This I have to see.

ABSTRUSE

Cirque du Freak
Joined
Mar 4, 2003
Posts
50,094
Erotic Jesus sparks art debate in Austria


VIENNA (Reuters) - They knew it would be risky to exhibit a homoerotic version of Christ's Last Supper, 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.




The source of the dispute, which Austrian media has dubbed Vienna's version of the Mohammad caricature row, is a retrospective honoring Austria's cherished artist Alfred Hrdlicka, who turned 80 earlier this year.

But not everyone has been wishing Hrdlicka a Happy Birthday. And the Cathedral Museum's director and Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, the archbishop of Vienna, have both come under fire from some museum visitors and Catholic websites.

The Church hastily removed the main picture, "a homosexual orgy" of the Apostles as Hrdlicka describes it.

But the protest has continued, much to the surprise of the small Cathedral Museum which is nestled down a narrow street in Vienna's historic Gothic quarter.

The museum's director defends both Hrdlicka's work and his decision to host the artist's controversial versions of biblical imagery in a museum tied to the Catholic Church.

"We think Hrdlicka is entitled to represent people in this carnal, drastic way," Bernhard Boehler said in his small museum office, across the street from Vienna's imposing St. Stephan's Cathedral.

He said the museum never intended to offend people but that art should be allowed to provoke a debate.

"I don't see any blasphemy here," he said, gesturing at a Crucifixion picture showing a soldier simultaneously beating Jesus and holding his genitals. "People can imagine what they want to."

Boehler says that picture drew particular criticism from some visitors, along with a sculpture of Jesus on the cross without a face or loincloth that some Christians found offensive.

But the most disputed work was 'Leonardo's Last Supper, restored by Pier Paolo Pasolini' which showed cavorting Apostles sprawling over the dining table and masturbating each other.

Hrdlicka says he represented the men in this way because there are no women in the Da Vinci painting which inspired it. Pasolini was a controversial Italian filmmaker and writer who was murdered in the 1970s.

The exhibition has attracted fierce criticism on religion blogs in Austria, Germany and even in the United States, with bloggers denouncing it with terms such as "blasphemy" and "desecration."

"The exhibition should never have taken place. The Director should apologize to Catholics worldwide for this," an article on conservative Catholic website kreuz.net said.

In the United States, conservative columnist Rod Dreher wrote on his widely read religion blog "I wouldn't have guessed that, given his reputation, a man like (Cardinal) Schoenborn would have stood for this abomination for half a second."

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.

"This has nothing to do with censorship, rather corresponds with the understood "reverence for the sacred," the Cardinal's spokesman said in a statement.

"It is also an act of respect towards those believers who feel this portrayal offended and provoked them in their deepest religious sensitivity."

The diocese says the museum's decision to show Hrdlicka's work does not mean it identifies with everything it portrays.

Hrdlicka agrees but points out that the Last Supper piece was not intended as a swipe at the Catholic Church.

"There was such a reaction to its physicality. For me it was quite surprising the museum wanted to show the piece in the first place," he told Reuters by telephone.

"If the Cathedral Museum is having problems now, it's not really my affair, it's for the Cathedral Museum to deal with." He said overall he was pleased with the display and praised the director for being "strong."

A communist and atheist, Hrdlicka has said the Bible is the most thrilling book he has ever read and that religious imagery forms a central core to his work.

Boehler says the angry emails he has received remind him of how some reacted to Mel Gibson's 2004 film "The Passion of The Christ." In his opinion, critics of the film's violence and physicality also missed the point.

"The Crucifixion was brutal and it would be a lie to say everything in our world is nice," he said, pointing out that Hrdlicka is an anti-war activist who has seen the effects of Nazism and violence first hand.

"We in Europe have been affected by this and it influences how we see (Hrdlicka's) work."

Boehler, like Hrdlicka, says the art debate can be compared to the Danish cartoon row, where an image of the Prophet Mohammad with a bomb in his turban enraged some in the Muslim world who saw it as blasphemous.

The angry reaction to Hrdlicka's work has only been verbal and the museum says some Christians have been balanced and support the exhibition, despite disagreeing with the artist's approach.

Curator Martina Judt said the exhibition was meant to prompt this kind of 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."
 
I think it's interesting, the comparison being made to the Danish cartoons. There really isn't all that much of one. The cartoons are symbolic, showing Mohammed as a warrior, which he was. Nobody has ever disagreed with that.

On the other hand, the Da Vinci work is a portrayal of something that actually happened. Whether it did or not is open to conjecture, but it is still a portrayal of an actual event. To redo it as a gay orgy, if that is what is to be called, is pretty over the top, much more than the cartoons. I don't use the word "blasphemous" but I can see how some people would.

Even more interesting is the reactions of adherents to the two relicions. Muslims rioted, killed and destroyed. Christians wrote complaints on the internet or other places. Which faith is the more forgiving?
 
I think it's interesting, the comparison being made to the Danish cartoons. There really isn't all that much of one. The cartoons are symbolic, showing Mohammed as a warrior, which he was. Nobody has ever disagreed with that.

