulting and sacrilegious act to Christians and therefore an obvious act of provocation?

If it were, so the fuck what?

Posted by: timgueguen | April 19, 2011 3:49 PM

So, who gets to decide what is art? Who should be appointed World's Official Decider of What Is Art? I'm more than willing to take the job, but I suspect several posters to this thread will be upset at my liberal outlook on the question.

Posted by: Hieronymus The Troll Braintree | April 19, 2011 3:51 PM

CJO @ 253

I really have to explain this to you when I've already explained it?

Jeepers. Ah, well. Here goes:

PZ Myers is making a clearly false comparison. A statue of Buddha does not directly insult Muslims. Also, the statues were beautiful and definitely a magnificent piece of ancient art.

Piss Christ, OTOH, is a deliberate, sacrilegious insult to Christians because peeing on someone is universally considered a gross insult; that is, a provocation. Therefore, the two situations are not at all comparable.

See the distinction?

Read your Orwell.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | April 19, 2011 3:54 PM

A statue of Buddha does not directly insult Muslims.

Posted by: Brownian | April 19, 2011 3:58 PM

Well gee, I'm not really a Christian so I don't actually give a fuck, but maybe you could ask Sister Wendy Beckett.

Or, you could ask Serrano himself. He was Catholic.

See, the problem with imbuing icons with sacred meaning is that you leave them open for desecration. If you're proudly part of some idolator's cults it's no big deal. Make all the Golden Calves you want. Unfortunately, when the object behind the representation explicitly forbids you to be an idolator, you're kind of up shit creek if somebody fucks with it. Who are you going to complain to? YHWH?

"Jesus, Serrano peed on a piece of plastic I was worshiping as if it were you. Smite him! Smite him mightily...And then give me some money so I can create more tawdry representations of you that I can worship as if they were you. Because, dammit: praying to you is not enough. I need a fucking statue like the pagans have to do it up properly."

Zen Buddhism is replete with stories of alms bowls and sacred sutras being passed down from master to student in grand ceremonies, only to have the student promptly burn them. When the master shrieked about it, the student would calmly explain how they were just symbols, and that revering them was pretty much like giving Buddhism itself the finger.

In either case, making a stink about it is hypocritical, and more sacrilegious than any dunking.

Posted by: frankenstein monster | April 19, 2011 4:00 PM

No? That Allah guy is pretty jealous.

a statue per se does not universally count as an insult to someone, in fact, the opposite is the case.

But, as hieronymus said, peeing on someone is unambiguously an insult.

Posted by: Hieronymus The Troll Braintree | April 19, 2011 4:02 PM

Dhorvath @ 259

Well, I suppose if Allah wants to be a thin-skinned asshole. But, let me ask you: Does a statue of Buddha directly insult Muslims?

Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente | April 19, 2011 4:04 PM

Is not peeing on someone considered an insult?

If a nun can believe she's married to Christ a nun can believe any imbecility.

Posted by: frankenstein monster | April 19, 2011 4:10 PM

On what planet is a plastic figurine someone?

Even if I spit or defecate only on a picture of your mom, or submerge it into a jar of stale urine, it is still an insult to your mom.

I don't believe someone who can use a computer could be so stupid that he can't grasp such an idea.
I think you are deliberately being obtuse here.

Posted by: Quodlibet | April 19, 2011 4:11 PM

Is not dunking an icon of Christ and inherently insulting and sacrilegious act to Christians and therefore an obvious act of provocation?

1. Maybe. Did you read the interview with the artist, wherein he expressed his goals and motivations for creating this work? You might find that he answers your question. You might also find that your question is irrelevant.

2. OK, let's assume - ONLY for the sake of argument - that creating and displaying this work is a deliberate act of provocation. Does that make it OK for any one to destroy it? Let's look at some similar situations.

a. Suppose a religious groups decides that it wants to express its views on a controversial subject. The group decides to stage ugly demonstrations at the funerals of US soldiers. Many people view these demonstrations as deliberate acts of provocation. You don't like what they are doing. Is it OK for you or anyone else to physically assault the demonstrators in order to interrupt or prevent their provocative act? Why or why not?

b. Suppose that a playwright writes a play that is openly critical of the practices of the nation's ruling aristocracy, such as Beaumarchais did in his play The Barber of Seville. Many people viewed this play as a deliberate and dangerous) act of provocation. The play and its central idea offend many people, and frightened many other people. Would it have been OK for anyone to interrupt a performance, say by assaulting the actors or by defacing the stage and props? or by barring access to the theatre for people who wanted to see the play? Why or why not?

c. Each Christmas season, a town in eastern CT displays a creche on the town green. A local atheist (with proper permits) puts up a anti-religious display right next to the creche. He admits that it is a deliberate act of provocation. It offends many people. Should the offended christians be permitted to deface, destroy, or dismantle the atheist display? Should atheists be permitted to deface, destroy, or dismantle the creche? Why or why not?

d. Suppose that a museum includes in its exhibit a work of art that some people find offensive. Should offended people be permitted to force their way into the museum, assault security personnel who are trying to carry out their duties, and deface property that does not belong to them? Why or why not?

I would love to see your responses to these scenarios, each of which is true.

Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente | April 19, 2011 4:15 PM

Even if I spit or defecate only on a picture of your mom, or submerge it into a jar of stale urine, it is still an insult to your mom.

Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu | April 19, 2011 4:15 PM

I feel like the Piss Christ installation needs a disclaimer for the mental incompetents... something along the lines of "Ceci n'est pas un messie.

Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente | April 19, 2011 4:19 PM

Just because I disagree with someone doesn't mean I can't appreciate their point of view and notice distinctions between the motives for one kind of art destruction and another.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | April 19, 2011 4:22 PM

Imagine you had a book, bound in the flesh of your loved one...

Posted by: frankenstein monster | April 19, 2011 4:24 PM

The point is that insult is an interpretative art and cannot be predicted a priori.

finding bodily wastes disgusting is an instinctive reaction rooted so deeply in our brain that it is almost universal, and if it is missing, it is generally considered an anomaly or may be even a first symptom of a serious neurological disorder.

So, someone who is surprised that submerging someone's picture/statue in urine is considered an insult, is either as dumb as mud, or dishonest.

Posted by: Brownian | April 19, 2011 4:25 PM

Dear Brownian,

Thank you for that death threat. Death threats are always a sign of intellectual confidence.

Did you gloss over the part wherein you've already argued that provocation provides the justification?

C'mon, troll. Show us that big fucking braintree in action. Think through the conclusion for once.

Oh, I'm sorry! I didn't realize that Christ had volunteered to be pissed on as an act of erotic gratification. My mistake.

He did it just before he volunteered to be rendered in his death throes in cheap plastic.

How fucking stupid are you?

Posted by: azumahazuki | April 19, 2011 4:26 PM

I can't believe I'm agreeing with a known troll >

Whether the reasons for the provocation make sense or not is another story.

Posted by: Brownian | April 19, 2011 4:27 PM

PZ is comparing the destruction of one copy of the photograph "Piss Christ" by offended Christians to the destruction of the irreplacable Buddhas of Bamiyan by the Taliban.

And how replaceable was the cheap fucking plastic doohickey that Serrano peed on and caused the Christians to go apeshit?

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | April 19, 2011 4:29 PM

I think my favorite was when Hieronymus completely ignored all the valid points and decided to just insult Classical Cipher because of an aside she made.

That was just tops.

Incidentally, those of you who are knocking pure provocation can just fuck right off. Shock has its value whether you personally like it or not, and just because you think it's "easy" to come up with something shocking doesn't mean you're some sort of special fucking art genius. If it's so goddamn easy, why the fuck don't you fucking get out there and make a name for yourself in the art world?

I challenge you to come up with a shocking image on the spot. Just sit there and try to do it. Now try to find a way to execute it. Now try to find an audience for it.

What you come up with (if you come up with anything at all) will be something that speaks of who you are, how you think, what you believe. How you execute it will add layers to that. And how you go about getting an audience (or whether you choose to keep it to yourself) will do so to an even greater degree.

It takes work to produce art. Art is a composite of the artist's perspectives, personality, physiology, and who knows what else, and even the piece of information "the artist simply wants to provoke" tells us something about what it can mean to be human.

It's as if you assholes think that starting with a theme somehow renders artwork moot.

tl;dr: If you're so fucking fancy, why aren't we talking about your work right now?

Posted by: KG | April 19, 2011 4:30 PM

How typical of the scumbag Hieronymous to include a gratuitous misogynist insult in his stupid screed.

Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu | April 19, 2011 4:32 PM

Provocation is irrelevant. Provocation is no excuse for vandalism and censorship. Protections against censorship exist precisely because some people are easily provoked into doing stupid shit.

Posted by: Brownian | April 19, 2011 4:37 PM

What I did argue was that the Taliban was not provoked whereas Christians were. This is an excruciatingly simple distinction which you are apparently incapable of making.

Therefore, I ask: How fucking stupid are you?

So, your claim is that :

a) there is an objective level of provocation;
b) that level has been met by the immersion in urine of a cheap, mass-produced plastic figurine of a deity who expressely forbade the worship of representations of deities;
c) that level has not been met by the existence of representations of other religious figures, even though the destructors follow the same deity who commands the smashing of idols;
d) in any case, the meeting of this objective level of provocation doesn't justify retaliation

And you're asking me how stupid I am?

Posted by: Brownian | April 19, 2011 4:44 PM

The plastic doohickey of Christ is quite replaceable. Nevertheless, it is an icon of the holiest figure in all of Christiandom. Therefore, dunking it in piss is going to be profoundly offensive to Christians and, ergo, regarded as something of a provocation.

You really can't get this? Amazing!

Well, as a former Catholic, I can tell you that there are all fucking manner of things that will offend some Catholics and not others, and that claiming something as "an icon of the holiest figure in all of Christiandom [and] dunking it in piss is going to be profoundly offensive to Christians" sorta obviates the numerous discussion Catholics have among themselves as to what constitutes idolatry and what doesn't. Personally, I can tell you that there are a lot of Catholics who couldn't care less about Piss Christ.

So, how many Catholics constitute the homogenous "Christians" group who you're claiming are 'provoked'? One? Five? Five billion?

Can you get that? No?

Well, I'm not amazed, because I know just how fucking brainless you are, dipshit.

Posted by: frankenstein monster | April 19, 2011 4:48 PM

And that would be a good excuse for me to break into your house and threaten you with some kind of weapon?

NO! I never said, or suggested otherwise.

Posted by: Hieronymus The Troll Braintree | April 19, 2011 4:49 PM

Brownian,

If you ask me, I don't think anyone should have destroyed one lousy copy of "Piss Christ" as cheap a photographic stunt as it may be. However, I am able to see why someone who has a world view different than mine might reasonably regard themselves as insulted and provoked. This a little thing known as both empathy and compassion, you sanctimonious (and not terribly intelligent) little dweeb.

Posted by: Ichthyic | April 19, 2011 4:51 PM

Hieronymus, it simply does not matter whether "Piss Christ" is sacreligious or not.

Indeed, because the very idea of sacrilege is relative.

the Buddha statues weren't sacriligious to anyone of that religion, only to a particular sect of Muslims.

likewise, Piss Christ wasn't sacriligious to anyone but particular sects of Christians.

It was not "bait". It shouldn't have been destroyed. It DOES EXACTLY reflect what happened with young Taliban soldiers deciding the Buddha statues should be destroyed.

If you say this shouldn't tar all catholics, I respond with it not only should tar all catholics, but ALL religious zealots, period!

Five bucks says none of the people involved will be "excommunicated" by the Catholic Church.

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it with religious conviction."

-- Blaise Pascal

"When religion is in the hands of the mere natural man, he is always the worse for it; it adds a bad heat to his own dark fire and helps to inflame his four elements of selfishness, envy, pride, and wrath. And hence it is that worse passions, or a worse degree of them are to be found in persons of great religious zeal than in others that made no pretenses to it."

--William Law

Posted by: David Marjanović | April 19, 2011 4:52 PM

Gus: I assume the lecture on how the evils of communism had NOTHING to do with atheism was meant for me.

First of all, if true, so what? Myers claimed that "it takes a religious mind to turn the demolition of art into a virtue."

How does Leninism/Stalinism/Maoism/Kimilsungism differ from religion?

Infallible founder figures who wrote infallible scripture. Infallible leaders, the boundless admiration of whom in art and elsewhere is strongly encouraged, and the justice of whom is sometimes incomprehensible. Rituals. Gapless worldviews that provide one correct answer to every imaginable question; you can fake being a true believer by just learning every correct answer by heart (and participating in the rituals, which are comparatively easy). Interpretations of history as involving "a monumental war of Good vs. Evil" (...OK, the guy who used those words is not a communist...) and as unfolding in a predetermined way. Schisms followed by violent persecution of heretics. Fear & loathing of infidels, who are (just like heretics) violently persecuted when in the country. Salvation followed by paradise (you know, the place all those Lenin statues point at) and commonly preceded by a cataclysmic war. Even confession of sins. It's all there! Verily, glory be unto the Lord Stalin – да слава Сталину.

Mao's Little Red Book made it rain. Stories to that effect were encouraged.

There's an impressive painting showing Lenin, Stalin, and light shining on them. I forgot the name of the artist, so I can't search for it, but it's commonly interpreted as being modeled after the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

The only thing that's missing is an afterlife – and Kim Il-sung, who is still the president of North Korea, has achieved even that.

The "fear & loathing of infidels" part is why adherents of other religions, and their entire cultures, were persecuted (to different extents depending on how opportune it was at the moment): they were competition.

Perhaps next Serrano should dunk a golden calf in his own piss. I doubt more than fifty Christians world-wide would get it, but at least it would give the rest of us another reason to point and laugh.

...Man, is there any way to email Serrano? I desperately want this to happen.

Seconded!

Art.

A bit too kitschy for my taste.

But if a mob came in and wanted to destroy it, and I happened to be there, I'd try to stop them all the same.

Art I like: 1, 2 (simple though it is!), 3...

Posted by: Hieronymus The Troll Braintree | April 19, 2011 4:52 PM

Again, Brownian, peeing on a sacred object is considered to be a sacrilege. ALL figures of Christ are considered by many Christians to be sacred. What is so hard to understand about this?

Posted by: http://www.clarkcox.com/blog/ | April 19, 2011 4:54 PM

#295:

…"Piss Christ" which is obviously offensive and a sacrilege no matter what bullshit the photographer says.

To the Taliban that destroyed the Buddha statue, its existence was "obviously offensive and a sacrilege no matter what bullshit the original sculptor(s) thought when they carved it".

Posted by: Quodlibet | April 19, 2011 4:55 PM

Again, Brownian, peeing on a sacred object is considered to be a sacrilege. ALL figures of Christ are considered by many Christians to be sacred. What is so hard to understand about this?

We understand it. But it does not matter. It is not relevant.

What is so hard to understand about this?

Posted by: Ichthyic | April 19, 2011 4:56 PM

Again, Brownian, peeing on a sacred object is considered to be a sacrilege.

and WHO made it a "sacred" object, fuckwit?

Posted by: Hieronymus The Troll Braintree | April 19, 2011 4:58 PM

Ichathyic,

There is a difference between what someone might reasonably find offensive and what someone might unreasonably find offensive.

The Buddhas were put up by believers in Buddha. The Taliban would only find that offensive because of their religious intolerance of others. "Piss Christ," OTOH is an obvious desecration of a religious icon held sacred by Christians. What is so hard about this for you to understand?

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | April 19, 2011 4:58 PM

. A statue of Buddha does not directly insult Muslims.

Of COURSE it does. That's why they destroyed it. It is religiously insulting to them.

The Piss Christ is insulting to those nutters.

The Buddha is not offensive to Buddhists or atheists. The Piss Christ is not insulting to Jews or Atheists. But it is to some people

Therefore we can conclude :WHO GIVES A SHIT. Offense is not a justification or factor.

Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente | April 19, 2011 5:03 PM

@JPS, FCD, Death's Statistics Coach, #297
Aw, thank you.

