Humour or blasphemy
 

Personally, I think it's a little bit funny, but some people don't (the holy ones...)

About the artist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Kippenberger

About the story:
http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=7343

What it's all about:
http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/6...fstetfrgd8.jpg

Personaly I concider the concept of blasphemy ridiculous, but that being said, that piece seems tasteless to me.

Blasphemy means that some religious zealots take it upon them to decide in place of their god when their deity shold feel offended - according to their tiny, mortal opinion. That says it all!

I consider the pic to be - unimportant in every meaning. And wether "religious people" are offended by it or not I don't give a penny for. That said the Christian obession with crucification is an absurd thing to me, and thus a rightful target for satire or mockery.

:down: The only blasphemy I see here is against good art.

Tasteless is the right word for it. Some people who claim they are 'artists' think that coming up with new ways to offend a segment of the population makes you 'edgey' or whatever.

Its just dumb, and not very creative.

<sarcasm>Oh I get it....you made fun of Christians by mocking a crucifix...oh...thats never been done before......idiot.<sarcasm>

:roll:

I'm pretty sure "religious people" feel the same about you:D

'Tis still bad "art" no matter why you don't like it.

Bad art = an opinion while good art = an opinion, therefore bad art = good art:D

It reminds me about another "piece of art" once shown in Denmark by an Italian guy living here.
He put ten blenders on ten tables, poured water in them and put a fish in each of them. All the medias called them gold fish, but they were actually red swordtail:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_swordtail
The tricky part of the story was that he plugged them to the electrical network, so anyone switching on one of the blenders would instantly kill the fish. And you can guess what happened. Some smart @$$ just had to try...

Would have been much more interesting if he'd rigged it up so that the person turning on the blender got the shock:88)

Brazied frog legs ... Yummm. :yep:

Oh! Tasteless Art. Sorry haven't had breakfast yet. :D

For someone to define the above piece as good art, I'd suspect they probably live in a trailer park and lack an education.

-S

PS. From the 1963 communist agenda for America:

Seems they are succeeding. This falls under the ugliness and repulsive section.

Not really a good one - At least kindergarten though.

-S

We already had a 'pig messiah' here in Finland in 1969 I think. The maker, Harro Koskinen, did get into some trouble with the law though.
http://www.kiasma.fi/index.php?id=190&FL=1&L=1

http://www.kiasma.fi/site/img/kwpop/kuvat/N0088200.jpg

I guess one should ask, what's the point of placing a frog or a pig on a crucifix in the first place? In Kippenberger's case it was a perchance for polemics...

Polemics
Po*lem"ics\, n. [Cf. F. pol['e]mique.] The art or practice of disputation or controversy, especially on religious subjects; that branch of theological science which pertains to the history or conduct of ecclesiastical controversy.

Just another artist "making his mark" on the world. Reminds me of Warhol and his "Campbells soup can"... :shifty:

Same mentality a serial killer uses heading into a shopping mall when he plans to shoot innocent people. A childs mentality.

-S

If it needs an explanation it's bad art.


One of my pet peeves is when artists have to explain their work before it makes any kind of sense. Most modern art falls into this category.
Seriously, a circle on an otherwise blank canvas is just a circle, not art.
A canvas that is just randomly spattered with paint is not art, it's just a mess.

Am I a phillistine? Some would say so, but I think art should invoke an emotional response in the viewer( not disgust or bewilderment) , or should strike them as beautiful.

I always get the image that modern artists are like 3 year olds, running up to the public, holding up their latest drawing and saying "Look what I did!"

"That's nice.....it's a....a...."

"It's a house! Can't you tell?"

Some "art" makes me want to puke... pretty visceral response. Does that count? ;)

Good art - when it grabs you, you feel touched and attached
Bad art - when you look at it and do not feel anything

If the artist has to explain his expression is different from a Pre-Schooler, it expresses something alright.

-S

Speaking about art, what the hell was Paul Allen thinking when he built this? He must have been on some good drugs that day.

I think this applies to this thread too. Its an eyesore.

-S

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...-EMPPano11.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ail_in_EMP.JPG

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...eattle_EMP.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...EMP_needle.jpg