Visual art is a form of self expression, not everyone is going to like or appreciate that which is created. It needs to be viewed as just that... an individual's form of self expression. Look at the amount of Salvador Dali's work that is comprised of mutilated women. Me, I find that offensive... but that does not take away from his merit as an artist.

I would venture to say such things should not be displayed in front of children... but to remove it? *I* feel that to be a form of artistic censorship, and very sad.

Originally posted by palehorse23
So you must think all art that depicts some sort of nudity must be indecent.

Umm....no, and I never implied such a thing. You are assuming again and changing the subject completely.

I feel sorry for you my friend. You seem to not be able to see outside of the box of religion. Hopefully I am wrong

Thats ok because I feel the same for you except you cannot see inside the box of religion.

Originally posted by Lysergic
No image? How can I compare?

Are they sure it's really Jesus? I mean are they sure its not just some hippy?

What people did he use for reference to this holy member?

Maybe he... wait i'll just stop here.

You know, you're right!

It looks just like a hippie shaped bong with a big member for a stem, although, *ahem*, I don't think I'd be inclined to use one shaped like that!

Not that I would be inclined to use any such....um...you know...maybe I better stop right here, too.

I think it's in extremely poor taste, and should be ignored.

Then again I thought the same thing about the Mohammad cartoon.

I think art should be viewed to let people judge it on it's merits, or in this case, the lack therof.

The guy requesting that it be destroyed is absurd.

[edit on 1/12/08 by xmotex]

Originally posted by palehorse23

---

Obviously you do not know the meaning behind my ID. It has nothing to do with horses.

Don't assume too much. Of course it doesn't have anything to do with horses (you're not a horse or worship horses, I assume), it has something to do with civility. Saying an aroused pale horse is better than saying an aroused palehorse23 or palehourse23 with an erect you know what, got it? Sorry for being too vague, I thought you might get it. I should use this instead, an aroused "pale horse".

Anyway, what is the purpose of art if you cannot display it?

Artists create arts, that's what they do (their expression). Whether they want to display (share) their arts or not, it's rather about the personality of the artists themselves mostly.

Let me ask you this, if it did say Mohammed, would you be as mad at him then? My guess is no, because it doesn't vilify Jesus, since He is the only possible figure that can be worshiped without.

Okay, 4thDoctorWhoFan already established this.

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan

Originally posted by palehorse23
Don't the Christians have better things to worry about than this.

Thats not the point. I'm sure you would get upset if someone did the same to someone you loved.

The question from before, if it's your aroused statue, and he's displaying it all over town, how will you feel about it? Proud?

And I'm not mad either way. Continue reading.

Well, I guess the article title was right.

For me this is much more than that. If it's the statue of Buddha or Muhammad, I will let their follower express their objections. I won't let them kill the artist. But I definitely won't say "Don't the Christians have better things to worry than this" or some similar attitude.

All people want to express what they are and what they feel. But there should be some limit to it, otherwise the world will turn into chaos. This holds true for every profession and devotion whether it's an artist, scientist, politician, military personnel, and religious follower.

Originally posted by StormSolace
Visual art is a form of self expression, not everyone is going to like or appreciate that which is created. It needs to be viewed as just that... an individual's form of self expression. Look at the amount of Salvador Dali's work that is comprised of mutilated women. Me, I find that offensive... but that does not take away from his merit as an artist.

I only partly agree with what you said. I can say the same thing about Josef Mengele. It does not take away from his merit as a doctor (let's just pretend he's a real doctor okay). But that doesn't sound right, does it?

I would venture to say such things should not be displayed in front of children... but to remove it? *I* feel that to be a form of artistic censorship, and very sad.

I'll remove it, being an authoritarian that I am. See, that's my life expression. You can imagine what will happen if anyone can do whatever they want hiding behind excuses like it's artistic, it's religion, it's my freedom speech. All of those things have their limits. Because it could transgress other people's right if it's limitless. That's my point!

Originally posted by Jazzyguy
All people want to express what they are and what they feel. But there should be some limit to it, otherwise the world will turn into chaos. This holds true for every profession and devotion whether it's an artist, scientist, politician, military personnel, and religious follower.

There should be no limits, but...

And therein lies the essence of the equation.

Who is to determine the extent of these limits?

