Art Exhibit Depicting Jesus in a Sex Act Sparks Outrage in Colorado

Originally posted by Segador
Rule 34 and 35, it was inevitable...

What does that mean? I'm not claiming it means nothing, I just want to know.
Still, it begs the question, if somebody else can make cryptic statements, how come I, even tho I promised to elaborate on points I was making, was censored for not posting within the understanding of the mods concerned? Er... ever hear of preparing your ground before going into battle?
Of course, you'll be looking to delete this also, but:
Just because an artist, like the 1 under discussion, has something to say which any particular individual doesn't understand, does not mean that those of us who can understand art cannot appreciate the subtleties of their message. In this particular instance, the man is a professor of art. He gave his reasons: it was a critique on practices of the christian church. If people dont understand what "critique" means, is that any more his fault than that I dont understand what the above quote means?
Obviously it means something &, rather than jump to any conclusions, I'd like to hear from the author. At which point, I will evaluate his/her response, taking into account my previous experience & their credibility, before drawing a conclusion. Just as anyone who views the work of a professor of art ought to. I mean, seriously, does anyone here really imagine that a Stanford professor does not know what the word "critique" means?

reply to post by Bunken Drum


Well, I know we wouldn't ever come to an agreement on the homosexuality or the issues regarding the control of sex, but there is benefit to monogamous relationships. Anyway... we'd have to start a whole 'nother thread to go down that road and personally I really dont care to because it would mostly be me saying my opinion, you saying yours, and then the both of us bickering over why the other is wrong.

I feel like your opinion of the Abrahamic religions comes mostly from what you have witnessed from those who claim the faith and not what the actual faith teaches. For instance, concerning the black/white matter of absolutes, Romans chapter 14 speaks very clearly about a lot of issues that are gray. Paul refers to them as disputable matters that we are supposed to make our own judgments about and be completely convinced in our own minds concerning them. While we are told to form our own conclusions, we are also instructed to make sure we do not allow our opinions to result in judgment on others, because they are disputable matters.

I personally believe that most of life is gray, but I also very firmly believe that there are some issues that ARE black and white. The problem we run into is when somebody makes an issue that is obviously gray to be black or white, or when something is so dark gray or light gray that the line is barely visible.

reply to post by Bunken Drum


Rule 34

Best definition:

If it exsists, there is a porn of it, if there isn't there will be, there is NO exception to this rule as of now.

Rule 35

Best definition:

Rule 35 states, if porn of it (whatever "it" is) cannot be found, then porn of it will be made.

reply to post by NoArmsJamesThank you. I did google it after I'd posted, but I'm sure you understand that I didn't before in order to illustrate several points. Just goes to show that I should spend less online time on nerdery & more on interaction. Just as some could do with less religion & more art criticism. I wonder if there's a rule that states that, the longer an internet discussion continues, the more likely it becomes that Hitler-porn will be mentioned?
Still, there's a good thesis to be had here: comparing various forms of net communication to art movements. For eg, txt spk & Bauhaus: "ru on m8?" - form follows function: 1337 & Cubism; wild metaphors & Dada; the bulk of chat & Impressionism; a well crafted ATS OP & Realism; the majority of religious views & pre-renaissance christian iconography without perspective. Of course, there's also some of my contribution to this thread which can be compared to cartoons, like the very piece the thread is about. Imagine that? What a coincidence! Er... no.
I had intended to construct a multi-layered metaphor that probably would have been comparable to Surrealism, but I was prevented. My reason was that, unless someone asks to be told, IME, you cant tell anyone anything. If you construct a good metaphor however, they will 'discover' the point/s you're trying to make for themselves &, believing it to be their own opinion, accept it.
How sad then that my censors almost certainly didn't stop me for fear of what I would say, once the stage was set. Remind's me of "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." Except, we'd have to substitute "SkepticOverlord" for "Father".
I wonder if any christians are offended by this metaphor? If so, I suggest that, just as regarding the artwork under discussion, you come up with a cogent argument as to just exactly why it is that you think you should not be subject to offence? I'll listen...

