Have you seen Poleteismo?

[rodsky]

THIS ONE OBVIOUSLY, I WOULD CALL ART. MASKIN WA PA KO KAYBAW NA KAY PICASSO NI. NOW COMPARE THIS WITH KATO CHRIST WITH THE MICKEY MOUSE HEADBAND, IF YOU HAD SEEN THAT SA SIDEWALK AND NOT SA CCCP, WOULD YOU STILL BE ABLE TO CALL THAT ART?

A work done in the manner of the visual arts is try to express/convey something which cannot be expressed via oral/written means. Like music, it seeks to find a language that defies the usual means of expression. When a song makes you cry, when it moves you to certain moods/emotions, it has done its job. So yes, if that "Christ with a Mickey Mouse Headband" is trying to express a message to me, which makes me pause and think, and contemplate about the state of the world for a moment, then I'd have to say that the piece, no matter how ill-contrived, commercialized, or done in poor taste, has in fact, done it's job--it has called my attention, so in a way, it is indeed art.

This artist's work has angered/stupefied many. He had done his job--he has disturbed the status quo, and he has led others to think in ways they never quite perhaps attempted before. And in that I believe he was successful in conveying his message, and I for one, laud him for it.

-RODION

[Norad-II]

There is no such thing as ABSOLUTE freedom. this is why you can't walk around naked inside a mall because you feel the need to express your sexuality. I RESPECT an artist's ideas, however different they may be from mine. I just wish this artist also gave a little RESPECT to all Catholics in this country.

Those two situations are are nowhere near alike, and you know it. There are laws against public indecency, which were created to protect people from being exposed to other people's junk. If you get naked in public you will get arrested. Art, on the other hand, is protected under the constitution as free speech (or whatever the nomenclature is). It is defined as "the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others." It was displayed in a gallery, and people had a choice not to see it.

[rodsky]

It was displayed in a gallery, and people had a choice not to see it.

The next thing you'll hear are people (mostly Catholics) clamoring the government to close down ALL forms of art galleries. *shakes head*

-RODION

[necrotic freak]

As usual, online atheists here likes it.

[burikoy12]

If I were Jesus, I wouldn't find anything disrespectful about it. Most probably I'd laugh about it. If someone would put a p3nis on my photo, I would find it silly at worst, amusing at best. People who have problems with this have very negative views about s3xuality.

You're not Jesus. Fool!

[burikoy12]

The next thing you'll hear are people (mostly Catholics) clamoring the government to close down ALL forms of art galleries. *shakes head*

-RODION

Sure ka? Ngaman gipaclose ba diay nang mga nude art diha? The artwork in question simply toed the line between what is art and what is trash. Kun nude picture pa na sa imong nanay unya gibutangan ug P3nis sa nawong, malipay ka? Respect lang, Bro.

Now, art man kaha na. I dare the artist to make a similar work featuring Mohammad. Tan-awon nato. Art man kaha?

[balipseyev]

Mao ra ni ako masulti, sa artist ug sa uban..

[rodsky]

Mao ra ni ako masulti, sa artist ug sa uban..

Unfortunately, this doesn't apply to art.

It's easy to say "This is garbage..." when over 20 million people and bishops, cardinals, priests are behind you...

...if there's one thing I don't like about collective thinking is it makes blind people out of those who have the potential for original thought, insight and scrutiny of the status quo.

-RODION

[rodsky]

I dare the artist to make a similar work featuring Mohammad. Tan-awon nato. Art man kaha?

It's almost like you're saying "Pasalamat ka "peaceful" kaming mga Katoliko, kay kung dili pa, kung Muslim pa mi, patay na unta ka!"

Now tell me who is more barbaric?

-RODION

[LeeLeePot]

i'm not pissed with the blasphemy...i'm pissed with the red ***** stuck on the face! the artist was brave enough to put it on Jesus' face. why can't he place it on the queen of england or president obama or gloria arroyo or in his picture and proudly show it as art?


can i also do an art about my vag!na replacing everybody's mouth and eyes in their picture?! and will they consider it as art?!


i really don't get the artness in that idea.


pfft! that's chauvinism!