Einstein's space is no closer to reality than Van Gogh's sky. The glory of science is not in a truth more absolute than the truth of Bach or Tolstoy, but in the act of creation itself. The scientist's discoveries impose his own order on chaos, as the composer or painter imposes his; an order that always refers to limited aspects of reality, and is based on the observer's frame of reference, which differs from period to period as a Rembrant nude differs from a nude by Manet.
Arthur Koestler (1905 - 1983), The Act of Creation, London, 1970, p. 253

What we imagine is order is merely the prevailing form of chaos.
Kerry Thornley, Principia Discordia, 5th edition

Chaos is the score upon which reality is written.
Henry Miller (1891 - 1980)

Originally posted by goosdawg
Who is to determine the extent of these limits?

Actually you lost me with your quotes, but let me try to answer.
Not who, but what. The consequences. Mankind learns from the consequences, the history somehow.

Example, palehorse didn't want to post the Jesus pic here, why? Maybe because he felt that the mods might do something about it. So, he wouldn't risk it, even though he might have the "why not, it's artistic" argument. He learns that from past experience, or somehow figure out there will be some sort of consequences.

I don't like this kind of 'Art', but I dislike censorship more, so I simply wouldn't visit such an exhibition. I don't think the piece should be destroyed tho, presumably the artist wanted to attract media attention to his work and he has achieved it. Art is still a business like any other.
The problem I have with this sort of thing is the hypocricy. Certain other religions would be rioting in the streets if their gods were portrayed in such a way. Its not on

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I see nothing wrong with Christians expressing their feelings regarding this, but really, as in a similar incident here in New Mexico over a painting of the Our Lady of Guadalupe,

They painted her with an erect penis too??!!

As for the statue of Jesus, I think they should remove it from public view or at least make sure the area is cordoned off. Otherwise devout Christian women might have a stroke.

I may be a bit on the fringe with my opinion here but:

I do not see the real harm. It is a statue depicting the humanity of Jesus. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the case that Christ's being born human is a core belief in Christian/Catholic teaching?

Born human + died for sins + ascension = Jesus

So...the message can't be the issue here, it must be the penis. Getting all worked up (pun intended) over the depiction of a penis, erect or otherwise, seems almost childish.

Its a penis. Jesus had one. The end.

" He was tempted in all ways "..do you think that Jesus never had an erection? He was a lad growing up and did not realize fully his divinity until adulthood, although he was very special as a child also. This is disgusting rip off art trying to make a lot of money and get lots of notoriety for the ' artist '. Thats all.

Every few years we read about another one of these ' art ' works. A few years ago it was " Piss Christ " which was a crucifix submerged in a jar of urine. The filthy and demented artist named Mapplethorpe, a twisted freak if there ever was one, who liked to insert bullwhips into his subjects ...uh, orifices..made a real stink and had his works removed from some galleries as well. But he made lots of money and got a lot of attention, which of course is what this is all about.

Blasphemous ' art ' has been useed for centuries to stir up the sensibilities of the people, and this is no different. I would ignore this trash and realize that the artist is just another scammer.

However, too many people want to place Jesus on a level that removes Him from the fully human being that he was..He was fully human and fully God at the same time and as such experienced every temptation and every sin that exists; he just dealt with them all properly, as He knew his Father would want. He did what the Father desired, always, and that was His nature to do so.

Ignore the filth and remember that Jesus himself would recognize the ' art ' in question as the demented ravings of an unregenerated mind, thats all.

Guys...

Its just a statue.

I mean, here in the west we don't get all riled up about images do we?

Interesting to see that alot of the posters on this thread who are "offended" by this are also the same ones who call muslims "stupid" when they take offence to things.

Two sides of the same coin methinks

It's art....

Personally, I'm more offended that most depictions of Jesus are of a white man.

Then again, I'm offended when I see velvet Elvis paintings.

Anyone who puts any more thought into this than, "interesting, I wonder what the artist meant by this" doesn't understand what art is all about.

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
Otherwise devout Christian women might have a stroke.

Priceless

I seriously don't understand the fuss here. Some guy made a statue and some gallery displayed it (with warnings).

If seeing a statue of Jesus with a hard on is offensive to you, don't visit the gallery! it's not like they painted it on the side of the No.57 bus.

Isn't the purpose of art to make you think outside the box and enter into discourse. If so, then this is effective art.

Originally posted by neformore
Interesting to see that alot of the posters on this thread who are "offended" by this are also the same ones who call muslims "stupid" when they take offence to things.

Two sides of the same coin methinks

Methinks you are wrong.
It's not because muslims take offence, its because they want to kill and behead the person who dares write a cartoon. That is a far cry from just venting one's feelings.

Originally posted by palehorse23
Don't the Christians have better things to worry about than this.

At least we're not rallying for the artist to be lashed and executed like the teacher who allowed a student to name a stuffed animal Mohamed or like the Danish cartoonist that parodied Mohamed. I don't like this but vengeance is not ours.