Andres Serrano

[RayL1983]

What a weirdo. I like him.

[MrMikeludo]

@mikeybakes79that art's "purpose" was:"No but art is about taking taboo's and playing with their ideas" - about affecting a reaction to taboo sentiments. Except, according to who - you? Do you think this is what Giotto - Brunelleschi - Da Vinci - Michelangelo - Caraveggio - Titan - Botticelli, had in mind? To become worldly provocateurs? I don't think so. So perhaps you should look towards yourself to see where the blame for any shame should be placed.

[mikeybakes79]

@MrMikeludo Actually I have a philosophy degree and am studying Fine Arts currently. Firstly artists that pre-date the Modernist movement did set out to be provocateurs. Da Vinci and Michelangelo did move away from the norm as did Raphael, the first of the Renaissance artists to be renowned for the use of imitating the third dimension within western painting. Prior to that larger subjects were considered more important. As Michalengelo painted god as the same proportions as Adam was deemed very

[mikeybakes79]

controversial for the time. Even Caraveggio's use of brilliant blue's placed on women's dresses, at the time, was seen as almost blasphemous. So yes they did purposefully set out to shake up art in those times. I clarified that art as pertaining to taboo was only one of the many purposes of art. What do you think makes the artists you mentioned more valid than Serrano. Whom I didn't equate to Corbet I merely pointed out that in his time he was deemed controversial even though he was a realist.

[mikeybakes79]

And you did start out with the name calling, you addressed it to a community that could enjoy this work for what it is by equating them with Hitler and calling them fascists. I am in that community that you insulted, therefore you insulted me by calling me fascist. And no I'm not the only one who plays with the idea's of Taboo's in Art. Henson, Mann, Duchamp, Van Gough (though he did think he was Jesus re-incarnated), Cunningham to name just a few. It's always been the role of artists to do

[mikeybakes79]

something in their society. By holding up images and saying "look there's something wrong with our society". But there are undoubtedly other reasons for art. By referring to definitions you need also not just look at the word itself but the context they are said in. You use of "Nature" seemed to be that of the human nature by the context of what was said.

[MrMikeludo]

@mikeybakes79 Having a philosophy degree, you should realize that there are different philosophical approaches towards everything; I am a Platonist, so I do subscribe to the concept of absolute truths. I did not start with any name calling, I suggested to someone that if they did believe that the simple definition of "art" was merely to provoke, then they should appreciate Hitler - for what he did, and because - remember, Hitler was an:"Anyone who wants to win the broad masses must know the...

[mikeybakes79]

@MrMikeludo I agree that there are several philosophical stances. However circular arguments do nothing but reinforce dogmatic ideas. Straying away from the idea of art to discourage proper discourse on the matter, is equivocal to not saying anything useful at all. What is the basis of your belief that this isn't art? Is it Aesthetics or the fact you don't like people questioning held traditional standards and ideas?

[mikeybakes79]

I said nothing about any of these artists ONLY wishing to provoke society however they did wish to change the society and art forms that they were existing within. There is no denial of this else Da Vinci wouldn't have attempted to create the proportions of man so exactly as in comparison to the subjects head. This had not been discovered, or rather, put in to writing before hand. He also wanted to build a machine to fly, something the church was against.

[mikeybakes79]

You, I believe have succumbed to the propaganda of those that say art has to be beautiful. Life isn't always aesthetically pleasing, in fact in most cases it's downright ugly, so why does art have to be beautiful?

[MrMikeludo]

@mikeybakes79 key that opens the door to their heart: propaganda tries to force a doctrine on the whole people - The whole art consists in doing this so skillfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real" - artist first, and before he acquired his political power. If you are studying art, and you believe that for Da Vinci the purpose of art was merely to provoke, or that Da Vinci did not believe in absolute truths, I would suggest that you should take a closer look at Da Vinci...

[mikeybakes79]

@MrMikeludo Btw really, what is your insistence that Hitler has anything to do with this argument line?

[MrMikeludo]

@mikeybakes79 I'm sorry, I'm working late and sleeping at the job. I'll reply to your posts tomorrow night.

[mikeybakes79]

@MrMikeludo No worry's though I probably won't be able to reply for up to a week, nightmare week at uni. I'll try to get on asap though.

[MrMikeludo]

@mikeybakes79 If you are interested in a more detailed explanation, there is a forum where I have explained it, at:" Philosophy chat forum (PCF) philosophy chat & forums for discussion," actually, I think you should enjoy it in general, as there are many different philosophy forums here. They welcome new members. The title of my post; in the philosophy/art forum, detailing some of these concepts, is:"What is art - Da Vinci The Annunciation."