On the other hand, the Da Vinci work is a portrayal of something that actually happened. Whether it did or not is open to conjecture, but it is still a portrayal of an actual event. To redo it as a gay orgy, if that is what is to be called, is pretty over the top, much more than the cartoons. I don't use the word "blasphemous" but I can see how some people would.

Even more interesting is the reactions of adherents to the two relicions. Muslims rioted, killed and destroyed. Christians wrote complaints on the internet or other places. Which faith is the more forgiving?

that's where we ask what is Art compared to is it Art?
 
I think it's interesting, the comparison being made to the Danish cartoons. There really isn't all that much of one. The cartoons are symbolic, showing Mohammed as a warrior, which he was. Nobody has ever disagreed with that.

On the other hand, the Da Vinci work is a portrayal of something that actually happened. Whether it did or not is open to conjecture, but it is still a portrayal of an actual event. To redo it as a gay orgy, if that is what is to be called, is pretty over the top, much more than the cartoons. I don't use the word "blasphemous" but I can see how some people would.

Even more interesting is the reactions of adherents to the two relicions. Muslims rioted, killed and destroyed. Christians wrote complaints on the internet or other places. Which faith is the more forgiving?

Um. Did you really just say that the Da Vinci work is a portrayal of an actual event???
Because last time I checked, and it could just be me here, the Bible is not a history book. In fact, there are many out there who would say it's allegory.

And made up.

And I think it's kind of bullshit to call Christianity more forgiving. I think the two faiths both have some pretty shitty people representing.


Thanks SJ:rose:

Anytime. :rose:
 
Um. Did you really just say that the Da Vinci work is a portrayal of an actual event???
Because last time I checked, and it could just be me here, the Bible is not a history book. In fact, there are many out there who would say it's allegory.

And made up.

And I think it's kind of bullshit to call Christianity more forgiving. I think the two faiths both have some pretty shitty people representing.

Word.
 
Even more interesting is the reactions of adherents to the two relicions. Muslims rioted, killed and destroyed. Christians wrote complaints on the internet or other places. Which faith is the more forgiving?

In this one instance the Muslims appear to be reacting harshly, but historically, haven't more wars been started by Christians than any other faith?

If we're looking at current events, I guess it's been a while since any abortion doctors have been killed by radical Christians, so perhaps Christian fervor is dying down a bit?That would be a welcome change.
 
The bible is a history book, but this thread isn't a place for that debate. Alot of what is containied in it is well documented by other sources.

As to the art, well just as people have the right to get offended by it, the artist has a right to paint it. It's not made clear anywhere really how Jesus is actually portrayed in all this, if he's a bystander I can heartily understand the show of human weakness in comparision but I'd be a bit uncomfortable if Christ was shown in a sexual way...that just wouldn't sit well with me.

It might have been in the video but to be honest, I was having a hard time working out what the scribbles were*L*
 
I don't have a problem with an artist being able to portray such a work. I think that if the work was intended to provoke then it obviously has achieved it's intent...

However, if I read the article correctly, this is a museum of the cathedral and it is under the umbrella of the catholic church? If that is accurate, that the church owns the museum, then I think that they most certainly have the right to decline to show a piece that portrays those who they consider leaders of the faith engaged in something they believe is against the church's teachings...
 
On the other hand, the Da Vinci work is a portrayal of something that actually happened. Whether it did or not is open to conjecture, but it is still a portrayal of an actual event.
Whether it was an actual event or not as compared to symbolic images of Mohammad is immaterial. Or do you so soon forget Madonna's "Like a Prayer" video, which lost her a contract with Pepsi and caused an uproar; the one where she was "symbolically" having sex with black Jesus? Or how about the brouhaha over "Last Temptation" where Jesus has a dream of having sex with a wife? That caused a ton of protest. Or "Monty Python's Life of Brian" which didn't even feature Jesus? Many Christians pitched a fit over that movie and it certainly wasn't a "historical event." I really don't think that true believers find it less disrespectful to insult a religious figure in "symbolic" images as compared to depicting a "historical" event, or that some sacrilegious images are more deserving than others of fanatical outrage.

Point is, I could paint a picture of Washington's Crossing of the Deleware as a homosexual orgy--the Delaware crossing being an event that DID happen, even if not portrayed exactly as it is in that famous picture--and people would be royally offended. I could also depict George Washington engaging in water sports with symbolic Uncle Sam, and I'd offend probably equally as much. Historical or symbolic, I'd get angry e-mails about my desecration of our first president's image and person. Either sort of sacrilegious image is going to offend. Horribly. And anyone putting it up anything of that sort should know that. And they shouldn't do it if they're going to end up having to take it down and apologize for it or try to excuse it. That's my only objection. Either do it, without apology, or don't.

As for trying to create a which-religion-is-more-forgiving pissing contest...The only reason this picture got no bomb threats is because it did not appear in a newspaper. I promise you, if something like this did appear in newspapers, picture after picture as mocking Jesus and the Saints as homosexuals, you'd get the bomb and death threats. People are very, very touchy about their religion, and if you do anything vaguely sacrilegious, they'll pull out all the stops. History has more than ample proof of that and it doesn't matter, in general, which religion it is, though certain branches of EVERY religion are more tolerant and forgiving than others. Trying to prove that your religious team is nicer than some other religious team is an exercise in futility.
 