Posted by: Hieronymus The Troll Braintree | April 19, 2011 5:05 PM

Dear KG,

The sister is entitled to her opinion. That doesn't mean she's right or that other people don't have opinions that are at least as reasonable if not more. I think you should know this.

Dear Ing....etc.,

Yes, a statue of Buddha is insulting to Muslims, provided those Muslims are intolerant assholes.

Dunking an icon of Jesus is provocative to Christians provided that Christians regard Jesus as the holiest figure in all creation and also regard pissing on someone as an inherently gross insult.

Therefore, contrary to PZ, the two situations are not the same because the motives are entirely different.

This really isn't very hard, folks.

Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente | April 19, 2011 5:11 PM

The sister is entitled to her opinion. That doesn't mean she's right or that other people don't have opinions that are at least as reasonable if not more. I think you should know this.

Dunking an icon of Jesus is provocative to Christians provided those Christians are intolerant assholes.

Posted by: SC OM | April 19, 2011 5:13 PM

'Sister Wendy Beckett, an art critic and Catholic nun, stated in a television interview with Bill Moyers that she regarded the work as not blasphemous but a statement on "what we have done to Christ":...

And now some Christians have bashed his head in with a hammer. Symbolic. Someone on an art site was wondering if they might leave it that way - would be interesting.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | April 19, 2011 5:13 PM

The Buddhas were put up by believers in Buddha. The Taliban would only find that offensive because of their religious intolerance of others. "Piss Christ," OTOH is an obvious desecration of a religious icon held sacred by Christians. What is so hard about this for you to understand?

Crucifixes are an obvious desecration of religious texts held sacred by other Christians. Is it okay to storm catholic churces and destroy them? Would Catholics only find that offensive because of their inconographic worship? What is so hard for you about this to understand?

It was wrong then, it is wrong now, and it will still be wrong in days to come, to destroy something because of religious differences.

Posted by: Brownian | April 19, 2011 5:16 PM

Again, Brownian, peeing on a sacred object is considered to be a sacrilege.

Again, you brainless troll, many Christians including Catholics (and this would include Serrano and myself at the time he made the piece) consider 'sacred' objects to be themselves sacrilege.

What is so hard about this for you to understand?

What's hard to understand is who someone like you who thinks repeating "What is so hard about this for you to understand?" is an argument could also think that they're smart.

Wait, no it's not.

Yes, a statue of Buddha is insulting to Muslims, provided those Muslims are intolerant assholes.

Dunking an icon of Jesus is provocative to Christians provided that Christians regard Jesus as the holiest figure in all creation and also regard pissing on someone as an inherently gross insult.

...and provided those Christians are also intolerant assholes.

The ones that aren't said, "that's not the Jesus I worship, the one who commanded me to 'turn the other cheek', the one who commanded me to forgive them, the one who said I'm blessed when I'm insulted for my faith. That's a cheap plastic figurine."

Why is this so hard for you to understand? Is your head pierced with so many tamping irons that plastic figurines of St. Sebastian would be jealous if they were actual fucking people, and that's why you don't get it?

Posted by: Tenebras | April 19, 2011 5:16 PM

Dear people in this thread,

Piss Christ was art, whether you like it or not. It's one thing to not like it, but you don't get to decide whether it's art or not. Get over yourselves, you pompous assholes, you're not that important.

Secondly, it doesn't fucking matter. It doesn't fucking matter if you consider it art or not. It doesn't fucking matter that it was a photograph and not a sculpture. It doesn't even fucking matter if it was intended to be provocative in the first place.

A group of deranged religious nuts didn't like something, so they threatened people with violence and destroyed things that did not belong to them. How is that NOT identical to every other group of religious fucknuts who've destroyed things throughout history because of their religious fucknuttery?

How can you idiots sit there and even try to make excuses for them? They have none, and neither do you.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | April 19, 2011 5:17 PM

Why is what they do wrong, but what these thugs did to Serrano's work not wrong to you ignorant hypocrites?

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | April 19, 2011 5:20 PM

Whatever Hieronymus. Your namesake was a better defender of Christianity and art both. It's a shame to see his name used as such.

Posted by: KG | April 19, 2011 5:22 PM

"Piss Christ" which is obviously offensive and a sacrilege no matter what bullshit the photographer says. - Hieronymous Fuckwit

The sister is entitled to her opinion [that it is not blasphemous]. - Hieronymous Fuckwit

Do make up what passes for your mind, Fuckwit.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | April 19, 2011 5:24 PM

KG, I believe what Hieronymus meant to say is that the good sister is entitled to his opinion. Otherwise, she's Just Wrong™.

Posted by: Ichthyic | April 19, 2011 5:26 PM

There is a difference between what someone might reasonably find offensive and what someone might unreasonably find offensive.

you are projecting your own personal beliefs.

nothing more.

you have no evidence whatsoever that the group of Taliban that destroyed the statues did not find them just as offensive as this group of nutty Catholics found "Piss Christ".

Admit that you know fuckall about BOTH situations: You really don't know what motivates a particular sect of Islamic extremeists, any more than you know what motivated a particular group of Catholic extremeists.

you're rather dimwitted, and apparently are entirely unaware.

in short, you are suffering a severe case of Dunning-Kruger syndrome.

again, I can only recommend you see a mental health care professional to seek treatment. This particular kind of disease typically leads to people never taking you seriously. Rather bad for the career, I would think.

Posted by: Brownian | April 19, 2011 5:37 PM

Let's take a trip down memory thread, just for the sake of our little troll.

PZ, you're not just an asshole, you're something of a nut.

That's compassionate, empathetic comment number one from a non-righteous asshole.

Seriously, there's something wrong with you people.

That's number two.

So, let me ask you a question, which I have no doubt you'll be unable to answer intelligently because there is no good intelligent answer and because you're so obviously lacking in intelligence yourself

I'm skipping some for the point of brevity. We probably don't need to count from here on in.

Answer the fucking question, you pathetic little asshole.

This, of course, is a profound testament to your vast intellectual superiority over me, bitch.

You really can't get this? Amazing!

What is so hard to understand about this?

This a little thing known as both empathy and compassion, you sanctimonious (and not terribly intelligent) little dweeb.

What is so hard to understand about this?

What is so hard about this for you to understand?

This really isn't very hard, folks.

I hereby declare myself victor of this thread.

No, no sign of righteous assholery here.

Posted by: Chaos Cryptic | April 19, 2011 5:47 PM

fm, your piss-poor points about piss have been countered already. Not just by my post, but by every post above that has a different interpretation of Piss Christ than "EW! BODILY FLUIDS!" Feel free to keep ignoring that, but do understand that it makes you look like an ass.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | April 19, 2011 5:48 PM

HTTB:

If you want to know why liberals are unpopular despite being right on most policies, I suggest you all look in the mirror.

Who's so cute when they're projecting? You are!

Posted by: Brownian | April 19, 2011 5:49 PM

Therefore feeling offended if by a picture of someone in a jar full of piss is justified.

Example B. being offended by any statue because your interpretation of your religious book says so.

Hard-wired my ass.

First things first: that's not a picture of Jesus whoever he was; it's just some representation that some people call Jesus. Why? Because their interpretation of their religious book says so.

Some people feel close to this representation. Why? Because their interpretation of their religious book says so.

I'm not offended by a plastic figurine of some semi-mythologised figure I've never met getting dunked in urine. Why? Because I don't have an interpretation of a religious book to tell me to.

Some people feel close to a mythological figure called Allah. Why? Because their interpretation of their religious book says so.

They feel compelled to do what he supposedly ordered. Why? Because their interpretation of their religious book says so.

And so we go...

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | April 19, 2011 5:52 PM

No, people have a legitimate right to voice their disapproval of Serrano's art. They have a legitimate right to protest it, to make art that champions their view, and to tell everyone why the piece is insulting.

They should not have a right to keep people from making it though. That they should not have, the right to censor and oppress that which they dislike because they dislike it.