[MrMikeludo]

@mikeybakes79 As Da Vinci did say:"Let no man who is not a mathematician read the elements of my works - true sciences are those which have penetrated through the senses as a result of experience and thus silencing the tongues of disputanta, not feeding investigators on dreams but always proceeding successively from primary truths and established principles, in a proper order towards their conclusion. This may be witnessed in the principles of mathematics, that is to say, number and measure..."

[MrMikeludo]

@mikeybakes79 then does try to imply some higher meaning after the fact, to justfy their "artistic" pretense. As far as relying upon me for his patronage, he wouldn't be able to buy a cup of coffee with any money he may have made from me, and I don't acknowledge his existence in any positive way, but merely voice my opposition to his being defined as a legitimate artist. But that too is something which you have interpreted to fit your personal predilictions, as you did, first, remember, state..

[MrMikeludo]

@mikeybakes79 their actual definition, of:"a scientific generalization based on emperical observations of physical behavior." Also, I didn't say that you equated Gandhi to Courbet, and I did not equate Gandhi to Courbet, but rather that you defined Courbet as a revolutionary, and did associate Serrano with Courbet - and a revolutionary, there was no mention of Gandhi in the equation. My point about Serrano is that he simply makes pictures, and with no "higher" meaning associated with them, and..

[MrMikeludo]

@mikeybakes79 Hmm, I'm supposing that you are either a lawyer, or an artist. I didn't start the name calling, you did. Actually, I tried to engage you in a dialogue, you responded in a hostile manner, not me. Also, you keep accusing me of reading into your statements, as opposed to understanding their literal meaning, but yet I didn't say that my citing the function of The Laws of Nature referred to some kind of epistemological interpretation of their function, but rather I was referring to..

[mikeybakes79]

that doesn't apply in any way to this person. He does not lead any country and in fact is not even a major figure in the art world. He had his moment of fame due to the controversy that people not unlike yourself have bestowed on him and would probably fade in to oblivion. Having said that I like that he causes controversy. As for equating Gandhi to Corbet, I wasn't, that was something that you read in to the statement so as to build a "straw-man" for you to tear down. Shame on you.

[mikeybakes79]

@MrMikeludo it is taking the piss out of something that has set standards of living for centuries but has no truth to it. Actually to be honest I think, as with the rest of the series, he was playing with light through different fluids some bodily and this has got the most attention due to the fact that it was a religious icon in piss. As for your fascination with Hitler, I would highly recommend looking at the body-count that your own leaders have and maybe stop harping on with a comparation

[mikeybakes79]

@MrMikeludo Hahaha this is hilarious I love how worked up you are. I didn't call any of this work beautiful as such. I admit that there is a beauty to it but art does not have to be beautiful. Laws of physics do not equate to laws of nature, nature is something that in your statement applies to ones nature as if morals are something that are equivocally built in to humanity. What Serrano was trying to state, I believe, is that it does have religious relevance in that

[MrMikeludo]

@mikeybakes79 money: for "shitting in your face" - or "masturbating in your face," and then having Serrano laugh all the way to the bank while you stand there with his shit, and cum, all over your face, and as you continue to say:"Thank you - oh great artist god, for allowing me to be a part of your world." But, of course, you believe that your supreme intellectual greatness enables you to believe that the joke is on us, not you, as Serrano would have you believe as you have been brainwashed.

[MrMikeludo]

@mikeybakes79 that is scientifically "wrong." Also, you continue to contradict your own self, in typical psychopathic manner, and first cite the behavior of Gandhi, as standing up to authority, then turn around and say that people should just shut up and sit by passively watch Serrano be given their tax dollars for taking photos of piles of shit. As far as Serrano getting what he wants, you are exactly correct: which is him dumping a pile of shit in your face, and conning you into giving him..

[MrMikeludo]

@mikeybakes79 well then there is something wrong with your mind. As far as citing Serran's statement about religion, I wasn't bringing religion into it, I was citing HIS psychopathic behavior, as he first stated that "Piss Christ" contained some deep religious meaning, then he simply contradicted his very own words. And just as you have done the exact same thing, by first citing Jefferson:"..he who believes what is wrong," as you "believe that a "pile of shit" is defined as beautiful. but...

[MrMikeludo]

@mikeybakes79 know what kind of person would do that, a psychopath. Just as a psychopath would define a 5-foot -tall photo of a"pile of shit" as beautiful. As it is a scientific fact that:"The cognitive neuroscience of swearing - what kinds of words trigger emotions: there are bodily effluvia; shit - piss (because) epidemiologists tell us they are major vectors of disease" - the mind contains an area called the "repulision," or "disgust," factor, and if you think a "pile of shit" is beautiful..

