Pope attacks art vandalising Bible

Originally posted by Discotech
umm don't lump all of us who aren't Christian into this assumption, some of us do actually realise it's not just a book and have a respect for others belief systems even though we don't neccesarily agree with them or like them

My apologies. I didn't try to lump everyone in the group. It should have read "and some others".

Originally posted by noonebutme
Meh, there's no way to argue this with people who believe this silly BuyBull is actually the "Words of God" as the mod so wrongfully put it.

I didn't put it "wrongfully". Any Christian will tell you that they consider it the "Word of God". That is the truth. Whether the Bible is in fact really the "Word of God" - that is debatable. That Christians believe it is. That isn't debatable.

Originally posted by noonebutme
And now any form of 'strong' criticism to this collection of fabrications means it's 'disrespectful'.

Well, then I'm disrespectful to it...

When it comes to respect it doesn't necessarily have to do with Christianity or any other religion. It's really basic human ethics. It's part of being civilised and living in harmony with the guy next door. Does "The Golden Rule" ring a bell? It's arguably the cornerstone of basic human rights. You want repect from other people, no?

Originally posted by noonebutme
But i really don't care.

Then why even bother reading the thread? Why bother replying/ Why bother to try and highlight exactly how little you care?

Originally posted by noonebutme
It's just a book... it's just a book.. repeat ad nauseum.

There is no doubt in anyone's mind that to you it's just a book. But to so many other people it's more than just a book. And frankly that's all that matters. To you it will always be just a book and you will fail to comprehend why people feel this way about "just a book".

The bible is a book of fairy tales with a maniac named god and david copperfield's former self Jesus.

But I do agree that if so many people believe in this sci-fi book,
Just like the aztecs believed in the sun god and fed it blood
Just like the mayans believed in Itzamna
History repeats itself, always has, always will

I can agree that it defacing the bible can be conceived as offensive to practicing christians.

But let me ask you, if your neighbour did the same thing in the privacy of his own home, and it didn't make the news, would you be making as much of a deal of it then?

Also, i'd like to add
Perhaps this is evolution!

Maybe one day, years from now
Just as how we look at aztecs today sacrificing people to give blood to the sun, maybe 100 years from now, if we don't destroy our planet, people will look at us the same way.

Maybe this event will be a milestone in history in the evolution of man in denying fairy tales.

Come on, how do you think they will look at Noah's ark in a century from now?

And let me tell you, there are far less practicing christians than every single one of you think there is. Most of you grew up in another generation, this generation is not at all the same, it's completely different.

Religion is where common sense ends and where lunacy begins.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
But let me ask you, if your neighbour did the same thing in the privacy of his own home, and it didn't make the news, would you be making as much of a deal of it then?

*sighs*

It's called respect and public decency.

Are you suggesting that what you do in the privacy of your own home should be allowed in public too ? Things like sex, masturbation, walking around with nothing but your socks on just because you can ?

Originally posted by Gemwolf
I didn't put it "wrongfully". Any Christian will tell you that they consider it the "Word of God". That is the truth. Whether the Bible is in fact really the "Word of God" - that is debatable. That Christians believe it is. That isn't debatable.

That is VERY MUCH debatable.

I hope you don't take offense to this, but from my observations, christians is the largest group of people that don't follow their own religion.

I don't know if you live in the bible belt or not, but most christians i've met don't have the faintest clue of anything in the Bible, most don't even know that a bible is a book of books. Many people only know Jesus because of some south park or family guy episodes.

My nephew tells me that this christian guy at school keeps calling him jesus because he wore sandals to school once. lol

Do you know of any religion where it's people make fun of their religion more than christianity?

Listen, don't take it the wrong way, if anything it's a compliment, it's just awakened people, that's a good thing.

Originally posted by noonebutme
Does "The Golden Rule" ring a bell? It's arguably the cornerstone of basic human rights. You want repect from other people, no?

No but a golden calf does ring a bell

Shame on those that mock the golden calf...... right?

While I'm not personally offended by the defacement of the bible, I can definitely understand why the pope would be upset. He makes a very good point about how this wouldn't be done to the quran..

I can't believe I find myself agreeing with the new pope..

Like someone said a few pages back, I'm all for vandalism and graffiti, but there are things that are off limits.


I think what it boils down to ultimately is this:

The British need to either quit making bad art...

or someone needs to hook me up with some contact info across the pond.

I'd love to get a grant for taking a crap in a room with a single, bare lightbulb hanging from the ceiling, putting a tiny cocktail umbrella in the turd and charging people to take photos of it.





BRITISH ART mostly = GARBAGE

The 'Art Factor.'

I fail to see the artistic perspective in this. Once the veil of 'art' is removed, this really comes down to a political statement.

It ranks right along the lines of this man who spread 300 pounds of ham on a bed and said it represented the melting pot processes of America:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8f13f1bbc11e.jpg[/atsimg]

I understand that, like beauty, art can be in the eye of the beholder. But if we really search ourselves, we see presenting such pieces as art is really absurd.

