 |
|
Alfred Hrdlicka says he represented the men in this way because there are no women in the Da Vinci painting which inspired it…
The museum took down the Last Supper piece at Cardinal Schoenborn’s request just over a week after the ‘Religion, Flesh and Power’ exhibition opened, leaving a blank black wall at the entrance to the display.
Curator Martina Judt said the exhibition was meant to prompt…balanced reaction. The museum wanted to show that controversial works inspired by religious imagery can be discussed without taboo.
“People have said the Catholic Church has become a lot more liberal,” she said. “But in the end, the reactions show this perhaps isn’t the case.”
The Cardinal – in predictable newspeak – says this has nothing to do with censorship, it just requires “reverence for the sacred”.
Let us prey…
Excellent commentary Eideard. Also interesting is it appears the Catholic Church itself was willing to display these homoerotic paintings and it was the “laity” that complained and put pressure on the church officials to be more fundamentalist?
I wonder how much of that is going on with our Moslem brothers? HAH.
Tossers, all of them!!
When you ask someone to stop and consider the opinions of others before creating a piece of art, you are censoring them. Reverence for the sacred is all well and good, but what if your subject matter is not sacred to me? What if Jesus is about as real to me as Zeus is to you? What if I think the Christian Religion is a crock of shit? Do I still have to give its subject matter the same reverence that a believer does? Do Bishops and Popes give the same reverence to the subject matter of Hinduism, Taoism, Hellenism, Wicca, etc. as they do the Christian mythos?
Bunch of hypocrites!
#2, I’m not sure it is excellent commentary by Eideard, it was a spokesman not the cardinal who commented.
Also if you consider the catholic churche does believe that the last supper was sacred, then I don’t think “reverence for the sacred” qualifies as Newspeak in the 1984 sense of the word.
Otherwise interesting post
why do all the boys and girl loooooooooove jesus???
(spreads arms wide as if nailed to a cross)
’cause jesus was hung like this!
I don’t get it.
What is sacred about an oil painting of a bunch of guys eating supper?
#7 good question…
reminds me of this story from our great state of WI:
http://www.wiscnews.com/bnr/news/280398
dvorak.org material….c’mon!!!
I’m all for freedom of speech, and I understand art to a degree. BUT, wasn’t this item specifically created to offend, and to offend a specific group? It’s not taken as hateful because it offends the majority. I have a difficult time thinking of something that would offend the secular community in a similar manner. I’d just call the artist a mediagrubbing, fame seeking, talentless jerk and leave it at that.
The “artist” should consider a homoerotic picture of Mohamed next, please?
#5–ghm==you’re sure the bolded comments at the very end of the header are from the spokesman. He really said what the cardinal was saying was “newspeak?” I imagine the Cardinal might have read Orwell in passing, but don’t think he would be basing church pronouncements on it.
but the Catholics are clever and worldly. Maybe so.
Saw the link, but where’s the photo of the “art”? Must be pretty revolting if they won’t show it.
Here’s an idea:
Have Dvorak as Jesus Christ in the Last Supper with the cavorting Cranky Geek crew sprawling over the dining table and masturbating each other.
#9–You say ==”I have a difficult time thinking of something that would offend the secular community in a similar manner”
Gee–start a Fundamentalist Young Earth Museum? outlaw abortion? leave stem cell research unfunded? create biology text books without mentioning Darwin? and so forth==in fact, just about every plank of the repuglican party platform is outrageous in the sense you ask about.
The comment by eideard, at best, misses the point, or, in the alternative, is just sophomoric. Consistency counts for something, I guess.
#13–roemun==please explain your statement. Seems to me Eideard is exactly on point and clever as well. Removing art is censorship and claiming it is not is newspeak.
What point is missed?
“which showed cavorting Apostles sprawling over the dining table and masturbating each other.”
“but curators at museum of Vienna’s Roman Catholic Cathedral weren’t ready for a barrage of angry messages and calls to be shut down…”
Uh-huh.
Maybe it just needed sheep to symbolize the innocent lamb? Or putrefying dead babies to symbolize self-indulgent offensiveness.
RBG
#12 , not even in the same ballpark. Stupid is not neccesarily offensive. Big fail for your attempt at equivalence, the rock of Liberal Argument.
Masturbating Apostles do not equal people riding dinosaurs. Now if the Young Earth Museum has pre-pubescient boys copulating with each other, you might have a point.
#12 , not even in the same ballpark. Stupid is not neccesarily offensive. Big fail for your attempt at equivalence, the rock of Liberal Argument.
Masturbating Apostles do not equal people riding dinosaurs. Now if the Young Earth Museum has pre-pubescient boys copulating with each other, you might have a point.
A bunch of guys go out for dinner.
A lot of wine is drunk.
One thing leads to another and some stuff happens.
What happens in Jerusalem stays in Jerusalem.
#17–Angus==you are soooo religious. Thinking only “sex” is something to get your knickers in a twist over.