reply to post by MykahelYes, if we discussed sex elsewhere, it likely wouldn't alter our attitudes much, but our level of disagreement is such that we probably could cover the topic exhaustively. A 3rd party might then, in the Hegelian way, synthesise new meaning from the juxtaposition of thesis & antithesis. We might all learn something! This is the 'competition of ideas' I mentioned; no competition = no evolution. Still, if we did it & took care to avoid being crude, someone would still be offended.
My attitude to Abrahamic religion was formed thus:
I was brought up a churchgoing, sunday school (bible class) attending, christian until age 7 when I insisted my parents stop taking me, basically b/c it was bunk. I couldn't get out of CofE school however, until age 11 & christian worship +RE was still an expectation in most UK high schools at the time. In the meantime, I was also a church choirboy (they paid me & I'd not yet learned how to apply "hypocrit" & "prostitute yourself" to my self). I'll confess I haven't read the whole OT in order: about 1/2 & just dipped into the rest. I have read the whole NT, in different versions, several times & also dipped.
I have a branch of extended family who are practicing jews. Apart from the above, I've not read their texts, b/c visiting Israel was enough to get them thinking I might convert & if I read it, I'd have questions, so I'd never hear the end of it.
I have 1 close friend who is lapsed muslim & I know his practicing family. I've read the qur'an & discussed it with many muslims. I also have many muslim neighbours.
I also have a keen interest in psychology &, since I've spent most of my 42yrs in societies heavily influenced by Abrahamic attitudes which contradict my own views, I'm acutely aware of when those attitudes are affecting any given situation.
So yes, some of my position is an emotional response, but its far from unreasoned.
(Cont Below)

My point about black, white & grey was that, if we are prepared to think a little further than polarised opposites, simply placing a concept on a scale somewhere between good & evil, ie grey, limits what we can do with that concept. There's a whole rainbow+ pallet of various hues, which we can also apply the greyscale to, as required. I agree that some things are just wrong, but isn't it also necessary to find out what shade of wrong they are?
For eg, why is it wrong? How did it happen? Is it a pulsing scarlet that indicates it'll probably happen again? What can I do that isn't some other colour of wrong to prevent or ameliorate further instances? Does the recognition of this wrong indicate anything else which, although not the same shade, is also wrong, even tho it's not considered "dark charcoal grey" by most people? In this instance, I've been trying to get people to put down the pencils & pick up the paint. Tell us exactly why being offended is wrong. I'm open to the idea that I'm mistaken, b/c I may also have to re-evaluate my position on related issues.
We must then consider that, to many people, attempting to use our minds to their full capacity in this manner is "black", or "moral relativism", never quite getting that one can consider anything in the finest detail without drawing any moral conclusion, simply to understand it. A shade of grey may need to be applied later, when the understanding gets used in a particular circumstance, but do you see what I mean? Its a vicious circle of dumbassery!
I agree that there are some absolute gems, nevermind pearls, of wisdom in the NT. What I'd like to know is why the best bits are those most frequently ignored? IMO, its b/c a great deal of Abrahamic religion runs counter to human nature. Thus it causes the frustrations & neuroses I mentioned. People then look to scripture & use a passage, most often out of context &/or twisted to suit, to justify the bad behaviour that results from being unhappy.
This artist has critiqued some such causes of unhappiness.

reply to post by Bunken Drum


Thank you for the honest and open response. I'm extremely grateful that we both seem to be moving towards a much more understanding and repectful manner of speech concerning each other and the "art" in question. I would have never guessed your background, though I figured you were at least somewhat informed regarding the Bible. *I try not to make many assumptions about people's experiences as it often leads to epic misunderstandings. MOst of the time when people assume they know what I think they are far from being accurate, so why should my assumptions of others be any better.

I suppose I look at this painting as being a black, or at least a very dark gray, because the action of purposefully insulting somebody is a near opposite of loving them, what I would consider to be as "white" of an action as possible. If I consider love to be the most pure, GOOD, thing that we can do, then hate must be the blackest/darkest. Insulting a person or group of people intentionally is often born out of hate. That being said, using this very simplified logic, such insults are definitely a dark gray/black action.

All that being said, I'm not completely innocent of insulting other religions. I typically try and be respectful when speaking about religions like Islam, Buddhism and whatnot, but I can't help but start to crackle a bit and laugh at things like Scientology. I try not to, as I don't want to be considered a hypocrite, but it's scientology for goodness sake...

Anyway, thanks again for the response.

reply to post by Mykahel
Just a quickie before I get onto the rest of your reply:
I would like you to understand that my 'literary cartoon' posts were not aimed at you personally. Of course, I did expect that, just as you have to the art in question, you would probably take offence, but I'll get to that below. In fact, just like the professor's critique, my posts were also part of a critique, just of a different aspect of common attitudes derived from centuries of the dominance of Abrahamic religion.
I hope this 2 post thread will shed some light on this:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Bunken Drum


Don't worry, the metaphor you made did not offend me at all. Obviously I didn't really take a liking to the comment, but it's far from something that would even have me remotely upset. Besides, the intentions you had behind your statement were far different from those behind this guys work of art.

