|
|
Post by goz on Sept 29, 2019 21:23:06 GMT
...I like how you know his intentions when he has stated the opposite. I perfectly understand blasphemy and as I have said multiple time it is fictitious because it is in the eye of the beholder. Some women told me I was stalking her when I showed up at her house unexpectedly. I explained to her that "stalking" is completely meaningless to me in my worldview. It is a subjective in the eye of the beholder. To me, I am just being friendly. Do ya see what's wrong with this picture? No, there is nothing wrong in this. In fact it exemplifies what I am saying. One woman see the visit as an intrusion, and the other as a friendly visit. 'Eye of the beholder' stuff. The only problem would lie in further criminal behaviour or harassment however that is another issue entirely.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2019 22:35:12 GMT
goz Either way, there is a difference between not believe in God, and another one entirely to show outright disrespect towards Him like the general thing described in the topic does where this person went out of their way to disrespect Jesus Christ and basically hides under the guise of "art". Those two are certainly different things, but they can co-exist with one another. One can lack belief in god, whilst simultaneously believing that god (as depicted in the bible, for instance) is a horrible person. I mean, I'm happy to say that Darth Vader is evil. And Hannibal Lecter is evil. And Joffrey Baratheon is evil. But I also don't believe that they exist except as a fictional construct. Trash, arguably, but I'm not at all sure I accept that art can be immoral or wrong. I don't see on what basis you can claim that, outside of "I don't like it".
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Oct 1, 2019 2:35:55 GMT
I will say this: I won't dispute what Serrano's intent was in creating this piece, but I will say that he's as dense as concrete if he didn't understand why it would've pissed (no pun intended) people of faith off given that pissing on things is a near universal sign of disrespect. I suspect that he actually understood it would be seen as a sign of disrespect, that it would be offensive/provocative, and chose to do it while concocting an ad hoc alternative reason/justification/meaning for it that he could use to deflect negative criticism from himself. Artists like to be provocateurs, but I wish more would have the balls to own up to it. Take the Von Trier route of saying (paraphrased): "I'm the best filmmaker in the world, you people are my guests, I don't owe you anything."
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 1, 2019 3:06:10 GMT
I will say this: I won't dispute what Serrano's intent was in creating this piece, but I will say that he's as dense as concrete if he didn't understand why it would've pissed (no pun intended) people of faith off given that pissing on things is a near universal sign of disrespect. I suspect that he actually understood it would be seen as a sign of disrespect, that it would be offensive/provocative, and chose to do it while concocting an ad hoc alternative reason/justification/meaning for it that he could use to deflect negative criticism from himself. Artists like to be provocateurs, but I wish more would have the balls to own up to it. Take the Von Trier route of saying (paraphrased): "I'm the best filmmaker in the world, you people are my guests, I don't owe you anything." Since time immemorial, art and artists have not only been the reflectors of their society butt the cutting edge of progress, change and challenging of the status quo, what is now called the 'avant guard'(sp?) since the evolution of modern art. Nothing changes with the challenging of established 'sacred cows' in society. This is justification enough for an artist IMHO and it has NOTHING to do with morality being right or wrong or any other such bourgeois ideas from the far religious right or any other group of 'conservatives'.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Oct 1, 2019 6:02:22 GMT
I will say this: I won't dispute what Serrano's intent was in creating this piece, but I will say that he's as dense as concrete if he didn't understand why it would've pissed (no pun intended) people of faith off given that pissing on things is a near universal sign of disrespect. I suspect that he actually understood it would be seen as a sign of disrespect, that it would be offensive/provocative, and chose to do it while concocting an ad hoc alternative reason/justification/meaning for it that he could use to deflect negative criticism from himself. Artists like to be provocateurs, but I wish more would have the balls to own up to it. Take the Von Trier route of saying (paraphrased): "I'm the best filmmaker in the world, you people are my guests, I don't owe you anything." Since time immemorial, art and artists have not only been the reflectors of their society butt the cutting edge of progress, change and challenging of the status quo, what is now called the 'avant guard'(sp?) since the evolution of modern art. Nothing changes with the challenging of established 'sacred cows' in society. This is justification enough for an artist IMHO and it has NOTHING to do with morality being right or wrong or any other such bourgeois ideas from the far religious right or any other group of 'conservatives'. I'm not disagreeing with any of this, I'm just saying that if they're going to do this then they should own it.
|
|