[MrMikeludo]

@mikeybakes79 Can you read your own words Mr. Intellectual? You did not call Gandhi a revolutionary, you called Courbet a revolutionary, and then, by association, compared him to Serrano's work today. That's not a leap of faith, it's a function of grammatical syntax. I don't know what kind of human being would deny the existence of Laws of Nature, but I wonder if you would stand by those words as someone puts a 357 magnum to your face to prove: mass times acceleration = force. Actually, I do...

[mikeybakes79]

@MrMikeludo What does that quote have to do with DaVinci's art. That has more to do with his early takes on science and also his invention. Again you digress with a quote, though quotes to reinforce your argument are a good thing, they have to apply to the actual conversation at hand. Why is Serrano's work not art?

[MrMikeludo]

@mikeybakes79 Gotta go now, I will answer that tonight.

[mikeybakes79]

The fact that you briefly brush over Serrano stating his religious views, a statement that as it stands says nothing about the argument that you are attempting to put forward but volumes about why you really dislike this work. Since you quoted Jefferson then maybe you should think about what this obvious athiest had to say about the attitude you seem to be pushing across:

[mikeybakes79]

better. To me you seem to be defending authorities such as Lewis and "The American Way", which in itself is shown not to work, and you're drawing conclusions from your own thoughts, not from actual facts. I'm fascinated that you believe there to be ""True Laws of Nature" that all revolutionaries actually live by". There are no such things as this idea is completely subjective.

[mikeybakes79]

@MrMikeludo As there is a limit of five hundred words, when did I say that Serrano was a revolutionary or compare him to Gandhi. I merely pointed out that Gandhi was a revolutionary. I didn't suggest he was compassionate I merely say that his art is valid and quite beautiful. Your pseudo-intellectual use of words doesn't account for the fact that you have actually said very little. And I don't know where you get the idea that I'm an idealist from, in fact skeptic or pessimist would describe me

[MrMikeludo]

@mikeybakes79 of the self-less, idealistic compassionate "revolutionary" that you may imagine that he his, he isn't. He is a self-obsorbed "fascist" himself, not a magnamious humanitarian, trying to impose HIS 'will' on the masses: in direct contradiction to the "self-evident" universally applicable "Laws of Nature," which all true revolutionaries actually live by, and cite as their constitutional agenda, such as myself. Because, remember, the concept of 'uglines' is now art's 'rule,' & norm.

[MrMikeludo]

@mikeybakes79 and as I did already cite the reference, where Serrano said:'He'd never been particulary religious,' and too Serrano did, in the same interview, also:"Serrano turned to the issues of trangressions, 'Some outrages, he said, simply would not stand - I've had parties where people spill drinks on furniture, and don't pick it up" - become enraged because someone "spilled a drink" on his furniture. I don't believe that Gandhi would do that. You shouldn't believe that Serrano is the...

[MrMikeludo]

@mikeybakes79 imposed 'against' mankind, and so the man-made rules can become capable of affecting a "fascist state," as you suggest: which gives the power to one man. "Good revolutionaries" rebel against this exact tyranny, to become capable of affecting a society that is capable of living in accordance to the "Laws of Nature," such as Jefferson et al did do. Serrano was a 'revolutionary' only 'for' Serrano, and he could not care less about any Laws of Nature, or any other human beings...

[MrMikeludo]

@mikeybakes79 Good point. Except, I am familiar with the concept of artists being defined as revolutionaries, and while implying they are like Gandhi, or Jefferson - Adams, or Paine. But, remember, Jefferson wrote:'We hold these truths to be self-evident,' and Paine wrote:'..in America The Law Is King.' So the concept, applied to Serrano, is backwards. Because, the function of a 'good' revolutionary' is the concept of the revolutionaries revolting against the tyranny of the man-made rules...

[mikeybakes79]

@MrMikeludo becoming an agitator is not about gaining power or becoming center of attention, necessarily. Gandhi was an agitator would you equate what he did to being Hitler-esque because of his standing-up to authority. As for addressing Taboo's, I think you have misunderstood what I was trying to get across. Art serves many purposes, one of those is addressing Taboo's. Look at Courbet, who can by today's standard seem quite tame. His ideas on presenting the common man in "Stonebreakers" was

[mikeybakes79]

@MrMikeludo becoming an agitator is not about gaining power or becoming center of attention, necessarily. Gandhi was an agitator would you equate what he did to being Hitler-esque because of his standing-up to authority. As for addressing Taboo's, I think you have misunderstood what I was trying to get across. Art serves many purposes, one of those is addressing Taboo's. Look at Courbet, who can by today's standard seem quite tame. His ideas on presenting the common man in "Stonebreakers" was

[MrMikeludo]

@mikeybakes79 You state this:"Art is about - questioning 'why' we have taboo's," rather matter of factly, perhaps you could cite your reference. In "Entarte Kunst" hitler did become capable of affecting another one of his crimes against humanity, but in a kind of reverse psychology way, as he proclaimed:"The Jew is deformed, no wonder the art is deformed." Which did then cause people to believe that if they dare object to modern art, they were, in essence, siding with Hitler. Objectively...