Last edited:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
I think it's interesting, the comparison being made to the Danish cartoons. There really isn't all that much of one. The cartoons are symbolic, showing Mohammed as a warrior, which he was. Nobody has ever disagreed with that.

On the other hand, the Da Vinci work is a portrayal of something that actually happened. Whether it did or not is open to conjecture, but it is still a portrayal of an actual event. To redo it as a gay orgy, if that is what is to be called, is pretty over the top, much more than the cartoons. I don't use the word "blasphemous" but I can see how some people would.

Even more interesting is the reactions of adherents to the two relicions. Muslims rioted, killed and destroyed. Christians wrote complaints on the internet or other places. Which faith is the more forgiving?

Um. Did you really just say that the Da Vinci work is a portrayal of an actual event???
Because last time I checked, and it could just be me here, the Bible is not a history book. In fact, there are many out there who would say it's allegory.

And made up.

And I think it's kind of bullshit to call Christianity more forgiving. I think the two faiths both have some pretty shitty people representing.

Anytime. :rose:

2,000 years ago, Jews celebrated the Feast of Passover, and they still do. If Jesus actually existed, he and his followers would have done so. In other words, those who are true-beliving Christians consider "The Last Supper" to be a depiction of an actual event. Not being a true believer, I have no opinion.

There are assholes in both faiths, but Muslims seem to be much worse. There have been professing Christians who have committed acts of violence, but Muslims tend to be worse. Who was it that hijacked airplanes and flew them into buildings in New York? Their lunatic fringe just seems to be wider.

As to who is more forgiving, I will say this: If professing Christians burn and destroy and kill in protest of these works, as Muslims did over the Danish cartoons, then I woud say they are not less forgiving. If they do none of these things, and limit themselves to complaining, then I will say they are more forgiving.

I have no idea who has started more wars, Christians or Muslims. They have both started thousands of them, but there are more Christians and they have been around longer, so it is probably Christians, at least so far. Actually, more wars have probably been started by those who are now described as pagans than by practitioners of either faith.
 
Actually, more wars have probably been started by those who are now described as pagans than by practitioners of either faith.

Religion wins on the war front. It's a matter of history (as interpreted by Bill Maher, so it must be true.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
However, if I read the article correctly, this is a museum of the cathedral and it is under the umbrella of the catholic church? If that is accurate, that the church owns the museum, then I think that they most certainly have the right to decline to show a piece that portrays those who they consider leaders of the faith engaged in something they believe is against the church's teachings...

That's how I read it, too. It amazes me that the Museum put it up in the first place, given that, and I am almost proud of them for doing so, but I understand why they took it down.

Actually, more wars have probably been started by those who are now described as pagans than by practitioners of either faith.

That is probably true, but irrelevent to the discussion at hand. Firstly, 'pagan' isn't a religion, it's a description of what a person is not: a pagan is not a member of the Judeo-Christian tradition—they could believe in any number of religions. Secondly, the issue isn't which religious group is responsible for the most wars, but which religious group is responsible for the most wars with a religious motivation. The winner of that dubious distinction is almost certainly Christianity, with Islam being the runner-up.

Oh, and regarding which is more forgiving: what they do to people with whom they disagree has no bearing on forgiveness. If you kill someone and then forgive them for whatever you feel they did that led you to murder them you are more forgiving than if you complain about them repeatedly and bear a grudge against them for it until the day you die. One might prefer the latter, but forgiveness it is not.

Religion wins on the war front. It's a matter of history (as interpreted by Bill Maher, so it must be true.)

Well, unfortunately, he is blatantly wrong here. Religious wars are a difficult creature to define, because wars are complex things and religion plays a central role in so many societies, but genuine wars of religion appear to be a rare occurrence and mostly confined to a few faiths (no prizes for guessing which). That isn't to say that other faiths have never gone to war with religious motivations, but that it is much rarer.

Access to resources and the regional balance of power are the immediate causes of the majority of conflicts in history, including many that appear to be religious at first glance.
 
I think what we forget about Christ is that he was a mortal man and did have sex and go to the bathroom and probably cursed now and then.

Its just a matter of this artist's interpretation...........or else he's an attention whore.
 
I just laugh at people who get pissy about stuff like this.....

They believe the anti-christ is in the artistic message. That it really should have an affect on what they believe themselves....

And if you believe Noah put every animal possible on one boat, or Jonah lived inside a whale, or that jesus was born from immaculate conception? I just don't know what to tell ya........
 
I think what we forget about Christ is that he was a mortal man and did have sex and go to the bathroom and probably cursed now and then.
I refuse to believe it. Jesus did so not poop.
 
This series of photos depicting Jesus in various queer or otherwise controversial contexts caused everything from picketing, lawsuits, and general condemnation, to vandalism, death threats and one case of arson against the artist and the exhibitors in Uppsala, Sweden a few years ago. And who were the exhibitors? Uppsala Cathedral and it's archbishop.

Looking at those I don't find them offensive at all. Me and that archbishop are on the same wavelength, obviously. :p
 
Back
Top