Andres Serrano's rather infamous "Piss Christ" was destroyed yesterday by Christian protesters. "Piss Christ," a supersaturated photograph of a crucifix suspended in the artist's own urine, caused a scandal when first exhibited in 1987. Protests were in part driven by the fact that Serrano received $15,000 for the work, part of which was taxpayer-funded. The attack yesterday was performed using hammers and/or ice-picks while on exhibit in Avignon, France.
Numerous accounts and opinions of "Piss Christ" have been given. Sister Wendy Beckett, an art critic and Catholic nun, stated in a television interview with Bill Moyers that she regarded the work not as blasphemous but as a statement on "what we have done to Christ": that is, the way contemporary society has come to regard Christ and the values he represents. In contrast, art critic Lucy R. Lippard has presented a constructive case for the formal value of Serrano's Piss Christ, which she characterizes as mysterious and beautiful. She writes that the work is "a darkly beautiful photographic image… the small wood and plastic crucifix becomes virtually monumental as it floats, photographically enlarged, in a deep rosy glow that is both ominous and glorious." Lippard suggests that the formal values of the image can be regarded separately from other meanings.
In a way, both Beckett and Lippard are taking deconstructionist perspectives. Beckett seems to recognize the fact that meaning is not static, and that even Christ, a figure that is intended to in terms of certain characteristics (e.g. agape love), still relies on language for its meaning. On the other hand, as a formalist, Lippard also seems to be taking a deconstructive approach in that she is taking the meaning itself out of the work--as if to say that there really is no meaning in actual things, only the meaning that we place upon them.Then again, perhaps the fact that "Piss Christ" was damaged beyond repair by protesters yesterday suggests a resistance to this sort of deconstructive process--a process which the work itself seems to embody. Perhaps society is seeking to shed off its postmodern perspective; then again, maybe people were just sufficiently "pissed off." Hurr hurr.
The way that Sister Wendy Beckett characterized the image, in contrast with the outrage it may have caused reminds me of de Man's reading of "Among the Schoolchildren" in which the last line can be read as rhetorical or sincere. The proliferation of meanings in this image can either focus on the fact that the artist did something very disrespectful to the Christ image, or see it as a statement about the way things are, suggesting a need for change in the lives of Christians. I really appreciate this example for that reason. Nice find.
ReplyDeleteBridger,
ReplyDeleteBe careful how you talk about deconstruction. Critics and theorists don't "deconstruct" meanings or images--language has already done that for all of us. The idea is to unravel or to point to that meaning which is always/already deconstructed.
Hmm, I see. Maybe then the photograph is pointing to deconstructed Christ? (In a way, it seems to be showing that the original meaning is unstable.)
ReplyDeleteWeirdly enough, I actually think it deconstructs urine and reenforces Christ:
ReplyDelete1. It's a beautiful image, even holy looking. Even knowing it's urine, it's hard to find the photo disgusting because it's so pretty.
2. Christ himself deconstructs suffering and oppression via his life and especially his crucifixion. The image, though it would seem by the language to be meant to ridicule him (and perhaps that is the artist's purpose) actually glorifies him, in the same way that Christ's suffering always has.
I agree with Caitlin. As the article I presented last workshop day asserted, bodily fluids tend to be portrayed as repulsive or some secret horror that humans (and women in particular) must endure. However, the urine in the "Piss Christ" is not necessarily depicted as something repulsive or disgusting per se. And, as Caitlin said, it is sort of pretty. So the urine is deconstructing itself within this context via its presentation as aesthetically appealing and, with the crucifix, somewhat holy. Therefore, its disgusting nature is already deconstructed as something negative through its artistic depiction and juxtaposition to the holy cross.
ReplyDelete