As Lucy Lippard expressed, there are many qualities of "Piss Christ" which seem beautiful or appealing to many. Do you think Serrano uses beauty as a way to engage the viewer in a discussion about difficult content? How does this compare with the way Oliver Herring connects form and content in his work?
Due Wednesday, September 12th.
Due Wednesday, September 12th.
Serrano good at asking questions that other people do not want to deal with, which makes him a good artist. "In a free society ideas, even difficult ones, are not dangerous. The only danger lies in repressing them." Serrano did not intend to denounce religion with Piss Christ, he wanted to engage the viewer in a discuss about content. He wanted to question the church, and he wanted others to be stuck in doing so. Piss Christ seduced the viewer into coming in the work, he had to knowledge on how to manipulate the formal elements in a work. The tranquil interaction with Piss Christ got the viewer peacefully engaged, then it instigated a strong reaction.
ReplyDeleteThis work engaged with Oliver Herring's work because of its use of subjects that people are not used to seeing. There's a common theme of out of the ordinary; the work is about sacrifice, a heavy gleaned instigation.
Both Serrano and Herring have a level of play with work. For Herring, play is a thing we put on hold because we get distracted in the fake roles that become a reality. Serrano plays with his audience, he controls every instance. "You have to be one step ahead of your audience as well as your critics." Both these artists make good art because they have a clear visualization of who their target it; they know their demographic.
-Peter
***Revision*** Discard first post
ReplyDeleteSerrano is good at asking questions that other people do not want to deal with, which makes him a good artist. "In a free society ideas, even difficult ones, are not dangerous. The only danger lies in repressing them." Serrano did not intend to denounce religion with Piss Christ; he wanted to engage the viewer in a discussion about content. He wanted to question the church, and he wanted others to be stuck in doing so. Piss Christ seduced the viewer into coming in the work; he had to knowledge on how to manipulate the formal elements in a work. The tranquil interaction with Piss Christ got the viewer peacefully engaged, and then it instigated a strong reaction.
This work engaged with Oliver Herring's work because of its use of subjects that people are not used to seeing. There's a common theme of out of the ordinary; the work is about sacrifice, about heavy gleaned instigation.
Both Serrano and Herring have a level of play with work. For Herring, play is a thing we put on hold because we get distracted in the fake roles that become a reality. Serrano plays with his audience, he controls every instance. "You have to be one step ahead of your audience as well as your critics." Both these artists make good art because they have a clear visualization of who their target it; they know their demographic.
-Peter
Serrano "Piss Christ" has a very alluring aspect about it. The ambiguity created by the haziness of the form with the very corner of the cross and hand being very detailed draws the viewer in. "Real art has the capacity to make us nervous" and Serrano's image definentely creates strong and dangerous emotions in its viewers(Sontag, 6). Putting aside the materials used to create this image, it is formally a very beautiful photo that creates ambiance, ambiguity, and a mysterious quality that as a viewer I find very captivating. Serrano uses this beauty along with the pieces unconventional materials to create dialogue about difficult issues. The beauty draws one to the piece and as Peter said, "the tranquil interaction with Piss Christ got the viewer peacefully engaged, and then it instigated a strong reaction".
ReplyDeleteOliver Herring's work focuses more on documenting the process of creating it, than on achieving a strong meaning or message. Herring uses strangers in his works, much like Serrano, in order to explore their personalities and add another dimension to his art that he otherwise would not have. Both artists create art that can be unpredictable. With Herring, his performance art and videos take form as the process to make them carries on. He is not entirely certain of the end product but this uncertainty of the final form is also what makes his work so beautiful. Serrano uses his forms to create sharp contrast, often incorporating beauty and vulgarity, that creates a strong reaction from his viewers. The contrasts in his work and their ambiguity create uncertainty for the viewer in what they are looking at and what it means. Although these artist may use beauty in the works unconventionally, the unpredictability of their work and their boldness is what make them good artists.