Their opinion is valid, as is their offense. However, it does not justify removing the rights of others to suit their whims.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | April 19, 2011 5:54 PM

Fred Phelps might just start claiming that what he does is actually a form of performance art

This would be the best thing EVER.

Nothing kills art like being in a museum.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | April 19, 2011 5:55 PM

Braindead troll

The arguments against for my position have been so stupid, so nasty and so clueless that it is by this point pointless to go on.

Posted by: CJO | April 19, 2011 6:07 PM

I'd be real careful about putting forth the argument that ALL ART MUST BE RESPECTED.

Okay, how about ALL ART SHOULD BE PROTECTED FROM DEFACEMENT BY AUTHORITARIAN MOBS.

That work for you?

And what about Fred Phelps? I hate the motherfucker and everything he stands for, but he has the right to express himself, the same as you and me. I respect that right, not the use he makes of it.

Posted by: Nightjar | April 19, 2011 6:12 PM

So submerging someone else's picture, especially someone you feel close to, in urine, will make you feel offended.

Really? Why can't it just make you roll your eyes and dismiss the person who did that as an immature asshole? Are you sure many people wouldn't simply not give a flying fuck? You know, apparently, many Christians don't indeed give a fuck. There must be something wrong with them, right? But not with those few who felt so offended they had destroy someone else's property and threaten other human beings with hammers, oh no, those are perfectly normal people.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | April 19, 2011 6:14 PM

@Piltdow

Your taste in art sucks

art

Posted by: frankenstein monster | April 19, 2011 6:18 PM

Empirically, however, a great many Christians including many Catholics are not in the least offended by "Piss Christ". Were they wired wrong?

depends on why they don't find it disgusting. Maybe someone finds a photo too abstract to trigger the instinctive feeling of disgust. That is not wrong brain wiring. But if it does trigger the feeling of disgust in someone, there is no way to force him to start to consider it too abstract again.

Maybe they assign different, idiosyncratic symbolic values to the things. But that is again something that you can not force people to do.

And so on.

There are plenty reasons why someone does not feel disgust / feel offended even when he as valid reasons to feel so, other than a brain defect. Reasons you simply can not or/and should not force on other people.

And you still haven't addressed the salient commonality between the two cases, which has nothing to do with the justification for a feeling: Having become offended, authoritarian thugs destroyed works of art in the name of their religion. How is that justifiable?

I have addressed this question at least two times here. the short answer is NO. It is NOT justifiable.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | April 19, 2011 6:19 PM

@Piltdow

Your taste in art sucks

art

art

Retry

Posted by: j-brisby | April 19, 2011 6:20 PM

I wonder what fraction of people here have ever written something nasty in a Christian library book, or defaced a Christian billboard at a busstop, or torn the Christian fish off someone's car.

I further wonder what fraction of that fraction had the nerve to do it in broad daylight, knowing they'd be punished for it.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | April 19, 2011 6:24 PM

I wonder what fraction of people here have ever written something nasty in a Christian library book, or defaced a Christian billboard at a busstop, or torn the Christian fish off someone's car.

I further wonder what fraction of that fraction had the nerve to do it in broad daylight, knowing they'd be punished for it.

Jesus fuck; is that projection.

Not everyone is as slimey as you.

Posted by: Brother Ogvorbis, Apropos of Nada | April 19, 2011 6:27 PM

I feel insulted and offended that some Christians put up an ugly cross on a hill in the desert (on federal land, but that's beside the point I am trying to make here). Does that give me the right to go tear it down, either by myself or with a bunch of other people? I am insulted and offended by the Christmas displays put up on the courthouse. Does my offence give me the right to tear them down?

Posted by: jafafahots | April 19, 2011 6:27 PM

Q: Art with a capital A or art with a small a... what is the difference?
A: their position in the sentence.

Your child could do that? Awesome! Congratulations for having a fun expressive kid who likes to make art. Please encourage them.

One of my favorite pieces of art was made by my nephew when his age was in the single digits. A painting that I find so haunting and beautiful that if I ever managed to cobble my piano compositions together into a collection, I'd like to use his painting as the "cover art."

Posted by: CJO | April 19, 2011 6:28 PM

I wonder what fraction of people here...

And I wonder what fraction of the world's cluless morons consider vague insinuation an argument.

I further wonder what fraction of that fraction consider "yeah, but, you did it too!" alluded to by vague insinuation to be a valid excuse for wrongdoing.

Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente | April 19, 2011 6:30 PM

I wonder what fraction of people here have ever written something nasty in a Christian library book

or defaced a Christian billboard at a busstop

What was your point? That we are not "brave" enough to vandalize other people's property?

Posted by: Brownian | April 19, 2011 6:32 PM

I have never done any of those things, j-brisby. The time of day or likelihood of getting caught was not an issue in any case, since I've no doubt I've had ample opportunity to do so.

Um, have you?

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | April 19, 2011 6:35 PM

Wow, that is hostile. What have I done to you, to make you THAT angry?

Honey, if you think that is hostile you are delusional. You will know when I'm being hostile.

Posted by: Brother Ogvorbis, Apropos of Nada | April 19, 2011 6:37 PM

j-brisby:

I have not vandalized property which does not belong to me. However, I have had a Darwin fish ripped off of my car. My mother had her tyres slashed, multiple times, because she had a bumper sticker reading "The Moral Majority is Neither". I see, every day, a sign which someone has added a cross to the pedestrian crossing sign, using electrical tape. Piss Christ was defaced. What about the thousands of Madonna with Child's?

Posted by: David Marjanović | April 19, 2011 6:39 PM

X-) There I go, announcing I'll post four links, and then I post none.

Here goes.

1
2
3
4
(Don't worry. I'll switch to another artist soon enough.)

one is a friggin' photograph. He can print another one.

Have you read this thread?

Art (by a pupil of Dürer).

Surprisingly bad, actually. No comparison to Dürer's hare or Dürer's duck or even Conway's Deinonychus.

Posted by: raven | April 19, 2011 6:43 PM

I wonder what fraction of people here have ever written something nasty in a Christian library book, or defaced a Christian billboard at a busstop, or torn the Christian fish off someone's car.

Never did that. Never even thought of that until J-brisby brought it up. We are civilized, educated adult people, compared with the Liars and killers for jesus.

I don't have a Darwin fish on my car. People take them off around here. They usually scratch the paint at least just to make sure you know a xian was there. The police actually caught one in the act. He was a fundie mumbling about satanic symbols and god's plan.

Weinberg. Good people will do good. Bad people will do bad. But it takes religion to make good people do bad things.

So J-Brisby, are you an evil person doing evil or a good person doing evil in the name of toxic fundie xianity? I'm betting on just plain old, evil troll.

Posted by: Brother Ogvorbis, Apropos of Nada | April 19, 2011 6:44 PM

I do however have a grudging respect for people not willing to sit passively and allow themselves to be pissed on.

First, getting pissed on? don't knock it 'til you tried it.

Second, who was pissed on? A human being? A sentient individual? No. It was a cheap plastic crucifix. A mass-produced (pun not intended) bit of junk not ever intended to decorate the inside of a church.

Posted by: jafafahots | April 19, 2011 6:47 PM

I do however have a grudging respect for people not willing to sit passively and allow themselves to be pissed on.

Pissing on people is illegal (without conesent) and I'm pretty sure that the artist didn't do that.

Pissing on an object that does not belong to someone is not pissing ON THEM no matter how they feel about that object. If they think it IS pissing ON THEM, that's where the problem lies - their disconnect from reality.

Violence is not an answer - psychiatric treatment might be.

Posted by: chigau (◦_◦) | April 19, 2011 6:49 PM

#352 j-brisby
So.
You didn't read a single one of the 351 posts that preceded yours?
wow

Posted by: Chaos Cryptic | April 19, 2011 6:50 PM

That Pteranodon sternbergi and the Pteranodon longiceps from your earlier post are beautiful. I love them. I am going to save the Quetzalcoatlus for my brother.

Posted by: David Marjanović | April 19, 2011 6:56 PM

Now this is art. Don't forget to click on "Next" to see all of it.

2
3
4

Jesus fuck; is that projection.

Not everyone is as slimey as you.