Placing obscene statements in a biblical text is no more artistic than leaving sexual scrawling on a bathroom stall. It really pains me to see artists who work for weeks on a project, be it a painting or sculpture or what not, get ignored while people who write sexually explicit material in a Bible, spread rotting ham in a bed, or who place a crucifix in a jar of urine make headlines.

That's not art. That's not talent. That takes no special gift or level of intelligence whatsoever. It's the lowest common denominator of expression.

The 'Respect Factor.'

There was recently a video created that had a pig puppet quoting text from the Koran. A lot of people were laughing at it but even as an outspoken critic of Islam, I could realize that was wrong.

Again, we see the lowest common denominator of intelligence. What takes more intellectual energy: To engage in a respectful religious debate or to engage in puerile tactics like using a pig puppet to knowingly rile feathers?

Yes, the Bible is technically 'just a book' but we have the respect factor come into play. Think of it what you will but when there have been countless people who have died because they love what 'that Book' represents, we have something very serious here.

Yes, I could go and urinate on a Koran. I could go and scribble sexual slurs in it. Then what? I just showed my lack of intellectual ability, my immaturity, and my disrespect.

Everyone is free to feel what they do regarding the Bible or Christianity. But I'm sure everyone knows this 'art' was only an attempt to provoke in some respects and to make a political statement in other respects. It's silly, disrespectful, and a display of the lowest common denominator of intelligence.

[edit on 7/28/2009 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by AshleyD
Placing obscene statements in a biblical text is no more artistic than leaving sexual scrawling on a bathroom stall.

Art is about freedom of expression
It's also like many underground music, about making a statement

Although this may not be 'artistic' it definately is making a statement.
The uproar over it is proof of that and disallows any comparisons to 'bathroom stall writings".

The pope wouldn't speak about that now would he?

Art does not necessarily need to be sculptures or paintings, it could be anything.

Anyone doesn't know this actually does not understand art.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Actually, the purpose of art is not to make any sort of statement, as that would give the piece utilitarian value. Art, strictly speaking, exists solely for its intrinsic value. It exists for the sake of its existence.

A scrawled out bible is utilitarian in that it has a purpose other than simply to exist.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Shame on those that mock the golden calf...... right?

At least it was a statue requiring a bit of construction.

Take any important piece of literature... the Magna Carta, the American Bill of Rights or anything considered meaningful to the majority and put up an 'artistic display' for people to 'add notes to' and you're going to get publicity.

Yup... that's what this is about. Publicity. No artistic value whatsoever, just a way to get your gallery famous around the world. You may as well say that a certain celebrity getting out of a limo exposing her private parts was a marvellous statement about the silliness rampant among those blessed with fame and fortune.

What, exactly, does EVERYONE in the world consider important enough not to have it defaced? Please, give me some ideas... I really want to set the art world on it's butt and become instantly famous.

reply to post by ModernAcademia

Although this may not be 'artistic' it definately is making a statement.

I understand. Which is why I said once the veil of art is removed, what we really have here is a political statement.

The uproar over it is proof of that and disallows any comparisons to 'bathroom stall writings".

The pope wouldn't speak about that now would he?

But let's say I had an exhibit in a museum where I had a bathroom stall transported and encased in glass. I then invited men to come and write sexual remarks about women. I could claim it represents the sexual nature of humanity. I could say it represents man's need to share his sexual conquests with others. I could say it represents the darker side of sexual energy in America.

In that instance, we may have feminine groups speak out against it instead of the pope.

Whatever I try to claim it is, what it really comes down to is a an act of disrespect, a complete lack of talent, class, and intellect, and something meant to shock the public and offend a segment of the population.

Originally posted by masqua
Yup... that's what this is about. Publicity. No artistic value whatsoever, just a way to get your gallery famous around the world.

Really?
Do you really think that this art gallery foresaw the pope responding?
Also, is it possible that you are enclosing your understanding of art within the confines of aesthetics?

Originally posted by masqua
What, exactly, does EVERYONE in the world consider important enough not to have it defaced? Please, give me some ideas... I really want to set the art world on it's butt and become instantly famous.

1) Family
2) Family Values
3) Freedom

Originally posted by AshleyD
But let's say I had an exhibit in a museum where I had a bathroom stall transported and encased in glass. I then invited men to come and write sexual remarks about women. I could claim it represents the sexual nature of humanity.

That would be great
It would offend people perhaps
but don't you think the findings would be interesting?

Don't you think that from a sociological point of view it would be enlightening to see where we have come as a society?

I'm not being off-topic
Art sometimes has a purpose of looking at the world as it really is, as opposed to just being abstract.

Life is way more abstract than the results that would be obtained from the example you gave if it really happened.

In that instance, we may have feminine groups speak out against it instead of the pope.

Whatever I try to claim it is, what it really comes down to is a an act of disrespect, a complete lack of talent, class, and intellect, and something meant to shock the public and offend a segment of the population.

Ok, on the flipside of that
Can we perhaps have feminist groups speaking against the bible?

