Pope attacks art vandalising Bible

reply to post by pieman


I would argue that the artists response is illogical. major world faiths have to be taken in context. they were written before a time where homosexuality was seen as acceptable, where natural law reigned (which obviously denotes homosexuality). So for her response to attack the bible, it isnt art, more like a childish attempt to throw a temper tantrum.

Once again, not art.

reply to post by noonebutme


If that is the case then hats off to you. Most people I know care enough to speak up if someone insults their mother – even if it isn’t true. I know that’s how many bar fights start. Off course we'll never know how you would indeed react.

It would seem that you don't really care about anything - and it's a pity really. Most people have something they are passionate about. And most of these people will speak up if their passions/faith/whatever is disrespected. And maybe this is the point we're miscommunication. Writing obscenities in a Bible won't damage a person's Faith in any way. (If it does - then it would be really sad.) It all comes down - and I know I've said this more than once before - to respect. Basic human ethics.

My point was (using your mother as illustration) that if you disrespect other people and what they hold dear to them and then go around calling it "art" - then yes people will get upset.

Excluding yourself of course. Perhaps you don't have that passion? Perhaps you have nothing in your life you hold as dear as Christians hold the Bible? Or perhaps you do have something that important - we just don't know what it is. If we knew what it was we could show it the necessary disrespect to prove a point?

And now the circle is complete (i.e. we’re now back at the same point we were earlier): You don’t understand what the fuss is all about because you don’t know what the Bible means to Christians. Yes, in your eyes it’s “just a book”. It isn’t for so many other people.

reply to post by Toughiv


I see what you're saying, and while I don't care for this form of 'art' - I understand the point.

Like a lot of this modern art, it's about pushing boundaries and the 'shock' level, pushing peoples' tolerances of what is/is not acceptable to mock or call into question.

I'm not saying *I* personally think it's art or that it's any good - I don't. I recall, years agom, some 'artist' who displayed vials of his own semen as 'art', or someone who had a carcass of rotting beef on display as 'art'.

Again, I don't see any of that as art, but I see what the artists were doing. They were pushing limits and getting things viewed in different ways, expressing their beliefs or objections to things in very questionable 'art' forms.

Originally posted by Laurauk
reply to post by Wookiep

It should be left up to the individual, weither or not they find this art display offensive. Everyone in entitled to thier views.

I can agree with that. I have to say that this has offended many, and to those who think it's "crap" well.... Again let the millions with beliefs in the bible manifest such reactions. Perhaps they will be "above" it.

What I find offensive, some dude who thinks he has some morale authority, trying to dictate to everyone else, what is offensive and what is not. When his own church has a history of being guilt of doing worse things than writtingmessages ina Bible.

I also agree with that to a point. This however, does not take the origional act, as in to dishonor the bible, which is not something *exclusive* to catholics and make it any less disrespectful. I am not a catholic, and I'm not up to the importance of the fact that the pope was involved in this, and I don't think it is as relevant as you think it is. Why is it so important that the pope is invloved? I think this would be wrong even if we were talking about Buddah.

Who says the bible belongs to him anyways? Benedict I mean. Does it have his name on it? No it does not.

I certainly don't think that it does. Again, I don't think that it matters.







[edit on 29-7-2009 by Wookiep]

[edit on 29-7-2009 by Wookiep]

reply to post by Toughiv



She did say, she done this to open up discussions within the christian community, over christianitys attitudes towards, homosexuals and lesbians.

And she is a Christian herself. What are the Vatican going to about it? Crucify her? Crucify allthose who written messages in this bible/book?



[edit on 29-7-2009 by Laurauk]

Originally posted by Toughiv
So for her response to attack the bible, it isnt art, more like a childish attempt to throw a temper tantrum.

Once again, not art.

the fact that you don't think it has artistic merit doesn't make a blind bit of difference to weather or not it's art, only the artist has the right to make that call.

you can hold an opinion on her art, sure, but to say she shouldn't be allowed to make the statement is another thing altogether.

reply to post by Gemwolf


No, you're very correct. I really don't care about most things. But not in a spiteful or hateful way. I just don't see the "point" in many things. Which, I will admit, has made life very difficult in many apsects.

