Pope attacks art vandalising Bible

Masqua, I was not stating my own opinion. I was summarizing the opinion stated by the member you so absurdly mischaracterised, to show the way in which your response to him distorted his true statements. If you read the post, that should have been clear by the fact that the entire post was a criticism of your response to that member. Here it is again:

You pushed it [the comment] off the mountain you made, then pointed to the slippery slope it tumbled down: [

Art or not there is a realm of good taste that has long been forgotten.

Just 400 years ago and the "artist" would have had his head chopped off with a rusty axe by some Church executioner. Today it is called art.

The real shame; apart from the "art" is the fact that a society like Britain tolerates such blatantly incendiary "art" when they casually arrest people for offending the sensibilities of the belligerent Muslims, even to the point of harboring Imams known for inciting terrorist acts and calling for violence against Westerners.

Truly disgusting.. nothing more to say than that is there? .. The ones defacing the book would probably see them selves as righteous and morally superior to that of Christians, which makes the story that much more disgusting.

"Art" .. Hardly.

reply to post by Rockpuck


And what makes you think, that christians are more morally superior than anyone else?

I would love to know so enlighten me

Originally posted by IAF101
Art or not there is a realm of good taste that has long been forgotten.

Just 400 years ago and the "artist" would have had his head chopped off with a rusty axe by some Church executioner. Today it is called art.

Indeed people were put to death just for having the audacity of not being christian. Mentioning what brutal methods it used to force obedience further illustrates the hypocricey of the church. It is how it become so powerful and the pope's position would not exist if not for all that death.

This artist has not used violence.. just left it to the public to give opinions.

Edit. Comparing the moral history of this pope vs this artist.. the pope loses without question.

[edit on 30-7-2009 by riley]

reply to post by riley


People were put to death for not being Christian in some cases but this "artist's" crime would have been much worse. He would be desecrating the word of God and that would have brought a slow death.

The Pope's position would always exist as long as the Roman Catholicism exists. The Deaths of the past have nothing to do with the position of the pope today. It is hypocritical and ridiculously ludicrous to justify the crimes of today by stating past injustice.

The Artist may not have used violence but he has done something much worse. He has violated the honor of the Christian faith and the pathetic society that allowed him to do so with abandon does see fit to hold him accountable or at the very least put a stop to his blatantly incendiary piece that is claimed to be "art".

The pope has no need for any excuse as he has not committed any crime and morally he has not decided to outrage the faith of millions for cheap publicity.


[edit on 30-7-2009 by IAF101]

reply to post by paperplanes

by paperplanes

If you read the post, that should have been clear by the fact that the entire post was a criticism of your response to that member.

First of all, I don't believe the post by Wobbly Anomaly was directed at me (No 'reply to masqua' in the opening).


It appears that he was furthering comments to Cypher-X (on page 7), who Wobbly Anomaly was having a debate with and who stated:

by Cypher-X

Yeah but this isn't art, it's liberal activism and a subsidized spit in the face to all Christians behind the guise of artistic self expression.

People like this, who ever it was that set up this thing,, I would like to show him some of my own artistic expression on his self and then take his wallet forcing him to pay for it, like the taxpayers are forced to pay for his. Like you say, that is why art is so cool

Alright. How about I go through Wobbly Anomaly's entire post anyways and I'll comment to each part?

by Wobbly Anomaly The bible defacement is unquestionably and definitely art, wether you agree or not, it doesnt change its status.

No more so than defacing a road sign with black spray paint.

You can debate for an eternity the merits and demerits of art or wether you like it or not, it still doesnt change the fact, and art, from just one view point, exists to challenge ingrained beliefs and concepts.

Art is creativity in its most simple form. From the representations drawn by children to those works of the most talented, it is all art. We are ALL artists and ALL have individual tastes for art. Art does not only, as you say, "challenge ingrained beliefs", it also exists to glorify them. In fact, the majority of art throughout the history of mankind does exactly that... put belief on a pedestal.

The earliest art in existance reproduced what was seen in nature and was done in awed reverence spiritually. It is seen in cave walls, rock carvings, on bone fragments and woven textiles. Each and every bit of that work was intended to mean something to those who viewed it, even though it was not so obviously apparent.

