Criticism and Support of "Piss Christ"
"Piss Christ" by Andres Serrano is a work of art that has caused controversy for over a decade at this point. An artwork that displays a plastic crucifix suspended in a jar of Serrano's own urine, one would not be shocked to learn that many people are offended by his piece. These people who rally and fight against the artwork say that it is not only offensive to Christians but blasphemous as well.
What I find personally interesting about this controversial piece is that if a viewer did not know that the yellow liquid was urine (say the liquid was, instead, water mixed with yellow dye), it is a beautiful picture. The light hitting the urine glows, and so the image of Jesus is encased in a sort of halo. If I had to choose a word to describe the Jesus depicted by Serrano, unknowing of the medium used in the piece, I would use the word 'glorious.' I wanted to delve more into this subject to find what Serrano had to say for himself about the piece and why exactly people find it offensive and blasphemous.
Opponents of Serrano’s work do not see it as art, but as a disrespectful display of Christian symbols and values. Submerging a crucifix in a jar of urine immediately repulses most people, and it is from this initial reaction that they respond. Christians especially view the artwork as a blasphemous act against their God and their religion as a whole. As quoted from the online article“Sacrifice, Piss Christ, and Liberal Excess: The Rebuttal”:
“Ethically speaking, what was at issue in the Serrano affair was not simply offensiveness but ‘blasphemy,’ the quite different wrong of speaking against God or the
Sacred, or ridiculing things consecrated to God or held sacred." (Casey 2004).
The main problem with Serrano’s controversial piece is not that it hurts people’s feelings or offends them, but that it is blasphemous against the Christian faith.
This then brings into question the freedom of expression in the United States as a whole. Just because something upsets a certain group of people, can it be stopped? This was attempted when Serrano was showing his art at a museum: a man tried to bring a case to the courts in the hopes of getting Serrano banned from the exhibit. This did not work, and eventually a group of teenagers destroyed the photo with hammers. This led to even more controversy centered on the artwork. As
Mary-Margaret Goggin says in her article in the Art Journal:
“The political right in the United States today employs rhetoric not only to denigrate art it disapproves of, but also to discredit artists and other members of the arts
community. On the Senate floor, Senator Helms disparagingly...said of Serrano, 'He is not an artist, he is a jerk.' When such derogatory rhetoric is employed, it
escalates controversy and inflames prejudice." (Goggin 1991, 90).
Richard A. Posner, a US judge in the Court of Appeals on the seventh circuit frowns upon trying to limit art legally such as the man mentioned above attempted. Posner is very realistic: in his article “Art for Law’s Sake” he brings up such points as not being able to make everyone happy with any decision, the inability to determine a work of art’s value or offensiveness, and the struggle in the legal system with differing personal opinions. The bottom line is this: controversial artwork, even that centered around religion, is not going anywhere.
This legal battle does not seem to be a problem for Andres Serrano. Despite his many critics, he also has many supporters. While some people may disagree with his art or find it offensive, it is a universal in the art world that “definitions of ‘art’ are subjective” (Dittmar 2010, 4) and therefore some will always see Serrano’s art as just that: art. As Serrano said in an interview with Anna Blume in BOMB magazine:
“There is a fine line between exploration and exploitation and I have always been prepared to walk it and in doing so, put myself on the line. Life would be boring
and art would be dead if we didn’t take risks." (Blume 1993, 40).
While Serrano is widely accepted in the art world, it is somewhat shocking that he has supporters in the Christian faith as well. Many, like Jerry Meyer who writes for the Journal of the American Academy of Religion, recognize Andres’s attempt to show the mix of Jesus as human and divine by using natural bodily fluids. While an initial reaction to urine is repulsion, it is a natural thing and, not to steal a line from a children’s book, but everybody pees. Why should Jesus Christ always be shown in a very pure, clean way when becoming human like everyone else is a very messy ordeal? While maintaining the importance of body and blood in such things as the Eucharist, the Church has steadily moved away from viewing Jesus Christ as a man and instead prefers to view him as a purely divine creature.
Serrano’s point with this art work was to re-sacralize bodily fluids. Bodily fluids, especially blood, are referenced throughout the Bible and Andres sees no shame in using these as mediums for artwork. In one article, the author Richard says
“…Serrano’s use in Piss Christ of a defiling – or is it purifying? – bodily fluid to supply that aura…also has the effect of dramatically recarnalizing [sic] the fundamentals
of Christian dogma.” (Rambuss 2004, 513).
The most unlikely defender of Serrano’s work is Sister Wendy Beckett, a British art scholar, TV personality, and Catholic nun. When interviewed by Bill Moyers, Sister Beckett had the following to say about Serrano’s work:
“I thought he was saying…that this is what we are doing to Christ, we are not treating him with reverence. His great sacrifice is not used. We live very vulgar lives.”
