Fresno Famous

At least i don't hide behind

At least i don't hide behind some bullshit tag like loyola law 98...

And what does courage have to do with it...what are you going to track me down and come to my house...or look up information on me to see whether i pass some sort of catholic dogma test...

Sorry but I don't usually sign my name on stuff like this anyway...

what courage

what courage to post such a reply anonymously.

Upside Down

So your argument is based on whether one is a practicing catholic, abiding by some very strange church rules. Well I bet most so called catholics don't know about these rules that you seem to have pulled out of your ass after you found out why you were so offended by this particular piece of art(Note: you didn't originally know that it was painted on a real human skull). So it seems that your argument might have come from some severe pathos in seeing the bvm on something that wasn't sanctioned by you or the church, instead of your revered logos.

Umm, and maybe the problem is not the world turning upside down, but that your so called reason and logic is so severely flawed that it causes you to see and experience things all wrong...ad hominem

so as planet asia would say- "we are about to turn america upside down"

Closing thoughts

I thought for quite a while about whether or not to jump back into this debate, admitting that my post was the start of it.

While many have attempted reasoned arguments, I must frankly admit that the vitriol spewed by the few was surprising.

In general this little website can be seen as a microcosm of many trends that are occurring in our larger culture.

They say that the British played the tune "The World Turned Upside Down" when they surrendered at Yorktown. I don't know if it's because I'm getting older, but many trends that I see are so completely contray to reason and logic that it does feel like the world is turning upside down.

As an example, classical argumentation was classified in three categories:

1.) Logos argumentation - to actually use reasoning, make an argument.
2.) Ethos argumentation - to base your argument on the probity or standing of the person making the argument. (Ad hominem attacks - attacking the charcater of your opponent is a subset of this level.)
3.) Pathos argumentation - to argue from emotion.

These categories were also a hierarchy, with logos on top.

I am struck at the fact that most of the responses to my question have used an inverse of this hierarchy. Starting at emotion, and then jumping into ad hominem attacks.

This being said, I will try and create a logos argument in this final posting on this topic, admitting at the onset that it touches on the metaphysical and religious faith as it deals with the Theotokos, i.e., the Mother of God.

As an additional aside, I am a little trepidatious on expounding Roman Catholic dogma on a secular website, but as many of my detractors have used false presentations of what the Church teaches, it appears necessary.

According to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church the presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary on an actual human skull is blasphemous.

Some have likened this image to the infamous "Piss Christ" or to the more recent picture of the BVM done in cattle dung. This is not the case here. With the exception of some truly deviant people, most of humanity views anything scatalogical as gross, and the combination of religious imagery with fecal and other waste matter is clearly seen as a provocation.

What this is more akin to would be say creating a statue of Vishnu from pork sausage. Pork is something prohibited in Hinduism, and hence even an "areligious" person should be able to see that creating an image of a Hindu deity with an item they consider unclean is an affront.

The portrait of the BVM on an actual human skull is both blasphemopus and disrespectful not beacuse Roman Catholics consider human remains unclean or filthy, but beacuse of the exact opposite. Portraying the Virgin Mary in such a fashion is wrong because we value and respect the remains of the dead.

a.) Theological respect for the dead

The Roman Catholic Church is traditionally divided into three parts:
1.) The Church Militant (Ecclesia Militans), comprising Christians who are living
2.) The Church Triumphant (Ecclesia Triumphans), comprising those who are in Heaven
3.) The Church Suffering (Ecclesia Penitens) comprising those Christians presently in Purgatory.

By definition two thirds of our membership are dead! We in the Church Militant( the living) pray to those in the Church Triumphant (the dead in heaven) to intercede for us and for the souls of the Church Suffering ( the dead in Purgatory.)

The respect we are to show the remnainms of the dead is a reflection of this tri-part dynamic relationship.

b.) Actual respect for human remains

Roman Catholics

Here to quote the newly promulgated "Universal Catechism of the Catholic Church":

"PART 3, SECTION 2 2, CHAPTER 2 2, ARTICLE 5, SUBSECTION 2, HEADING 5

Respect for the dead
2299 The dying should be given attention and care to help them live their last moments in dignity and peace. They will be helped by the prayer of their relatives, who must see to it that the sick receive at the proper time the sacraments that prepare them to meet the living God.

2300 The bodies of the dead must be treated with respect and charity, in faith and hope of the Resurrection. The burial of the dead is a corporal work of mercy; 92 it honors the children of God, who are temples of the Holy Spirit.

2301 Autopsies can be morally permitted for legal inquests or scientific research. The free gift of organs after death is legitimate and can be meritorious.

The Church permits cremation, provided that it does not demonstrate a denial of faith in the resurrection of the body."

To those who have commented that "I am from a good Catholic family" and I think the artwork is OK, or others who stated "I'm Catholic" and I see no problem, I would retort that you are IGNORANT of your faith. (These too are merely Ethos level arguments on their part).

There are other Church rules that forbid trading in human remains, etc...

The only person to make a Logos level argument in this regard has been Mr. Fierro. He even went so far as to include pictures of the frequent use of human bones in European Church architecture. These uses, also sometimes referred to as "Momento Mori" are permissable specifically beacuse they are in Churches. Roman Catholics believe that all human remains must be kept in blessed cemeteries or other consecrated ground, a Church so qualifying.

Frequently in older churches on one side would be found a baptistry chapel, and on the other a mortuary chapel. This secondary chapel might also give entrance to cemeteries that would be placed next to the Church. It is my understanding that until stolen some time in the 1960's, Mission San Luis Rey had actual human bones at the lintel of the doorway leading from their mortuary chapel to the cemetery. Today there is a plaster recreation.

I go into this lengthy exposition to show that for any believing Roman Catholic their are valid canonical grounds to object to this artwork.

Over and above this I find the notion of using an actual human skull as a medium for religious art to be gross. (here I know I too have just sunk to a Pathos level argument) I would ask this question - who would put a picture of their own mother on a human skull and then display it in their house? I mean besides Gomez and Morticia Addams.