Seconded. <shivering in disgust>

My mother had her tyres slashed, multiple times, because she had a bumper sticker reading "The Moral Majority is Neither".

...thus proving what the bumper sticker says.

*spoinnnnnnnnnng!*

Hey. I don't even have an irony meter. Must have been a neighbor's.

I do however have a grudging respect for people not willing to sit passively and allow themselves to be pissed on.

I deeply despise people who take action in such matters of honor.

Everything you need to know about Piss Christ is right there in the title. If Andres Serrano actually believed the horseshit he spouts about it, he'd have called it 'Crucifix in Urine' or something similar.

That's just silly. Read again what Serrano has written.

Posted by: Nightjar | April 19, 2011 6:56 PM

I have addressed this question at least two times here. the short answer is NO. It is NOT justifiable.

So, what's the point of talking about valid and non valid reasons to feel offended? Why does that matter in the slightest? These Christian tugs felt offended, they had their reasons and they were valid to them. Those Muslim tugs felt offended, they had their reasons and they were valid to them. Who are you to tell people when they should or shouldn't be offended?

Are you trying to argue that this act of vandalism was more justified than that other act of vandalism, or do you agree that they're both NOT justifiable? And if the latter, what is your point?

Posted by: Ichthyic | April 19, 2011 6:59 PM

being hardwired to do something does not entail hardwired knowledge about the hardwiring.

you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about, franky.

but then, what else is new?

Posted by: Ichthyic | April 19, 2011 7:01 PM

O RLY ? there is no scientific evidence about the evolution of brain functions like
feeling of disgust, empathy, or symbolic thinking ?

one, there is a grand difference between speaking of the evolution of behavior, and calling it "hardwired".

two, you're a clueless git, and not worth taking the time to educate.

Posted by: Brother Ogvorbis, Apropos of Nada | April 19, 2011 7:03 PM

Does my offence give me the right to tear them down?

Does having an RPG give you the right to practice?

Posted by: Chaos Cryptic | April 19, 2011 7:07 PM

Scott Adams, is that you again?

Posted by: frankenstein monster | April 19, 2011 7:09 PM

Who are you to tell people when they should or shouldn't be offended?

Who Am I to draw conclusions about anything in general, and whether someone can justifiably feel offended or not, in particular ? A thinking being. That, and a valid argument is all what is needed to draw conclusions in general. And in particular, my argument is in the post #342.

Why does that matter in the slightest?

Difference in the severity of the crime committed, and the question whether comparison with the talibans destruction of the buddha statues is valid.

Are you trying to argue that this act of vandalism was more justified than that other act of vandalism

No, I am suggesting that this act of vandalism is a much smaller wrong than the other crime...

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | April 19, 2011 7:12 PM

I'm Brownian, not Hieronymus The Troll Braintree. There may be another Scott Adams who is, but it isn't me.

Because there's a million of us just like me
who cuss like me; who just don't give a fuck like me
who dress like me; walk, talk and act like me
and just might be the next best thing but not quite me!

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | April 19, 2011 7:14 PM

What is that inane droning? *looks around* Must be the first gnats of the year.

Posted by: David Marjanović | April 19, 2011 7:21 PM

Insufficiently shaded and therefore too flat, but... just look.

2
3 (insufficiently shaded tail)
4 (an illustration of a hypothesis that is not very likely, but totally awesome)

Burian on the other hand is a truly great illustrator

Was, yes. Too bad his illustrations are all so old that they're grossly inaccurate – even in features that the scientists of his time should have figured out.

Posted by: Ichthyic | April 19, 2011 7:24 PM

either is the neural circuitry that produces the behavior encoded in your genes, "=hardwired"

*sigh*

If you understood even basic behavior, you'd know that there's more than just the neural circuitry involved.

like I said, and you are continuing to confirm, you have an elementary school level of understanding of behavior, and even THEN it's 60 years out of date!

seriously, STOP.

Posted by: frankenstein monster | April 19, 2011 7:25 PM

You know fuckall about nearly everything you espoused on.

great. that settles it. the ultimate proof. Ichthyic said so.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkDK7TYtTjLnUpXYBXCB06OJxCf4Q1AYVw | April 19, 2011 7:27 PM

Christians have a long history of destroying art, especially religious works, of which they disapprove or hold in suspicion.

A quick Google search for the word iconoclast will be illuminating in this regard. When iconoclasts were in ascendance in the Catholic or Greek Orthodox Churches, they damaged or destroyed vast quantities of Christian artwork, such as portraits of Jesus.

A major reason that we have so little of the art from classical Greece and Rome is that Christians destroyed it, out of fear of its (false) power. In this case, it is no different than the Taliban destroying religious art from an earlier religion. Those few ancient buildings that have survived did so because the Christians destroyed their "pagan" art and used them as churches. Others, looted by Christians were allowed to fall into ruin. Venetian Christians destroyed the Parthenon with artillery fire after it had survived 20 centuries (but the Turks had been using it as an arsenal).

Visitors to the Avebury stone circle, a relative of Stonehenge, will see that the Christians did their best to destroy even these ancient works.

Posted by: Brother Ogvorbis, Apropos of Nada | April 19, 2011 7:29 PM

Ichthyic said so.

Based on history (on this blog), it works for me.

Posted by: Chaos Cryptic | April 19, 2011 7:30 PM

great. that settles it. the ultimate proof. Ichthyic said so.

Posted by: frankenstein monster | April 19, 2011 7:31 PM

the suppression of those traits may or may not.

the suppression of disgust felt when seeing fecal matter is difficult and pointless.
the suppression of symbolic thinking and empathy might be easier, but is something we definitely should avoid at any cost.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 19, 2011 7:35 PM

Ichthyic has a grad degree in animal behavior and zoology from Berkeley. you should listen to him.

Pffffffffft

Yeah right

What do educated experts know that I don't?

Posted by: David Marjanović | April 19, 2011 7:38 PM

Still not done with the best works of that one artist.

1
2
3
4 (the sickle claw is much too short)

Alas, I have to go to bed rather than move on to the next artist immediately. There are plenty more.

Posted by: libervore | April 19, 2011 7:40 PM

Since the title of the piece is apparently important, according to the Guardian article it is "Immersion (Piss Christ)".

Would make me wonder what it's like to be "immersed" in the Christian faith, but these protesters have unfortunately demonstrated that. Instead of discussing why they find this piece to be objectionable, they simply smashed it. Even Drunk Hulk is more articulate.

Posted by: frankenstein monster | April 19, 2011 7:49 PM

blockquote fail.

It's not the reasons they had to be offended that are being compared. It's not the value of what was destroyed. It's not the scale of the crime. It is the fact that an act of vandalism was committed because a group of intolerant thugs* felt offended.

Slapping someone upside the head and breaking your skull with a iron rod are technically both battery. but don't tell me that the severity of the crime is something not important.

Posted by: David Marjanović | April 19, 2011 7:50 PM

Grau, teurer Freund, ist alle Theorie,
Und grün des Lebens gold'ner Baum:

1
2

The dotted lines are clades which are (or were in 2003) not known as cells – they were discovered by sequencing seawater wholesale.

Posted by: Anri | April 19, 2011 7:55 PM

That is ok. Empathy with a long dead at best, completely imaginary at worst person is not something people can be required to feel. But on the other hand, once hey feel it, I thing they should not be required to stop feeling it.

They are free to feel it.

They are not free to wreck someone else's property to express it.

Got it?

. . .

the suppression of disgust felt when seeing fecal matter is difficult and pointless.

There's actually a term for suppressing our knee-jerk emotional reactions to things in favor of thinking about them: "Adulthood". Try it some time, just as a change - you never know, you might like it.

Posted by: Nightjar | April 19, 2011 7:56 PM

Slapping someone upside the head and breaking your skull with a iron rod are technically both battery. but don't tell me that the severity of the crime is something not important.

*sigh*

It is important.

It is not what the analogy is about.

Got it?

Posted by: Mandrellian | April 19, 2011 8:06 PM

I guess everyone is entitled to their own standards of what constitutes "art".

