Flame Damnation

The Arts => Visual Arts => Topic started by: caskurô on April 08, 2009, 10:50:40 am

Title: Art Insulting Christians....Does This?
Post by: caskurô on April 08, 2009, 10:50:40 am
Jesus didn't have dibs on crucifixion.........


A SCULPTURE of a young woman on a crucifix has sparked anger and accusations of mixed messages just days before Easter.

The $40,000 artwork Naked Woman on Cross is being displayed at a Melbourne gallery at the holiest time of the year for Christians, the Herald Sun reports.

Sculptor Mitch Mitchell said it was meant to portray women's suffering.

But some church leaders and art lovers said it was a desecration of Christian beliefs.

Is the sculpture inappropriate? Tell us below.

St Michael's Uniting Church chief Minister Dr Francis McNab said Mitchell's message had backfired.

"I think it's supposed to say we have crucified women in society," Dr McNab said.

"But it's a shame he chose to sexualise it by the use of a young female. Older women had to suffer longer and much more.

He takes our focus on to the sexual side of it more than the social commentary."

Living Way Church Pastor Lanil Gunasekara was outraged by the sculpture.

"It is a blasphemous insult to the image of Jesus Christ who was crucified on the cross," he said.

"There is something wrong with an artist who produces something so insulting to Christians."

New White Gallery owner Melanie Thornton said some visitors were dismayed at the aluminium and wood sculpture.

"It is very powerful because it is life-size and displayed on its own," she said.

"Some people have commented that they were Catholic or Christian and found Naked Woman on Cross too confrontational."

Mitchell, known for his sculptures of sporting heroes, defended the work.

"It is the duty of an artist to question society's beliefs in religion and to test people about those beliefs, which this sculpture will do," he said.

"I've travelled through 35 countries and found down-trodden women in them all."

Mitchell's bronzes of Sir Don Bradman, John Landy and Ron Clarke are outside the MCG.

Dr McNab said he did not find the work offensive, "but I wouldn't go to see it".

Doesn't insult me...

it probably shows up Christians for their sick attitude to women as a whole....

It is a piece of art....not everyone is into art or the meaning of art....the reason it is confrontational will make the artist popular, that is all.

Of all the art I have heard about or seen, the one in the USA where they got a starving stray dog off the street and displayed it in a gallery, without giving it  food and water for two weeks, then watched the poor thing slowly die was one of the worst abuses of art freedom I have personally seen....pfft, a naked woman on a cross...doesn't even rate a thought.

Title: Re: Art Insulting Christians....Does This?
Post by: caskurô on April 08, 2009, 12:59:22 pm
OK TMBP, I've been checking around and cannot find Cloudddae's article and yes, you're right on both account.....1, it wasn't in the USA and 2, the story isn't confirmed yet we do see pictures of the dog in an art gallery, indeed..

There is another thing....very, very old dying dogs do actually starve as do humans....they starve from their intestines inability to absorb food...if you  do "feed" them, they still die.

Oh I'm not trying to condone acts of cruelty.  Just being a bit pendantic.  If it's confirmed that this 'artist' deliberately starved a dog, I think I'd like to do a bit of work on him.  All in the name fo art of course.  I'll call it I Hate Cruel Bastards and it will be a work of art.

Well the story goes he picked it especially off the street....so I would say it was dying anyway and even if they fed it, it would still die because his biological clock had run out....sure, it IS art but it is what I call BAD ART...the story is true enough...however, in our culture a vet would help it to die,......old people aren't given that courtesy when in the same condition and it isn't on public display either...




Title: Re: Art Insulting Christians....Does This?
Post by: caskurô on April 08, 2009, 01:13:36 pm
Jesus didn't have dibs on crucifixion.........

That is true btw getting back to the real reason this topic is raised. Indeed, being hung on trees and stakes was the way they executed everyone back in those times....the difference is that of course Jesus was an innocent death and not the death of a criminal. It isn't "blasphemy" to show a woman hung on a cross naked even by Christian standards however, there will ALWAYS be ones affronted and offended.