You say "Mary is not my mother."

Remember the words of her Son "Ecce mater tua."

Final comments:

Carlos

as you have asked direct questions, I'll try to answer them directly, and in as brief as possible. (My writings are long enough as it is.)

You draw some conclusions, and call them fact.
Not a wise thing to do when in debate or considering someone else in the room beside yourself.

-you say that I've ignored your examples of use of bone in religious practices, art, and artifact. (I've stated repeatedly that I understand these things,) --I looked at the site you've shown, they are not new, to me, as a formally trained artist, person who has studied varying religions, -as well as sociology, these examples, though spectacular are far from new.

-I've welcomed, repeatedly both the artist's explaination for their motives and choice in depicting the images that he did. (unbiased, as stated.)
-I've welcomed cultural explaination, (-which may reveal a 'flaw'.
You are referring to a religious holiday in Spanish, I don't speak Spainsh, (I'm learning,) and I don't know all of the religious themes and holidays, yet. (I'm Anglo, it is what it is... I'll check out the (celebration?) you've referred me to.)
--I've asked for some explaination of what that holiday is, -as well as welcomed that application to explaining this artwork, (I've even given examples of other cases where the work was totally venerable and justifiable in a colloquial sense, -yet surrounded with controversy outside of that realm, (the 'Elephant Dung Madonna,')
-But you claim that I've ignored your explaination.
(Which explaination did I ignore?)

I've taken time to clarify by concerns, used examples, and have restated my initial concerns.
(Which probably gets me in more trouble than anything, -as this too takes time, words, and more time to read, --but I think my reasonings and examples are comprehendable and far from absurd.
If I am alone in this?
That's okay, I've made significant effort, -and have not looked to cast the piece in a negative light, --and have stated (yet again,) that I am open to reasons behind it,
(I have even stated that I liked the earlier writer's explaination that it is a deity guarding one's mind... (I think I called it 'cool.')

Backing off this (by virtue of having other work that has needed to be done, ---and rereading the thread?)
I think my points have been stated quiet clearly,
-and I've given good reasons for those concerns.
-That you do not see this is not for lack of my attempting to explain.

I think it is safe to say that we are at an impasse.

Reading the initial comment about the imbalance of
'how people regard others beliefs' I do feel, is dead on.

-And this string has illustrated such.

It is part of the point that I was (attempting, perhaps failing,) to make.

Perhaps it's just human nature. (We all think of 'self,' first, -and understand things in our own minds, and then work outward, -It's just the way that people are.)

-If I have something that I hold as sacred, it means a great deal to me.
Others may not see it as such.

I may be able to explain why it's sacred, (even to someone who does not see it as so,)

-but in the end it is up to them to say: '...ya know what, whether I see it as a good thing or a bad thing is not the issue, ---the issue is that someone else, who I care about, sees it in this way, and i need to convey my caring by respecting it and upholding their view, ---whether I see it or not.'

-It extends out further,
--as people and their views are not defined by 'our,' value (nor 'our understanding,'---nor anyone elses..)
---but THEIR OWN value and understanding.
To them?, -they matter,
To them?, it matters.
-And that is enough for me.

To apply this?
-prior to my moving here and writing on this site?
-I never heard of you, never dialogued with you, had no clue as to what your stances were, -nor new what mattered to you.
-Did you mean anything to me?
-In some interpretations of that statement?
No. I can safely say that, having never met you, I never thought of you once, so I didn't care about you at all.

-But did you exist? yes.
-Did you have your own feelings about things? yes.
-Did you have your own take on what is sacred or not? yes.
--Does the fact that I know you, or that I understand anything about you, (even the fact that you exist,) have any bearing on those facts? No.
-You stand as who you are,
-and your reasonings are to be upheld and respected
(-Regardless of whether I am aware, comprehend, or agree with them or not.)

I have strong suspicions that you, (as well as Loyola,) and anyone else who reads this, (not to mention those who don't,) have things that are held dear -that I may not know about, nor agree with.

My responsibility, (personally, if I am following the code that I ascribe to,) would be to uphold your traditions and beliefs, -as much as I am able, -so long as they were not damaging to others, and seeking to destroy others, (or yourself,)
-and to respect, (even if I don't agree with them,)
Simply because they mean something to you.

I'll give you an example.
I know racists. (Seriously hard core, difficult to be around, hearing what they have to say makes you want to cry and throw up, sort of racists.)
-Do I agree with them? No. in no way whatsoever.
-Do I respect their views and think that they should be furthered? No, I think their views are repugnant.
-Do I feel that they have a right to speak their mind and be heard? Yes.
-Do I care about them, and does this caring seek to try to understand why they have these feelings about others? -As much as I am able.
-Are they worth something even though their practices and viewpoints are vile beyond even my wildest imagination? -Yes, they are people, and they are priceless.
-They even have feelings,
they even have things that they hold sacred, and those things, (sometimes,) can even be a common ground by which their sensitive and human side can be found, -perhaps used to soften and remove the acid thorns of their other stances, ---and at times can save them from horrendous paths and lives.

The resoning behind this example?

Not only are people who I've never heard of worth something, but their views, their beliefs and traditions, -and even stuff they cannot explain to me are worth something.

-And they are worth something NOT because I know of them, or because they can explain them and convince me or anyone else that they have value, ----but they are worth something because they merely exist.

(That's it, they just 'are,')
-Just like you existed before I ever heard of you, and I existed before you ever heard of me.)

All of these reasons, values, traditions, people, and sacred ideals retain their value and worth
-regardless of their presentation
-regardless of anyone's understanding.

I'm okay with that.

That was the fork in the road with this whole issue of the imagery on the cover of your Newspaper.

To me, it's not about Loyola explaining his (or her,) reasons for the offence in a manner that (has to,) justify an apology, ---or warrant sensitivity.

To me: it's not all rhetoric, it's not verbal or grammatical or sociological chess moves, -ever.

