But the Serrano that we have could very well be interpreted as an indictment of the present state of Christianity, and not even, as you seem to suggest, an indictment of Christianity as a whole, but of Catholic Christianity. Serrano is a Latino and Latino society is predominantly Catholic. What matters is that the context of the work is Catholic.
The use of the crucifix with the image of Christ on it makes this clear, because most Protestants are iconoclasts, they do not accept images, a doctrine they share with Judaism and Islam. It is primarily Catholic Christians, and particularly Roman and Orthodox Catholics, who accept images in religious rituals.
Catholics kneel in front of images and pray to them. Yet, Protestants generally regard what Catholics do with images as idolatry and abhor the practice of adoring and praying to images. Its meaning becomes a criticism of the Catholic hierarchy for engaging in, and the Catholic community as a whole for silently condoning, corrupt and anti-Christian behavior. The work turns into a criticism from within, an instrument of the faith, very much in the vein in which Christ behaved towards Pharisees in the Gospels, his cleaning of the Temple and his insults against their greed and disrespect for holy ground.
Instead of being sacrilegious, the work turns into a work of piety, a defense of a true Christian faith, unsoiled by the accretions of corruption. But if you are not Catholic, then your criticism, although perhaps valid, might be hostile not just to the present condition of the Catholic community and its hierarchy, but to the Christian community and the very faith.
This brings me to the point of asking whether you have pissed on a crucifix, and what doing so would have meant in your case. But I have burned a Bible. And not only a Bible but several other major works belonging to the Western canon. Why, you may ask. My answers are manifold. Or perhaps it does, if one considers parricide an aspect of religion. When I was a young writer, I sought two paths: my freedom as a creator and the absolute, uncompromising knowledge of the writers I admired.
Borges was one of them. I had a solid personal library that included every single book of his, sometimes in first editions. I also had some signed copies, original copies of Sur , the journal in which he published many of his essays and stories, and so on. One day, as I was trying to find my own voice, I grew frustrated. The frustration came from the realization that I admired Borges too much. A while back you talked about Socrates.
Borges was my personal Socrates. Not only did I know everything there was to know about him, I also dreamed with him. As a result, he controlled me. My writing was an extension of his. So, unhappy with myself—and with him—one day I decided it was time to be born.
By this I mean to become myself. The only way I could do it was to exorcize my demons. I did the exorcism like the Holy Office of the Inquisition did: using fire. I profoundly regret the incident. And yet, it set me free. From then on, my relationship with Borges was less tyrannical. My burning of the Bible is an altogether different story. It has to do with exploring the limits of censorship and the tricks censors employ. You see, we get worked up by the burning of important books. Kristallnacht was a ritualistic act: the destruction of Jewish books by the Nazis.
Such destructions are as old as the book as a conveyer of information. As you know, the same emperor who built the Chinese Wall also destroyed all the books in the kingdom. His objective was to start time again, with him at the center, while separating his kingdom from the rest of humankind.
Anyway, burning books is bad, right? Especially burning canonical books. So why do we get mad if the Bible is burnt but not if the Bible is thrown away?
As an experiment, a few years ago I decided to burn a bunch of extra copies of the Bible that had been sitting in my personal library for a long time. I could have donated them to a local library, which is something I always do with surplus books.
But I wanted to burn them precisely because the act is supposedly forbidden. And do you know what happened? Hate is what burns books, not fire. I simply burned them as if they were disposable trash. Now I ask myself: how about pissing on the Bible? My answer is: sure. Pissing is a natural act. We do it all the time. It is considered immoral by some to pee on a sacred object. But not for me. And yet, I wonder: what if someone took a photograph of me in the act of peeing on the Bible?
My response would be: so be it. Still, my act of peeing on the Bible would now be a public performance, meaning it would have larger implications than a simple anatomical act. I can see myself causing an uproar, needing to explain my action, and so on.
Would that stop me? No, it would not. On the other hand, I would not pee on the Bible specifically so that my photograph would be taken while the act is performed. That, in my view, would be reprehensible. I can empathize with Serrano for peeing on a crucifix if his sense was that the Church was so oppressive that it needed to be criticized. His critique is valid, although it crosses the line into amorality. In turn, let me ask: why is it controversial for Muslims to see representations of Mohamet in cartoons?
The answer is that they feel their God is being desecrated. Are they right? Well, they are. But just as I can pee on the Bible and Serrano can pee on the crucifix, with implications of both acts reaching far beyond us, Muslims need to recognize that a pluralistic world, one in which democracy is part of the equation, allows for dissent. And dissent often takes a nasty turn. This cannot be an excuse for violence. The only acceptable response is dialogue. Gracia: You bring up another dimension of the topic that is also well illustrated by the Serrano.
By the way, the destruction of art works is not unusual. We have the case of the Taliban destroying old carvings and statues in Afghanistan in their zeal to adhere to an uncompromising form of Islam. And we have the case of the destruction of a work by Leon Ferrari in Buenos Aires by a mob of the faithful, guided by a priest. The law is quite clear in most of these cases.
A lawsuit was brought by Ferrari in Argentinian courts and he won the case. The case of the Taliban was generally condemned by the international community.
And I do not know what happened in the case of the Piss Christ. In any case, the law punishes the destruction of private property belonging to others who are not the destroyer. It depicts a dead Christ sat on an electric chair. Why were some people shocked by this rather unconventional representation? There are so many images and paintings of the Crucifixion that they no longer surprise us… Could it be that this work highlights our indifference towards the crucifix, which after all just as barbaric as the electric chair?
Skip to content Religion has always been a central theme in the history of art. Articles similaires. Previous Previous post: Must-see Documentaries on Art. He also dove deeply into an exploration of how he could use fluids in his work, milk but also, infamously urine, blood, and semen.
This series led to the creation of Immersion Piss Christ. The photograph, created in , was part of a larger series exploring immersions and classic iconography. Serrano himself has proclaimed that the work is not intended to be an overt political statement on religion, but rather that he prefers the work remains ambiguous.
Despite this desire for ambiguity, Serrano has also alluded to being interested in the over-commercialisation and cheapening of Christian iconography in contemporary culture. As a lifelong Christian himself, he denounces the idea that he intended to create a blasphemous piece, but rather that it was a personal and serious work of art.
Other protestors asserted that the NEA award violated the separation of church and state and a large-scale debate on provocative artworks was borne. The attention resulted in a barrage of hate mail, death threats, and a loss of grants for Serrano — while the NEA budget was slashed by two-fifths.
0コメント