hotpink Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 Close, I'm sure some went to see it because it was controversial. But the blame belongs on those that produced the play and those that paid to see it. Not the those that warned against it. Well, I think that you are getting to the "feed the trolls" sort of thing. It's one thing for God to tell two people not to eat from a tree (and we all see how well that worked out) and to simply "blame the creator" of bad or offensive art. Especally when people are not even putting in any effort. I mean really. That person in the immage was not in any way refelective of any Mary I've ever seen, and it was way more offensive to black persons, especally black women. So that they just called it Mary is utterly ludicrous and those who start ban campaigns--fully knowing it will give the "art" more attiention-- are most certinatly to blame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 It is our duty to warn against sin. I do not agree that we blame those that do there duty. There is nothing more to be said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dominicansoul Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 this piece of "art" has been around for decades now... the poop must be petrified by now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 this piece of "art" has been around for decades now... the poop must be petrified by now... Ewwwwww Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hotpink Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 It is our duty to warn against sin. I do not agree that we blame those that do there duty. There is nothing more to be said. I find your use of duty ironic given the substance. this piece of "art" has been around for decades now... the poop must be petrified by now... Which even more brings up the fact. If this is decades old, and someone who's been through a few arts classes in a secular college hasn't heard of it, then perhaps those who are trying to make abig deal about it are at fault. You can warn people about sin but if you go around pointing out sins that most people couldn't even fathom and introduce them to it as a way of "saving their souls" then yeah, I think that you do carry some responsibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 I find your use of duty ironic given the substance. Harty har har Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papist Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 You don't have to fear if you do look at it. It looks like a very offensively drawn black woman with magazine butt cutouts like fractals around it. I'm not sure I quite see the poop, unless that's the skin color which makes it even more offensive. The artist can call it Mary, but seriously, it isn't like any Mary I've ever seen, nor does it posses the iconography or other standards know to Mary (halo, veil, young) heck, one could probably even claim the picture is not female You can say that again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hotpink Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 You can say that again. Which is why I think that the fault for this "art" being known falls more on those who are trying to save us all from sin, than maybe even the creator. There's no way I could of told you people saw that as mary if you sat me in a room all day and had me yell out names. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papist Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 I find this more racist than anti-catholic. When you see it, you don't think it's our Holy Mother. In my city, years ago, there was an horrible play in the theatre - our poor Christ and scatology stuff >_<. But NOBODY was speaking about it. I think the bishop condemn it, but nothing more. buuuut then came Civitas, the political branch of the FSSPX of Marcel Lefebvre. They speak about it aloud, describing with a lot of details what was happening in this play, going in the streets with big wooden cross, praying the rosaries in the streets, attacked the play... The resultats ? A lot of people came to see the play, who had a lot of success, thanks to Civitas ! This is what I'm saying. Although it would give it more press, we need those of color, not Catholics to be condemning this. I think he means that drama causes more people to want to watch. But really, that's human nature. If it wasn't then we wouldn't of had public executions....some of those condoned by the church How is the "art" racist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papist Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 Which is why I think that the fault for this "art" being known falls more on those who are trying to save us all from sin, than maybe even the creator. There's no way I could of told you people saw that as mary if you sat me in a room all day and had me yell out names. Don't think it is required to look like Mary. Did the "artist" not state it is Mary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hotpink Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 How is the "art" racist? It contains many of the elements that make fun of black people...big lips, nose, etc Don't think it is required to look like Mary. Did the "artist" not state it is Mary? no the artist did...but a name should help identify the piece. In this case, he drew a caracture--a bad one-- of a black woman and called it Mary..just for attention obvously as every element of this picture is supposed to get attention. And just named it Mary....to which the proper respnse would of been "you loony", not "lets make sure every last person hears about this" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papist Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 It contains many of the elements that make fun of black people...big lips, nose, etc no the artist did...but a name should help identify the piece. In this case, he drew a caracture--a bad one-- of a black woman and called it Mary..just for attention obvously as every element of this picture is supposed to get attention. And just named it Mary....to which the proper respnse would of been "you loony", not "lets make sure every last person hears about this" Did the artist state it is a black woman? Why is "big lips, nose, etc" bad? Women desire full lips and spend a lot of money to obtain such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice_nine Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 big lips, big nose etc isn't bad, but accompanying those features with asses and elephant croutons? Seems messed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benedictus Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 An Image of the Blessed Virgin Mary covered in dung and pornography is going to be sold by Christie's in London. I find this image quite offensive and thought that I would share a link to the story with Phatmass readers. http://www.infowars.com/virgin-mary-painting-covered-in-dung-and-porn-to-be-sold-at-christies/ There seems to have been too much hype over this. I have been critical of some depictions in the past, but this not so much. I don't think some people who are against it have seen it and most, even those who've seen it, probably haven't researched the artist or their intentions. The intentions and ideas people have are important and should be considered when judging something they do or produce. I wouldn't buy it. However, I think it can be used in a pro Catholic way, in terms of discussion and addressing the ideas the artist had wanted to address in the public sphere. The use of elephant dung, which is offensive to some, doesn't take into account in some cultures dung isn't seen in the same way. As an example, cow dung is considered holy by some groups in India. The artist asserts the same thing to elephants in parts of Africa. There are clear issues around holiness and sexuality, bodies and public display, fertility and motherhood that are important matters to tackle. I think the piece attempts to run with those ideas in a way that startles some. It's a missed opportunity, I think, to simply rally against it without addressing the issues raised as well. That's the point of art, at least one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Discerning13 Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 This image makes me angry that they're disrespecting the Virgin Mary, but also sad that someone would do that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now