It was not ferretting out the exact phrases, misstatements, comments, or technical communication -in order to see if someone was worth considering. (I simply don't see people like that.)

A person, and their reasons has value, -not because I let them, -but because they just DO.
Same goes for their feelings about what they hold dear.

To this person, an image that was presented was offensive and (they felt,) attacked something (someone,) who they held dear and venerable?
-That's enough for me.
That warrants an explaination, that warrants trying to convey the reasons behind it in effort to educate, maybe console, or quell the others feelings, '...this was not meant to offend, this is actually about ________, and it was not intended to offend at all.'

-They don't have to prove to me that their feelings and views are worth something,
-anymore than if you said:
'...hey, Eric, you know your favourite song that you're playing, you know that sacred symbol that you wear, you know that food that you eat, --all of them have negative connontations for me, would you mind not having them around me?'
-I'd be okay with that.
-(You'd not have to explain to me: 'When my sister was killed on a bike, that song was playing on the radio, I was violated by someone who wore that symbol, and my beliefs see that food as an offence.')
-To me, that it upset YOU is enough.
(Those are hypothetical examples by the way, I hope all in your family are well.)

I don't know how you view people, or religious practice, or traditions and culture.
You've shown sensitivity and a desire to NOT see others derided, desecrated, and missrepresented before, -and that was great, I applaud your efforts.

For whatever reason, my effort to convey that this persons viewpoint was credible,
-and that there should be sensitivity shown, has not been heard or seen as such.

I have no desire, (nor time left,) to split hairs and follow after issues that spiral endlessly into theory, If my points were not comprehendable, well, okay, I failed and see no reason to belabor the issue.

Somebody was offronted, and offended.
I see their point, (even if I didn't see it, they were still offronted and offended.)
That's not right.

To me, someone doesn't have to justify their existance and feelings, to be considered worthwhile, worth respecting, and worth apologizing for, -if I've affronted them.

-That includes you, too.

(You may call all of this absurd, too, and that is your right.)

For me, at least, this has been a very educational conversation.

Carlos: Good luck with your paper, Peace to you.

Loyola?
-may our Blessed Mother keep you safe, and intercede on your behalf, further directing you to the truths, wisdom, and peace that you seek, found, (for you? for me? anyone?) in the Sacred Heart of Her Son, (Our,) Lord. (Grace and Peace be with you always.)

(I wonder what Ignatius would have said in all of this, some day I intend to ask him...)

The rest of ya's?
Have a nice day.

One last post

There is a very real difference between someone saying "I am offended" and "That is offensive." If Loyola is offended - on a personal level - I'm sorry (Here I speak for myself). An explanation is not needed. That is not what we have here, Loyola asserts that the image is offensive, in which case it is up to him to explain himself, it is in no way out of line for me to say so.

Loyola's tastes are canceled out by anyone of the other people who have posted here saying they were not offended. It is as if Loyola said "I like chocolate." Fine. However, Loyola wasn't saying "I like chocolate," he was saying what amounts to "Chocolate is the best of all flavors." Such a statement requires reasons.

Void, I don't know why you can't see the difference. You want me to defend myself for something you haven't shown there to be reason to defend. I've given you examples of religious art that uses bones (you've ignored them), I've given you examples of cultural distinction (you've ignored them. I'd suggest you attend the Dia de los Muertos celebration that will be happening next week from St. John's to Arte), I've asked for reasons and you call me naive, I've addressed your points and you've called it garbage w/o addressing my points. I've asked you to answer a simple question and you've passed it by while commenting on the need for me to read what you've written instead of just scanning over your writing.

I am sorry if you or Loyola are offended, however, I don't believe the image is offensive you have not shown it to be so. The conclusions you draw from my saying so have been absurd. They are not tyrannical, they are not on par with someone calling for the death of thousands of people. To try to allude to such IS truly offensive.

Lines....

Are meant to be crossed, just as jesus was meant to be hung on them...right...

Out of the void - Whoever you are, try to be less wordy...it's pretty difficult to figure out what you are thinking amongst all that gibberish.

Loyola - Whats really so offensive about religious igonography on bones? Or pictures of that art on the front of a local paper which promotes the local art scene?

reason for use of FNB in illustration

Tina, use of FNB was simply a common social occurance -you asked a question and I worked within a common venue that we are both aware of.
I'm answering your question now, (as well,) and do not wish to be rude in not answering it.

Use of anyone in the example of 'stepping in,' (or whatever euphamism maybe used re: mediation or peacemaking,) is not about FNB, be it an individual or an org. movement, (whatever.)

The illustration of the comments being made, and the fight breaking out were (again,) a common social setting that we are both familiar with.

-Someone 'stepping in,' on a personal level to:
-move a fight over, or protect the larger group (or other members of the group,) -could be called (in an absurd sense,) 'censorship.'
-Because the fight is not allowed to simply go on its own, -and 'guided,' or 'quieted,' down. (changing it's direction in any way would be a 'type of censorship' -and inflicting an outside will upon those involved.)

-I don't personally see it as censorship, I think there are rules and boundaries (some of which are universals,) that need to be respected by all.
-and I agree with the logic of stepping in and trying to protect others, (and,) see some sort of peaceable end result.

The point would be:
-You look at them not publishing the image (because of public concern,) as 'censorship'
-I am calling the publishing of the image,(with no explaination nor consideration to those who would be offended by it: insensitivity to the one who reveres that image,
-(particularlly when there is no explaination given as to what was behind it,)
--this was made worse by denying credibility of the offence -to the one who was initially offended.

-Your questioning of 'how do we know this was Mary?'
Is both a point and a non-point.
-unless the model is someone who was from Nazareth from the era of the Birth of Christ, -this person probably looks nothing like the real Mary, (for openners she was middleeastern, as was Christ.)

The image of Mary, (much like the image o Christ,) has become an archetype, which means both good and bad things.
-The good thing? we don't know what she really looked like, (which is good, because then nobody will feel left out in associating with her because she does not 'look like 'them.')
-This is also great in that various cultures have the freedom to represent the Holy Family in ways that personalize their own feelings. (Some denoms see this as bad, Most see it as good.)