[Robertjcksn40]

Gotta love these wacky libtards dumbfucks that look at a picture of a cross submerged in piss and say "beautiful". Imagine if it was a picture of Muhammad submerged in piss, you liberal fucks would be out for blood. Being a Liberal means living a life of double standards and hypocrisy while trying to find the most radical view on everything and anything thinking it might make you appear intelligent.

[MrMikeludo]

@AlexShrugged Can you imagine creating something beautiful, something cerebral - ethereal and powerful, and expecting these people: the so-called fine art community, to be affected by it? People who have become so affected, so degraded and so pagan: so literally uniquely humanistic brain dead, that they could actually stand in front of 5-foot-tall photographs of "shit." The most astonishing thing is, these people do sincerely believe that, in so doing, they are proving how 'cultured' they are.

[gl0gg]

he's not a fucking narcissist. he's a photographer, you jerks. lol.

[MrMikeludo]

@gl0gg The man reached into his toilet, pulled out a pile of shit - photagraphed his shit, blew it up five feet tall, hung it in a gallery and charged people to look at it. As Drs explain:'What kinds of concepts trigger negative emotions - there are shit, piss - Normal people avoid negative critism, not so with a narcissist. Publicity - IN ANY FORM, triggers narcissistic supply. Why? Because it provokes people to pay attention to the narcissist." Naw, he's not a narcissist, he's a great artist.

[MrMikeludo]

In early 2000, the New York Times visited Serrano, and: 'There - hung a nearly life-size statue of Jesus. Asked about it, Serrano shrugged. He'd never been particularly religious.' As Dr. Vaknin explains:'Narcissists lack the ability to empathise - Attention of any kind: POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE, constitutes narcissistic supply.' Andres Serrano, admittedly, has NO CONVICTIONS OF ANY KIND, except, of course, to enable himself to become the center of attention, and receive publicity for himself.

[TheTinkle]

@allofyoukids

To the commenters below: Why would he "attack", as you say, other religions? Remember that an artist deals with what encompasses him. He was brought up Roman-Catholic.

[TheLearningFish]

He's obviously more of a bodybuilder on drugs than an artist. If he had done "Piss Menorah" for example, if would have been depicted as antisemitic and would have lost his job. "Piss Mohamed" : he would have got a fatwa on his head, and be murdered within weeks. You've got to have no balls to attack the weakest and the most peaceful.

[babyranks4]

@TheLearningFish What most peaceful??? You've got to be kidding me. Their all equally crazy.

[stevenalive]

If you werent such a moron you would understand it has npthing to do with balls. Christianity created a symbol and Idol. That Idol's scrutiny and interpretation is then left to the masses. Islam never put forth an Idol , a symbol to be interpreted into cultures visual lexicon.

[Catwalan]

If Andres really has balls, he would depict Mohammad in the same way he has with Christian symbols.

I doubt very much he would go that route. And if he attempts it, I guarantee his head will be be severed from his torso.

Peace!

[moutonblanc14]

Nike sa mere la pute suce ma queu salopeeee jnike ta mere touche rncore a une seul religion jte beseee

[henrikzitny]

To swinia!

[ibtehajshahid]

While I disagree with what he had to photograph to prove his point, how revolting those things are that he photographed and how he used insult and shock to generate interest, technically his art is very powerful. It's strong, though like I said before (even though I am a full liberal) I do not like the way he photographs things and what he does.

It's just disgusting, however as I am very good at removing biases, I think it is very good as art.

[MrJhonvond]

@inertloop Ooooooh what a great insult, deserves major recognition. I applaud your vast amount of intellect.

[MrJhonvond]

@InertLoop pathetic "comeback" my point proves itself. The fact that you actually took the time to look through my profile shows more about you than you think. Pretentious? Not at all. Inquisitory? Of course. Come back when you outgrow that teenage boy mentality.

[InertLoop]

@MrJhonvond Jesus, the amount of FAGGOTRY in your last comment is unbelievable. I can almost hear your extremely faggy voice saying "Pretentious? Not at all. Inquisitory? Of course" Eeww! Makes me want to throw up! Then one of your "kind" watches carefully the vomit on the floor and after a while says "Mhmm, a masterpiece" Hahaha!

