Pope attacks art vandalising Bible

I do see your point, if anyone in our family produced picture of my mum naked and asked us to scrawl obsecenities on it then they would not be popular to say the least, but i'm sure you know how challenging you are being by saying that. Your post is art, the reality of the the concept is not as it doesnt exist and i doubt if it ever would, but yes i'd be offended if it was my mum.....but it would still be art.

I disagree, it would not be art, but just some demented perversion which craves acceptance by claiming it is some abstract "art"

The person doing it would be a degenerate and would not, in my eyes, be saved by producing an "art" business card

Originally posted by blueorder

I do see your point, if anyone in our family produced picture of my mum naked and asked us to scrawl obsecenities on it then they would not be popular to say the least, but i'm sure you know how challenging you are being by saying that. Your post is art, the reality of the the concept is not as it doesnt exist and i doubt if it ever would, but yes i'd be offended if it was my mum.....but it would still be art.

I disagree, it would not be art, but just some demented perversion which craves acceptance by claiming it is some abstract "art"

The person doing it would be a degenerate and would not, in my eyes, be saved by producing an "art" business card

Demented perverts can produce art also. There are different levels of art and just because it is challenging and an expression of the artist doesnt make it good art. Good art is subjective, but what actually is art, certainly as far as the discussion in this thread goes, is pretty objective.

Originally posted by Wobbly Anomaly
Demented perverts can produce art also.

I have never suggested otherwise

There are different levels of art and just because it is challenging and an expression of the artist doesnt make it good art. Good art is subjective, but what actually is art, certainly as far as the discussion in this thread goes, is pretty objective.

I disagree totally, it simply would not be art, I would not consider it as such, you may, I would not- using that sort of meaningless abstract thinking anything is art, I do not subscribe to such nonsense

Originally posted by blueorder


I disagree totally, it simply would not be art, I would not consider it as such, you may, I would not- using that sort of meaningless abstract thinking anything is art, I do not subscribe to such nonsense

I never said 'anything' can be art, and i agree that if anybody said 'anything is art' it would be nonsense.

You are disagreeing with a non existent concept, which doesnt really further the discussion. You are of course free to formulate the opnion that a specific something is not art, it doesnt change the fact, but no one can take away from you the freedom to have an opinion.

to me its interesting that gays SEEM to be able to get away with so much more then those who are straight

this was a art exhibition to allow gays and transexuals to write themselves into religions

and there arent mass riots??

if a straight person did that to the bible there would be severe uprising and protesting

if a straight did that to the koran, all those nuts would be killing everyone they see that doesnt hold the koran as their holy book

how are homos getting away with it?


edited to say as a art school film student i love art

but how the hell are things that are absolutely absurd able to find sanctity under the banner of calling itself art??

i know its a very slippery slope and a very strong debate already as to censoring things one person calls art

but art isnt art just because some nut job calls it so

at a risk of losing freedom of art, we really need to find a way to start controlling art

ive seen some very vulgar ridiculous stuff flourish all because some jerk called it art

[edit on 3-8-2009 by Dramey]

Originally posted by Dramey
to me its interesting that gays SEEM to be able to get away with so much more then those who are straight

this was a art exhibition to allow gays and transexuals to write themselves into religions

and there arent mass riots??

if a straight person did that to the bible there would be severe uprising and protesting

if a straight did that to the koran, all those nuts would be killing everyone they see that doesnt hold the koran as their holy book

how are homos getting away with it?


edited to say as a art school film student i love art

but how the hell are things that are absolutely absurd able to find sanctity under the banner of calling itself art??

i know its a very slippery slope and a very strong debate already as to censoring things one person calls art

but art isnt art just because some nut job calls it so

at a risk of losing freedom of art, we really need to find a way to start controlling art

ive seen some very vulgar ridiculous stuff flourish all because some jerk called it art

[edit on 3-8-2009 by Dramey]

Good points, but

a) How did they know that only gays were going to write in the bible ? Was there a 'gay test' before people entered the gallery ? Do you think the artist knew that it would be impossible to enforce that angle or was that also part of the plan that has maybe been missed by the knee jerk reactionaries ?

b)Absurd things find sanctity in art becuase they are challenging, evolutionary, interesting, surprising, influential, motivational......and so on. What is an art school film student ? What did you learn about art (thats a genuine question , i might understand your point better knowing what you have been taught. I might be missing something in this debate because ive never studied art at an acedemic level)

c)Art is not art just because someone says it is, i agree, i dont think anybody is claiming any thing else.

d)Art is controlled already, by the people who support it, by definition, by moral and cultural law.

e) Can you name 1 instance of vulgar ridiculous art flourishing becuse only 1 person (the jerk) called it art ?

