DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> Art, or Blasphemy??
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 48, (reverse)
AuthorThread
09/01/2007 11:03:24 AM · #1


We discuss here at DPC what art is all the time.

So here is another artist, Luke Sullivan, with an issue from the Christian public over a piece he submitted to an Religious Art competition.

What do you think?

(There may be a short commercial before the news report.)

Art, or Blasphemy??


09/01/2007 11:06:54 AM · #2
Art and Blasphemy are not mutually exclusive terms. It is perfectly possible for "art" to be blasphemous. In fact, it's not uncommon.

R.
09/01/2007 11:08:23 AM · #3
Art should make you think...This does that.
09/01/2007 12:01:22 PM · #4
45 minutes later, and the video still isn't playing (isn't dial up grand?), so can someone summarize the gist of it (as unbiasedly as possible, please, just the facts, only the facts -- haha)?
09/01/2007 12:04:31 PM · #5
Jesus painting that turns into Osama bin ladin and a statue of the virgin Mary in muslim garb.....
09/01/2007 12:08:32 PM · #6
I could see the video, but have no sound .... but this is my take on it:

An artist has submitted some "controversial" images into a show of religious art, and some religious and political public figures are upset and want it removed from the show, and the artist doesn't want to be censored. None of the art is gory or anything otherwise grossly disgusting.
09/01/2007 12:15:22 PM · #7
The artist wasn't making a religious statement, as so much as he was trying to bring art in religion more in focus.
09/01/2007 12:29:19 PM · #8
Two different artists submited each one and its a "religious art" competition. The artist who created the Virgin Mary statue comments. the other refused to go on camera due to death threats....To me the osama/jesus one is just done for attention i.e. shock factor. the Virgin statue (to me anyway) is more of a statement of the similarities in religious philosophy. The osama/Jesus painting has already been sold to a man in Sydney

Message edited by author 2007-09-01 12:31:37.
09/01/2007 12:32:41 PM · #9
These screenshots may give you the flavor of it, at least the first half ...



09/01/2007 12:33:40 PM · #10
I wonder if I'd hurt Mr. Sulivan's feelings if I told him his ideas weren't terribly creative? Art, yes, good art... not really? Blasphemy... well, I'll take him for his word.
09/01/2007 12:39:10 PM · #11
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

I wonder if I'd hurt Mr. Sulivan's feelings if I told him his ideas weren't terribly creative? Art, yes, good art... not really? Blasphemy... well, I'll take him for his word.


I agree.... but "controversy is publicity and any publicity, good or bad, is good." (Mick Jagger)
09/01/2007 01:42:21 PM · #12
Originally posted by neophyte:


I agree.... but "controversy is publicity and any publicity, good or bad, is good." (Mick Jagger)


Mostly true. I imagine that people on a public sex offender's registry, for example, would disagree.
09/01/2007 01:50:33 PM · #13
I think the artist is getting exactly what he/she wants, attention. Personally I think they are both distasteful (for different reasons). I respect the artist's right to present them, but I also respect everybody's right to say they were silly and lame. Nobody was trying to censor them more than simply saying, "I'd give it a 2".
09/01/2007 01:51:27 PM · #14
...it's not even good blasphemy. Anything to cause controversy, I suppose.
09/01/2007 01:59:28 PM · #15
It strikes me as a statement relating to the nature of fundamentalism, which is extremism, regardless of the choice of gods. I think it's excellent art, because it will arouse strong emotion and reaction.

Blasphemy is only possible if there is a god, any god.

Thus, blasphemy, like art, is in the eye of the beholder.
09/01/2007 02:02:57 PM · #16
Originally posted by strangeghost:

I think it's excellent art, because it will arouse strong emotion and reaction.


Is this always true? What about a nice softly lit picture of a man caressing a naked six-year-old girl? I'm sure that would arouse strong emotion and reaction too. Does that make it excellent art?
09/01/2007 02:18:11 PM · #17
Originally posted by strangeghost:

I think it's excellent art, because it will arouse strong emotion and reaction.


Only in those that think it's blasphemy. I don't think thinking something is lame is a strong emotional reaction :-)
09/01/2007 02:19:13 PM · #18
David_c's "not even good blasphemy" really strikes a chord, not withstanding strangeghost's point about extremism. (Will spend the day thinking about good blasphemy instead of circles of confusion and blur).
09/01/2007 02:19:41 PM · #19
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I think the artist is getting exactly what he/she wants, attention. Personally I think they are both distasteful (for different reasons). I respect the artist's right to present them, but I also respect everybody's right to say they were silly and lame. Nobody was trying to censor them more than simply saying, "I'd give it a 2".

Bingo. And you're right on about your later post, too. :)
09/01/2007 02:20:12 PM · #20
[/quote]

Is this always true? What about a nice softly lit picture of a man caressing a naked six-year-old girl? I'm sure that would arouse strong emotion and reaction too. Does that make it excellent art? [/quote]
Now you raise the question of pornography, which has a similar "in the eye of the beholder" nature, no? Wasn't it a former Supreme Court justice who had to admit that he couldn't define it, but knew it when he saw it? Sorry doc, but anytime you try to subtract something from the umbrella of art because it's distasteful to you, you only run up against the blur of the definition. Your theoretical photo of a man caressing a naked child is just one of thousands of examples you could have chosen. Do you want to be the one sorting them into the "acceptable" and "unacceptable" bins?
09/01/2007 02:26:39 PM · #21
Originally posted by david_c:

...it's not even good blasphemy. Anything to cause controversy, I suppose.


I may have found my next signature... LOL
09/01/2007 02:44:45 PM · #22
Lame Art...IMHO

My friend Renee Cox had a highly publicized tussle with The One And Only Rudy Giuliani over a photograph she did called Yo Mama's Last Supper that made all the papers and TV news. It stirred up the same kind of nonsense but her work was better and had a point unlike the two in that news story.

The scary part is when people start making calls to censor Art for decency.
Renee NY Times
Daily News
Newsday

Message edited by author 2007-09-01 14:50:12.
09/01/2007 03:13:35 PM · #23
Originally posted by strangeghost:

Sorry doc, but anytime you try to subtract something from the umbrella of art because it's distasteful to you, you only run up against the blur of the definition. Your theoretical photo of a man caressing a naked child is just one of thousands of examples you could have chosen. Do you want to be the one sorting them into the "acceptable" and "unacceptable" bins?


I wasn't subtracting from the "umbrella of art", I was subtracting from your "umbrella of excellent art"...
09/01/2007 05:35:27 PM · #24
Originally posted by Man_Called_Horse:


What do you think?



Well, I think you'd probably better not make one of Allah that changed to GW Bush. There'd be some jihad coming down. With the Christians there'd be some belly aching going on but probably no deaths unless you hold the show at an abortion clinic. Next time start this in the rant area horsey man.
09/01/2007 05:56:46 PM · #25
Its blasphemy if you believe in all that mumbo jumbo, art if you don't! Simple, when you take religion out of the equation! I'd rather concern myself with 'What came first, the chicken or the egg?' Now that's worth discussing about!!!
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/19/2024 12:03:04 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/19/2024 12:03:04 AM EDT.