Well Guess What???
Non religious people care about the pursuit of truth and individual liberty than in repressing natural human sexual desires.
So the question was what “outrages” a secularist. Wouldn’t it make sense it would be something other than what outrages a religious nut bag??
Silly boy.
Geez, Bobbo, you really have a hang up about religion, and you don’t know me at all. But you’ve already pigeonholed me based on some assumptions and lines of code. Then, you try to obfuscate the whole point I was trying to make, which is that the artist was purposefully trying to offend.
As a self avowed libertarian, I have a live and let live attitude. I could care less about this whole exhibit. But, you cannot deny the fact that he seems to be a rabblerouser and exhibitionist. Like I said earlier, if he truely is trying to make an artistic statement, his next work will feature Mohamed.
If Dan Brown’s interpretation of Da Vinci’s painting had been the inspiration instead, this could have been painted as a hetero scene instead of a homoerotic jerk session. You’ll recall that Dan Brown and others have identified the figure on Jesus’ right as Mary Magdalene, the missing element of a good old-fashioned heterosexual gang-bang!
But I suppose even that would raise some eyebrows, if not other things…
#18 chuck, excellent 😉
jbenson2, you are comparing apples to peanuts when you say “Have Dvorak as Jesus Christ in the Last Supper with the cavorting Cranky Geek crew sprawling over the dining table and masturbating each other.”
From a secularists point of view the Apostles are myths whereas your example uses real living people. Until you have proof the apostles were real, the Alfred Herdlicka painting remains creative expression, while your suggestion remains visually libelous.
#16 – Stupid is not neccesarily offensive.
On this point, we’ll have to disagree.
#22 – I knew I would get under someone’s skin by creating the artistic imagery of the Cranky Geek’s team members masturbating their Savior Dvorak’s member.
Your weak attempt at word-smithing proves nothing. Herdlicker’s so-called art is just another example of the secularists attempt to shock.
Does freedom of speech only apply to you? Doesn’t feel so great when the shoe is on the other foot, does it?
There are a hell of a lot more last supper “paintings” than most people realize. Check out this site
Here’s an example. The Soprano’s last supper.
Much larger version available at the site.
24. jbenson2. I was going to write up something similar (great minds… or is it fools seldom differ?) Anyway, true to my meticulous journalistic integrity, I wanted first to be sure DU was in fact run by males without benefit of “females of the opposite sex” as I thought it was. I recalled a CV section. Then I (finally) noticed not only was that section missing but that the entire web site far left column is displaced to the end of the blog items, should anyone be interested.
RBG
[What browser are you using? – ed.]
#20–Angus, lets take this a few lines of code at a time, shall we???
Geez, Bobbo, you really have a hang up about religion, and you don’t know me at all. /// Hang up? Why is being an atheist a Hang up? What is being devout? Your point? /// Quite right, I don’t know you except to the degree I misunderstand your writings. No one on this blog, knows anyone else any other way. Your Point? Score -2.
Thinking your are “soooo religious” is pigeon holing you? And pigeonholing you, if that is what it is, is what? Good or bad? Accurate or inaccurate–or just a means of advancing the discussion? Score -0.
I obfuscated your point of the art being “purposefully offensive.” /// Well re-reading your post, I see your point, but unfortunately, YOU are the one obfuscating. I responded to the point made in isolation about people simply offending other groups. I did not go 2-3 line above the your question to guess at your refined context. So==only a quibbler will not notice his own faults, or notice them and yet criticize the other. Kinda offensive if you ask me, but not intentionally so. Score -3.
But how do you know what the artist was thinking? His motivation. Do you “know” him??? Knock, Knock???????? Score -5.
you cannot deny the fact that he seems to be a rabblerouser and exhibitionist /// You characterize good catholics as “rabble?” Also, the painting was old enough it had to be restored and it was (evidently) asked to be submitted/restored by the Museum. The artist had only a historical connection as the creator years ago. Did he paint this thing intending to upset people decades later, or did the Chruch display it to show how modern it was? We don’t know. or do you “know?” Score -2.
A self avowed libertarian that calls someone else a rabblerouser? Puzzler. Better give that a minus 3 to be on the safe side.
Well, minus whatever. Not bad for a libertarian. Must be because you are pugnacious and confrontational. Good skills to start honing.
One good sign of a church in decline is if they depict the Last Supper as a gay orgy.
Were the cavorting Apostles usually masturbating each other? And didn’t Jesus say take my body and take my blood? So maybe he was referring to taking his body in the butt and taking his blood up the butt? Who knows and who cares what a waste of time.
I bet everyone was pissed at their manners, you know the “sprawling over the dining table” to masturbate each other is just so rude.
You got to remember most of the Apostles were gay as hell and should have had better manners.
#20 – But, you cannot deny the fact that he seems to be a rabblerouser and exhibitionist.
But that isn’t a bad thing and that is what many great artists are.