Artist puts children on The Cross for controversial project (work, best, state)

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981

How brave!!!

I am sure the Christians would be angry now.

I am a Christian and I am not angry. Are you?

I think it's great. I saw this awhile back and thought so then.

A Christian, Ravelo says the religious icon of Jesus on the Cross does not belong to any one person or group.

[Magritte25]

Originally Posted by ottomobeale

Roll eyes.

I miss art that is nice to look at.

Now everything has to be "edgy."

Anyone remember the "art" pieces that was cleaned by the janitors? Google Kippenberger and Golschmied.

There is art that is nice to look and there is art that makes a statement. There is room for both.

[Magritte25]

Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981

well, maybe to some, this is art, to me, it is far from it.

Art is not about this at all.

I will leave somebody's religion out of it. I don't believe these artists should be censored though.

Maybe to YOU. To the vast majority of the world, art IS about making statements.

And before you accuse me of trying to argue with you...you are posting here and I'm free to reply to your statements without being called names.

[lilyflower3191981]

Originally Posted by pknopp

I am a Christian and I am not angry. Are you?

I think it's great. I saw this awhile back and thought so then.

A Christian, Ravelo says the religious icon of Jesus on the Cross does not belong to any one person or group.

Dude, it is sarcasm

You should use it sometimes.

[lilyflower3191981]

Originally Posted by Magritte25

Maybe to YOU. To the vast majority of the world, art IS about making statements.

And before you accuse me of trying to argue with you...you are posting here and I'm free to reply to your statements without being called names.

I said

It is NOT to me (keyword: ME)

I also said

They shouldn't be censored.

Not sure what you want from ME

I said ME ME ME, to ME.

I never said, it should be like that for everybody else.



Sensitive much?

p.s. That piece is shock art at best. Shock art is contemporary art that incorporates disturbing imagery, sound or scents to create a shocking experience. Just like my art institute professors said, don't be a shock artist. LOL

[Magritte25]

Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981

I said

It is NOT to me (keyword: ME)

I also said

They shouldn't be censored.

Not sure what you want from ME

I said ME ME ME, to ME.

I never said, it should be like that to everybody else.



Sensitive much?

Ay yi yi.

No lily, I'm not sensitive. I'm not the one who resorts to name calling whenever she is disagreed with. And no you did not say, "Art is not about this at all to me." The words to me were not in the bolded statement I replied to.

:sigh:

[lilyflower3191981]

Originally Posted by Magritte25

Ay yi yi.

No lily, I'm not sensitive. I'm not the one who resorts to name calling whenever she is disagreed with. And no you did not say, "Art is not about this at all to me." The words to me were not in the bolded statement I replied to.

:sigh:

Art is not this at all is name calling?

yeah, you are pretty sensitive.

[jacqueg]

Originally Posted by Magritte25

I don't see it as criticizing Christianity.

I think he is using the crucifix as a symbol of sacrifice...

I agree. This is a comment on how the socially powerful victimize the weak, just as they have always done.

As to whether it's pretty or not - well, obviously that wasn't the artist's intent.

The very earliest art we have - the cave paintings - was not meant to be pretty. It was meant to be powerful and to affect the world. As far as we know, art for the sake of beauty is a late-comer.

[Magritte25]

Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981

Art is not this at all is name calling?

yeah, you are pretty sensitive.

Holy Hannah.

No, saying "sensitive much?" is name calling.

[lilyflower3191981]

Originally Posted by Magritte25

Holy Hannah.

No, saying "sensitive much?" is name calling.

Saying "sensitive much" is name calling?