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.
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.
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...
Originally posted by Djarums
stop smearing elephant crap on the virgin Mary
(anyone remember that one?).
Originally posted by shaunybaby
personally i'd prefer a cross dressing jesus:
[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.
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.
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]
Originally posted by omega1
It is clearly offensive, so I believe that it should not be allowed to be displayed.
Originally posted by junglejake
Heh, wow, BH, we're actually in agreement on something.
Therefore, we must blow up the world to keep from offending anyone.