The bad thing?
Well, being a visual person, I personally would like to know what she looked like, -just because she's an important person in tradition and religious practice. It would just be cool to see the face behind the voice, ('the Magnificat is one of the greatest passages ever written, and it was done by a woman... very very cool.)

Though Mary, in all likelyhood looked nothing like the woman depicted on the skull, The offended viewer took her as Mary.
The image would commonly accepted as a 'Blessed Virgin' figure, not unlike those found in representations such as 'Our Lady of Lourdes,' or other Catholic imagery.

The offended viewer was not even answered with any real explaination to clarify the artists intent,
-nor given any real apology regarding their being offended.
-just a defence of the piece and the right to publish it, (along with a justificaiton 'other people don't have a problem with it.')

There are acceptable standards to everything.
(again, back to FNB, or, if you're more comfortable with it: 'XYZ' 'group,' is making dinner.. (okay, too close to home,)
-they're making breakfast.

While making breakfast the choice is to make a particular dish.
The dish is decided upon in a democratic way by all.
The dish is started.
Someone who has contributed great things in other areas of serving others -chooses to contribute motor oil to the dish,
(...because it has been a good thing to contribute at other times.)
-does someone stop that person?
(what words will we use... reason with, discuss, point out respectfully the pros and cons of NOT putting 10w40 in breakfast...
I dunno...

-What if most of the people think it's a good idea?
-What if only ONE finally gets up on the table and says, '...look, this is crazy, this stuff will make you sick as anything.'

The point?
There are rules and conduct to all things that have established order and define reason.
(Some will call this censorship, but it isn't, nor is it oppressive
-and yes, they may even include stopping people from fighting during a lunch, -or putting motor oil in breakfast.)
-These rules, interestingly enough, sometimes can even be not seen by a majority, but they are still 'true.'
-What is kind of odd, (and where common sense happens,) is where nobody steps up and votes down the oil, -it is included, folks puke their guts out, and the reality of the situation reduces the theory and philosophy to bare facts, really quick.)

One of the rules, (again, if we are going to engage in some sort of 'respect for all, including their beliefs,') is the understanding of what different symbols mean, and respecting others meanings for them, -not our own.

-Do I walk into a vegan setting eating a burger?
No.
I don't expect them to eat meat, drink milk, nor wear leather if I give these things to them, either,
It offends the vegan.
-So I don't do this.
(I'm curious, though, if I was with XYZ group, and we were preparing a common meal, the meal was vegitarian/vegan and I included a meat product, -would I be wrong in doing so???
Why?
(I'm just making a meal to help others...
-wouldn't it be the problem of 'the one's offended' if I included my own choices?,
-Don't I have a right to include my own good things?)
(-Ever notice how sensitivity to others has it's high and low tides depending upon who's around?)
-Again, this quickly desintigrates into Majority vs. Minority.
(I once accidently ate a tunafish sandwich in front of a booth at a convention that was all about boycotting tuna netting because it was killing dolphins or something...
(the former trainer of 'Flipper,' was there.)
-Whups, oh my... NOT a good time, lemme tell ya.)

I don't eat ham in synogogues, either.
Same reasons.

Am I offended?
Am I being censored?
No. I'm choosing to respect others beliefs and practices.

Just like there are associations:
-for some regarding animal products and not for others,
-or specific animal products for some and not for others,
-there are associations involving symbols and religious importance for some and not others.
(Again, not hard to see.)

Asking a newspaper to present a (potentially,) offensive image in a way so that others will not be offended?,
-and maybe present what the artist was thinking?
-or respecting the fact that someone has been offended?,
is just practicing decency.

Again,
I'm not aware of the newspaper being:
-an advocate for free speech,
nor am I aware of it being:
-an advocate of honoring all beliefs and respecting the views of all others,
(two different things, -as demonstrated here.)

There are, however, universals in terms of what is acceptable to do with other's revered figures, -and what not to do.

Putting these two images together, not explaining it, and then denying that it's offensive when someone raises an objection?
-clearly crosses some of those lines.

I don't speak for FNB...

I don't speak for Food Not Bombs. I can only speak for myself.

1. If a person came to a Food Not Bombs meal and started to "loudly state that...there are drug problems, health problems," etc. I suspect that they would be able to say what they wanted to say. Someone may engage them in dialogue but its not our place to tell anyone what he or she can talk about. By its very nature, Food Not Bombs promotes freedom of speech.

2. If a fight breaks out during the meal (like it did last week), the participants generally tend to resolve the issues themselves (for good or bad). A Food Not Bombs volunteer may get involved if there is an issue of safety or harm to others but they are choosing to get involved on a personal, human level not on the behalf of an "organization" (I'm not even sure I would call FNB an organization).

3. Food Not Bombs has no formal leaders and tries to include everyone in its decision making process.

4. How do you know it is intended to be the image of Mary? She isn't who I thought of. I might be the only one who didn't think of her. How do you know this piece of art has religious overtones? Is it stamped on the bottom?

Morning Tina, All:

This is a long response, but it is also a involved topic, It's probably my last response for a bit, because much of it seems to be coming back to constant themes, I am sure that since writing the response (to Tina's question,) that there have been other comments.
(Checking the string, there have been.)

Tina, I wanted to answer your question honestly.

1. I am not asserting that there was a hidden meaning in the choice of the artwork.

2. I have no doubt that there will be a view of the imagery of 'Mary,' as being beautiful. It is a beautiful rendering of a 'European-ized,' 'Madonna,' and technically well done. (I think I have stated this earlier.)

3. I am certainly open to the artist explaining their reasoning as to why they chose to put an image of the Mother of Christ on a dried skull. (I have stated this as well.)

4. I am open to being told (by anyone,) if this has a cultural significance that is understood widely among the readers. (I've stated this too, as well as that I happen to really enjoy other cultures interpretation and depiction of sacred figures, and welcome their reason and custom.)

