Gallery shocks with explicit plaster Christ
The Times online reports on an exhibition by the Chinese born artist Terrence Koh. Apparently the exhibition includes and 18in statue of Christ with an erect penis.
Firstly let me say, I have not seen the installation. And secondly, let me also say that if I had, the artistic merit would probably be lost on me. I find much of this stuff extremely pretentious and do not have a lot of time for it. I enjoy visiting the Tate Modern but I really do not get a lot of the installations. I do enjoy reading the pretentious dribble on the plaques describing the exhibits though.
That said, the idea of the work does bother me and I have found myself trying to figure out why. Why should the thought of Christ with an erection be a problem? Surely the orthodox view is that Christ is a hundred percent human and one hundred percent divine. If that is true then, it seems to me safe to assume, Jesus also, from time to time, experienced an erection? Why do I even feel awkward writing this in my blog? I guess when we reflect on Christ’s humanity, and think about what it means for Him to be human, we tend to think of Him as being some kind of super, divine human. But that is not the orthodox view. Christ was human as we are human and a man as I am a man. True, the orthodox view is that Christ was without sin but does that mean he did not experience sexual desire? Are we still so uptight that, despite protestations contrary by supposedly forward thinking Evangelicals, we still equate sex with sin?
The Times online quotes Christopher Warren of St Mary’s Catholic cathedral, Newcastle upon Tyne saying:
For Christians the image of Jesus is very special and to interpret it in a sexualised way is an affront to what we hold dear… While Jesus was a human being in every way, to portray him this way will offend.
It is my experience that when I read something, or reflect on something which makes me uncomfortable, often it is useful to stop and try and understand why. I am bothered by this work. It does make me uncomfortable. But actually, is that not what it is supposed to do? It has challenged me personally to reflect on Christ’s humanity. Is that not a good thing? And in some way, is this not what art is supposed to do? Although I have not seen this installation, the idea has caused me to wonder what I really believe concerning Christ’s humanity. It is one thing to subscribe to a doctrinal view in the abstract, but this piece of artwork has challenged me to go that bit deeper and reconsider what it really means for Christ to be human.
That said though, perhaps I am reading too much into all this. Perhaps the artist has, after all, just stuck a big nob on a statue of Christ!
9 Responses to “Gallery shocks with explicit plaster Christ”
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Barry
Said this on January 6th, 2008 at 12:53pm:I haven’t seen it either. If it offends people, perhaps it’s because of the indignity of nakedness rather than the fact that it has an erect penis.
isc
Said this on January 6th, 2008 at 8:25pm:Hmm…
Well, (as we know) it’s just a biological function and there doesn’t necessarily need to be any sexual desire for it to happen. Of course (being a human man) he’ll have had them - and fairly erratically and uncontrollably as a teenage boy. I find that as normal normal - and as normal as the idea that, had he been a woman (now there’s a can of worms for some people to get to work on!) [s]he’d have had periods. I think that the squimishness about that comes exactly from that profound anti-materialist influence that came into Christianity very early on from Hellenism/Gnosticism and never left it.
But for me, there I do think that I have a problem with the statue. It’s not a problem with what it is a representation of - as that’s something that’s entirely normal and, if anyone doubts it or is uncomfortable with it, then it says more about their own hang-ups about sex and bodies than anything else.
So my problem with it would be around “what” it is exactly, but more about “why” it’s been produced. Why has the sculptor done what he’s done? What is the message that he’s (presumably) wanting to communicate or (looked at another way) what reaction was he trying to evoke or what insight is this “twist” on the image motivated to convey? Ok, I’m going to get pulled up at this point for assuming an artistic equivalent of literary authorial intent, but (as AJ knows) I think that there is more to art, literature and everything else in life than simply whatever may happen to pass through the mind of the beholder.
I think that the urge to shock - or just to juxtapose images that throw up new and unusual perspectives and meanings on those images - is an inherent and fascinating driving force in art these days. And yet, I’m not happy with an image that is presumably intended to be a kind of desecration of the person who I worship as God.
It reminds me about the furore over “Jerry Springer - The Opera”, which I was also ambivalent about. But although I did feel that the JSTO that was broadcast on TV was (from a Christian point of view) offensive (or, at least, the second half), I thought that JSTO was really just using the symbols of Christianity to take a very well-aimed satirical pot-shot at vacuous, consumerist, voyueristic, degrading TV like the actual Jerry Springer show and the culture that it exemplifies. Christianity itself and Christ himself were not the target - it was just that their symbols were a vehicle for something else.
Anyway - I dunno!
Tricky.
AJ
Said this on January 7th, 2008 at 2:44pm:Hey ISC,
Agreed, again it is all interpretation - beholder/reader vs artist/author. I too do not want to throw out artistic intent but I recognize the significant role the beholder plays in appreciating the work. That said I am tempted to agree with you concerning the motives of this artist. But I am not a fan of censorship of this kind of material; once we go down that route it seems to me that we could run the risk of oppressing liberties and inflicting a Christian world view.
Saint Peter
Said this on January 7th, 2008 at 9:29pm:I wanted to reply to your article at work but due to your ‘erection’ the school’s firewall wouldn’t let me get access to your site. Anyway, I’ve just had a look at some of the blokes other work on the net.
He’s been a busy boy. One of his pieces is called ‘UNTITLED (C45) 2006. It’s a sensitive little number on ‘Mixed media, wood panel, paint, Colt 45 beer, and artist’s piss’. Looks like someone has simply had a slash on a door. And as for the rest of it, it’s all equally as rubbish. There’s other untitled work of what looks like the disciples and Mary with massive knobs. The gallery words it: as ‘… a WC of iniquity, a literal closeting of desire. Decked out in dirty black, with rows of phallus-laden religious icons.’
Yeah I find it offensive. I agree pretty much agree with the vicar quote in your article. But it doesn’t really make me think of Christ’s humanity I doubt for one minute that people who were crucified got stiff. The bloke just seems bit messed up to me.
The only real concern is that you said that you ‘enjoy reading the pretentious dribble on the plaques describing the exhibits’ in art galleries. That’s so last year. If you want pretentious dribble, just read peoples’ blogs, they’re full of the crap
AJ
Said this on January 8th, 2008 at 9:31am:Thanks Saint Peter, I was kind of waiting on your reply to this post!
Barry
Said this on January 11th, 2008 at 12:55am:It’s irrelevant to this post, I’m afraid, but YOU’VE BEEN TAGGED.
AJ
Said this on January 11th, 2008 at 10:52am:Ummm… thanks Barry… not certain I have any blog friends to tag but I will give the subject some thought and put a post together.
isc
Said this on January 11th, 2008 at 11:00pm:No - certainly not into censorship. I was just talking abouit myself and wondering what my reaction was, why, what the thing was/is intended to “say” or “do” (if anything), what drives someone who does something like that, etc… It seems to me that anyone that tries to desecrate something (if that’s what he’s doing, consciously or not) is a bit unfortunate - maybe a bit sad or angry or something. I don’t know - just speculating. Or wondering, really.
AJ
Said this on January 20th, 2008 at 12:53pm:Yeah, I did not mean to imply you would be into censorship. I guess what I was also trying to do in this post was avoid the typical knee-jerk Christian reaction you almost always come across which tends to want to protest, silence and shutdown without thinking through consequences of such a position; for me, it seems better to try engage.