(NSFW)The Emperor Has No Balls

MadHatter wrote: Over all I find it as crass and pointless as the p*$$ Christ artwork.

Veering off topic, but since I can never resist responding to this kind of comment whenever I see it...

People got up in arms about how that art is supposedly blasphemous and anti-Christian but I find that the intended statement the artist was trying to make (about how religion has been cheapened, packaged and reduced to something that only exists on Sundays) comes across quite well, though I still don't think it's a particularly great work of art. It is definitely not a piece of art that is simply meant to provoke or be "crass and pointless."

A Roman Catholic nun gave a succinct defence of it, saying that it represents what the world ultimately does to Christ (and I would argue, in the western world, what we do to most religions in general.) And Roman Catholics do love their crucifixes.

I saw one very poignant comment comparing this to Marge's painting of Mr Burns:

I guess I wanted to show that beneath Mr. Burns' fearsome head... with its cruel lips, spiteful tongue and evil brain... there was a frail, withered body, perhaps not long for this world... as vulnerable and beautiful as any of God's creatures

Leah Starspectre wrote: I saw one very poignant comment comparing this to Marge's painting of Mr Burns:

I guess I wanted to show that beneath Mr. Burns' fearsome head... with its cruel lips, spiteful tongue and evil brain... there was a frail, withered body, perhaps not long for this world... as vulnerable and beautiful as any of God's creatures

Ok that is a very interesting take on this. I mean I doubt that was the creators intent but still that is one way to look at it.

Art is meant to raise eyebrows Leah but not raise bigotry haha , having said that , the missing of the balls really turns me off :laugh:

Edit: and dear...why did you put NSFW ? There really is nothing to see

I think it's funny and probably realistic. Obama and Hillary versions would be equally funny.

Whats that say about society when we take pleasure out of berating and stultifying others with zero amount of humility. What's worse, many of the same "individuals" who are mocking him will likely vote for the other alternative, as if that's really what the United States needs. We're such a throw away, canabalistic society sometimes its shameful lol...

Leah Starspectre wrote: I do consider it a form of art. It's a crafted piece meant to inspire, enrage, inquire, mock, shock...and more. Its purpose is to cause a reaction in people who witness it. Which I think it does quite effectively. I'm not familiar the rest of their work, though, but should past art pieces have any bearing on current artwork? Are they part of a series?

Is it morally right? That's not for me to judge. As all artists do, they had their own reasons to create it. But is that moral ambiguity why you feel there's no value in discussing is, or that it shouldn't be shared? Or are you feeling a knee-jerk reaction to a brazen statement piece which mocks your favoured candidate? Do you feel the same about political cartoonists?

As far as I know this is the first "piece of real art" this group has ever tried to create and ironically enough its as close to something that can be called art as anything they have ever produced. Its not the "piece" that offends me so much as the creators of the work. Art is a subjective thing and to each his own. I have no room to judge any piece of artwork outside my own personal findings on any particular piece. So as far as that stands this piece stands or falls on its own.

The thing I do take issue with are its creators. Indecine are nothing more than crass morons bent on getting the greatest reaction to satisfy their own sick sense of humor. They are not social activists nor are they making any statement here beyond what shock factor they can get out of the exploitation of another. In fact they are known for wanting to legalize all criminal activity and routinely deface public and private property with graffiti, and not even good graffiti. no murals or anything else that could be considered artistic. just obscure symbols and acronyms etc. They trespass and break into places to accomplish this, often times destroying property. And if that is not enough they are best known for their "Bumfight" videos where they go out and recruit homeless people and bribe them with alcohol and drugs to fight teenagers or other people or do outrageous acts, while they make fun of them the entire time. They are not artists and so cannot produce any works or art - simple enough - but by all means do your own research and make your own conclusions.

It's mildly amusing but good grief is it ugly, lol. I would definitely say it's art but I wouldn't want to have to look at it every day.

I don't know anything about the creators of this piece of art so I can't comment on their activities.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: As far as I know this is the first "piece of real art" this group has ever tried to create and ironically enough its as close to something that can be called art as anything they have ever produced. Its not the "piece" that offends me so much as the creators of the work. Art is a subjective thing and to each his own. I have no room to judge any piece of artwork outside my own personal findings on any particular piece. So as far as that stands this piece stands or falls on its own.

The thing I do take issue with are its creators. Indecline are nothing more than crass morons bent on getting the greatest reaction to satisfy their own sick sense of humor. They are not social activists nor are they making any statement here beyond what shock factor they can get out of the exploitation of another. In fact they are known for wanting to legalize all criminal activity and routinely deface public and private property with graffiti, and not even good graffiti. no murals or anything else that could be considered artistic. just obscure symbols and acronyms etc. They trespass and break into places to accomplish this, often times destroying property. And if that is not enough they are best known for their "Bumfight" videos where they go out and recruit homeless people and bribe them with alcohol and drugs to fight teenagers or other people or do outrageous acts, while they make fun of them the entire time. They are not artists and so cannot produce any works or art - simple enough - but by all means do your own research and make your own conclusions.

So...you're dismissing this art installment because you don't like the artists previous work? Why not consider this one piece on its own? I shared it for the purpose of discussing it in its own context.

Leah Starspectre wrote: So...you're dismissing this art installment because you don't like the artists previous work? Why not consider this one piece on its own? I shared it for the purpose of discussing it in its own context.

Every piece has some sort of context (even if it's a purposeful void), and the artist has some sort of history. Indecline being an artistic collective is like saying Howard Stern is a hard-hitting journalist.

I think the intent behind this installation is very clear. Again reiterating what other people have said, beauty and art are in the eye of the beholder. So where I see a piece of shock value political propaganda, someone else might see inspiration.

I'm not a Trump supporter in anyone's book, and I think that comparing this to Serrano's art is rather short-sighted (check out this book's lil chunk regarding Piss Christ: Kester, Grant H. Art, Activism, and Opportunity: Essays from Afterimage. Duke UP, 1998)