Difference between revisions of "Piss Christ"

From iGeek
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "{{ImgA|Piss_Christ_by_Serrano_Andres_(1987).jpg}}Immersion (Piss Christ) was an NEA sponsored work of shock "art" meant to offend and insult Christians. It was a 1987 photogra...")
 
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{ImgA|Piss_Christ_by_Serrano_Andres_(1987).jpg}}Immersion (Piss Christ) was an NEA sponsored work of shock "art" meant to offend and insult Christians. It was a 1987 photograph of a plastic crucifix submerged in a tank of the artist's urine. The artist (Andres Serrano) claims no political intent and he was trying to symbolize the ugly realities of crucifixion by using bodily fluids - the art community and secular left of course lavished it with praise and rewards because it insulted religion and offended American sensibilities and good taste. And while Obama condemned art that insulted Islam/Muslims, he refused to answer the calls of Christians asking the same reaction towards this piece.  
+
{{ImgA|Piss_Christ_by_Serrano_Andres_(1987).jpg}}Immersion (Piss Christ) was an [[NEA/NEH]] sponsored work of shock "art" that offended and insulted Christians. It was a 1987 photograph of a plastic crucifix submerged in a tank of the artist's urine. The artist (Andres Serrano) claims no political intent and that he was just trying to symbolize the ugly realities of crucifixion by using bodily fluids - the art community and secular left of course lavished it with praise and rewards because it insulted religion and offended American sensibilities and good taste. And while Obama condemned art that insulted Islam/Muslims, he refused to answer the calls of Christians asking the same reaction towards this piece.  
 
<noinclude>
 
<noinclude>
  
 
{{ref}}
 
{{ref}}
 
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ
 
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ
{{/ref}}
+
{{/ref| NEA/NEH}}
 
</noinclude>
 
</noinclude>

Latest revision as of 09:02, 13 September 2020

Piss Christ by Serrano Andres (1987).jpg

Immersion (Piss Christ) was an NEA/NEH sponsored work of shock "art" that offended and insulted Christians. It was a 1987 photograph of a plastic crucifix submerged in a tank of the artist's urine. The artist (Andres Serrano) claims no political intent and that he was just trying to symbolize the ugly realities of crucifixion by using bodily fluids - the art community and secular left of course lavished it with praise and rewards because it insulted religion and offended American sensibilities and good taste. And while Obama condemned art that insulted Islam/Muslims, he refused to answer the calls of Christians asking the same reaction towards this piece.


GeekPirate.small.png

📚 References

NEA/NEH
NEAforDummies.jpg

I have nothing against the NEA/NEH, except how it's funded.

  1. The NEA is “welfare for cultural elitists"
  2. Over half their funding goes to the 10 most liberal states (New York, California, etc).
  3. Places like the MET get $300M from private contributions, and have $4B in assets, why should rural taxpayers have to contribute anything to them?
  4. Then there's waste -- like grants for "Sitting with Cactus", or subsidizing productions of Julius Caesar where our President is assassinated.

So if you like it, fine -- contribute to it. Forcing others to contribute to it, is not what liberty looks like. So you can support Liberty or the politicization of the arts (Cultural Marxism), but not both.