The idea that art is created to destroy belief is (imo) a modern concept and an example of that (as I pointed out earlier in the thread) would be the work of Marcel Duchamp who said; "A pile of tyres, an unmade bed: who says these are not art?" Well, (imo). I do and I am as entitled to that opinion as is everyone else to theirs.

This example does just that and artists as a general rule are clued up enough to know the reaction they will get. And, this in this case may well be the MAIN point of the bible exhibit.........

Your reaction is part of the art, it was meant to evoke all the reactions we have seen on this thread. Criticize it as much as you want, that was the intention.

Whatever your rection was, you have become part of this piece of art

(my original response)
Much in the same way that you could call the most heinous crimes against humanity art, right? Whether it's a pile of fresh doggie poo, replaced daily and centered on a white doily, or piles of dead bodies in the churches of Rwanda, if it's all about our reactions, it's gotta be 'art'. Sorry, not buying a ticket to the show.



Perhaps my reaction was not so much to what was euphemistically being called 'art' as it was to the vandalism that the exhibit (to me) entirely consisted of.

Who says that bodies piled in a church are not symbolic? It IS a powerful symbol, but one better done on a canvas or sculpture. In fact, a work such as that would be a most powerful statement and many famous photographs are used to that purpose. For instance, a young naked girl running towards the camera, weeping and burnt severely by napalm during the Viet Nam conflict does not require description, it is etched into the minds of generations worldwide. THAT is artistic impact and a lasting symbol to the cruelties of war.

The reaction to the photograph is one thing and the reaction to seeing it first hand is another entirely. I see the public defacement of biblical texts in a similar vein - a bit of theatrics with no permanent quality whatsoever.

Later, Wobbly Anomaly replies to the my comment with this:

by Wobbly Anomaly

Much in the same way as free will allows you freedom of expression but also allows you to murder someone. But any 'normal' thinking person is able to differentiate between the 2.

I would have replied [and do now) by saying that I agree, but there are also bounderies to freedom of expression, such as shouting 'FIRE!! in a crowded place or "I have a bomb" in a bank. Such things are just not done and surely not art.

IMO, the defacement of any biblical text ranks high in that context, in that many, perhaps even the majority, would be highly offended, maybe to the point of resorting to violence in some societies.

You yourself said:

by paperplanes

Certainly, someone carelessly nailing a banana peel to a wall is not art. Why is it not art? Because the act was not motivated by any psychic need; it lacked intent, will, desire. The intent need not be complex, but it must be present. Without that clause, everything is art. The stack of paper on your desk is art; the dirty laundry in the hamper is art; the car parked down the street is art. "Art" becomes a meaningless term.

This is true and is the most common criticism of Marcel Duchamp's questionable attempts to make (ie) a banana peel nailed to a wall into 'art'.

As to the intent of the artist in the Glasgow show, it bears mentioning that her involvement was supplying a bible and asking a particular disenfranchised community to 'write themselves into it'.

So, what was it that the artist contributed... only 'intent'? I call that incitement, but hardly art. It therefore has no legitimate status in my opinion (which I also have a right to).

You say:

by paperplanes

I do not have a right to not be offended

I, on the other hand, say I do have a right to be offended, at least as much as I am by the dishonesties of Marcel Duchamp.

May we agree to disagree?

reply to post by masqua


I don't believe that you understand the purpose of my address to you. It was not to discuss the accuracy or inaccuracy of Wobbly Anomaly's statements, or to again expand on the nature of art and the quality of the Bible's defacement. Earlier in the thread, I argued those things in depth; I have no desire or need to repeat myself. The purpose of my address to you, regarding Wobbly Anomaly's post, was not to re-open a dialogue on art and artistic merit. I did not make any general statements about art; I took care to only address your response to Wobbly Anomaly--your distortion of his statements. It has nothing to do with whether or not his statements are accurate; only that his statements deserve to be addressed truthfully, without distortion, something you failed to do. That is the only point of my statements.

You posted this response to Wobbly Anomaly:

Originally posted by masqua

Originally posted by Wobbly Anomaly
Your reaction is part of the art, it was meant to evoke all the reactions we have seen on this thread. Criticize it as much as you want, that was the intention.

Whatever your rection was, you have become part of this piece of art

Much in the same way that you could call the most heinous crimes against humanity art, right?