My goal isn't for people to have to worry about offending me. I'm about as politically incorrect as they come and am often pretty blunt about issues that I have strong opinions on. What I do want to see, however, is people sharing a common respect and decency. If people treated each other in such a way, the only time people would be offended was when they wanted to be (so that they could be the victim). Understanding and knowledge also plays a big role in whether or not a person is offended. Any comment taken out of context or spoken to a person with limited perspective has a much greater chance of being offensive with no fault at all belonging to the person who made the comment. People will be less offended by stuff when they look at the big picture and continue to grow in knowledge. This painting however, is offensive no matter what context it is taken in and regardless of how much a person is aware of the atrocities of the catholic church and the blight of its victims.

reply to post by MykahelIf I meant to insult you I would, within T&Cs, right? So please take this as its meant (ie if I didn't respect you, I wouldn't bother):
What you've said about love vs hate & criticism is a classic example of the kind of thinking I'm saying is unhelpful at best. It stems from placing concepts on a linear scale between only 2 extremes. If that is all there is to measure on, then, since love & hate produce widely differing results, naturally they must occupy opposite ends. However, I say that love & hate are both passions & are thus quite similar. The opposite of both is "indifference". So its much better to contemplate these 3 in a triangular relationship, like Ohm's Law.
Ok, so if we consider these 3 in relation to a specific topic, then, continuing the art metaphor, we may end up with a specific shade of 'turquoise triangle' as a compound concept. At this stage, since its all just thought, there's no need to also apply the greyscale of morality. There will also be many other ideas, many of which will combine together into other hues & shapes of compound concepts, which must all be considered in relationship to our 'turquoise triangle'. If at this stage, we chuck them all on the linear morality scale, all we can see is a straight line connecting them together. If however, we refrain from judgement & juggle these concepts in 3D inner-space, we can discover various interconnections between them & form more complex compound concepts, which will eventually lead to a well reasoned conclusion, which relates specifically to the topic at hand.
The moment this conclusion is the basis for some action, then obviously we must slap it in the middle of the greyscale & adjust its hue to darker or lighter. However, if we leave it like that, then the next time we want to apply that conclusion to a real world situation, its the wrong colour. This is basically the mechanism of prejudice.
(Cont Below: pls trust me mods)

(Cont from above)
What I'm on about is the internal equivalent of producing an academic thesis. We could just devote a few paragraphs to each idea & then draw a conclusion. Trouble is, by doing so, we must assume that a reader (or ourselves) can see the relationships between all the ideas under consideration, but, since the whole point is to synthesise new meaning, obviously we must connect the most important dots along the way, or it'd take a polymath genius to understand our conclusion (this was my MO 1st time @uni). Thus we also reduce the impact of our conclusion.
The trick is to group ideas together & then use a paragraph of recapitulation to form a concept. Then through successive layers of such, to arrive at a conclusion based on the recaps, but pointing out the connections between the ideas from different sub-groups which are the 'new meaning'. This is the process of logic: each successive layer of argument is based upon irrefutable previous stages.
We must take responsibility for teaching ourselves b/c, once out of school, nobody else will or, indeed, can (unless they've an agenda & we let them).
A religion which states as its fundamental position that there will & can only be 2 outcomes from the sum total of our lives, ie heaven or hell, & that, @some point, for reasons beyond our control, the creator of the world will end it, so our only hope is to be on the "right" side (& dont get me started on the psychological concomitants of that!), cannot but promote polarised thinking, which is the antithesis of reason.
Therefore, as a human who wants to proceed through life using reason to understand my emotional self & take account of all my needs, I'm happy to see the opposition kicked in the teeth, as it were.
Still, criticism does not automatically spring from hate. My kids get my opinion full blast when I feel they need it. I dont hate them. They're, naturally, just idiots . Still, a few times, I've had to concede that I didn't know the full story...

reply to post by Mykahel

Don't worry, the metaphor you made did not offend me at all. Obviously I didn't really take a liking to the comment, but it's far from something that would even have me remotely upset.

