Week 4 Looking/seeing art: appreciation and analysis

Piss Christ

Piss Christ was made in 1987 as a part of a series by Andres Serrano. The series showed religious objects submerged in fluids. Andres Serrano got the plastic interpretation of christ and fully submerged in the artist own urine then photographed it which is 60×40 inches. This piece led to a debate in the US on public art funding. Serrano says the piece is not meant to be offensive and also sees himself as a Christian. He wants the pope to recognise him as an artist and wants to be allowed to create art for the church. Within his piece ‘Piss Christ’ he was trying to illustrate the reality of what Jesus went through on the cross. Serrano said ‘you have to look at what the crucifix actually represents, it represents the death of a man who was truly put to death who not only you know peed on himself probably shit on himself on that cross you know’.

On Palm Sunday the piece was attacked with hammers and destroyed after an “anti-blasphemy” campaign by French Catholic fundamentalists in the French city of Avignon. It was hung in the exhibition I Believe in Miracles, to mark 10 years of art-dealer Yvon Lambert’s personal collection in his 18th-century mansion gallery. Around 1,000 Christian protesters marched through Avignon to the gallery. Four got into the exhibition, one of the guards got threatened with a hammer and within seconds the plexiglass was smashed and the photograph slashed.

Eric Mezil the gallery director reopened the work with it still being destroyed. Arguably the destruction furthered the quality and narrative of the piece. The image of Christ within the image looks like the ‘classic’ catholic depiction of Jesus on the cross. Being a skinny, male possibly white with long hair. The composition is interesting to me as it’s done on a slight angle where typically the crucifix is depicted forward-facing. This gives the perception of depth to the piece as it softly fades. My personal response to this piece is it feels a little lacklustre. When I first saw the image I felt it may be making some form a comment on religion or spirituality but its not. I feel it was done for nothing more a shock value and the fact he knew he could. This seems to me as a tempt further his name and any outrage plays out into his favour by entertaining it his name and art is now being spoken about.     

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *