Is this art or blasphemy?

Question

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080828/tod-uk-italy-frog-fdde6d8.html

Personally, I feel that this is ridiculous to be called blasphemous.

I can see why many people may take offence but art is separate from political correctness.

In the eyes of art, crucifixion is nothing more than a Roman method of execution. If Jesus had been beheaded, would a frog being beheaded be blasphemous?

The opposing argument is that the cross is a sacred symbol for Christians, but it is rendered irrelevant when depicted in the form of art.

I am sure that I am not the only person who feels that art, no matter what or where, should never be limited or restricted.

That's my opinion anyway. What are your thoughts?

P.S. please offer some reasoning not just 'it's blasphemous' or 'i am offended by that' or 'i agree with you'

thanks

Answer 1

Political correctness for the sake of political correctness is ridiculous, but, this alleged work of art does indeed, cross the line for several reasons.   Look, the artist, the deceased Herr Kippenberger, knew exactly what he was doing,  You cannot use the argument that crucifixion was simply a Roman method of execution when its significance for the last 2,000 years + has been nothing less than the single most recognisable and influential religious symbol in history.

As a Christian, I am not in the least bit offended by this work, I am not amused by the wanton depiction of cruelty to a frog, even a caricature of one, but, other than that, it says nothing to me.  However, I can certainly see why others may take offence. The artist wanted this to be controversial, by way of an open door to blasphemous interpretation, he got his wish.  This used to get you into severe trouble, in less tolerant times.  How about a skewered frog ascending to heaven from the Al Aqsa mosque, or a frog in rabbinical garb being trod on by a n**i boot, or a frog self immolating wearing the trappings of a Buddhist monk?   Arguably, these would have the very same artistic merit, and the very same offencive potential. Blasphemy is in the eye of the beholder and believer. Not my cup of tea, mate.

Answer 2

It is not blasphemous b/c the frog is not depicted as Jesus, he does not have a crown of thorns, or gashes or nails or anything to resemble Holiness. I am very religious and I take great offense to blasphemous nature, but my friend, the Pope is a moron. I am not a big fan of the Pope anyway and I think the concept is rediculous but I will not get into that, I don't want to offend anyone. I just think that we can talk to God ourselves and no one has greater favor over another in God's eyes.

Answer 3

I think you are being disingenuous here.  What leads you to think it isn't offensive?  Can't you empathise with the Christians who find it offensive, if not, why not?

Why should "art" have a licence to offend without the artist taking the consequences of his/her offensive actions?

It may not be blasphemous, but it is certainly offensive to a large part of the world's population.

It is open to everyone to criticise religion but being offensive is going too far.

Answer 4

As someone who is not at all religious I just see a frog on a cross.

Big deal.

I'm not really sure what it is meant to be interpreted as.

I'm still trying to figure it out.

If you could interpret the art I think more people would understand the artistic aspect.

If it was something intentionally offensive it would be an issue but it's not. At least from my perspective. I think art can be taken in the wrong light a lot of the time.

Answer 5

It was made to upset people & so get publicity

It belongs in the trash

It doesnt offend me though

Answer 6

i dont think the pope gets out much, but why is the frog holding an egg? dont be silly, its not art or blasphemy its just someone messing around.  

Answer 7

I'm not religious, so I'm not one to judge something as blasphemous.  But I don't think I would consider this art.  I know that art can be used to push the limits of what's acceptable, but just because something does push those limits doesn't necessarily make it art. In other words, I see no artistic value or creativity in a crucified frog holding a beer and an egg.

Answer 8

I'm not sure how it could upset. I'm not even sure how blasphemy works. I mean, can't God stick up for himself or is he going to lay about and let people decide what can insult him or not?

I hope it doesn't get taken down.  

Answer 9

As far as I am concerned it is neither - it's too ugly to be art and it is too silly to be blasphemous. If you ask me everyone involved only wants publicity

Answer 10

It's art. I love the fact that it's so confrontational. Too much art is too insipid and only used for decoration. It's like really bad sweets for the eyes, with nothing to stimulate the mind.

This piece of art is great, really gets up people's noses. I live that.

For me, art should be provocative in some way. This is the 'subtle as a chainsaw' approach.

As for the pope and the Vatican, well, they can collectively go **** themselves. How much money do you think they take in every year by charging people 10 Euro a head to see the Vatican Art Collection and Sistine Chapel?

Answer 11

As an Anglican I see no difficulty with a bit of artistic licence.It in no way offends me to hear the frog story. Jesus lived, he died, he rose again, he transforms people and societies still. He promises to give a special peace to all who follow him with sincere conviction. My faith is founded on Jesus as John's Gospel presents him, and a frog being crucified is of no consequence to my belief. In a sense an artist painting that image reinforces the central importance of the cross to western society.