Ryan on Jesus and Pee

In response to the outrage cause by a piece entitle “Piss Christ”, Andres Serrano composed a letter to the National Endowment of the Arts and it was one far better articulated and as a whole than its opposing letter written by Jesse Helms. In this battle of the pen, the authors argued their respective points, but it seems that the only thing in question was the age-old debate of what constitutes a piece of art. This is a question that has been greatly discussed in the eye of the art world, but because of many shows that have been in the public eye, it is now one that needs to be further discussed. A top of conversations that need to be held with the general public it also seems that the idea of politics has seeped into the funding of artists and their pieces. It is this point that is brought to the surface by these two letters.
The National Endowment of the Arts funded Serrano a fairly well-known artists. And under such funding, the artist created a piece called “Piss Christ” which is a photograph of a small crucifix emerged in a glass of his own urine. The image divulges little of the placement of the figure other than its title and creates a grotesque, but intriguing and beautiful glow around the sunken crucifix. It is brought up by Jesse Helms that Serrano has created a piece of tastelessness that is both insulting and should not be called art. Here is where the question of art comes to the forefront as well as the question of funding. Helms says that such pieces should be ignored by the public and should definitely not be funded by the money of tax payers of America who would also be incredible offended. Senator Helms ignores the purpose of art however, and seems to be blinded by his beliefs and a lack of comfort in his said beliefs.
Art can be questioned and questioned again, but one common and well agreed upon theme in art is that its purpose is to evoke some type of emotion. Whether it is simply that of visual pleasure or of a more evoking emotion that is meant to force contemplation of a message, art is meant to speak to the viewer. It is this aspect that Senator Helms missed. Might this piece have upset him? Yes, and it probably upset many others as well, but that only talks of the piece’s success. If this is where the pieces influence ended however, its end only speaks upon the ignorance and closed minded nature of those who let beliefs halt their exploratory process. Instead of staying in a closed-off sense of loathing the viewers should have searched for the answers to the questions of why the artist might try to raise such emotions and what messages they might be trying to speak upon. It is for this reason that if this piece has become a failure that it is only due to the ignorance of few who have been blinded by their beliefs and closed off their minds to other interpretations of the world around them, whether it be spiritual or otherwise.