[InertLoop]

@MrJhonvond And no, I didn't spend too much time "looking through" your profile. I only watched 2 o 3 seconds of your fav vid. That's enough to "detect" your disgusting FAGGOTRY, you QUEER. Bahahaha!

[ibtehajshahid]

@InertLoop Why are you so, so, so small minded? Do you really take pride in using small uneducated words? I hope you are able to get some education, but I gather you think it is "cool" to do it right now.

[InertLoop]

negro caribbean insulting bullshit

[MrJhonvond]

@InertLoop Small minded, uncultured trog.

[InertLoop]

@MrJhonvond Pretentious and ugly FAGGOT.

[TheSushisexbar]

How could he possibly talk to any of his models, especially a clans man, to take pictures of them, and explain why he wants to take pictures of them? How do you do that?

[GoldenRatio2]

Brilliant photographer in my view. Many of his images haunt you long after you've stopped looking at them... incredibly powerful.

[badacyborg]

A famous man once said, and I quote, "FUCK YOU ALL!!!".

[liberatethelemons]

Serrano? A brilliant man with a vision. Piss Christ was meant to display his deeply internal relationship with Christ. He didn't just fill a jar with piss, stick Jesus in it and laugh it up for no reason. Nothing reckless about his art. He juxtaposes beauty with vulgarity and I am envious as to why it wasn't myself who came up with that. He grew up devoutly Catholic. Art isn't always safe, isn't always pretty, isn't always traditional. In my opinion, his photography is beautiful.

[badacyborg]

Oh my god, what the fuck, people?! This is disgusting!! Seriously, how can you call Blood and Semen smeared onto a camera good art? Looking at this guy's art makes want to puke.

[kaindrg]

if the title was some thing different like supre nova and u nkew nothing of the stuff going into it is it still art disgusting? dont be shallow fool.

[badacyborg]

Okay, what's not disgusting about Andres Serrano's art?

[gdubh]

@badacyborg why did you search for him?

[badacyborg]

@gdubh

I had to research and imitate his "art form" for a college project. Trust me, I usually lay off the haterade, but for Serrano, I'll make an exception.

[Dlerue]

@badacyborg Technically, his photographs are brilliant. The idea of art is to make you think. I don't agree with every piece of art I see, but if I can look at it, and see what the artist is saying, then it is good art.

What makes "Blood and Semen" "good art", is that if you were to see that picture in a gallery or otherwise and observe it without looking at the title, you would have no idea what those waves and colors were. It only becomes "graphic" when the title is applied.

[badacyborg]

@Dlerue

Okay, it's art. It's just disgusting art. Art that makes me wonder why society would accept this maniac as a genius.

[StrangeTribeVideos]

Art is created to move people, wether or not you thought it was beautiful or disgusting you were moved to react to it. Thats art.

[2ct2wave]

Fuck jesus anyway. Religion is for weak minded people.

[kaindrg]

western religno is for the weak minded eastern philosophy should reign supreme

[xpez]

@kaindrg You need to work on your run-on sentences. They are hard to understand.

[badacyborg]

@2ct2wave

Ignorance is weak minded. I think you fall under that category, no?

[2ct2wave]

@badacyborg What makes me ignorant, the fact that you don't agree with me? Hmm, I wonder what can be said about people who believe we should all think the same way and agree on one idea.

[badacyborg]

@2ct2wave

No, dude. I'm saying you're ignorant because you went ahead and classified all religious people weak-minded. I'm pretty sure you'd be wrong there. On that point, we definitely disagree.

[SDphantom29]

@2ct2wave

Wow, are you a fucking idiot or what?

[2ct2wave]

@SDphantom29 Lol... Damn I made that comment 5 months ago and it's just now starting to piss off the religious nuts. What, was this guy just recently in th news or something?

[badacyborg]

@2ct2wave

Yo, I think your beef's with me, wave.

[2ct2wave]

@specirt

Damn, calm down .

[amante7777]

I wouldn't call selling a painting for over $100,000 a failure...

[67nairb]

This guy sounds like a complete idiot. He failed at painting, failed at sculpting so he decided to take up photography and photograph Jesus Christ on the Holy Cross in a glass of his own urine. Disgusting!

[fadel2000]

@67nairb at least he did it well :)

[67nairb]

It was disguting!

[fadel2000]

lol agree. but still ... there's something artistic to it.

[67nairb]

I don't see anything artistic about it.

[StrangeTribeVideos]

@67nairb your stupid

[67nairb]

Why am I stupid?