Quite. Either everybody is, or nobody is. There is probably no human pursuit more subjective than art and no one person can possibly be more qualified than another to say what constitutes art and what does not.

Even if there were classes of accredited "artists" and "critics", the fact remains that nobody is entitled to the wanton destruction of objects that they did not create or are not their property. These French hooligans are nothing more than vandals, frightened of a mere photograph. Imagine if Serrano had exhitbited the actual work! We would have had this conversation a decade (or more) ago because one thing is for sure: nobody adores censorship more than the religious.

Posted by: Chaos Cryptic | April 19, 2011 8:10 PM

Imagine if Serrano had exhitbited the actual work!

Posted by: chigau (◦_◦) | April 19, 2011 8:16 PM

#429

the suppression of disgust felt when seeing fecal matter is difficult and pointless

Posted by: Chaos Cryptic | April 19, 2011 8:17 PM

Yup. Congratulations.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | April 19, 2011 8:26 PM

DDMFM @#440:
Not sure why you posted those trees--you consider them 'art' despite the Comic Sans?--but I'm especially puzzled as to why Plasmodium is illustrated with a pic of a nematode.

Posted by: Mandrellian | April 19, 2011 8:27 PM

If something is art just because someone says it is, then the whole notion of "art" is devalued.

Balderdash! On the contrary: what devalues art is when people decide, arbitrarily, that something isn't art. Art's whatever the artist or viewer or listener says it is or art is nothing more than ticking boxes to fulfil criteria; a standardised test.

The fact that someone simply doesn't LIKE a work of art means only that they don't like it. They have no reason or right to judge that for other people. Nobody, except those involved or experiencing it, decides what "good" music is any more than they decide what "good" sex is; similarly, noone can decide for another what art is and what it's not. To differ is human; results may vary.

Art isn't sport. It's not a game with defined rules, methods of engagement, objectives and penalties. It is possibly the most subjective pursuit we humans indulge in. It is encumbent upon reasonable people to respect the rights of people to call whatever they want "art". You can argue until you're blue in the face whether a piece of art is valuable, worthy, meaningful, well-crafted, legal or just a turd in a can; what you can't do is turn your nose up and deny that it's art to begin with.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | April 19, 2011 8:33 PM

If you're trying to frighten me with hellfire, well, sorry to disappoint but it just doesn't work now. A few days ago, everything just fell into place. I will never, ever be worried about Abrahamic theology again, and no one can change that.

Wonderful news, azumahazuki. I noticed your posts on this in the last couple weeks. If it's easy to articulate, I'd be interested in hearing how things fell into place for you.

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | April 19, 2011 8:41 PM

j-brisby,
Ya just don't get it, do you? The Piss Christ was a commentary on the pollution of Xtianity by the profane and mundane. It wasn't even meant to be particularly sacriligeous, asshat! It comments on the sacrilege that has already been committed. Jeebus, you xtians are dumb!

It's exactly like the painting of Mary with breasts sculpted out of elephant dung that was made in Kenya. The Cretins--oh I mean Christians--in New York protested, when in fact, elephant dung is not considered profane or unclean in Kenya. Fuckin' Philistines!

Posted by: ckitching | April 19, 2011 8:46 PM

I do however have a grudging respect for people not willing to sit passively and allow themselves to be pissed on.

I'll spell it out for you: You do not have the right to not be offended. You do not have the right to expect others to honour your traditions.

Posted by: Ye Olde Blacksmith | April 19, 2011 9:15 PM

Everything you need to know about Piss Christ is right there in the title.

Wow! You need to go back to reading Garfield because you ain't got a clue about art. Or maybe I'm just too dumb to get everything from just the title of a piece of art. I mean Rothko's "Untitled" pretty much says it all too, right?

Rothko Untitled

If the title says it all, why even bother experiencing the actual art?

Posted by: cashforyourscars | April 19, 2011 9:22 PM

Hi everyone. Just stopped by to drop off some ♥. Oh and to comment, too.

First, the love:
♥Raven - Always so clear and concise...clean and sharp to the last! Muah! *fingertips to lips*
♥Ing - I don't know how anyone has enough energy to keep up with the trolls, but I'm very glad you do.
♥Brownian - I would like to make a triptych of your art in #390 and title it "Asking For It: An Obvious Act of Provocation." Extra ♥ for the mental image of illicit priest fighting rings.
♥azumahazuki - I also remember previous posts of yours concerning hell. I know to some degree how terrible that fear can be and it makes me so happy to know you've overcome it.

Now, my comment:
...well, nothing that hasn't really been said before and probably better. I think this cowardly act of (attempted) censorship threatens all art, (and) free expression itself. There is no excuse for this destructive behavior.

I will now resume lurking. Pharyngulate on, Pharyngulistas! :)

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | April 19, 2011 9:32 PM

I know I know. I'm not supposed to talk to him. Whatever. I got a song out of interacting with him so it's not like it's useless to me, personally.

I need to record that song.

Ooh... piltdown did you read the lyrics? What do you think?

Posted by: Friendly | April 19, 2011 9:49 PM

In response to the whole thesis that "Somebody is inciting! People can't *help* being offended! The inciter deserves what they get!", I offer this:

Any particular person might not be able to stop themselves from experiencing thoughts and emotions -- becoming angry, or depressed, or sexually aroused, etc., etc. -- when they are provoked to do so by other people. Or by what those people have made. Or even by a random set of circumstances.

They *can* stop themselves from committing acts of violence, and doing other inappropriate stuff, in response. That's called self-discipline, and it's one of the things that makes civilization possible. Believing that people are morally justified in assault, theft, vandalism, rape, lynching, etc., because the victim "dared them to do it" is taking a step down the road to having torches and picthforks at everyone's front door and guillotines in every town square.

I have always loved the line from C. J. Cherryh's "Shon'jir" that goes something like this:

"If I can make you angry, I have passed your defenses. So my elders often told me, because I was greatly prone to that fault myself."

amicably,
Friendly

Posted by: cornbread_r2 | April 19, 2011 9:59 PM

Blood isn't the only bodily fluid Catholics profess to be consuming when they take communion.

Posted by: timothy.green.name | April 19, 2011 10:30 PM

As an atheist who is trying to understand religious sensibilities, and who can still sometimes be moved by religious works of art, I want to say that I loved Andrew Higgins' poem which The Other Ian posted in #150. I saw it earlier today at Slacktivist.

TRiG.

Posted by: Friendly | April 19, 2011 10:52 PM

I shouldn't waste time responding to trolls long after they've flounced, but I just thought this was too funny:

The Taliban could in no way be reasonably regarded as provoked.

How can anyone claim there is a reasonable standard for other people having grounds to be unreasonable?

Mullah Omar (The Times, March 6, 2001): "Muslims should be proud of smashing idols. It has given praise to God that we have destroyed them."

amicably,
Friendly

Posted by: frankenstein monster | April 20, 2011 12:27 AM

*sigh*

It is important.

It is not what the analogy is about.

Got it?

But this is how the analogy will look like unless if you just declare that the one is like the other without pointing out that you are not comparing the severity of the crime.
It will sound like an overblown, hysterical hyperbole.

Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula | April 20, 2011 12:38 AM

frankenstein monster wrote:

OK kiddo. go on. show the world where I did such a ridiculous thing. Cite me.

Good grief. Are you seriously trying to tell us that even after reading the explanation of the joke you still don't get it?

Posted by: jafafahots | April 20, 2011 1:19 AM

There are Christian churches in England where Christians destroyed Christian artwork because the then-current way in that area of interpreting the BS in the bible was temporarily certainty that depicting faces of whomever was idolatry or some such.

So you go into these Christian churches, still in use, that have 1000 year old Christian art that was defaced 500 years ago by Christians and is interspersed with more modern Christian art that WOULD have been defaced by those Christians had it been there then.

And I'd be willing to bet that of the Christians that currently sit in sermons amongst that art - defaced and not - might be upset enough by some art. Upset enough to deface it.

How many years does it take to learn absolutely nothing? THOUSANDS.

Posted by: Friendly | April 20, 2011 2:50 AM

@fm #473:

But this is how the analogy will look like

To whom? All of the world's "right-thinking people", I suppose?