Whether it's a pile of fresh doggie poo, replaced daily and centered on a white doily, or piles of dead bodies in the churches of Rwanda, if it's all about our reactions, it's gotta be 'art'.

Sorry, not buying a ticket to the show.

Both I and pieman quickly posted responses to that exchange, pointing out your misrepresentation of Wobbly Anomaly's comment. That is all it amounts to.

[edit on 30/7/09 by paperplanes]

Originally posted by Gemwolf

In other words if I took an American flag and have people write obscenities all over it I could also call it art? Perhaps we can burn it in a spectacular finale? We would be expressing ourselves - and they make millions of flags every year after all... It would be just one flag...

I wonder if the non-religious folks would have the same opinion if we changed "Bible" with "American Flag" in the above article?

The American flag and many others have been 'disrespected' for the sake of art for quite a long time now:

www.nytimes.com...

Is it art? Depends entirely upon the person viewing it. Are people forced to view or participate in it? No. As for the bible i don't see writing in it being any worse than mindlessly throwing it in the trash like so many are every day.

What amazes me is the pure and common seething hate for Christianity, Christians and the Bible.

I saw a story about a year ago about elderly nuns in a small village being raped and brutally beaten, and most of the comments were along the lines of "lolol dats wut they get 4 bein xtians! xtians r evil and stoopud!!1!"

I'm sorry... but... what? Would the comments have been the same if these people had been Jewish? Or Buddhist? Or Wiccans?
Any other belief system and there would have complete and utter outrage!
You can't go anywhere except a church and not be mocked for being a Christan.

People say they hate Christians because they are intolerant. How ironic.
I guess people think you should be free to believe whatever you want!
Unless you happen to be a Christian, that is. In which case... we may have to rape and beat you.

It's socially acceptable to berate Christians, but no one else.
Odd.

Originally posted by Laurauk
reply to post by Rockpuck

 

And what makes you think, that christians are more morally superior than anyone else?

I would love to know so enlighten me

I am afraid that your ability to read has failed you. If you were to properly comprehend my wording, I was implying no one group is superior to another. Ideologies are mere personal perception, to deface the object of another mans belief is to claim your self above such superstitions, placing your self in a preconceived morally superior position to that of those you insult. It is for this reason that it is a disgusting act, to deface the object of another belief. And it is for this that they are not morally superior to anyone, but more like pathetic children. The only way to loose moral superiority is simply to allow your self to sink to such lowly levels as writing insults in a book of worship, be it of any religion.

Hopefully that explains it for you, as obviously you either didn't fully read or were simply unable to comprehend my original meaning.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

As to whether or not defacing a Bible is "Art", I would say that so long as one person, who ever they may be, believe it to be Art, then it is Art. That does not take into effect the taste of said Art, or whether it is morally acceptable Art. There are many forms of Art that are rejected by society as they cross our Social Taboos, they directly insult, or they are insensitive to a level that the vast majority would find it socially unacceptable.

Originally posted by Amagnon
Why does anything about religion always end up being pages and pages long?

I really don't get it - it annoys me that people focus on such a stupid insignificant issue - while the entire world is being burned under our feet.

Surely religion is the ultimate distraction, the essence of bread and circuses - it costs nothing to supply to the masses, yet amuses them endlessly - arguing points that can never be proved nor disproved, but which they argue with conviction, fire and unshakable belief.

Who cares? All that ever after fairy tale happens after your dead doesn't it? Why not wait until your dead to worry about it - and stop yap yapping about stuff there is no answer to, and pull your head out of the sand and your ass out of the fire?

Given that religion or a social structure which through maturity focuses on equal rights to each individual with respect to each individuals opinion but also taking into the consideration that it does not offend each individuals or the majority of a society.

Obviously this so called art was focused on making money and promoting the Gallery. That is why religion and Christianity was targeted since it was promoted in a heavy Christian orientated nation.

If this art exhibition was opened in an Islamic dominated country i doubt they would even get such an exposure let alone allow it to run for the simple fact that its offensive. Although hard line Islamics may applaud such an exhibition you would be surprised what the educated Islamic organisation would do to prevent such a disrepectfull and target move on a singular religion.

Once again, lets see if any free spirited or art orientated artists are willing to hold and exact exhibition but this time have all religions involved. . . !