Originally posted by silo13
The billions of people who’ve died the bible, even just the right to read it - that’s pretty much enough evidence for me, it’s not *just a book*.

That's all well and good...but to some people it is still just a book.

Originally posted by silo13
You don’t have to believe in it, no, but at least have respect for the people that do - and not only now but throughout history.

Wrong.

You don't have to respect a book or the people that believe in it.

The same way you don't have to respect this art.

No one is forcing you to take part in this.
No one is stealing your bible and defacing it.

Any one that is actually upset by this has a fragile mind...

i've already commented once on this subject, but i've thought more on it...
and...this is a sort of side note...but still completely relevant to the conversation, as far as i'm concerned.

the limerick was once (and still, in many circles) considered nothing more than infantile rubbish. nowadays it is studied in universities across the country as an integral piece of modern american literature.

so perhaps this form of art is, indeed, trash.

but, if so, it may not be the first time that such trash formed the basis of a culturally accepted form of artistic expression that is yet to come for future generations.

art has always been controversial.

henry miller was banned in the united states for a good many years in the beginning of his writing career, with his books only being sold in europe, despite his brooklyn-born heritage. (of course, this is no surprise, as europeans have always been years ahead of us in terms of art, culture, class, and spirituality) but he eventually caused a major shift in socially accepted morality in the united states. ironically, the cinema bears the most notable of his achievements after a movie inspired by his life with his wife and love-affaired friend, anais nin, caused immediate uproar in our conservative country, but was later, finally, accepted as a valued bit of art which changed our movie industry forever.

but back to the limerick, and my ultimate point.

these little bits of rhyming "trash" are so valued nowadays because they are thought to invoke the spirit of the common man during those times.
whether or not you can personally identify with such an adolescent sentiment is really irrelevant, as these things become noticeably important to our culture as timeless references to our forefathers. they remind us constantly of where our society has been, how we entertained ourselves outside of war, religion, and familial ties, and how we've arrived at where we are today. in literature, in society, in life.

we can, and perhaps should, laugh at these things now that they are long in our pasts. but they are, nonetheless, very important to our present, no matter how embarrassing that may be.

i'm sorry, but your grandfather was a pervert.

and his 'poetry' was scowled at in exactly the same way that you look at the contributors to this biblical notation.
but, god willing (irony strongly implied), perhaps we'll someday see the importance of this act as we have come to see the importance of the adolescent sex jokes in papi's old poems.

Originally posted by Wobbly Anomaly
I never said 'anything' can be art, and i agree that if anybody said 'anything is art' it would be nonsense.

happy days

You are disagreeing with a non existent concept, which doesnt really further the discussion.

there seems to be some grey area here

You are of course free to formulate the opnion that a specific something is not art,

faeces on a wall is not art, as someone mentioned

it doesnt change the fact, but no one can take away from you the freedom to have an opinion.

People can and do take away the rights of others to hold opinions- you are not allowed to have an opinion in Germany that the holocaust was exagerrated

Originally posted by Nathan_Orin
henry miller was banned in the united states for a good many years in the beginning of his writing career, with his books only being sold in europe, despite his brooklyn-born heritage. (of course, this is no surprise, as europeans have always been years ahead of us in terms of art, culture, class, and spirituality)

laughable nonsense

Originally posted by blueorder

People can and do take away the rights of others to hold opinions- you are not allowed to have an opinion in Germany that the holocaust was exagerrated

Yes you are, it is just against the law to voice it in public.

My point being that you, personally, can choose to have your own opinion about wether the bible installation is or is not art. It wont change the facts, but, in this case, you are free.

Yes you are, it is just against the law to voice it in public.

