It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Christians In Tasmania Take To Streets In Rage And Riot Over Depiction Of Gay Jesus

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Well, not really. They asked that it be taken down from public display because it's offensive. The painting depicts various men in sexual acts around Jesus Christ, sitting in the middle.


A SEXUALLY explicit artwork depicting a gay Jesus has been slammed as shameful, foul, sacriligious and grossly offensive by a Tasmanian Liberal MP.

Member for Denison Michael Hodgman said the highly-offensive work, by prominent Tasmanian artist Shaun McGowan, should be immediately removed from display at the Red Wall Gallery at North Hobart's Republic Bar.

He believed a significant proportion of the community would be shocked and offended by the work, Imitation of Christ, which shows an image of Jesus Christ surrounded by gay men performing sexual acts.


Source

All of you who claim Christians would be reacting the same way to offensive depictions of Christ as we've seen Islam reacting recently, think again. Tasmania isn't up in flames, the bar is still open, and it's still standing. As ATS isn't a porn site, I can't post an image of the painting, but it isn't pretty.

So what does this mean? Should we, based on this, assume that Islam is a religion which preaches, "don't call us violent or we'll cut your head off", or are Imams and political leaders trying to incite their theocratic control of information over the entire world by creating terror in any who would go against the middle-east?




posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Also, that's somewhat different as it could be removed just for being sexually explicit, not just for being religiously offensive. Don't get me wrong, it would offend me. But I wouldn't demand it be taken down. I would just not use the services of the bar in protest.

That's how rational people protest things. Either have a peaceful demonstration (still over the top for something like this, IMO, but their right to do if they want) or protest by not buying a product or service from the organization that offended you.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Who is the artist of this so called "art"?

People never cease to amaze me these days...

Hopefully it gets taken down, and an example is set for future "artists". Don't get me wrong, I could care less what they draw; it is where they put it that matters.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 11:06 AM
link   
I'm still confused as to why "artists" (i use that term just for clarification purposes) insist on doing things like that.

How about all of these self proclaimed artists stop using religious figures in their art in an insulting manner. Stop the gay Jesus stuff, stop the Mohammad with a bomb stuff, stop smearing elephant crap on the virgin Mary (anyone remember that one?). Whether or not it brings about violence is another story, but I really have to question the motivation of the people making this "art". Other than attention grabbing, it holds absolutely no value.

Then again, people consider random splatters of paint to be art too so who knows...



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 11:13 AM
link   
The painting is on display until today. I don't know where it's going to go after that, possibly to Hobart's Entrepot Gallery with some of Shaun McGowan's other explicitly sexual art. McGowan wasn't available for comment by The Mercury, and this story just came out two days ago.

As this story becomes more mainstream (I found it on a blog that is often linked to and talked about by Fox News), we might get more information. Also, as it becomes more mainstream, there's a chance Christians could start rioting and killing...But I highly, highly doubt it.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 11:14 AM
link   
It may be disgusting, it may be stupid, and it may be useless. But it is also freedom of expression and if they want to make stupid things, that is their right. And - with an exception in this case as it's sexually explicit - they should be able to post those images up on their property or in publications if they want to.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 11:18 AM
link   
I find it offensive.....but guess what.

Its called freedom of speach. The Muslims could take a hint from the Christians on this one.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Djarums
I'm still confused as to why "artists" (i use that term just for clarification purposes) insist on doing things like that.

How about all of these self proclaimed artists stop using religious figures in their art in an insulting manner. ... Other than attention grabbing, it holds absolutely no value.

Then again, people consider random splatters of paint to be art too so who knows...


In this case, it's another form of political expression. The artist wanted to get his point across (not sure what it was, but a lot of his art is homosexual in nature), and knew that by being extremely offensive it would, he hoped, like so many other things, come to the attention of more people.

So it does, in this case, hold value, but the message is more likely to divide than bring together.

As for confusing "art", I still haven't figured out why anyone would pay tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for a piece of canvas completely painted black. Wish I'd thought of that first...That's art I could do.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Okay, I just read that this was actually in a gallery. Ignore my previous statements that it should be removed. For some reason I thought it was outside in public view. It's in a gallery in a bar in a private facility and should not be removed unless the owner wants it to be removed.

As for defining what is art, that's a whole debate that can never be resolved. So I don't define things as art often, just whether I like them or not. I find that works better.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Djarums
stop smearing elephant crap on the virgin Mary
(anyone remember that one?).


You betchya I remember it. I also remember that there
weren't massive riots and there weren't streets filled
with Christians demanding death to massive numbers
of artists, or whoever, because of it.

It was not art. It was obnoxious. And it died a
natural death for obnoxious junk. That was the
end of it. (until the guy who made it gets to
heaven and is standing at the pearly gates
wondering why St. Peter isn't letting him in
)

BTW - excellent thread junglejake!


