Comparison and Analysis of the Case of the Exhibition of Andres Serrano and Andres Serrano’s Winning Piece (Piss Christ, 1987)
Comparison
In the case of the rejection of Andres Serrano’s exhibition in Australia, there are concerns over Andre’ work ‘Piss Christ’ from several religious stakeholders. A representative of the Australian Catholic has requested the Australian Supreme Court to ban the image claiminghat it is a form a blasphemy that cannot be tolerated by Catholics across Australia. Supporting his arguments with the Summary Offenses Act, Dr. Pell mentioned that Andres Serrano’s work was obscene and indecent to be exhibited in a National Art Gallery. However, certain religious stakeholders on the other hand, believes that the photograph was a representation of a magnificent piece of work. This case also presents a denial of freedom of expression among artists considering that Dr. Pell and other Catholics have insisted that the name of Andres Serrano’s painting is also insulting, scurrilous and offensive to the Christian world. However, the Australian Supreme Court in his decision indicated that the case did not have a legal basis for banning the exhibition of Andres Work.
Similar reactions towards Andres Serrano’s work, ‘Piss Christ’ were reported in France and Virginia, United States. Religious stakeholders in the United States such as the American Family Association implemented campaigns against Serrano’s work, terming it blasphemous and disrespectful. However, the difference in regard to the manner in which the Andres case handled in Australia and United States occurs in the sense that in Australia, the legal system (Government) did not find a legal basis for banning Serrano’s work, while in the United States certain government officials took the center-stage to criticize the National Endowment of the Art for having sponsored the Piss Christ piece of art. Besides, in both cases, there is evidently a conflict between religious perspectives and art work; Andres Serrano in his argument was of the perspective that his art, ‘Piss Christ’ was an imperative piece of work that basically represented his creativity. On the other hand, religious groups, particularly the Australian Catholic and the American Family Association were of a different opinion, referring to the ‘Piss Christ’ as an exhibition of blasphemy.
Analysis of the Cases
One of the critical issues that emerge in regard to the manner in which Andres Serrano’s art work was received in different parts of the world is the ownership of religious symbols. The issue of stakeholders that should claim the ownership of religious symbols has been a major discussion from many scholars and theologists. To some extent, it appears that there is usually conflict concerning the ownership and control of the manner in which religious symbols are used by religious stakeholders and other individuals within the society. Certain researchers have argued that the religious symbols such as the Crucifix et cetera, are considered iconic representation of certain values of religious groups; they represent particular ideas valued and appreciated by religious stakeholders. The fact that ‘Piss Christ’ raised pertinent religious concerns among key stakeholders creates a platform to conclude that it was a religious piece of work regardless of the intention of the artist. However, it is crucial to take note of the fact that the manner in which the art was presented is in violation of the values and ideas represented by the symbol.
The perception towards the creation of art works in the nature similar to the ‘Piss Chris’ differs to a great extent among many stakeholders. Apparently, individuals within the Church or religious sector have unique perspectives concerning the creation of such pieces of art work. Andre Seranno’s ‘Piss Christ’ received different reactions; for instance, the National Endowment of the Art awarded a $15,000 sponsorship to Andres’ work, classifying it as a magnificent piece of art work. However, certain religious stakeholders including a representative of the Amrican Family Association and Dr. Pell, the Head of the Australian Catholic together with other religious leaders in France termed ‘Piss Christ’ as a blasphemous representation of the Crucifix. It was also regarded as obscene, insulting and disrespect towards the values of the church. On the other hand, the head of the Australian Anglican church, termed ‘Piss Christ’ as a creative and beautiful art work. The Australian Supreme Court in a case Australian Catholic vs. Piss Christ, concluded in its decision that there was no legal basis for banning the exhibition of ‘Piss Christ’ or categorizing it as a criminal act. In this regard, the considering or classification of art work in the nature of ‘Piss Christ’ as wrong depends on the perspectives and values of stakeholders involved.
There have been myriad cases characterized by the request to prevent the exhibition of art works in the nature of ‘Piss Christ’ and other erotic art work in museum. The most surprising issue concerning this cases is that majority of the decisions made by courts are usually in favor of the artists, with the judges claiming that there is no proprer legal basis for prevening their exhibition. For example, in a case, “Ten Erotic Paintings Indentified as George Brosz” vs. The United States of America, the District Judge made a conclusion that the custom official could not prevent the importation of the ten erotica paintings even though the appellant argued that the images of the art work were obscene and demeaned the social values of the American Society. In another case, ‘The Mayor of New York City vs.Brooklyne Museum, the District Court Judeg ruled in favor of Brooklyne Museum. The Brooklyne Museum had sought for an injunction order from the court after the Office of the Mayor had filed a motion to support their decision to withhold funds that were meant to support the operations of the Museum, claiming that certain exhibitions were provocative and violated the values of the Catholic church. From these cases, it is evident that the display of art work in the nature of ‘Piss Christ’ are not considered illegal or crimes, hence, they can be exhibited in museums.
Certain stakeholders such as the Head of the then Australian Catholic Church referred to the ‘Piss Christ’ as blasphemous piece of art work. In many states, blasphemy is not considered a criminal offense; according to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Right laws prohibiting blasphemous expressions are regarded as obstacles to freedom of expression. States such as Wales and England have also abolished Blasphemous libel laws, terming them as a violation of the rights of individuals to express themselves. However, most Islamic States prohibit blasphemy under the guidance of Sharia law/regulations.
In the case of ‘Piss Christ’, the Australian Court ruled in favor of exhibition of the artwork in the case between Australian Catholic vs. Piss Christ; the decision of the court was based on the fact that there was no legal basis for prohibiting the exhibition of the Art work. A similar opinion was also indicated the United States where ‘Piss Christ’ was considered an artistis expression, hence, protected by the First Amendment. Even though, there is conflict of ideas regarding the presentation of artistic work between artists and religious stakeholders, it is significant to recognize that artists play a major role in the presentation of the actual events of the society. In fact, art is usually regarded as a mirror of the society; artists basically represent events and occurrences of the society, although their representations may be considered provocative depending on the understanding of their audience.
Bibliography
Casey, Damien. "Sacrifice, Piss Christ, and liberal excess." Law Text Culture 5 (2000): 19.
Mayor of the City of New York vs. Brooklyne Museum, The Brooklyne Institute of Art and Science 2-38 (United States District Cour: Eastern District of New York Nov. & dec. 1, 1999).
"Protecting Freedom of Expression, from Piss Christ to Charlie Hebdo | Creative Time Reports." Creative Time Reports. 2015. Accessed July 22, 2016. http://creativetimereports.org/2015/01/30/free-speech-piss-christ-charlie-hebdo-andres-serrano/.
Ten Erotic Paintings Indentified as George Brosz” vs. The United States of America, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 1970).