Mike (& by all means shorten my name), you complemented me for honesty earlier. Frankly, its my MO. I'd not bother with a debate unless I was willing to let it all hang out. Why not? If I'm worried about the 'agents of darkness' finding out who I am b/c of my online activities, I know that a) I'm small fry & b), when it comes to the valley of death, I'm by no means the baddest mofo in there, but I'm no blushing violet either (besides, I can always make a TFH ).
So what about you? You so were offended by my post about Jesus being an obvious sub. You claimed to be disgusted by me: not my post; the attitudes behind it; the opinions or feelings behind the attitudes; but me.
I'm not saying you shouldn't. As I've said, we should express our honest beliefs & let them stand or fall in the arena of our peers' opinions. Still, if we're going to have an honest debate, honesty is required, eh?
The way I look at it is this: if I rock up & state my opinion, with the full intention to be open & honest about where it comes from & is going, then, if anyone attempts to twist, turn, ad hom, or prevaricate, they have declared 'playground rules'. So far, you & I have just briefly touched on that: lets not go backwards.

reply to post by NWtoHide


as much love as i have for God, i would have to agree with you, to an extent...im an artist and i have seen very politcal propaganda, ie tonnnns of blanski's work which right now if he/she saw somethin like this might actually laugh! its up to the artist where to draw the line? pun intended. like i said as much as i love for God, for some reason this wants to make me laugh....why>? because of spiritual enlightenment.....as said above look passed it...if you let it affect you then it will....very excellent thread....S&F

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
My kids get my opinion full blast when I feel they need it. I dont hate them. They're, naturally, just idiots

.

If I can relate to anything you have said, it is this. My own father was a military man and while I hated the criticism at the time, I look at the rest of my own generation and those coming after me and thank God and my father that I had the dad that I did.

You are right, I was offended by the post way back where you had mentioned placing Jesus in an even more sexualized position. I wasn't bothered much at all by one of your later comments. I don't remember where it was and I don't really care to look for it.

I wouldn't say that indifference is the opposite of love or hate, but the absence of both. It would be better described as the opposite of passion. You can have passion for something but it could be either good or bad. Having passionate love is another way of saying a very emotional and strong love. Anyway, I wouldn't place indifference on the line of hate vs love or turn it into a triangle. To be honest I'm not sure where indifference would go in that illustration.

Certain actions can be truly neutral though and be "indifferent". I can walk by you on the sidewalk and not say a thing but that doesn't mean that I hate you or love you or have any thoughts about you what-so-ever.

If I'm understanding you correctly, and I may not be as you seem to be much more educated than I, you are saying that an action that may be a dark gray in one scenario may be a light gray in another and therefor the whole graph/illustration is a completely worthless and harmful if anything. Everything is relative.

I don't believe everything is relative, but I'll admit that a whole lot of life is. Paul was fully aware of this when he taught about the strong and weak Christians. Christians who embraced the liberty afforded them by God's grace might eat all kinds of foods that others considered to be forbidden. It would be perfectly acceptable for them to eat those foods by themselves or in the presence of others who had no qualms about it. It would be wrong for them to eat those foods in front of Christians who considered it to be sinful though, as it would undermine an already weak faith and cause divisions and misunderstandings among the people. Heck, killing people is one of those issues that many dont understand ajnd have a hard time grasping. It is completely different for a soldier to kill in wartime or for an executioner to follow orders and carry out a judge's sentence than it is for a man who just goes out and murders somebody he doesn't care for. Context can alter an actions place on the white/gray/black scale. I don't think this makes that illustration useless, but instead simply goes to show that we need wisdom and understanding to know when actions would be deemed appropriate or when they wouldn't, if they ever are at all! A hearty laugh and big grin are entirely appropriate at a child's party, but no so much at your mother-in-law's funeral.

Was Jesus not human?

Im sure the artist understood what would be brought upon his work before creating this. Was it in good moral judgement ? Probably not. But who are we as people to discriminate art, imagination, free will, or what-ever it is you want to call it? As screwed up as it is do not try to suppress the imagination. Turn your focus onto something more important.

The lithograph, on display since Sept. 11 at the tax-funded Loveland Museum Gallery in Loveland, Colo., is part of an 82-print exhibit by 10 artists who have worked with Colorado printer Bud Shark. It includes several images of Jesus, including one in which he appears to be receiving oral sex from a man as the word "orgasm" appears beside Jesus’ head.

Why are we funding art?

Because art and expression are an integral part of freedom of speech.

God gave everybody a neck so you could look the other way.

~Keeper

Sounds to me like Prof. Troll is successful troll. (And trolling as an art has little to do with the internet, it's just made it a lot lot easier and thus more prominent in that regard.) The art wasn't about the art, but what buttons he could push with certain people and in turn how much they would respond. The fact that he actually managed to get grant money for it was icing on the cake.

If only people would only learn to ignore stuff like that...