Serrano, like Anastasia mentions, uses ambiguity much like Sally Mann to create beauty in his work “Piss Christ.” The formal elements of the photograph are stunning as stated by Lucy Lippard. But, I don’t believe that Serrano goes out of his way to use beauty as a way to engage the viewer in a discussion about difficult content. Beauty isn’t the correct term, it is ambiguity. The vagueness of the work is what pulls in the viewer first, the beauty is appreciated yes, but it is not paramount. Anastasia also pointed out Sontag’s quote: “Real art has the capacity to make us nervous.” That nervousness is what Serrano was after, the uncertainty of what the viewer is looking at and then the startle of realization of what the piece is about. Like his qualms with the Catholic Church, there was uneasiness and then later startling realization.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Anastasia, Herring’s work is much different than Serrano’s because Herring is more about the documentation of his process, and the connections made during the process with the models. They both might use strangers and their works might be unpredictable, but I feel that’s were the strongest similarities end.
Serrano creates works of art that are formally compelling. With his aesthetically beautiful works, Serrano draws in the viewer before confronting them with the uncomfortable subject matter of the works. By accompanying his unnerving subjects with beautiful lighting, composition, and other engaging formal qualities, Serrano proves a point that appearances can be deceiving. With Piss Christ and other works that make difficult, yet truthful statements about the state of the Catholic Church, Serrano’s message is largely that nothing is as it seems and his juxtaposition of form and content reinforces these statements. Serrano’s use of beauty to engage the viewer in a discussion, whether internal or external, on difficult issues regarding sensitive subjects such as religion and corruption is very different than how Oliver Herring utilizes form and content. I think that Herring’s work is not as aesthetically captivating as Serrano’s. His works are not beautiful in a conventional sense and they initiate conversation on less abrasive issues. Herring’s work carries with it a respect for others by his believing that everyone has lived a life full of intricacies and stories and his mission to capture the vulnerabilities of strangers. I agree with Peter that there is a certain level of playfulness in each artist’s works but that this aspect of play is showcased in very different ways: Serrano’s playfulness is in his form and Herring’s in his process. While Serrano’s work is aesthetically pleasing but often possesses uncomfortable content, Herring’s work often manifests itself in odd ways stylistically but carries a more uplifting message about humanity and equality.
ReplyDeleteSerrano draws the viewer into his “Piss Christ” through the interesting use of line and color. The lines of the cross and Jesus’s body are positioned dynamically at an angle different from the plane of the print. On the viewer’s left, the cross seemingly emerges into three-dimensional space. The rest of the crucifix’s lines become less and less defined as it expands to the viewer’s right side of the work. This haziness, combined with the unusual brightness of the yellow that fills the print, evokes a sense of mystery. Captivated by the print’s intrigue, the viewer may next view the title and be outraged by the qualities that had, in one moment prior, created a sense of mystique and beauty. As Anastasia referenced Sontag’s quote that states "Real art has the capacity to make us nervous," it is the viewer’s responsibility to take this anxiety-filled response and reexamine Serrano’s work for its content rather than for its formal qualities.
ReplyDeleteComparing Serrano with Herring, both artists value the process of the art and as Patrick pointed out, both “have a level of play with work.” Through the art-making process, Serrano and Herring work with strangers and learn about people they normally would not. When Serrano worked with members of the KKK, he had the opportunity to see the clan’s viewpoints instead of his own. Herring says that his process is more about capturing the performance of the construction rather than the content of the final product. In an example of play, Serrano utilizes photography in an unusual way. His portraits are extremely heated, but he utilizes features of mall-like photography, like a hazy background and a slight rotation of the figure. In his “Piss Christ,” he put a three-inch crucifix in a container of his own urine, shot the scene, and blew the print up to gigantic proportions. Herring also uses photography in an unusual way; in one of his most popular series, he takes numerous shots of individuals form multiple angles, cuts them apart, and remakes the whole through copy and pasting on a life-size figure.