Look at this for example:

In fact, the reason why morality and social standards have changed over time is because our values have changed. We value women in the society more; therefore they are no longer considered possessions. We value the dignity and freedom of all humans; therefore slavery is illegal. All these social standards do not exist in the Bible, a book which condones slavery and the mistreatment of women, yet somehow it is considered the objective book on reality.
www.examiner.com...

Now, ain't that on the flipside?

What a bunch of whiners and complainers! Seriously guys, these people are free to do what they'd like just as you are free to do what you'd like.

It's when we forget that this crap doesn't matter that we begin to lose touch with what's really important- such as global hunger, war, rape, murder and oppression!

Can the pope be any more hypocritical? He should think of this as payback for the book burnings and witch huntings of the past. Sure he was not involved in those incidents but the church he rules over did and he would not be sitting in his little throne if it had not been for that.

Anyway, it's just a book. People should not make a big deal over it. Just because people decide to die over a certain belief system does not mean others should respect it. Heck, books written by atheists and small sects have a bad tendency of getting burned by a few catholics once in a while.

Now I do find this kind of sad, because as a literature student defacing ANY book is disrespectful. However those who complain over this should be happy that these defacers are venting their anger out on a book rather than on other people.

Bad taste? definitely. but as some people believe, what goes around comes around.

reply to post by nasdack24k


It a not a Brits as you put it, it was a scottish artist, also maybe we should bann all tasteless art all over the world, since One religion is offended. Why stop there, then you could ban bad tasteless TV etc, see the hypocripsy of it all

reply to post by Laurauk




My mistake.. I should have said UK arists..

Seriously, you have to admit though, you can get just about anything into a UK art gallery..

reply to post by nasdack24k


And the same applies to any art gallery around the world, why just single out UK Galleries?

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Do you really think that this art gallery foresaw the pope responding?

No, not really, But I do believe they foresaw the response from the Christian community, especially after the profanities began to show up on the biblical texts. Scotland is Presbyterian and I DO know about that particular view having been subjected to it during my youth. It was so discouraging that it forever turned me from that church. It follows, then, that my dislike of this particular exhibit does not stem from my religious ideals. In fact, it has nothing to do with it.

Also, is it possible that you are enclosing your understanding of art within the confines of aesthetics?

To a large degree, yes. Art should have more to it than the obvious and profane. Everything to do with art, in my estimation, is connected to something CG Jung said (paraphrasing):

The sign is always less than the concept it represents, while a symbol always stands for something more than the obvious and immediate meaning.

I believe art is symbolic. It should have a deeper meaning. Something that seems simplistic and childish can still carry profound meaning. Searching for deeper meaning in such mundane scribblings, obliterating the text of ANY literature considered important is a useless venture.

From the book 'How Art Made the World", by Nigel Spivey, Perseus Publishing 2005:

'Anything can be art,' declared the avant-garde French artist Marcel Duchamp (1887-1968), who made his name exhibiting ordinairy objects, such as a bicycle wheel, a bottle rack and a ceramic urinal, as art. He also depicted the Mona Lisa with a dainty moustache and a beard. The mischief of modern artists, oppressed by the public expectation that they should be original, is repeatedly typified by following Duchamp's subversive precedent. A pile of tyres, an unmade bed: who says these are not art?

Predictably, the public reacts with scorn, outrage and bewilderment. Our reaction not only stems from a sense of indignation - the bourgeois horror of being defrauded. It goes deeper than that. Because instictively we know what art is - because we are all artists. We are the symbolic species: the species that knows how to represent a bicycle wheel or an unmade bed by using its uniquely nimble hands to make an image that symbolizes such an object

1) Family
2) Family Values
3) Freedom

Well, there you are. Want to become famous? Just do something which ridicules those 3 and you will be bound for the same infamy as the Glasgow gallery has now reaped.

Why the Bible??? Because it takes no courage, every halfwit coward can do it and his likes will celebrate him as great, brave "deeply intelectual"artist.
Once again: why they not try the same with Koran or with some judaistic symbols????

I wouldn't call this art so much as I would call it making a statement, which is something art has morphed into as of late. I think that it's a new form of art.

The "artist" invited mainly gays and lesbians to "write themselves into the bible" because they feel that much of society and religion has turned it's back on them and have tried to make them feel as if they are less human than the majority of us.

I don't believe the bible is the word of God and I'm not sure how much, if anything, is based in fact. But I fully understand how others feel about it. With that said...

I think you are focusing way too much on the materialism of the book. It was created by man. The inspiration was supposedly from God. So what does it matter if someone "defaces" something created by man. It's not about the pages and the ink used to print the text. It's about the spirit of the book. No one can touch that for those of you who believe the bible is the word of God. " Let go of worldly things."

It's not your bible. It's someone else's property and they gave others permission to make comments in it. So i don't know why it should bother you so much that something is being "destroyed" that isn't yours in the first place. You still have your bible and access to many other bibles with the same exact wording in it.

I think you do the bible injustice if you get that upset over someone writing in the book. People write in their bibles all the time. It seems that it only matters to you when someone is writing something you don't agree with.