5. I've also stated that I understand the use of juxtaposition of images in visual, written, and performed arts... heck, even cooking involves this, -I use the formula myself all the time, -everybody does. (stated this too.)

My concerns are the following:

-There has been no explanation of the piece by the artist at this time, we do not know of it's intentions, I am assuming that it was not done for 'shock value,' (such as Piss Christ,). (fine, the piece is taken at face value, for what it is.)

-The piece is not of someone who has a 'close or unknown significance,' (such as the artists own mother,(though it could be of her depicting Mary, who knows?)
-but is of a historically and Internationally recognized figure that is (for those who ascribe to this religion,) understood as being the Mother of all Grace and Mercy.

-This Image is presented on a dried skull. (In modern society, skulls usually are equated with death and things that are hazardous.
-Those who wish to argue otherwise? find a bottle that has a skull put on it... -Do you drink from it? If you do, be sure to take the bottle with you to the ER, and hope that there is an antidote.)

-So, I'm recognizing that there is a dichotomy presented with the image of one who is seen (by many,) as the source of all healing, blessing, mercy, and grace -presented on a human skull.

Others have had their own take on it.

-I readily admit that there may be a (not broadcast,) meaning of her image on a skull, -which would certainly include such things as the one writer stating that it was (a viewed deity,) protecting the mind of a person. (okay, fine, that is an interesting concept and beautifully rendered one at that.)

-The concern that was raised, however, -that threw down a flag was (a devout Catholic,) having a problem with (again,) the mother of all grace, -depicted on an article that normally is affiliated with death.
(That was this person's obvious initial take on it, and they were upset.)

I can see their point.
Apparently I'm alone with this person. (ok, that qualifies nor nullifies anything.)

The major concerns, (and it would be great if this was actually read and understood, -rather than skipped over and some other take on the issue gone after,)
Are this:

1. Whether Undercurrent recognizes that the image has potential for being highly offensive or not, does not remove the likelihood that it will be taken as such.

2. Though some folks may see the image as being beautiful and uplifting,
-that others may see it differently does not create a 'neutral,' or 'zeroed out,' atmosphere.
People are offended, (whether you care about them being offended may seem to make it a good or a bad thing, but that only goes with the level of how much you care about them, in reality, it's just not good.)
Simply taking the stance of 'oh well.' Comes across as insensitive and arrogant.

3. There have been other situations where this same paper has gone after local individuals (justifiably so,) for not only misrepresenting other beliefs and religions,
-but demonstrating extreme insensitivity to those beliefs and religions.
I felt that this was a just and noble thing to do, and applaud their efforts.

4. In presenting this image, and in insisting that there is nothing wrong with doing such,
--even when others can be really offended?
-Begins to present the paper as displaying some of the same behaviors, (that were previously criticized.)
For example: Not all people are Islamic,
-but all people should at least respect Islamic traditions, figures, and ways (at least,) to the point of NOT promoting rhetoric, imagery, (etc.) that will be seen as offensive to someone who is Islamic. (This includes not trashing their sacred symbols, writings, ways, etc. -and presenting them in a manner that they see as respectful.)
-The same rules apply to other beliefs, in this case, Roman Catholics who see Mary as venerable.

5. This is a general statement, about art, music, writing, public speaking, (whatever is done.)
It is true, it could be applied here, and it applies anywhere.
-A person who says, acts, sings, paints, (whatever,) something is making a STATEMENT.
They are as responsible for their statements, comments, and views in these venues as they are in any other.

6. Just because something is suddenly determined to be 'art,' does not now magically make it something for which the artist is no longer responsible.
-It is not suddenly 'right and good (or defendable,) because it's 'art,'
It is not 'excused from responsibility,' because it is art.
Though we all have a right to free speech and self-expression, -this does not excuse us.
Others right to free Speech and self-expression include critiquing and challenging, -as well as countering and showing where our own fail.
'Art,' is created with intent and motive, it took design and deliberate act, it was purposely built 'that way,' anything that is made was made with intent, (no matter how large or small.)
If someone says 'what is this about? (whether in a positive or in a heated manner? -There should be a credible and honest explaination given (if the artist wishes to communicate with their audience,)
-If the answer is: See what you want, take from it what you want? -than the audience has full license to do so, (for good or bad.) --This, by the way, is somewhat rude, --particularlly if someone asks for an explaination.

What is incorrect, and not to be tolerated, (and hopefully NOT happening with this artwork / cover choice)

--Suddenly now, IF 'the work,' is received as good, -then it's a success and the artist did good, (artist is praised and artist takes responsibility.) -okay, fine, no problem.

--Suddenly now, IF 'the work,' is not taken well, and it is seen as bad, -it's no longer due to the artist, -but because the 'audience has a problem.'
(?!)
-That is some of the most lame and irresponsible garbage I've heard in a long time.
In what other occupation, vocation, conversation, (pick anything,) does such inverted logic apply?

It was created by someone,
has their name attached to it,
(They are taking ownership as creator,)
---If it is for sale, and someone wanted to buy it, -who is the money given to?
The wind?

This whole idea of not taking responsibility for ones actions, performance, artwork, written work, design, or comments
---'that it is now the responsibility of the viewer to choose to react or not react'
is arrogant and pathetically self-serving.
-This is (hopefully not a trend,)
I am amazed at such a justification and practice is even being allowed to exist.

I don't know if the artist wants their work presented with such overtones and lack of explaination, (maybe they do, maybe they don't, maybe they have no idea that this conversation is happening, whatever is fine with me, we all have busy lives, and I respect their choice in this issue.)
-But the initial writer was troubled, felt offronted by the piece,
-Others (myself included,) have asked what the piece was about...

Without an answer we are forced to come up with our own, (for me the jury is still out, I don't know if Mr. Reza has phoned in on this or not.)

Further:

One of the things that I was initially encouraged by, with the Undercurrent, (which I read each month,) was that there was an effort made by the editor to present things in an unbiased and 'fair,' manner.
I was grateful for the attempts made to correct misrepresentations of various faiths with all that was being said by the 'bombing pastor,' and felt that there was an attempt not to undermine someone, -but to clarify some serious bias.

