Annotation Paragraphs for review

The Christian Right reaction to Piss Christ-

In 1989 "Piss Christ" caused great upset within the church and among Christian right politicians. Christians found the artwork offensive by consideration that Serrano had profaned a sacred object. Since it's likely that all Christians would consider the crucifix a sacred object, it's likely they would all view the work as blasphemous. (Casey.) "Serrano, they might consider, has in effect pissed on God." (Casey.) On May 18th of that year Senator Alphonse D'Amoto tore up a copy of the photograph inside the chambers of the U.S. Senate. This act thrust Serrano and "Piss Christ" into the limelight and spawned a culture war. Serrano became a pariah. He received hate mail and death threats. (Fusco.) When the Christian Right politicians took aim at the National Endowments for the Arts (NEA) for helping finance a $15, 000 grant to Serrano, the NEA revoked the grant. (Vogel.) Serrano's "Piss Christ" was the center of controversy again, nearly a decade later, when Dr. George Pell, Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne, applied to the Supreme Court for a prevention order against a gallery show that was to feature the art. The injunction plea was unsuccessful but the director of the national Gallery of Victoria, where Serrano's show was to be held, cancelled the show claiming concern for the safety of his staff. (Casey.)

Artist Intentions for Piss Christ-

Andres Serrano never intended to offend the Catholic Church with his photograph, "Piss Christ". The piece was originally just part of a series in which the artist photographed statues of different connotations submerged in various fluids. The idea evolved from an interest in social taboos and an obsession with religious symbolism. (Fusco) The use of bodily fluids parallels the church's preoccupation with "the body and blood" of Christ. (Casey.) Serrano uses the symbols of the Church because he is drawn to their aesthetics. (Fusco.)"I have always felt my work was religious, not sacrilegious," (qtd. in Fusco.)Serrano said when discussing the Christian Right's assertation that Piss Christ was offensive to the church. "The best place for Piss Christ is in a church," (qtd. in Fusco.) the artist declared. Serrano tells that he is drawn to Christ but takes issues with the Catholic Church. In a letter to The National Endowment for the Arts, Serrano wrote, "My Catholic upbringing informs this work which helps me to redefine and personalize my relationship with god." (qtd. in Casey.)

Interpretations of Piss Christ-

Piss Christ is a color photograph that depicts a crucifix lit with an amber, hazy glow. The amber light shines down from above onto the blurred figure. The effigy is somewhat obscured but immediately discernable since the crucifix itself is one of the most recognizable symbols in the world. The photograph is taken at an angle and the positive space is aglow save for shaded areas on the figure's face. The negative space employs shadow to outline the body and perimeter of the cross. The image is, without a doubt, striking, but it is still a fairly simple, ambiguous image. This description seems to be like much of the ecclesiastical art that one might find in Church, but Serrano's piece gets its amber glow from the artist's own urine. The beauty and simplicity the art countered with the use of an "offensive" bodily fluid make the art ambiguous and open. It is the title, Piss Christ, which makes the piece declarative. But even this “declaration” is open to interpretation. The title may be a literal "pissing on Christianity." (Casey.) Others may say that the urine represents our wasteful culture. Daniel Casey takes a different approach to the art, hypothesizing that because criminals were executed outside of city limits "(Christ) was literally expelled from society." (Casey.) In this sense the urine is a representation of the crucifixion itself.

Is shock art ART?

What is art? Is there any definition of art that tells us it has to be nice? If not, why is it that many groups and individuals feel strongly that art that offends should not be considered art. Some have called shocking art, such as "Holy Virgin Mary", "filth" or "obscene". Yet others have called these works "thought-provoking" and "cutting-edge". (Silberman) In 1997,in a gallery in Sweden, seven photographs depicting lurid sex acts from Andres Serrano's "History of Sex" show where destroyed by protesters. The attack was caught on tape, filmed by someone who came in with the attackers and later posted the video interspersed with images of Serrano's work and type over it reading "is this art?" (Vogel) The prominent debate seems to be whether or not "shock-art" like Serrano’s can really be considered art. The Concise Oxford American Dictionary defines art as "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination...producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power." (Oxford 43). Still, "art" remains one of our languages most controversial words to define. That controversy has been centered on shocking art, or "shock art" for some time. People are used to experiencing shock. It is everywhere in the media and in a sense society has become numb to it. We have come to expect it. In fact, our society is so shock driven many artists feel the need to use shock to draw attention to their work. This is not a new tactic. Gericault's 1818, Severed Limbs and Goya's 1801, "Saturn Devouring its own children" were as shocking in their day as any "shock-art" works are today, but their "shock value has been "diluted over time."(Silberman) Today these works are viewed as artistic masterpieces and no one disputes whether or not they can be called "art". Artist may use shock to draw you to the work, but generally there is a deeper message beneath the shock or the shock is a method toward evoking powerful emotions. (Grayling) When asked about his work being reduced to shock value for right wing politicians, Serrano says, "I think that’s the dilemma for them. My work does more than just shock. It also pleases" (qtd. in Fusco)

What is Andres serrano's inspiration/ outlook on his artworks?

Serrano describes himself as a "conceptualist with a camera”, “an artist first and a photographer second.”(qtd. in Fusco.) He admits he is not technical with his photography and has no real interest in it except as a means to getting the final image. (Fusco) He began producing professionally in the 1980s. His earliest work concentrated on reworking Catholic iconography and throughout his career he has used symbols that are relevant far beyond the confines of the art world. Serrano's 1990 exhibit, "Nomads", featured 13 homeless people in New York City, most of whom were African-American. The show also featured a collection, titled “Klansman”, depicting members of the Atlanta, Georgia chapter of the KKK. The two exhibits together implicitly referred to each other. Serrano said he “liked the idea of people reconciling their feelings for one group against their feelings for another.”(qtd. in Fusco) Serrano presented these extremes together they became cyclical symbols in the sense that each could stand for the outcome of the other. Both stand as symbols for outcasts of society. It is through the implications of his symbols that Serrano approaches social issues. Serrano’s work deals with "the ambiguity of the abject and it's relation to the sacred." (Casey) Serrano strives to confront his public with social dilemmas, sometimes using blood, semen and menstrual blood (Fusco) and even corpses (Casey) in his work. Serrano likes symbols because although they are clear they are still open to interpretation. (Fusco) This suits him and his own feelings of ambivalence and confusion. If there’s one thing Serrano doesn’t like about symbols, it is being one, saying, “One of the things I am happy about in my life as an artist is that I am not a Hispanic artist. I am just an artist. (qtd. in Fusco.) Serrano is trying to connect with people in a positive way and have an impact on them. "I like to give people what they want and what they don’t want." (qtd. in Fusco.)