Film, Media & TV0 min ago
Controversial painting or not?
46 Answers
http://tinyurl.com/4breyrc
Apart from it being most offensive to most Christians.
Is it any worse than what can be seen on most militant Muslim's placards, when they protest on our streets?
The difference being do the police go out and interview these 'artists'?
Apart from it being most offensive to most Christians.
Is it any worse than what can be seen on most militant Muslim's placards, when they protest on our streets?
The difference being do the police go out and interview these 'artists'?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Are they going to seize Francis Bacon's Screaming Popes next?
http://www.weirdworm....sts/francis-bacon.jpg
Or is that not offensive to Christians?
http://www.weirdworm....sts/francis-bacon.jpg
Or is that not offensive to Christians?
Sandy sorry I asked if you were being ironic.
My understanding is as paul said its the worshipping of false idols, not an indictment of Beckham, but of the way that the public react to him. it could of been Cheryl Cole.
Where the dollar bill is on a regular crucifix is INRI an abreviation in Hebrew for "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews"
So the artist appears to be dipicting the worship of mamon achieved through the worship of false idols.
But hey what do I know I am but prawn in game of life.(Iknow its pawn)
My understanding is as paul said its the worshipping of false idols, not an indictment of Beckham, but of the way that the public react to him. it could of been Cheryl Cole.
Where the dollar bill is on a regular crucifix is INRI an abreviation in Hebrew for "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews"
So the artist appears to be dipicting the worship of mamon achieved through the worship of false idols.
But hey what do I know I am but prawn in game of life.(Iknow its pawn)
I'm not at all sure that this art work will be offensive to 'most' Christians - i would hope that in the spirit of tolerence and understanding that is a cornerstone of their faith, they will examine the artist's points which do explain why he has painted DB and why his is posed like this.
There is obviously no valid comparion between a piece of art and a protest placard - Muslims rarely if ever use pictorial images - indeed, presenting an image of Mohammed is considered a blasphemy.
A complaint about an exhibit is obviosuly different to a complaint about a protest - timing and availability of the 'offender(s)' being the most pertinent.
When they protest in 'our' streets? If they are citizens, then the streets are 'theirs' as well to protest if they wish, a right extended to all citizens in our democracy.
I think it is an interesting and provocative image - which is exactly what it is supposed to be.
Rarrely is art of any consequence not seen as 'offensive' to someone or other - that does not mean it is not valid, or that it should not be seen.
There is obviously no valid comparion between a piece of art and a protest placard - Muslims rarely if ever use pictorial images - indeed, presenting an image of Mohammed is considered a blasphemy.
A complaint about an exhibit is obviosuly different to a complaint about a protest - timing and availability of the 'offender(s)' being the most pertinent.
When they protest in 'our' streets? If they are citizens, then the streets are 'theirs' as well to protest if they wish, a right extended to all citizens in our democracy.
I think it is an interesting and provocative image - which is exactly what it is supposed to be.
Rarrely is art of any consequence not seen as 'offensive' to someone or other - that does not mean it is not valid, or that it should not be seen.
Weird...that strumpet Madonna did the same thing a few years ago, and it was seen by hundreds of thousands of people, and barely a whisper of complaint:
http://farm1.static.f...498768_0e3b488cea.jpg
http://farm1.static.f...498768_0e3b488cea.jpg
Although the standard death for a common criminal in Roman times, there is no doubt that the crucifix is a powerful symbol of Christianity, and as such its replication should be considered with an element of sensitivitiy.
That said, art is there to challenge or perceptions and beliefs, and I do believe that this was the artist's intention in this case.
Quite what the complaint was - and what the police 'investigation' revealed does not appear to have made the media with the same vigour as their keeness to show the image - but the media are not in the business of art and provocation - just selling papers and provoking arguments and outrages.
That said, art is there to challenge or perceptions and beliefs, and I do believe that this was the artist's intention in this case.
Quite what the complaint was - and what the police 'investigation' revealed does not appear to have made the media with the same vigour as their keeness to show the image - but the media are not in the business of art and provocation - just selling papers and provoking arguments and outrages.
> there is no doubt that the crucifix is a powerful symbol of Christianity, and as such its replication should be considered with an element of sensitivitiy.
Why?
I get annoyed that we all have to pussyfoot around anything to do with religion, but anything else in ther world is fair game for general discussion.
When The Life of Brian (the Python film) came out many Christians went up in arms about it, when most of them had never seen it.
This film, (which made no negative coments about Jesus), while very funny, was also a look at the way "false gods" are set up by the human race. When in the film Brian loses one of his shoes all his followers take off one of their shoes and walk around
with just one shoe and it becomes part of their religion.
I see no reason why religion should not be put up for discussion and debate likie any other topic.
If the religion is strong enough it will be able to take it.
Lets face it, religions like the Catholic church are still growing, when they have been party to scandal after scandal in the last few years.
Why?
I get annoyed that we all have to pussyfoot around anything to do with religion, but anything else in ther world is fair game for general discussion.
When The Life of Brian (the Python film) came out many Christians went up in arms about it, when most of them had never seen it.
This film, (which made no negative coments about Jesus), while very funny, was also a look at the way "false gods" are set up by the human race. When in the film Brian loses one of his shoes all his followers take off one of their shoes and walk around
with just one shoe and it becomes part of their religion.
I see no reason why religion should not be put up for discussion and debate likie any other topic.
If the religion is strong enough it will be able to take it.
Lets face it, religions like the Catholic church are still growing, when they have been party to scandal after scandal in the last few years.
in perspective, its described as 'a complaint'. the plod were probably wondering around the area and popped in to see what the painting looked like. job done. the artis then contacted the papers to tell them what happened, and hey presto he is now 'well known controverisal artist john cotten'.
it moves us on from tracy emin's 'my bed', and for this we can all be thankful.
it moves us on from tracy emin's 'my bed', and for this we can all be thankful.
andy-hughes
/// When they protest in 'our' streets? If they are citizens, then the streets are 'theirs' as well to protest if they wish, a right extended to all citizens in our democracy.///
I expected better of you than this Andy, it is being rather nit-picking of you.
When I said 'our' streets, I meant ours as a whole not just everyone else's, except the Muslims.
/// If they are citizens, ///
If they live in this country what else would they be?
/// When they protest in 'our' streets? If they are citizens, then the streets are 'theirs' as well to protest if they wish, a right extended to all citizens in our democracy.///
I expected better of you than this Andy, it is being rather nit-picking of you.
When I said 'our' streets, I meant ours as a whole not just everyone else's, except the Muslims.
/// If they are citizens, ///
If they live in this country what else would they be?
VHG - a degree of sensiticity should be used because knowngly and willingly provoking someone who's beliefs do not coincide is unkind.
I did say 'a degree of sensitivity' which is a long way from avoiding all mention of religion for fear of offence. But going too far the other way is equally unacceptable.
Just because someone has a faith does not entitle others to continually attack it on the basis that the individual should be able to 'take it'.
I did say 'a degree of sensitivity' which is a long way from avoiding all mention of religion for fear of offence. But going too far the other way is equally unacceptable.
Just because someone has a faith does not entitle others to continually attack it on the basis that the individual should be able to 'take it'.
Its all a bunch of fairy tales anyway, whichever version you choose.
They need to all get a life, Muslims, Christians, the lot.
Of course you are right though AOG. In this country a muslim seems to have more rights and be able to break the law with impunity if in the name of their religion. You know very well this all stems back to His Tonyness and slating of anyone who disagreed with the great New Labour cultural experiment as a Racist.
However I think that point is now well recognised and also independant communities now seen as an error. Not much point banging on about it as we are stuck with Tony and Bottlers c*ck up.
They need to all get a life, Muslims, Christians, the lot.
Of course you are right though AOG. In this country a muslim seems to have more rights and be able to break the law with impunity if in the name of their religion. You know very well this all stems back to His Tonyness and slating of anyone who disagreed with the great New Labour cultural experiment as a Racist.
However I think that point is now well recognised and also independant communities now seen as an error. Not much point banging on about it as we are stuck with Tony and Bottlers c*ck up.
AOG - given that if the word 'Muslim' was stricken from your AB lexicon you would be struck dumb, I think it is reasonable of me to pick you up on your point about Muslim protestors - since you are consistentlyu the only AB'er to my knowledge who can bring that faith into virtually every post or response you provide.
<<When I said 'our' streets, I meant ours as a whole not just everyone else's, except the Muslims.>>
what a shameful liar.
Why not just write 'the streets'? The truth is that words like 'Our' have been used by trouble makers and stitters of group animosity the world over since time began; Hitler did it, Stalin, Ku Klux Klan, BNP - Mugabe does it now in all his speeches.
It doesn't mean 'ours as a whole'.
It means 'ours not theirs' - 'us not them'
A dead giveaway of prejudice and animosity and not helped by weasel attempts to squirm out of it.
.
what a shameful liar.
Why not just write 'the streets'? The truth is that words like 'Our' have been used by trouble makers and stitters of group animosity the world over since time began; Hitler did it, Stalin, Ku Klux Klan, BNP - Mugabe does it now in all his speeches.
It doesn't mean 'ours as a whole'.
It means 'ours not theirs' - 'us not them'
A dead giveaway of prejudice and animosity and not helped by weasel attempts to squirm out of it.
.
-- answer removed --
Latest Posts
ChatterBank1 min ago
Film, Media & TV3 mins ago
Film, Media & TV3 mins ago
Film, Media & TV3 mins ago
Film, Media & TV3 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.