Originally posted by limesta

Originally posted by Gemwolf

In other words if I took an American flag and have people write obscenities all over it I could also call it art? Perhaps we can burn it in a spectacular finale? We would be expressing ourselves - and they make millions of flags every year after all... It would be just one flag...

I wonder if the non-religious folks would have the same opinion if we changed "Bible" with "American Flag" in the above article?

The American flag and many others have been 'disrespected' for the sake of art for quite a long time now:

www.nytimes.com...

Is it art? Depends entirely upon the person viewing it. Are people forced to view or participate in it? No. As for the bible i don't see writing in it being any worse than mindlessly throwing it in the trash like so many are every day.

All true and well. In the safety of my city with several hundred policeman or policewoman at a 911 call away i too would not be intimidated. But lets see how well this crap art would hold if it was to be held at the front lines of Afghanistan or Iraq or any other U.S. base outside its border.

Oh Dear seems another artist, is in trouble, Legal action is being taken against a photographer for blasphemous photographs taken inside a Church:

Pictures of models, some of whom were partially-clothed, were taken inside and outside St Michael Penkivel Church near Truro.

Cornwall-based photographer Andy Craddock is the subject of legal action by the priest in charge for blasphemy.

The solicitor's letter describes blasphemy as the "publication of contemptuous, reviling, scurrilous or ludicrous matter relating to God, Jesus Christ, the Bible or the formularies of the Church of England".

Oooh seems that Priests/Pope, etc have had enough of the hatefull cts being carried out on the Christianity, in the name of art.

BBC WALES

[edit on 1-8-2009 by Laurauk]

Originally posted by Laurauk
Oh Dear seems another artist, is in trouble, Legal action is being taken against a photographer for blasphemous photographs taken inside a Church:

Pictures of models, some of whom were partially-clothed, were taken inside and outside St Michael Penkivel Church near Truro.

Cornwall-based photographer Andy Craddock is the subject of legal action by the priest in charge for blasphemy.

The solicitor's letter describes blasphemy as the "publication of contemptuous, reviling, scurrilous or ludicrous matter relating to God, Jesus Christ, the Bible or the formularies of the Church of England".

Oooh seems that Priests/Pope, etc have had enough of the hatefull cts being carried out on the Christianity, in the name of art.

BBC WALES

[edit on 1-8-2009 by Laurauk]

And i thought we'd left the middle ages way behind !

reply to post by Wobbly Anomaly



Mhmz so did I, It seems these laws are still valid, unless those in parliament, outlaws them. They tried to ban the Blasphemy laws back in 2008, which was unsucessfull.

The government has "every sympathy" for the case for abolishing blasphemy laws, Justice Minister Maria Eagle has said.

Speaking at the end of a debate on proposals to scrap the laws, she told MPs they wanted to first consult the Church of England.

Dr Harris, who called the law "ancient, discriminatory and illiberal", withdrew his Criminal Justice Bill amendment.

BBC Politics

The dude who runs this church, might be able to take legal action for tresspassing without permision on to the property. Do not how the law would apply to this.


[edit on 1-8-2009 by Laurauk]

Originally posted by Laurauk


The dude who runs this church, might be able to take legal action for tresspassing without permision on to the property. Do not how the law would apply to this.


[edit on 1-8-2009 by Laurauk]

Cant he just forgive him !

reply to post by Wobbly Anomaly


Well with what has happened, last week in that art exhibition, it seems, priests from all walks of christianity are hitting back, at artists.

People will say it is about time they done so. Christiianity accoding to some, has been attacked for far too long.

Mr Schrag added: “If we are to open up the Bible for discussion, surely we have to invite people to speak out. Art allows us to discuss difficult things, and Goma allows difficult discussions to take place — that is why Glasgow is at the cutting edge of contemporary art.”

I personally think it's a great idea. So who wants to be first to deface the Lisbon Treaty.

Originally posted by kindred
Mr Schrag added: “If we are to open up the Bible for discussion, surely we have to invite people to speak out. Art allows us to discuss difficult things, and Goma allows difficult discussions to take place — that is why Glasgow is at the cutting edge of contemporary art.”

I personally think it's a great idea. So who wants to be first to deface the Lisbon Treaty.

Well said by Mr Schrag, and yeah, i recon i could help edit the treaty. Certainley makes it fairer if everybody is given the opportunity to get their opinions heard other wise it's not exactly representative.