saint808 said:
hey smalls how is wrestling any worse or less appealing than piss christ?
let me ask what the ultimate message is behind wrestling then you sillyass.
here's a summary of piss christ and its effect:
THE CRUCIFIX SUSPENDED in urine was one of the least seductive works, but not the
least lifeless. It may have been included purely because of the notoriety of its
mocking title and its provocative recorded act, nothing more. Other repressed
objects are suspended in fluid but are not attributed to urination, only the cross is
specified in this way. Divest the work of these clues and it, like many others, are
merely enlarged postcards. Throughout the whole show a viewer senses only
privilege given, access provided, money made available and active support
uncritically received.
An interesting aspect of this debate is the exclusion of the artist. The artist is of no
consequence. It is neither here nor there whether a particular artist produced it or
meant anything by it. The debate centres on some perceived loss of control in
society, in fact it has little to do with art and serves to conceal the radical challenge
of art to every strata of society (without the divisiveness of fashionable perversity).
It is interesting to note that the artist, though always present through the debate,
gave little away as long as the work was visible, and only after the privilege was
withdrawn did he speak passionately and pathetiquely.
What we have then is a unique and modern problem. On one hand you have many
moral minorities making a fuss over something where the media triggered the
alarm, whilst the art world (like government) remained immune to the public
concern. Recent developments in Australian politics have already informed us of
the long term effects of ignoring the fears of the people.
The explanation for the implacable position adopted by the art custodians is
simple paternalism. Secondly, the very power that 'offense' gives to a rejected art
object, and also the 'in house', invitational privilege bestowed on art lovers (though
to the art world, nudity and sacrilege are all 'old hat' and 'Ho Hum')
The church having failed to broadcast its own cultural mandate and having lost
trust in its own artistic voices has allowed private, corporate and public-funded
institutions to take complete control of support for the arts and provision for
exposure of all art forms. The church's time, money and energy - wasted on
drawing unparalleled attention to possibly the most spiritless secular product - has
never been spent with the same conviction for the purpose of bringing attention to
its own artistic protagonists.
The result is an art world today that thinks it is the sole supporter of the arts; the
one true champion of the lone artistic voice; the dedicated libertarian condemning
prejudice and iconoclasm; the city of refuge for the fleeing visionary ( the visionary
mercilessly hunted by the righteously vengeful) and finally the bold promoter of
those cast out by a Philistine public. Oh, if this were true, that the art world were the
veritable bosom of Abraham.
THE REALITY OF the art world's corruption lies hidden during its own 'festivals of the
favoured' and in its own articles of faith. It describes itself and its artists as ones
who are issue-based and tough-minded; as makers and displayers of serious
works of art, as challenging all assumptions, and finally and so patronisingly,
encouraging the viewer to think. This self-congratulation climaxes with the claim
that only the art world accepts challenge and can with confidence confront the new
and welcome the indispensable threat of art.
The fact is, that this is not true. The threat of art is only embraced when the target
of blame is external to itself. The contradiction lies in the claim that "What no one
has the right to do, is to stop Meburnians from seeing serious art" (T. Potts, The
Age 9/10/97). Here the peaceful opposers are seen as cultural police (though they
have little power), while the art world describes itself as the upholder and
preserver of artistic and public rights. In the light of the gallery director closing the
show after the second act of vandalism, thereby denying Victorian citizens that
very right to be offended or stimulated, one wonders what internal or external
forces would cause such retreat. It was certainly done against principle and in the
face of the artist's own ire. Yet, ironically, while moral corruption imported form the
Big Apple had been down played, the artist's own anger was quick to cite New
York bouncers as the security style we are in need of down here.
It is at these intense moments of conflicting interests that the darker reality in the
illusion of honoured career and real disgrace; of opening accolades and hasty
closure; of exclusion and inclusion, as continually carried out by every art
establishment, are clearly seen. It is indeed just as often the art institution that
denies the public the right to see serious art - the kind of art that the institution itself
and its curators cannot abide or handle, what they cannot come at writing about, or
in good conscience display or collect.
This is most clearly seen in the practice of taking off the walls contemporary works
of which the public approves. In selectively taking out of circulation, keeping things
unseen in storage, blocking acquisition or exhibition proposals, deacquistioning,
failing to contextualize or promote through visibility, patrons and consultants are
manipulated. Acquisition committees never get to approve or let alone see the
works that send a shudder through curatorial departments, whose artists keep
alive such a fear of art that it confronts even the very lovers of art with experiencing
in themselves, the same desire to persecute and exclude.
The moral outrage in regard to Serrano's work in this case may be justified, but
this also highlights once again both the tiny impact post modernism has had on
society and the remoteness of contemporary artistic concerns from the general
publics' understanding. The furore itself though should be questioned because it
too attempts to claim the moral high ground. For there is no guarantee that such
protestations and physical attacks would not be made on religious works, or the
works of Christian artists, who challenged through unorthodox means and images
the spiritual leanness at the very heart of the established church. A leanness that
seems energized only in protecting its own traditions and not its risen Lord.
WHAT WE SHOULD keep in mind, in all the artistic platitudes brought out in this
debate, is that an attack by the church may not be an assault on art, and the
defense by the art institution may not be a defense of art at all, but in both cases a
mere closing of ranks. The Church reinforcing its own undeveloped theology of the
body, and the art establishment reinforcing its own non-prescriptive and pluralistic
notions that on this occasion are about a single view of sexuality and the body, that
is protected and supported because it is perceived as representing the 'spirit of
the age'. The art, in this case Serrano's, is merely the vessel, the platter and the
pool of blood in which the severed, bleeding reputations and values of past
prophets and priests are horrifically and deliciously displayed.
The real tragedy in all the media hype and fuss, is that it gives the impression the
'Art' is responsible for the uproar. It isn't so, it is merely one artist's privileged and
puerile glee in the fall of a few of our remaining bodily taboos. I suspect it is truly
the lack of challenge in these works and the absence of any credible critique of
them which now continues to provide the room whereby the radical nature of art
and its contribution in our society have been sidelined. Other contemporary work
that would make both the public, the Church and the art world groan, tremble,
seethe with anger, or even remove their hats or shoes in respect, is now all the
more removed and relegated, whilst this vacuous and powerless art work,
picturing an all too familiar object, has been taken to with claw hammers by those
who claim to venerate the object represented.
Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