[edit on 2/10/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   
personally i'd prefer a cross dressing jesus:




posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
personally i'd prefer a cross dressing jesus:



:shk:

Thanks for the helpful contribution to the thread, shaunybaby.

Logan: It started out in the dining area of the pub, but after 3 days the owner wisely moved it up to the gallery.


[Claire Field] said the work had been seen by hundreds of Tasmanians when it was displayed in the pub's dining area but within three days Republic Bar owner Jim Coulson moved the artwork to the upstairs gallery so as not to offend anyone.

(from the same article)



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Freedom of expression is alright. Pornography is alright. But when explicit material is in a public place, then it is debatable.

It is clearly offensive, so I believe that it should not be allowed to be displayed.

Freedom of expression, however, is critical to a free society. I think that people should just use their best judgements on offensive art.

I also think that it is important that this matter does not get blown out of proportion. (Like the cartoons)



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 12:14 PM
link   
i was actually trying to show a point. there didn't seem to be that much outrage to the jesus with makeup. anyways jesus would have looked nothing like how most of his picture portray him as, as they usually show him to be white and feminine looking (the feminine features to make him look more beautiful and appealing) and white...well that's just wrong. he would have been dark, init. so maybe you should be outraged at the people portraying jesus as a very feminine looking white man...

[edit on 10-2-2006 by shaunybaby]



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by omega1
Freedom of expression is alright. Pornography is alright. But when explicit material is in a public place, then it is debatable.

It is clearly offensive, so I believe that it should not be allowed to be displayed.


I say if it's in a privately owned building, then it should be allowed. You're making the choice to enter that building and you can make the choice to leave it if you want as well. It's probably good that the owner moved the piece to the art gallery, but I would support his choice to leave it there if he wanted to as well.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
i was actually trying to show a point. there didn't seem to be that much outrage to the jesus with makeup. anyways jesus would have looked nothing like how most of his picture portray him as, as they usually show him to be white and feminine looking (the feminine features to make him look more beautiful and appealing) and white...well that's just wrong. he would have been dark, init. so maybe you should be outraged at the people portraying jesus as a very feminine looking white man...

[edit on 10-2-2006 by shaunybaby]


Ahh, my bad, thanks for clearing that up. I don't feel any real outrage over this, though. I think the artist is a fool, but I'm actually rather pleased with what transpired. I've read so many on this board saying that Christians would react the same way under similar circumstances, and, thanks to Mr. McGowan, that has been proven false. Heck, if it hadn't been for the Islamic riots and that reaction of "you're no better" from so many, this story probably never would have been published by anyone.

I agree with Logan on this issue of porn. Saying that private businesses available to the public can't display certain images opens a slippery slope of censorship of ideas. I don't believe explicit images should be allowed to be displayed where the unsuspecting or children could see them, as little Johnny shouldn't have to see a guy getting a shot in the eye for looking into a store window, but in a private gallery where the images aren't visible from the outside, no problem.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 12:38 PM
link   
While I find this type of "art" and I use that term loosely offensive it is the so-called artist's right to express himself. The correct way to handle such things is by refusing to spend money in the business and otherwise ignore it. I live my faith; it is in my heart and can't be insulted or debased by anyone but me. It is good however, to prove Christians handle such things in a more sane manner then the radical Muslims. Note I specified radical



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by omega1
It is clearly offensive, so I believe that it should not be allowed to be displayed.


Just playing devil's advicate here, what makes it "clearly offensive"? I'm not offended. And I know many people who wouldn't be offended. So, what makes a piece of art offensive? Is it the religious content? The sexual content? The homosexual content? The percentage of people who get offended?

I can honestly say "That's not offensive." So... it's NOT clearly offensive.

How can you label an object as "offensive" if many people aren't offended by it?

Isn't being offended the responsibility of the beholder? I mean, many of us don't find 'ole bomb head' offensive, but *clearly* many people do. Is the object (The cartoon itself) offensive or does the viewer of the cartoon carry the 'offensability' around with them?



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Heh, wow, BH, we're actually in agreement on something.

Hate speech laws are based on the offended's response to a comment. Therefore, if anyone is offended by something, it is deemed offensive. Therefore, everything is offensive. Therefore, we must blow up the world to keep from offending anyone.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
Heh, wow, BH, we're actually in agreement on something.


That just proves it happens to the best.




Therefore, we must blow up the world to keep from offending anyone.


Exactly! We must all hate each other and divide ourselves up into gangs that kill each other.

That's where we're headed unless we start being more flexible and realizing that other people have the same rights as we do to express themselves. Get over it. This planet and its people are changing and growing. Either get used to it or be miserable.

Thanks for bringing up the OTHER side of the Muslim cartoon issue, jake.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join