I'd have to agree with Nikki, that beauty isn't the right term concerning what draws people to Serrano's "Piss Christ," it's ambiguity. The blunt naming of the work leaves nothing to the imagination about what the crucifix is floating in, which immediately forces the viewer to ask why. Although the piece is visually very beautiful and formally very well constructed, I think most viewers won't see beauty in the work, because the questions that arise immediately after understanding what's going on in the work will dominate any feelings of formal beauty. I think once the content of the work is analyzed and interpreted by the viewer, they can then look back and realize the beauty of the piece.
ReplyDeleteI think Oliver Herring's work is extremely beautiful at first glance and will definitely draw viewers in solely off of aesthetics. Particularly with his photographs of the people spitting food dye onto themselves, after getting past the initial beauty of the works, viewers will attempt to interpret the photographs, which will then lead to the uncovering of the process behind them. For Herring, the process is the most important aspect of his work, whereas Serrano's work finds its power from the underlying content.
Lippard’s statement that the formal elements within “Piss Christ” are absolutely stunning is accurate. From the use of color to the ambiguity achieved through lighting, the object is given a holy aura. If one was unaware of the process that went into the piece, the work would have an entirely different meaning. “Piss Christ,” without its title or the process involved is simply another image of a Christian right and beauty. However, not knowing the process does leave the viewer with many questions as to what he or she is looking at. Sontag may argue that one does not need to know the formal process behind the work; rather she may embrace the ambiguity achieved through the piece. However, it is the process that makes this work special, similar to Oliver Herring’s work. Herring’s work is based on the process and how it affects the subject. He creates great depth and emotional reaction through his artistic means; similar to the emotional reaction that occurs inherently through the analysis of “Piss Christ.” While Herring’s subjects are different than Serrano’s, the message is the same: form may not make content, but understanding it manipulates the emotional reaction of the viewer.
ReplyDeleteThere are many qualities to “Piss Christ” that can be seen as appealing to the viewer. For one, as we talked about in class, it sort of looks like an old photograph. And not knowing the background to the work, or the title, one could rightly assume a totally different meaning behind the work. Good artists use visual imagery to ask questions and to generate dialogue with the viewers. Serrano also uses ambiguity, as seen here, which is similar to Mann’s work. Serrano’s work is similar to Herring’s work in that they both choose to use photography in an unusual way. They differ, in that Herring does not use photography objectively, like Mann and Serrano. Herring stresses more on the process, and it seems Serrano focuses on the reactive from the viewer. They are not all that similar, other than the use of their subjects being strangers.
ReplyDeleteWhen I first saw "Piss Christ," I thought it was a beautiful, haunting photograph. The golden hue enveloping the image gave it a warm overtone (no pun intended) that alluded to the gods. In art, we often correlate golden tones with divinity, magic, holiness and royalty. So it really wasn't a shock to see Jesus portrayed in a golden light. What was shocking was to discover this picture was really a small Jesus-figurine floating in Serrano's urine. But as offended as I should have been coming from a Christian background, I couldn't help but understand his frustration with the church and why he creates the work he does, once I understood his background.
ReplyDeleteThe interesting thing about "Piss Christ" is that, unlike many of Serrano's other works that are overtly dark/oppositional to the church, it's actually rather beautiful. Serrano did this intentionally to lure the viewer in and engage them in discussion about difficult content (i.e. the shortcomings/falsities of the church and Catholicism in general). I think that's why so many people are so offended by it. It isn't just the meaning behind the work but the fact that they feel fooled when looking at it first glance.
Oliver Herring, on the other hand, connects his form and content in a very different way. His works are slow, methodical processes that engage one "volunteer" intimately for an extended period of time. Herring uses himself and his work as an outlet for these volunteers to let their "weird side" out--the side we all have inside of us but are too afraid to share. Unlike Serrano's work where he intent is decided before hand and then executed, Herring's work is all about the process. It's the getting there that matters, not the final destination.