I did not think I needed to caveat that point with "express an opinion"- as the German system does not have a mind reading device in place as far as I know

My point being that you, personally, can choose to have your own opinion about wether the bible installation is or is not art. It wont change the facts, but, in this case, you are free.

The fact is know it was not art, while others are deluded in thinking it was

[edit on 4-8-2009 by blueorder]

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by Nathan_Orin
henry miller was banned in the united states for a good many years in the beginning of his writing career, with his books only being sold in europe, despite his brooklyn-born heritage. (of course, this is no surprise, as europeans have always been years ahead of us in terms of art, culture, class, and spirituality)

laughable nonsense

Historically accurate. Reinforced (perhaps) by your 2 word reply to an educated and thought out statement. Obviously, as ive said before, you are completely free to voice your opinions but, and i'm not trying to be rude here, i personally cant see your responses adding to the constructive evolution of this debate. My personal opinion (which of course may be quite wrong) is that responses like that ignore the content of the statement you are commenting on and are more akin to a childs temper tantrum, mainly because the child doesnt understand how to respond on the same level.

Which explains the origins of these opinions about the bible being or not being art. All personal personal views are fuelled by our ability to address the concept.

Originally posted by Wobbly Anomaly
Historically accurate.

It is clearly a subjective view, so it is not "historically accurate" as if such an opinion on culture etc was a "fact" written down in a book of facts.




[edit on 4-8-2009 by blueorder]

Originally posted by blueorder


The fact is know it was not art, while others are deluded in thinking it was

[edit on 4-8-2009 by blueorder]

I refer you to my pont above about our abilities to address a concept.

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by Wobbly Anomaly
Historically accurate.

It is clearly a subjective view, so it is not "historically accurate" as if such an opinion on culture etc was a "fact" written down in a book of facts.




[edit on 4-8-2009 by blueorder]

Yes, i agree, your subjective opinion is laughable nonsense, mine is historical accuracy.

Originally posted by Wobbly AnomalyYes, i agree, your subjective opinion is laughable nonsense, mine is historical accuracy.

Your first point is your opinion, your second point is not a fact

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by Wobbly AnomalyYes, i agree, your subjective opinion is laughable nonsense, mine is historical accuracy.

Your first point is your opinion, your second point is not a fact

I didnt say it was fact, i said it was my subjective opinion. If you want to talk about facts then lets ascertain what Nathan Orin meant by 'us' as in "as europeans have always been years ahead of us" Does he mean native Americans ? Immigrants or the modern american society ?

If he means Native americans then i think i would debate his point as for the modern american society, well, i think it has caught up quite a bit although there is a definite perceptual divide in some areas.

What do you think he means ?

Originally posted by Wobbly AnomalyI didnt say it was fact, i said it was my subjective opinion.

yes, so it is not "historically accurate", thank you

If you want to talk about facts then lets ascertain what Nathan Orin meant by 'us' as in "as europeans have always been years ahead of us" Does he mean native Americans ? Immigrants or the modern american society ?

If he means Native americans then i think i would debate his point as for the modern american society, well, i think it has caught up quite a bit although there is a definite perceptual divide in some areas.

What do you think he means ?

this is the crux of it, it is a nebulous statement, even if we try and pin him down to racial composition, whether "indigenous" (which is not even a nailed on fact") it would still be subjective as to whether it was light years ahead as you may view the American culture of the time as superior.

Originally posted by blueorder



yes, so it is not "historically accurate", thank you

It can be, if for example we talk about fine art in the 15th century. Subjectively i can look back on my cultural art heritage over a much longer period than a modern american looking back over their culture. Thats a historic fact, what it means is another matter

this is the crux of it, it is a nebulous statement, even if we try and pin him down to racial composition, whether "indigenous" (which is not even a nailed on fact") it would still be subjective as to whether it was light years ahead as you may view the American culture of the time as superior.

It's not nebulous at all, had it occured to you that he could have been being sarcastic ? Plus there is my comment above above subjectivity and history. It's only nebulous if you are not able to either see the point or gain some insight/inspiration from it, but that is not always the fault of the comment, sometimes it's down to the ability of the reader (again subjectivity). Which brings us back to the bible installation. Its is art for those that get something from it, insulting to others, meaningless to someone else.