Serrano, Piss Christ (1987)

Andres Serrano, Piss Christ (1987)
Photograph
1.52 m x 1.02 m

Another piece I studied back in high school when we were investigating controversial art. Modern religious works are always open to a lot of controversy I find, just because often the modern ways of portrayal can be found degrading in various ways to various people. But I find that often it's just another way of conveying some religious themes or thoughts, or sometimes even reverence.

The picture is aesthetically quite beautiful, it has warm, soft red, orange and yellow hues. The crucifix is central and looks quite balanced, and the scratchy texture of the picture conveys a feeling of age and weathering, of history. All in all, it's not an unpleasant to look at or uncommon subject matter. So why did Serrano receive hate mail, death threats, and have his work defaced (multiple times)?

Well, the controversy is not in the aesthetics of the image itself, but in the process of creating the subject. Andres put a small plastic crucifix in a jar, urinated in it, and then took the photo. Even after over 20 years, the piece attracts controversy as recent as 2012 (and not just on a single occasion). But Serrano still identifies himself as a Christian, does not identify himself as a provocative artist and claims that shock value is "absolutely not" something he aimed to achieve in his work.

If you look at some of Serrano's other works, there are many that carry the theme of bodily fluids (even having a series called Body Fluids), with the inclusion of urine, blood and sometimes semen. There is also a series called Shit (self-explanatory, pictures of feces) and The Church (which focuses on religious imagery). So the combination of some of these elements is not surprising as Serrano continues his artistic experimentation.

So obviously there's the side of the debate that calls this work degrading and blasphemous, and I don't blame them. Urinating on something has, and I assume always will be, held intentional malice or spite. So I can understand this side of the debate, but there are also those who disagree with this, even some that are religious.

One interpretation is that modern society is doing this to Jesus Christ every day with our sinful lifestyles, essentially 'pissing' on him. In this way, the photo is a reflection of our own lives and perhaps inquires for a certain kind of repentance. Following this line of thought, it can be theorized that this is a reverse baptism, instead of a spiritual cleansing, a sinful corruption is occurring. Again, this is a comment on modern society and the life Jesus wanted us to have.

I feel like a creative interpretation or an open mind should be held when presented something that immediately provokes you. It's not that you're immediate retaliation is wrong, but if you immediately reject a piece of art based on a purely primary reaction, you might miss important aspects to the work, even if this just solidifies your rejection of the work.

I really think that Andres Serrano himself sums up the interpretation of his works quite well:

 

"People have strong reactions to my work. They can either love it or hate it. I think the work has the power to both please or displease, but sometimes the reactions it gets says more about the people who are reacting than about the work itself."

 

Duchamp, Fountain (1917)

Marcel Duchamp, Fountain (1917)
Porcelain
 360 mm  x 480 mm x 610 mm
 

Dada. One of the most controversial art movements out there to date, yet probably a personal favourite of mine. It produced all sorts of art, but this is probably one of the most well known, even to those who aren't art history buffs. But what is it?

 

To the observant, it looks like a men's porcelain urinal, and you'd be exactly right. It's been signed by Duchamp as R. Mutt 1917, and besides from being placed on it's back, that's the only modification to the piece. I know, not much to talk about in terms of composition or colour. I can sense your agitation already, a men's urinal? Really? How is this art? It's the same argument that's raged for years since Duchamp first created it. But let me pose a question back, how is it not art? Does art need a motive, a reason, to be aesthetically beautiful to be called art? Does it need emotion behind it? And this is why I love Dada, it inspires such debate and thought which I feel anyone can contribute to, you don't need to be a scholar or educated in the subject to have an opinion. I've been sitting here for the past couple minutes deciding where to start, and struggling to find a point in which to dive into the fray.

 

Dada was born out of war and conflict, with roots being in World War I. I feel like the movement is culturally outrageous but disillusioned, a sort of jaded perspective on art. The artists were questioning everything around them, especially materialist and political ideas that could have contributed to the suffering of the war. Art is just one way in which this was vented, another cry of frustration.

 

"Dada hurts. Dada does not jest, for the reason that it was experienced by revolutionary men and not by philistines who demand that art be a decoration for the mendacity of their own emotions."

                                - Richard Huelsenbeck



 

I love that quote, because it really sums up the heart of why Dada became popular. It was a cynical look at the art world of the time, of the pompous artists and entangled emotions, and instead looking at the physical aspect and saying, why not?

It's also interesting that Dada isn't a movement of paintings, or sculptures. It's a movement of anything and everything. Because they were asking what art really was, they were putting everything forward as a certain art form. Everyday objects to paper collages were presented, and I cannot think of a reason as to why they aren't art.

 

What is art? It's such a difficult question, and I've spent countless hours arguing with people about it, and I have to say I have Dada to thank. I also thank Dada for making me think so hard about it, and finally convincing me to be quite firmly in the camp that everything is art. I've heard a huge range of arguments. Art should be appealing aesthetically (do I have to be drawn to it by the way it looks?), should have to have meaning (can I not just like it because it looks nice with no deeper meaning?), is a personal decision (but therefore if I say it's art, you must accept it is too?), has to be man-made (so a mountain cannot be art, but a picture of a mountain can be?). I'm not saying you have to be one way or the other, I've had to stop and think when an argument was put forward. It's a vague grey area, not one of black and white, and you have to be prepared to change your position.
Just a side note, when asking what art is, we're not arguing about what you like. There are plenty of pieces or artists that I just cannot stand, but I'm not saying that they're art because I like them. You have to stand back, say 'I don't like this piece. But I accept that it has standing as art.' Otherwise I'll just be sitting here trying to force you to agree with my favourite artists, and it's about the definition of art, or lack thereof, that's being questioned.

Of course I attach emotions to this movement simply because it gets such a strong reaction from me. Is this against what those from the Dada movement wanted? I really don't know. All I know is that this simple photo of a porcelain urinal invokes so much more than was perhaps intended.

What is art? Or because art is everything, does it lack a definition?