This makes it seem as if, in all actuality, Serrano is the one truly defending the Christian faith. It seems, through these supporter’s eyes, that he is critiquing the modern take of religion by most people. He is trying to show how Christians are disrespecting the life and sacrifices of Jesus Christ by submerging him in a glass of urine. So why then has there been so much backlash over Serrano’s work?
Another piece to this puzzle is the time period during which Serrano’s piece first debuted. It was the late 1980s when “Piss Christ” first came on the scene, just a few years after the appearance of the AIDS pandemic. Serrano was just one among many artists using bodily fluids in their pieces, but as his seemingly attacked a religious symbol the controversy has remained much longer than others. Back when AIDS was first recognized as a lethal disease, people weren’t very well educated as to how it could spread. This could explain some of the disgust when his piece is regarded as art by some, but not the entirety of it.
Nowadays, since people know how AIDS is spread and what preventative measures to take, the main criticism made is about the religious aspect of the work. In my opinion, this country supposedly has freedom of speech, which due to expression contains the outlet of art. It can be considered blasphemous, but just because it is offensive to a certain group of people does not make it blasphemous to all. People may criticize, or even refuse to acknowledge Andres’s piece as art, but Serrano’s work will continue to stick around. Through criticism people may forget that Serrano is a Catholic, and the crucifix is a sacred symbol to him as well as his opponents. He just chooses to express himself in a different way. I would therefore like to end with what I think is a very good question from Damien Casey’s article:
“To whom do religious symbols belong and who has the authority to prescribe the manner in which they are used?” (Casey 2004).
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Blume, Anna. "Andres Serrano." BOMB 43 (1993): 36-41.
This is an interview between writer Anna Blume and Andres Serrano. While it mostly centers around his exhibit of photographs of dead bodies (called The Morgue), it also gives interesting insight to his thinking process as an artist. It is in this interview that Serrano says that if he didn't push the envelope art would be dead. He defends "Piss Christ" in this interview, saying that he did not mean to directly offend anyone but rather to put out a piece of art that he believed had a message behind it and would get a reaction from people.
Casey, "Sacrifice, Piss Christ, and Liberal Excess." [http://www.artsandopinion.com/2004_v3_n3/pisschrist.htm];
In this article, Damien Casey defends Andres Serrano not only as an artist but as a theologian as well. He maintains that Serrano was not trying to offend anyone with his works and that he has a deeper, important meaning besides anything that can be considered blasphemous. According to Casey, Serrano has full rights to freedom of expression.
Casey, Fisher, and Ramsay, "Sacrifice, Piss Christ, and Liberal Excess: The Rebuttal." [http://www.artsandopinion.com/2004_v3_n4/pisschrist-2.htm]
This article is a rebuttal to the article listed above. It includes three writers (a different Casey) who think Serrano is nowhere near being a theologian. They think Casey was indeed offensive and also blasphemous, and that he is largely if not wholly responsible for how his artwork is perceived and reacted to by the public audience.
Dittmar, Linda. "Introduction: Jamming the Works: Art, Politics, and Activism." Radical Teacher 89 (2010): 3-9.
In this article, Linda Dittmar acknowledges the fact that while potentially uncomfortable it is necessary to approach works such as "Piss Christ" in a classroom setting so as to open the minds of students. Her opinion is that while Serrano is clearly a polarizing figure in the art world, it is necessary to put aside one's own personal judgements when learning about potentially offensive subjects in a classroom setting so that students have the best chance to expand their knowledge.
Goggin, Mary-Margaret. "'Decent' vs. 'Degenerate' Art: The National Socialist Case." Art Journal 50 (1991): 84-92.
Goggin is a clear supporter of Serrano as seen in this article. As a member of the art world, she voices her opinion that the legal system attempts to bully artists into only portraying subjects they find appropriate or to their liking. According to her, Serrano has been one of these bullied artists. She says that when a piece comes out that people involved with the legal matter of art grants find threatening, they use their status and twist their words in an attempt to ruin that artist.
Meyer, Jerry D. "Profane and Sacred: Religious Imagery and Prophetic Expression in Postmodern Art." Journal of the American Academy of Religion 65 (1997): 19-46.
Jerry Meyer is another outspoken supporter of Serrano's work. He defends "Piss Christ" mostly from the artistic viewpoint rather than the religious viewpoint. He says that the piece is striking and beautiful, and that the urine actually makes the 'tawdry' plastic crucifix looks glorious as it is being illuminated in shades of gold and red, which were the traditional signifier in Medieval and Renaissance art of the saintly and divine.
Posner, Richard A. "Art for Law's Sake." American Scholar 58 (1989): 513-520.