I was under the impression that the motive for this was to see all beliefs as being worthy of respect, -and at the very least, -to see no beliefs misinterpreted nor slandered.
I was also under the impression that there was a desire to be sensitive to others religious practice, as well as all religious practice, -as such practices were about respecting all persons, (regardless of their practice.)

I thought that this was the concern that was behind the issues with the 'bombing pastor.' (Because his remarks approved of the eradication of millions, -thereby calling them worthless.)

Maybe I was wrong in this assumption?

Now, Undercurrent has never stated, (to my knowledge,) that they are about 'upholding the rights and perspectives of all people.'
They have not stated that they are 'pro or con the Holy Roman Catholic Church.'
The question came from the initial writer.

So, if they publish artwork that can be seen as offensive to anyone,
-or in this case someone who expresses concern about the Virgin Mary on a human skull?
Well, okay, they've defended their decision and claim that there was no negative intent in so doing.

Do I find the printing of such an image (which could be controversial to say the least,) to be out of sync with the sensitivity that was desired and demanded back when the pastor was misrepresenting (not only Islam, but Christianity, and Judaism?)
—yes.

Do I find the response of the editor, demanding that the one offended explain why, if, and how it's offensive,
(-when it's such an easily recognized juxtaposition of an image of one who represents grace —on an article that is often equated with death,) to show a radical departure from their earlier demands for sensitivity to beliefs?
—yes, and it's somewhat alarming.

I find the whole necessity to explain 'why some symbols are held sacred, -and are treated with respect'
to be a bit of farce.

-I don't expect everybody who puts out a newspaper to have studied art and the impact of image and design,
-and don't expect them to understand the things heralded by all religions at all times,

-But this one is a no-brainer (pun on skull not intended, though if the cranium fits…)
I could see how ignorance to the potential of offence would occur
-(if) the image was of a remote religious figure who is not seen outside of particular regions.

I could understand and find it quite forgivable if no one at the paper was familiar with religious practice,
-and could even see it as an opportunity for the newspaper to say 'The reasons behind this beautiful, yet provocative image of Mary on a skull is ________.'
-At least they're giving someone who is not on the inside a heads up as to the intent.
(When dealing with potentially controversial material, such is considered fair protocol.)
-THAT would have been great.

-But such was not done.

Further: the initial writer basically had their concerns brushed aside, with no credibillity allowed for their concerns.
Again, this came across as insensitive.

Censorship:

As for them choosing not to publish it, ---and that being taken as censorship?
That goes into some very interesting waters.

I have no real interest in censorship.
-but maybe we should consider what censorship is.

-Was there not a group recently shut out from performing at the Starline because they were strongly Neo-Nazi? (…censorship?)
-Do we choose to listen and promote -or not promote other views that could be seen as negative towards people, traditions, cultures, races, political stances, etc. etc. —here in town? (censorship?)

To jump on the old saw of 'it's censorship not to publish this image,'
-Puts ANY sensitivity towards another's beliefs into the role of 'practicing censorship.' (because there is a 'sensitivity,' shown, (actions and words done with respect to being sensitive to practices that we are unfamiliar, (or maybe not agree,) with,

-Suddenly what used to be called 'the desire to respect others stances and beliefs (which include imagery,)'
-becomes nothing more than 'unjustified favoritism and repression and censorship of everything else.'

If a person comes down to Food Not Bombs, when a meal is being served, and clothing is being given out,
-and starts loudly stating that '...there are drug problems, health problems, alch. problems, violence problems, -and how 'folks are choosing to live that way,'
-And starts saying this repeatedly…
What is done?
-Does someone tell them to stop, or settle down? (which is censoring?)
-Is that person asked to talk about something else? (which is censoring?)
(...even saying 'well, those things aren't true, so they should not be said, is regrettably not true... I've had people discuss and demonstrate, and state the above numerous times... (They're still great people, I'm still going to help them regardless.)

-What if a fight breaks out during the meal?…
-and somehow a fight that could actually be justified in the minds of those who are fighting?
---are they asked to stop fighting? (which is censorship?)
---are they TOLD to stop fighting? (which is censorship with a capital 'C'?)

-Though in theory there may be many options,
-in reality the choices are pretty few and direct,
-and to (not,) ask the persons (who are going against the intent of the event,) to stop -is absurd.
-oh, but that's censorship.

If what I am calling for (the respect and sensitivity to all beliefs and persons,) is going to be misidentified as 'censorship,' than so be it.
I am not even saying that Underground should not have published the piece.
I'm saying that the manner in which it was presented,(no explaination,)
-then expecting folks to be fine with it, (then telling those who do have issue with it, that 'THEY are the ones who are in the wrong?)
Is not right.
It is arrogant, it is offensive, (be that the intent or not.)

I'll say this again:
When people ascribe to being sensitive to others beliefs,
-and wish to uphold and 'celebrate,' the diversity and choices of everyone,
-they have to do just that,
-else they be hypocrites
Respect of all persons is just that: Respect of all persons.

People don't often see their own prejudices.
They don't often understand that what is okay for them, may not fly with others.
At that point they have a choice:
-Do I respect others and their choices, -and be sensitive to them?
Or do I choose myself as the judge of what they will or will not be affected by.

I was not aware that we were going with 'Majority Rule,' when it comes to the sensitivity of others.
Most liking it, some not, does not equal 'this is okay.'

There has been a long time (legitimate) criticism that, in society, the Majority does not care about the minority.

There has been a great upheaval and a lot of attention given to people going from being a minority that was forced to accept others views (both on and for them,)
—To just having their Own voice, as being worthwhile.

What was being said by Undercurrent was 'some people liked this, some people didn't, which makes in neutral.'

No.

