The artwork above has been deemed very controversial and has opened debates about whether there are limitations when it comes to art. The photograph shows a crucifix floating in the artist’s urine. Andres Serrano said that “it alludes to a perceived commercializing or cheapening of Christian icons in contemporary culture”.
Here a bit of history of the art piece:
It was released in 1987 and favorably received. It was re-exhibited in 1989 and that’s when the controversy started. People were upset about this artwork and that he received money from the National Endowment of the Arts which is a government agency ‘using taxpayer’s money’. This caused a huge uproar where the artist received death threat and lost grants. This even led to the NEA losing a bit of funding.
The art has been exhibited in other museums where it has experienced attacks from patrons. One incident was when someone try to use a hammer and another incident had the artwork vandalized from repair.
The artist, himself, notes the photograph symbolizes the way Christ died and that he also grew up catholic.
Personally, I feel like artists have artistic freedom and freedom of expression. Piss of Christ showed the limitations of that which is what makes it interesting. Art is supposed to ignite emotions but not ones that cause people to vandalize art.
I guess the question is if there is a limitation to art? Is there a point when art reaches its tipping point within reasonable standards (such as nothing morally too wrong or illegal)? For example, an artist murdering someone for their artwork is obviously wrong. So let’s not venture into that but stay within the legal and morally correct realm. Even the idea of what is morally correct is very subjective since different cultures have different standards. Ah, moral relativism which is a topic for another day!
