First, Scott, I agree 100% about the whole living-as-if-God-doesn't-exist thing, and am as guilty as anyone. And I also concede your point about the photo being of Christ incarnate, not the risen Christ.
As to your third point, though...
Visual art is not propositional. It is an attempt to capture a moment or an idea, but because there is no written or verbal explanation, it leaves itself open to all manner of interpretations. So regardless of the artist's intentions, he put something out there and asked people to think about. This is where I landed.
I can be a rather literal person. When you wonder, as you did originally, "whether we missed the point entirely", that implies to me that there was a "point" to begin with--one and only one. And I assumed that the person making that point would be the artist. That's all.
So back to the photo itself. I'm still not clear.
Maybe that photograph (regardless of the artist's second-rate intentions) is really, REALLY accurate.
Christ really was immersed in piss?
Maybe I really am that vulger. Maybe I really am that shallow.
Did you immerse him in piss? Maybe that's it--that we metaphorically "immerse Christ in piss" every day?
I swear, I'm not a robot or a cretin. I'm just not connecting the dots here.
EDIT: Another thing I thought about... if you didn't have the title to tell you, and you just had the photo... you wouldn't have had the same reaction. You had to know what the yellow was to "get it". I don't really have a point, I just found that interesting, that the photo couldn't stand on its own. I guess I do feel like that's "cheating" almost.
As to your third point, though...
Visual art is not propositional. It is an attempt to capture a moment or an idea, but because there is no written or verbal explanation, it leaves itself open to all manner of interpretations. So regardless of the artist's intentions, he put something out there and asked people to think about. This is where I landed.
I can be a rather literal person. When you wonder, as you did originally, "whether we missed the point entirely", that implies to me that there was a "point" to begin with--one and only one. And I assumed that the person making that point would be the artist. That's all.
So back to the photo itself. I'm still not clear.
Maybe that photograph (regardless of the artist's second-rate intentions) is really, REALLY accurate.
Christ really was immersed in piss?
Maybe I really am that vulger. Maybe I really am that shallow.
Did you immerse him in piss? Maybe that's it--that we metaphorically "immerse Christ in piss" every day?
I swear, I'm not a robot or a cretin. I'm just not connecting the dots here.
EDIT: Another thing I thought about... if you didn't have the title to tell you, and you just had the photo... you wouldn't have had the same reaction. You had to know what the yellow was to "get it". I don't really have a point, I just found that interesting, that the photo couldn't stand on its own. I guess I do feel like that's "cheating" almost.
posted by Matt | 6:18 PM
1 Comments:
While I would agree that I'm also guilty of the living-as-if-God-doesn't-exist thing, and I see the point, I have to wonder if there isn't a point where one has taken "art" too far.
First, I've yet to meet an artist who didn't have an underlying point to their art - wasn't trying to make a statement of some type. Very few artists create art for art's sake. Especially not art that is going to be controversial. When you submerge a crucifix into a jar of urine, you have a reason for doing so.
Very likely, the reason is not to get Christians to examine their lives and realize that they have a tendency to live as if God doesn't exist. But rather to make a slightly more simplistic - visceral, if you will - statement about the artist's feelings about Christianity.
To take a symbol that a particular group respects and submerge it into human waste conveys a disrespect for that symbol. Just as PETA throwing animal blood on wearers of fur conveys their disrespect for those who wear fur. You don't create "art" like that without wanting to also create a stir.
Now - that aside, it's entirely possible for God to redeem that art and give it significance for individuals. And this is what it seems has been the case with you, Scott. God spoke to you as you stood, thinking about your shoes in the midst of depravity and convicted you with an image designed to convey disrespect and negate the significance to the sacrifice that Christ made for us. It plunged you into further thought and will most likely, at some point, draw you to the conclusion that God has for you.
But does that mean the art had a bigger, better purpose of reminding Christians that we're no better than those who have nothing - that in fact we need to remember that this is where we would be without Christ? I would say no. The art still was designed to serve the artist's purpose - just like we are to serve our Artist's purpose, even though very often it's unclear to others what that purpose is and therefore we can go on to be misunderstood and used for purposes other than what was originally intended.
Post a Comment
<< Home