[off-topic]
I was once diagnosed by a Uni psych prof as having a 'detachment-disorder' but I never really understood what that meant (you could volunteer to join various PhD student experiements to 'up your final grade' in one of my courses)
[/off-topic]

Hmm.. Actually. That last line in your post caught me off guard.

And now the circle is complete (i.e. we’re now back at the same point we were earlier): You don’t understand what the fuss is all about because you don’t know what the Bible means to Christians. Yes, in your eyes it’s “just a book”. It isn’t for so many other people.

It just 'clicked'. You're completely correct - that's why I don't get it. S'pose I cant really add much else to the debate, to be honest.

Well, I'll duck out of this one then. I still can't see the fuss, but as you pointed out, that's my own fault. Anyhow, was still enjoyable!

reply to post by pieman


On this one, I think I can give my opinion on whether this is art. Id say this is expresssion, NOT ART. Expression of the fact that the religion of which she is a part of deems her as "wrong". Yes, but then to go and deface what they hold dear is not art. It is almost like living eye for and eye. The Bible upset her so she attacked it. Once again, not art, expression but not art.

Originally posted by Wookiep
I think this would be wrong even if we were talking about Buddah.

if the person making the statement does not respect a particular religious belief then why shouldn't they be allowed to say they don't respect that belief?

Originally posted by Laurauk
reply to post by Toughiv

 

She did say, she done this to open up discussions within the christian community, over christianitys attitudes towards, homosexuals and lesbians.

And she is a Christian herself. What are the Vatican going to about it? Crucify her? Crucify allthose who written messages in this bible/book?



[edit on 29-7-2009 by Laurauk]

First paragraph...i dont see her actions opening up any sort of "discussion" maybe a heated debate/argument.

Second paragraph - please do not dramatise.

Originally posted by Toughiv
expression but not art.

so what's the difference between art and expression then?

the merit of the work? the merit of the idea? the general consensus? the skill of the execution? the skill of the artist whether or not the skill is expressed? your opinion?

it's a big debate, been done to death. the only answer that encompasses all art is to say that the artist is the only one qualified to call an expressive work "art".

reply to post by Toughiv


Come on, the Pope did state: Would they do this if it was the Koran, if that is not dramatising something, then I do not know what is.

It was the Pope hmself who changed this art exhibition, into a drama exhibtion in the frst place.

[edit on 29-7-2009 by Laurauk]

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by Wookiep
I think this would be wrong even if we were talking about Buddah.

if the person making the statement does not respect a particular religious belief then why shouldn't they be allowed to say they don't respect that belief?

No problems with that pieman. Not respecting a belief is common-place here in this world. Now, Blatantly disrespecting a belief structure by willingly desecrating their "book" which is the blueprints of such beliefs ( as well noted by some) through "expression" is a whole other topic! This is something we disagree on, and I get your position on the subject. Now if you want to label me as a "baby" for this stance, then by all means keep doing so! It changes nothing as far as my stance goes.

Originally posted by Wookiep
Now, Blatantly disrespecting a belief structure by willingly desecrating their "book" which is the blueprints of such beliefs ( as well noted by some) through "expression" is a whole other topic! This is something we disagree on, and I get your position on the subject. Now if you want to label me as a "baby" for this stance, then by all means keep doing so! It changes nothing as far as my stance goes.

doesn't actually answer the question, does it?

here's another, can you quote me as having ever called you a baby? if not, do us both a favour and drop it.

[edit on 29/7/09 by pieman]

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by Wookiep
Now, Blatantly disrespecting a belief structure by willingly desecrating their "book" which is the blueprints of such beliefs ( as well noted by some) through "expression" is a whole other topic! This is something we disagree on, and I get your position on the subject. Now if you want to label me as a "baby" for this stance, then by all means keep doing so! It changes nothing as far as my stance goes.

doesn't actually answer the question, does it?

here's another, can you quote me as having ever called you a baby? if not, do us both a favour and drop it.

[edit on 29/7/09 by pieman]

Me directly? no sir. People who disagree? yes, I will kindly show you a quote, which i believe was not appropriate wording.

stop being such big babies, ffs, how dull is the world supposed to be? should we all take a vow of silence just in case we say something that might be deemed offensive by someone else?

And I'm sorry you feel as tho I didn't answer your question. I think the truth is, we just simply don't agree, which is fine.

Originally posted by Wookiep
yes, I will kindly show you a quote, which i believe was not appropriate wording.

disrespectful, was it? ahh, i'm sorry you feel it was directed at you, bless.