Negation of freedom of expression by religious violence is abhorrent at any scale, be it Muslims blowing up statues, Christians slashing photos, or, I dunno, little Hindu kids stealing a little Sikh kid's drawing of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib and flushing it down the john.

[editor] BTW, it's either "this is how the analogy will look" or "this is what the analogy will look like". [/editor]

@Markita #476:

The Roman Catholic priests destroyed the holy books of the Incas.

I was just thinking about that earlier in the context of this thread. It wasn't just their religious books; most of the histories and records that the Inca kept in their quipu stringwork fed the fire as well, and the few examples that survive cannot be deciphered. What a loss for all humanity!

amicably,
Friendly

Posted by: Mr.Kosta | April 20, 2011 8:00 AM

Hmm... Seems I'm late to bash this Hyeronimous fuckwit... oh well.

In case he's still lurking, here's some art you can't destroy, you moron.

And here's some more.

Sweet Yog-Sothoth, I hate apologists of Christian savagery.

Posted by: serendipitydawg | April 20, 2011 8:03 AM

@ #273

Ceci n'est pas un messie

Alpha plus, SallyStrange.

Posted by: Quodlibet | April 20, 2011 9:16 AM

Illuminata @ #484:

Apparently, being christian in america is a free pass to behave like a terrorist - big or small.

I fear that this will become increasingly true as christian fundie legislators, at local, state, and federal levels, enact "christian" legislation, such as allowing or facilitating prayer in schools and public meetings; allowing or requiring the teaching of creationism instead of, or in competition to real science; and limiting civil and human rights based on christian or other religious "moral" tenets. It is very frightening. I fear that we are entering increasingly dangerous times for anyone who is not white, male, straight, christian, and conservative/regressive.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | April 20, 2011 9:40 AM

I fear that this will become increasingly true as christian fundie legislators, at local, state, and federal levels, enact "christian" legislation, such as allowing or facilitating prayer in schools and public meetings; allowing or requiring the teaching of creationism instead of, or in competition to real science; and limiting civil and human rights based on christian or other religious "moral" tenets. It is very frightening. I fear that we are entering increasingly dangerous times for anyone who is not white, male, straight, christian, and conservative/regressive.

Legalizing vigilante murder against legal medical procedures...

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | April 20, 2011 10:07 AM

@Quodilbet

...Laws that not only enable but insist upon officers topping random people to "see their papers"?

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | April 20, 2011 10:20 AM

...Laws based on pig headed denial that a black man could have been born in America?

...Laws putting a waiting peroid on abortion to push any potential chance of surgery past the cut off dates?

...Laws requiring women seeking abortion to go to church services that have no legal restriction against publicizing their 'patients' name?

...Laws that allow corporations to donate without scrutiny or over sight or transparency?

...Laws that shield prosecutors who used fraud to convict someone to death row from law suits?

...Laws that prevent citizens from recording illegal police activities?

Posted by: raven | April 20, 2011 10:41 AM

Another example of xian barbarianism and terrorism. The atheist billboards.

This is quite similar to the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas. Both are large pieces of art, readily visible, and both the billboards and the statues were just sitting there doing nothing.

For a while, the probability that an atheist billboard would be vandalized was approaching 100%. Lately it has dropped off but maybe that is just because it is winter.

Maybe xians are so destructive of property and people because their gods are so inert. Yahweh, the kid, and the spook don't ever actually do anything for themselves or by themselves. A third grader or a cat seems to be more powerful than all the heavenly hosts put together. My cat brought me a dead mouse last night.

North Carolina's 'Atheist' Billboard: Vandalism & Reactions ...Jun 30, 2010 ... A billboard campaign undertaken by the North Carolina Secular Association with a coalition of other agnostics and atheists erected six ... inewp.com/?p=3450 - Cached - Similar

Atheist billboard vandalized - UPI.comFeb 17, 2010 ... A billboard near Sacramento promoting atheism was vandalized by someone depicting atheists as lost, one of the billboard's sponsor said.
www.upi.com/.../Atheist-billboard-vandalized/UPI-73071266387409/ - Cached - Similar

Posted by: Illuminata, féministes fin de jeu | April 20, 2011 10:54 AM

I fear that we are entering increasingly dangerous times for anyone who is not white, male, straight, christian, and conservative/regressive.

Add to that new restrictive voter i.d. laws designed specifcally to attack left-leaning voters, while explicitly excluding right-leaning voters such as gun owners and the elderly.

The very best way to pretend that you're minority of extremists hold the same views as the majority of the citizens, huh. I wonder what other countries do that . . . . hmmm . . ..

Posted by: azumahazuki | April 20, 2011 11:23 AM

@497

Someone is going to quote from one of Paul or Peter's books saying some crap about "scoffers appearing in the last days" and so on.

Well, it's been over 1950 years. Mat 10:23 especially rankles. And the amillennialist ("he already came back!") crowd has nothing persuasive to say on the matter.

So, um...?

Posted by: Brother Ogvorbis, Apropos of Nada | April 20, 2011 11:31 AM

@Quodilbet

... Not to mention the laws transferring government responsibilities to religious organizations and then sending more money to the private group than it was costing for the US Government to perform the activity.

Posted by: GravityIsJustATheory | April 20, 2011 12:55 PM

Posted by: Ing....digo Montoya: You Killed My Father, Prepare to Die | April 19, 2011 10:27 AM

Also don't pretend the idea of the Aesthetic Grotesque isn't a fucking part of art. Art has long been about more than just pretty picture and vases of flowers.

In fact, for a long time pretty pictures of vases of flowers were looked down on for not being meaningful enough:

Even though Italian still life painting was gaining in popularity, it remained historically less respected than the "grand manner" painting of historical, religious, and mythic subjects. Prominent Academicians of the early 17th century, such as Andrea Sacchi, felt that genre and still life painting did not carry the "gravitas" merited for painting to be considered great. On the other hand, successful Italian still life artists found ample patronage in their day.[22] Furthermore, women painters, few as they were, commonly chose or were restricted to painting still life; Giovanna Garzoni, Laura Bernasconi, and Fede Galizia are notable examples.

Posted by: Rotting in the Midwest | April 20, 2011 3:49 PM

i like how very few people are noting how the piss christ photograph was not created with any intention of being disrespectful of christianity or jesus.

Posted by: CJO | April 20, 2011 3:52 PM

It was only meant to provoke negative feelings in people.

So you say. Two questions:

How do you know this?

If true, for the sake of argument, does that justify terroristic violence on the part of a censorious mob?

Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake | April 20, 2011 4:14 PM

I would like to thank many of the participants of this thread, which gave me a much better understanding and deeper appreciation of the work of art involved.
In particular, I thank Freemage @112, The Other Ian @150 for posting the poem, Brownian @233, Classical Cypher @280 and many more.

I DO NOT THANK commenters like Toiletman @502, who didn't actually bother to read any of the damn discussion before choosing to reduce its SNR with an ignorant-yet-opinionated comment.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | April 20, 2011 4:58 PM

Shorter Toiletman: I can't be bothered to read the thread but I have to show I'm a dipshit.

Posted by: Owlmirror | April 20, 2011 6:52 PM

BTW, I used to own a Thoth pack in my unregenerate days. Coincidence? I rather think not ...

The Magus?

I thought it was a Protestant trope to accuse the pope of being a secretly-Satan-worshipping sorceror steeped in the occult.

Or do you mean that JP2 was an example of what happens when the Church is corrupted by modernism?

Posted by: Chaos Cryptic | April 20, 2011 7:12 PM

I seriously don't understand how he's not ashamed of himself, doing this transparent morphing shtick to sneak in where he's not wanted. It's unusually pathetic.

Posted by: CJO | April 20, 2011 7:19 PM

Owlmirror,

I've got a Hebrew translation question for you. It's implied (though not addressed to you) in a post near the end of the Ken Ham Put to Shame thread, or if you want I can ask on TET.

Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula | April 20, 2011 8:08 PM

Piltdown Man wrote:

If you have any evidence to that effect...

Spa-GOINGGGGGGGGGGGG!

