Talk:Andres Serrano: Difference between revisions

would this attention whore have the "guts" to blaspheme other religions ?- i very much doubt it, besides the most controversial aspect of the work is the title itself, you wouldnt know that was urine anyway —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.36.40.217 (talk • contribs) 30 Dec 2005.

FWIW, he doesn't consider his own work blasphemy; that's how the Roman Catholics (and doubtless some others) have chosen to view it. As the article points out, he had a pretty major show at the Episcopal Cathedral of Saint John the Divine. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, the meaning of this piece was not blasphemy, he actually was responding to the fear of bodily fluids in the late 80s AIDS crisis. He wanted to say that bodily fluids were infact still sacred. Other works in this series are less shocking. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.66.177.51 (talk • contribs) 25 May 2006.

Really, nothing other than the title is shocking about "Piss Christ". - Jmabel | Talk 06:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not a Christian, in fact, I'm an atheist. Still, when a friend showed me this photograph (he purchased one of the set), I wanted to vomit. It is utterly revolting. Art? I championed Jackson Pollock in the 1960s. That is art. This almost makes one question freedom of expression. But "almost" doesn't count. In today's world, freedom of expression is paramount. To protect trash like this, along with more significant things as well. 66.108.144.49 19:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

The irony of your comment is lost on you. Jackson Pollock? An artist? Please. I make greater art brushing my teeth. What next, Damien Hirst?

Again, I just find these remarks odd. This is a man who (post-Piss Christ) has had a major exhibition at the (Episcopalian) Cathedral of St. John the Divine. If we didn't have the artist's word for it, we'd have no evidence that the fluid used in this image was urine. And, as far as I can tell, the imagery would be (somewhat conventional) Christian imagery. What am I missing here? And does someone have something citable on what I'm apparently missing here? - Jmabel | Talk 06:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

What does any of the above discussion have to do with the article? Isn't there some other more appropriate place to offer opinions and judgements? The article talk page is reserved for discussions of the article, not for discussions of the subject of the article. The latter type of discussion should take place somewhere away from Wikipedia. Pinkville 03:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Article contains bias

This article contains a critique which is unbalanced. Searle's criticism is derisive, but there is no rebuttal of the charge. If you're going to have an article about a controversial artist, the criticisms should be reflective of all major sides of the controversy. 72.92.23.96 00:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Lunatic quotes such as Searle's comment that Andres Serrano's photos are "far more about being lurid than anything else... In the end, the show is all surface, and looking for hidden depths does no good," should not even make their way into the article. It's ridiculous that an article as short as this has only one source cited, and that source being a wholly negative review of just one show of Serrano's work. Bus stop 07:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Serrano is a controversial artist, and public opinion in the 90s was largely in line with the quoted article (albeit less tamed.) I do think that it should be balanced, as he's more positively regarded in art and academic spheres, however, the critique should stay. I'm sure it would be easy to find some sources with positive remarks about the artist and his works. -Etafly 13:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)