This article examines the legal possibility of denying grants to artists such as Andres Serrano who thereby use the money to create images that can be potentially upsetting or even disturbing to some viewers. Posner, a United States judge, denies the legal possibility of denying government grants to these artists. His reasoning for such a decision is that one cannot legitimately measure either the 'goodness' of an art piece or its offensiveness because people have differing opinions and it is impossible to get every person to agree.
Rambuss, Richard. "Sacred Subjects and the Aversive Metaphysical Conceit: Crashaw, Serrano, Ofili." ELH 71 (2004): 497-530.
This article deals with the very sensitive subject of Serrano's use of bodily fluids in his pieces. This is not limited to urine as seen in "Piss Christ", but also includes blood ("Blood Cross") and milk ("White Jesus"). Serrano sees bodily fluids as completely natural, and they are seen rather frequently in the Bible. Rambuss explores the possibility that urine is used in "Piss Christ" not as a symbol of destruction or disrespect, but rather as a symbol of purification and the carnal nature of Jesus.
This is an interview between writer Anna Blume and Andres Serrano. While it mostly centers around his exhibit of photographs of dead bodies (called The Morgue), it also gives interesting insight to his thinking process as an artist. It is in this interview that Serrano says that if he didn't push the envelope art would be dead. He defends "Piss Christ" in this interview, saying that he did not mean to directly offend anyone but rather to put out a piece of art that he believed had a message behind it and would get a reaction from people.
Casey, "Sacrifice, Piss Christ, and Liberal Excess." [http://www.artsandopinion.com/2004_v3_n3/pisschrist.htm];
In this article, Damien Casey defends Andres Serrano not only as an artist but as a theologian as well. He maintains that Serrano was not trying to offend anyone with his works and that he has a deeper, important meaning besides anything that can be considered blasphemous. According to Casey, Serrano has full rights to freedom of expression.
Casey, Fisher, and Ramsay, "Sacrifice, Piss Christ, and Liberal Excess: The Rebuttal." [http://www.artsandopinion.com/2004_v3_n4/pisschrist-2.htm]
This article is a rebuttal to the article listed above. It includes three writers (a different Casey) who think Serrano is nowhere near being a theologian. They think Casey was indeed offensive and also blasphemous, and that he is largely if not wholly responsible for how his artwork is perceived and reacted to by the public audience.
Dittmar, Linda. "Introduction: Jamming the Works: Art, Politics, and Activism." Radical Teacher 89 (2010): 3-9.
In this article, Linda Dittmar acknowledges the fact that while potentially uncomfortable it is necessary to approach works such as "Piss Christ" in a classroom setting so as to open the minds of students. Her opinion is that while Serrano is clearly a polarizing figure in the art world, it is necessary to put aside one's own personal judgements when learning about potentially offensive subjects in a classroom setting so that students have the best chance to expand their knowledge.
Goggin, Mary-Margaret. "'Decent' vs. 'Degenerate' Art: The National Socialist Case." Art Journal 50 (1991): 84-92.
Goggin is a clear supporter of Serrano as seen in this article. As a member of the art world, she voices her opinion that the legal system attempts to bully artists into only portraying subjects they find appropriate or to their liking. According to her, Serrano has been one of these bullied artists. She says that when a piece comes out that people involved with the legal matter of art grants find threatening, they use their status and twist their words in an attempt to ruin that artist.
Meyer, Jerry D. "Profane and Sacred: Religious Imagery and Prophetic Expression in Postmodern Art." Journal of the American Academy of Religion 65 (1997): 19-46.
Jerry Meyer is another outspoken supporter of Serrano's work. He defends "Piss Christ" mostly from the artistic viewpoint rather than the religious viewpoint. He says that the piece is striking and beautiful, and that the urine actually makes the 'tawdry' plastic crucifix looks glorious as it is being illuminated in shades of gold and red, which were the traditional signifier in Medieval and Renaissance art of the saintly and divine.
Posner, Richard A. "Art for Law's Sake." American Scholar 58 (1989): 513-520.
This article examines the legal possibility of denying grants to artists such as Andres Serrano who thereby use the money to create images that can be potentially upsetting or even disturbing to some viewers. Posner, a United States judge, denies the legal possibility of denying government grants to these artists. His reasoning for such a decision is that one cannot legitimately measure either the 'goodness' of an art piece or its offensiveness because people have differing opinions and it is impossible to get every person to agree.
Rambuss, Richard. "Sacred Subjects and the Aversive Metaphysical Conceit: Crashaw, Serrano, Ofili." ELH 71 (2004): 497-530.
This article deals with the very sensitive subject of Serrano's use of bodily fluids in his pieces. This is not limited to urine as seen in "Piss Christ", but also includes blood ("Blood Cross") and milk ("White Jesus"). Serrano sees bodily fluids as completely natural, and they are seen rather frequently in the Bible. Rambuss explores the possibility that urine is used in "Piss Christ" not as a symbol of destruction or disrespect, but rather as a symbol of purification and the carnal nature of Jesus.