If anyone is offended, than that minority still has to count,
-be they 1percent or 49 percent.
---Otherwise we're just mimicking and furthering what we've supposedly been fighting to abolish this whole time.

not sufficient however

not sufficient however

partially correct

Quoting Cicero just to quote Cicero would be pointless. In this instance I felt his words apt.

you know latin phrases, i

you know latin phrases, i know latin phrases, you seem to have a law degree, i have a philosophy degree shall we move beyond this. quoting cicero is not enough.

O tempora, o mores!

O tempora, o mores!

yes

yes

question

Is the image of the Blessed Mother painted on an actual human skull?

not addressed?

Void,
I will address the point you say I didn't address, again(though it must be done at a later time as our deadline for the Nov. issue has alas come upon us (the cover of which, though I haven't seen I don't believe has any religious imagery)). Although, I must say again you have not shown that the image is offensive. You simply reassert that people hold Mary in high regard and that we should not use offensive imagery. To do so intentionally is wrong (like hitting puppies over the head), to print offensive images without knowning that they would offend is to be sure - naive. You still posit that the image is offensive without justifying such a claim. You keep coming back to the skull as if that is offensive in-an-of-itself.

A simple honesty test. Would you still be so bothered if the image was printed in "Columbia" magazine, and if the artist was a well know pious Catholic who said that the image was meant to show that it is through Mary that one overcomes not only the fear of death, but death itself, as Catholic teaching shows that Mary interceeds on our behalf, and that devotion to Mary shows great love for God. Since you feel the image is offensive in itself such a hypothetical cover along with the explanation should still be offensive and if not offensive naive, yes?

More after the issue goes to print, if there is still interests inthe topic.
Best, Carlos

p.s. the invitation of course still applies, as we are a community paper we welcome all the community to participate. As has always been the case because of the limited space not all articles are printed. We have much more flexability on our website so you and others are always free to submitt articles to our front page (www.FresnoUndercurrent.net)

Out of your mind

VOID's motivation in this debate seems to be that he does not want an explanation as much as he wants to convince us that his particular interpretation of Catholicism has priority over artistic expression.

If any other Catholic is not offended then they don't understand Catholicism. If an explanation of the piece does not meat with HIS satisfaction then the motivation for it is to be offensive.

I have not witnessed the spirit of intolerance and censorship on this level in awhile.

At this point he just needs to be ignored.

John Statham

Why is it so hard to believe

Why is it so hard to believe that there is no hidden agenda involved with this being printed as the cover of the UnderCurrent?

Any reader of the UnderCurrent will know that one of the things that distinguishes it from other local papers is that it features local art on the cover every month. Looking back at past issues, it is pretty obvious that the cover image doesn't reflect on the content of the issue other than being a vehicle for promoting local artists. In fact, I believe that the UnderCurrent editor mentioned in his column that the response to the UnderCurrent from local artists has been phenomenal. They have cover art lined up til at least June of '07. I got the impression that the selection process for cover images is pretty much first come, first served. Of course artists are going to select the best images of their work to present. Its one of the best looking covers they have ever presented. I don't go on Arthop and this is one of the ways that I can view local art in our community.

When I first saw the October cover, I thought that it was quite beautiful. I was not offended at all...I didn't even think about being offended. There is nothing to offend me. It simply is what it is...a beautiful image that happens to be painted on a skull.

On the other hand, I would be offended if The UnderCurrent had censored the image by not printing it at all.

-Tina

hmm.

If that was the creator of the piece, offering the intent of it?
-cool.
Thanks for the explaination.
It goes a long way, and helps a lot.

I like it.

is this for real?

the visual: A religious icon completely overshadows the physical spot where we process critical thought.

Offensive indeed, but much more so in person.

It's just as easy to see Mary as a protector in this image.

It's art. Open your mind a tiny bit and perhaps the world will offend you less.

U.G. -read what is written, -not what you think is being said

references to 'Piss Christ' (as well as other works intended to defile conventional views of religious iconography,) were what I was saying were 'indefensible, worthless, and had the same footing as smashing kittens to prove a point of overpopulation.'

-Not only did I NOT refer to 'Piss Christ,' in an earlier write,
--but I explained that 'I did NOT wish to put the skull picture of Mary in that same dustbin,' (and then explained why.)

(I know my stuff is long and involved at times, -but reading vs. glancing through will save you the problem of misunderstanding and misquoting.)

The chief mystery here, (which re exposes itself each time you come to this subject,) is that you are missing a point.
-A lot of People hold Mary as sacred, and see her as a good thing.
-A lot of People are freaked out by skulls, and look at them as a bad thing.

-Do the math.
Putting the two together (juxtaposition, -far from a new scenario in Art/Literature/Music -is nothing new, -but it results in some pretty intense reactions (justifiably so.)

You felt that the image was just ducky, problem is, when it's someone's religious icon going on a skull? -It's not about you.

-To someone who sees Mary as the Mother of all Grace,
-putting her image on a skull IS about as contradictory a situation AS putting the bomb with Allah.
(Maybe you don't agree, maybe you never heard of it, but trust me on this, okay? It's a manner of degrees, but all Catholics take Mary seriously.)

To someone who holds an image (or Mary,) dear, the image on your most recent issue can be taken as VERY offensive. (surprise...)

(How this not being grasped is beyond me...
Think, seriously, if you had a revered female member of your family, (living or dead,) -do you think THEIR image on a skull would (maybe,)call for an explanation or two?
(...you've not addressed this logic nor point, by the way.)

-About the only way out (on this issue,)

-would be if there was a strong cultural/religious crossover (such as was given as the explanation of the 'Elephant Dung Madonna' -as a fertility homage.)
-Even then, the controversy and potential to offend followers of that belief run quite high, (even if there was some sort of explanation of it being culturally depicted and actually reverential.)

I am sorry that you don't see the equal opportunity of really upsetting folks with this image being used,

-but that you did not,(and still don't, apparently,)
-see is the same potential for extreme offense that are on par with other deliberately offensive images, (again, citing the anti Islamic imagery,) is NOT the fault of the reader,
-it is your own for not considering that others may take this (very much,) the wrong way.