And I'm sorry you feel as tho I didn't answer your question. I think the truth is, we just simply don't agree, which is fine.

i think that the question "why shouldn't an artist that doesn't respect the religious views of a religion be allowed to express this lack of respect?" is a pretty simple question.

you say that disrespect of religious views is unpalatable, i asked "why?" that is not a disagreement, it is a question. are you unable to answer or unwilling?

Originally posted by Laurauk
reply to post by Toughiv

 

Come on, the Pope did state: Would they do this if it was the Koran, if that is not dramatising something, then I do not know what is.

It was the Pope hmself who changed this art exhibition, into a drama exhibtion in the frst place.

[edit on 29-7-2009 by Laurauk]

I think the Pope has a very valid point when he says that. christianity gets slated over and over and over, while if there is any satyr of mohammed or islamic principles there ARE threats of violence etc.

I dont see how it should be one rule for one, one for another. I think being accepting of other peoples expressions when they directly contradict yours etc is seen as a sign of weakness and that is why the Christian religion gets slated so much.

Get my drift?

The debate throughout this thread has been impressive. Art is not so easily pinned down, it would appear.

Once again, though, the quote below, especially the bolded paragraph, would indicate the general consensus:

From the book 'How Art Made the World", by Nigel Spivey, Perseus Publishing 2005:

'Anything can be art,' declared the avant-garde French artist Marcel Duchamp (1887-1968), who made his name exhibiting ordinairy objects, such as a bicycle wheel, a bottle rack and a ceramic urinal, as art. He also depicted the Mona Lisa with a dainty moustache and a beard. The mischief of modern artists, oppressed by the public expectation that they should be original, is repeatedly typified by following Duchamp's subversive precedent. A pile of tyres, an unmade bed: who says these are not art?

Predictably, the public reacts with scorn, outrage and bewilderment. Our reaction not only stems from a sense of indignation - the bourgeois horror of being defrauded. It goes deeper than that. Because instinctively we know what art is - because we are all artists. We are the symbolic species: the species that knows how to represent a bicycle wheel or an unmade bed by using its uniquely nimble hands to make an image that symbolizes such an object

There are many ways in which the quality and meaning of art may be questioned. Some would decry graffiti sprayed on a wall as being nothing more than vandals at work. I disagree with that generalization, but only in cases where the artwork has proven to be done by talented individuals.

The same may be said for installation art, as this surely was. However, the Glasgow exhibit revealed no talent to me whatsoever.


[edit on 29/7/09 by masqua]

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by Wookiep
yes, I will kindly show you a quote, which i believe was not appropriate wording.

disrespectful, was it? ahh, i'm sorry you feel it was directed at you, bless.

And I'm sorry you feel as tho I didn't answer your question. I think the truth is, we just simply don't agree, which is fine.

i think that the question "why shouldn't an artist that doesn't respect the religious views of a religion be allowed to express this lack of respect?" is a pretty simple question.

you say that disrespect of religious views is unpalatable, i asked "why?" that is not a disagreement, it is a question. are you unable to answer or unwilling?

oh, so you're asking why I think that "religion" isn't a factor in the matter of disrespect of ones who believe in the bible in the case of the OP? You didn't make that clear, MY apologies!


Ok, well I think I made that opinion clear before (again we don't agree) but I'll humor you again. If one steps on the beliefs of those who have said beliefs that have exsisted thousands of years by means of "expression" through vandalism of said sacred "book" thought to be adhored by millions, I fail to see how this act is justified. "expression" or not, there should be a level of respect REGARDLESS of opinions of those beliefs proven or un-proven. It's something that in this point of man-kind should at least be *respected* if we are ever to "evolve" in this world again, REGARDLESS of personal opinion.

Now, if you cannot grasp that concept then we are at a dead-end. Goodnight, for now!



[edit on 29-7-2009 by Wookiep]

Originally posted by Toughiv
I dont see how it should be one rule for one, one for another. I think being accepting of other peoples expressions when they directly contradict yours etc is seen as a sign of weakness and that is why the Christian religion gets slated so much.

Get my drift?

so we should all behave in the same way as muslim extremists so that people are afraid to do anything that is not allowed under religious law? stone people to death for blasphemy? issue fatwas? what is it you want?