Damn. If I'm going to have my irony meter sitting as close to my pc as it currently is I think I'm going to have to start wearing goggles. That cog came just a little to close.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | April 20, 2011 8:27 PM

You know it makes sense.

I lol'd.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | April 20, 2011 9:33 PM

Damn. If I'm going to have my irony meter sitting as close to my pc as it currently is I think I'm going to have to start wearing goggles. That cog came just a little to close.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | April 20, 2011 11:24 PM

Jesus Pilty....why don't you just go off an die? I mean seriously you're 700 years out of your time and amount to nothing more than a bigoted little elitist pimple on the ass of society, gleefully cheer leading murderers, assaultants and pedophiles (that is when you're able to prey your mouth away from the pope's wrinkled syphilitic cock for a second). No one likes you here, I hesitate to say I can't imagine many people liking you PERIOD. Even Catholics wouldn't like you. Just go away, leave us alone (all your whimpering sleaze does is to steel our low opinion of your church, making it ever the more delightsome to us as it continues to flail about and hemorrhage due to its own incompetence and moral bankruptcy). Go off and die, correct the mistake your clearly misguided mother made when she put the coat hanger down.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | April 21, 2011 9:27 AM

@Ecpaulsen

The Passion of Howard Hughes

Posted by: Blot | April 21, 2011 12:55 PM

Obviously I meant photo and not painting.

Posted by: Blot | April 21, 2011 1:24 PM

Personally I think it is good as art because I think you can see more depth to it the more you analyze and examine the subject.

My tastes in the visual arts tend to be a bit conservative, which is, to paraphrase Toby Ziegler, why I (and even more so religious bigots), should have no say whatsoever concerning what hangs on the walls of modern art exhibits.

Posted by: Blot | April 21, 2011 1:59 PM

I'm similar. I love modernist art and literature, but I find conceptual art and and the whole pomo schtick you refer to tedious. Although I shouldn't overgeneralise about that.

My favourite writer is Nabokov, and he famously loathed art that set out with a social agenda. I can't say I agree with him 100%, but I do think that there needs to be some aesthetic or formal quality to elevate a work above the level of mere agit prop or ephemeral social commentary. Being into art for the aesthetics or its formal aspects is not all that fashionable in the places that find themselves prepared to pronounce on such things, which is why I say I'm conservative. I don't mean just pretty; I mean a work that manages to unify its ideas and its form into a coherent whole, and that those ideas have some degree of novelty, or universality(another unfashionable idea), or complexity and depth.

Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake | April 22, 2011 6:21 AM

The property of substance — as in being made entirely of shit — does distribute from the parts to the whole -- as does, to pick a random example, corruptability.

What? You started it by saying "substance".

Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula | April 22, 2011 7:36 AM

Piltdown wrote:

Even if every single Catholic were a villain, that would not mean the doctrines of the Church were false, any more than the theory of evolution by natural selection would be disproved if it was discovered that Charles Darwin tortured puppies for fun.

Except that the theory of evolution, unlike Catholic dogma, doesn't include the existence of a supernatural force capable of inspiring and affecting goodness.

That your god, if he exists, is so weak or uncaring that he fails to exert his influence to prevent his representatives from preying on those they're responsible for says a great deal about what's important to him. A church which could claim a spotless record would be flocked to - surely that would be in your god's interest?

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | April 22, 2011 11:08 AM

The function of a lighthouse is to warn ships away from the rocks. If an arrogant, foolish or drunken sailor ignores that warning and runs aground, it's not the fault of the lighthouse.

And if the keepers of the lighthouse continue to plow their own ships into the rocks time after time after time, one might easily conclude they don't fucking understand how the lighthouse works and should not be in charge of it.

Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right | April 22, 2011 2:27 PM

Sorry, wrong thread!

It's a sad fact that the dominant culture of the modern world militates against living a holy life like a good little boy or girl -- politically, economically and morally.... It doesn't follow that the church's Santa's moral code is false.

Fixed It For You.

@j-brisby,

I wonder what fraction of people here have ever written something nasty in a Christian library book, or defaced a Christian billboard at a busstop, or torn the Christian fish off someone's car.

Haven't I met you in an anti-vax thread, equating a fraction of a microgram of formaldehyde with Dangerous Industrial Chemicals?

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | April 22, 2011 4:10 PM

The Thoth deck was the one my mother gave me for Christmas when I turned 12.

That is all. I'll leave you to your lighthouses and ships.

I grew up navigating the trick is not to land.

Posted by: Brownian | April 22, 2011 4:16 PM

It doesn't follow that the Church's moral code is false.

No.

But before we get all swooney about how Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven—*sigh* aren't presuppositions just darling—it's important to recognise that above all, neither you nor anyone else has any reasonable basis for claiming it's correct.

But yeah, most of it is a stupid code, and the parts of it that aren't stupid seem to be impossible for theists to follow.

It's more like it's a lighthouse that's not meant to steer you from the rocks, but from an arbitrarily decided stretch of the ocean that contains shallows, rocks, and navigable channels. That the lighthouse keepers are also idiots and incompetents is simply further evidence that the entire structure is best bulldozed for the sake of humanity, and the bricks be used for something useful. Shithouses maybe.

Haven't I met you in an anti-vax thread, equating a fraction of a microgram of formaldehyde with Dangerous Industrial Chemicals?

Probably. j-brisby hasn't yet found a topic that he isn't a moron about.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | April 22, 2011 7:55 PM

The western wave was all a-flame,
The day was well nigh done!
Almost upon the western wave
Rested the broad bright sun;
When that strange shape drove suddenly
Betwixt us and the sun.

And straight the sun was flecked with bars,
(Heaven's Mother send us grace!)
As if through a dungeon-grate he peered
With broad and burning face.

Alas! (thought I, and my heart beat loud)
How fast she nears and nears!
Are those her sails that glance in the sun,
Like restless gossameres?

Are those her ribs through which the sun
Did peer, as through a grate?
And is that Woman all her crew?
Is that a Death? and are there two?
Is Death that Woman's mate?

Her lips were red, her looks were free,
Her locks were yellow as gold:
Her skin was as white as leprosy,
The Nightmare Life-in-Death was she,
Who thicks man's blood with cold.

The naked hulk alongside came,
And the twain were casting dice;
`The game is done! I've won! I've won!'
Quoth she, and whistles thrice.

...

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | April 22, 2011 8:11 PM

Because if there ever were/is/would be a lighthouse then only love would be the light and without that all sail with me or crash alone on some rock in vain.

Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake | April 22, 2011 11:58 PM

Horace, was the point of providing that link to lament jounalistic ineptitude? Or to pretend that you can't possibly be clueless if someone who works for a newspaper agrees with you?

For the pious, Christ is God’s form on Earth; he is not some regular, eating-and-pissing Joe

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | April 23, 2011 9:44 AM

And... Genesis.

Oh and if you want to hear the melody to your song (though my voice and the recording are terrible) click on the Temperance card. FWIW

Posted by: Owlmirror | April 24, 2011 2:45 AM

Plod Wit Mann:

If Catholics faithfully partake of the sacraments and strive to amend their lives, the whole tenor of society can be elevated.

Such as, for example, when the Catholics of Germany supported the NSDAP? If they weren't faithfully partaking of the sacraments and striving to amend their lives, how would you know?

(Yes, I'm playing that card. Because the assertion that eating magical food and drink magically makes people magically good is fucking well insipid.)

The Ten Commandments etc are not invalidated by the mere fact that numerous faithless Christians ignore them.

Blah blah blah. They are invalidated by the fact that half of them are pointless.

Go ahead. Read Exodus 20:1-11. Explain how rejecting the cult monopoly and cult taboos of Yahweh, in and of itself, makes someone a bad person.

As Jesus said of the Jewish hierarchy of His own day: "The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not." In other words, do as I say, not as I do!

LOL!!!

You once argued that 'do as I say, not as I do' was God's own "moral" code. Apparently, for the putative author of the putative code, being consistent with that code is just too damn much to ask. And you proudly worship this giant cosmic hypocrite! And, of course, you are blind to your own repeated hypocrisy.