(Nobody in your ranks said:
'...um, heads up, we're putting a Skull with the Image of the Mother of Christ on the cover, NO explanation, no buffer, nada,,,
-and it's the SAME month as Halloween... HELLO… This may get both good and bad responses here…???' Nobody?)
-okay, I believe you, but…
-Nobody?

-To print something that blatant and then stand there and be all 'wha? Me?' is naive.

This is not some attack on your intent, nor on the artist, nor on Caravaggio, nor use of bones in art, nor on iconography.

It's identifying a dropped ball at best, -and deliberate baiting of your readers at worst.

-You're saying that there was nothing behind it.
Okay, no prob.
-Everybody makes mistakes,
You printed it, you still own it.
So long as you're being straight with people, than it gets filed in the 'stuff happens,' section.

People have a right to be concerned about what they see,
-particularly if there is no explanation as to what you are doing.

Being sensitive to others beliefs is a tricky thing, it is not about how 'I feel someone should take something, -it is about how 'they,' will feel. (That is IF I am truly concerned about being sensitive to their beliefs, otherwise it is just an aggrivating legality, and it shows.)

-you were upset that comments were made about people from the middle east being killed wholesale by a severely insensitive 'man of the cloth.' -kudos for raising that flag. It was a horribly insensitive remark.

-you now (may or may not,) see that being sensitive to beliefs has to be given completely to ALL, -not just some.

It's always been said that 'to avoid possible insult and argument, stay away from religion and politics.'
(Good luck, here in Fresno, besides, that's a lame way to live.)
-but the reason why, is that sometimes, even in discussing it, you can (unintentionally,) set off feelings and injury.

I don't expect Underground to avoid discussing Religion nor Politics, (earlier dialogue about both warranted an invitation by you to not only talk about the subject on your website, -but 'be involved with a future issue on religion,' -I still have the message that you sent regarding this.)

Regardless of whether your offer still stands,
-I'd encourage you to show respect and sensitivity to other's beliefs (as your orig. articles about the pastor's remarks were calling for.)

They have that right...

The artist has the right to make whatever they want, whether you like their statement or not. The Under Current has the right to print what they want, whether you like it or not.

As an artist, I don't make art just because YOU think it's something pretty to look at. To ME, that's not what real art is anyway, and I often argue the fact that beauty does not even exist, unless you are a racist, and discount other nations of people's perception of beauty. Artists don't make art for you: they make it because they have a statement and because they are driven to express it!

As a DJ of reggae music, I play stuff all the time that MANY would take offence to, because the truth is always an offence, but never a sin. And yet, many of those same people dance to the music while getting burned with judgement fire by the singer at the same time.

I feel 'Mary' (trust me, not her real name) on a skull is brilliant.

So what if the Under Current prints it...

-s

um, we just thought it was beautiful and felt it was in no way o

What type of explanation would you like? I've addressed that question in each of my posts. If you don't believe them I can't do anything about it. If there was no nefarious reasoning behind it, what will satisfy you?

Oh Boy!

My mouse scrolling finger sure is tired!

?

Famous Guest
-read the above string, (at least try)

-both myself and and other writers have asked the artist to explain the subject matter,(considering that there may be religious/cultural involvements that we do not know about,)

-I have asked the editor to explain his take on the placement of the work on the cover, besides 'um, we just thought it was beautiful and felt it was in no way offensive.'

-and I've asked anybody who can manipulate a keyboard to explain (just in case the painter is one of those 'strong silent types,' -if there are any cultural/religious tie-ins to the work...

-I'll even listen to 'Steal Your Face' in Latin, reciting the rosary, and hit all of the stations of the cross (twice,) if it explains what was going on with this...

Somebody throw me (and ol Loyola up there,) a bone here, people, (well,,, you know, besides the headbone with our Blessed Mother painted on it...)

Response to Void

Void:
I cannot say strongly enough that you posit so very much without justifying. You write "There is no value in vulgarity and sacrilege done for the sheer ability to do so, any more than there is value, lesson, or decency to be found in smashing kittens with a hammer on videotape -to raise awareness of overpopulation for the local ASPCA." Again you accuse, by association, The Undercurrent of just such a thing, and then you accuse by association our being like Pastor Franklin, who vocalized certain things and you say the ulterior motives (ulterior motives that you seem to have some ability to divine not from what we have written but by associating the action of others and then linking them to The Undercurrent). My saying that the pastor advocated for the use of nuclear weapons by way of he vocalizing such thoughts and your associating our cover in with his criticism of us is nearing on outlandish.

Further to say that I don't treat Loyola is unfounded. Because I ask for reasons for his declaring that the image is vile is not to show him disrespect. He does not have a corner of religious sensibilities (I have spoken to many a religious person who does not find the image offensive, and I do know that we did not print the image to be offensive. Your rehashing others who have offended in order to sell papers has no bearing on this discussion. It was not our intent, you may choose not to believe that if you wish no amount of my saying otherwise will likely change your mind. To pursue that further seems senseless).

You continue:
"-One of this persons most sacred icons has been put on a human skull.
-Did you expect people to be pleased and comforted by it?
-Do you mean to tell me that you actually have taken leave of your senses to the extent that someone being alarmed with such a thing makes no sense to you at all?
(Are you completely ignorant of religious imagery in apparent contradiction (such as Islamic figures harboring bombs,) recently raising ire in the press???"

Do you deny that bones have been used in religious art? (I have no connection to the website but it does show the use of bone in religious art in Rome: http://www3.sympatico.ca/tapholov/pages/bones.html) You are sadly wrong in that case. Do you think the actually image sans the canvas is offensive? A tough sell. Which leaves two likely choices, 1) you object to The Undercurrent using the image, 2) you object to Reza painting the image.

I wish it wasn't necessary to address the statement about the images of Mohammed welding a bomb. Had be printed the "Piss Christ," or the "Elephant Dung Mary" then I would grant you the contradiction that you mention, but it is beyond the bounds of reasonable assertion to compare Reza's painting to Mohammed welding a bomb.

Lastly, you write "People make stuff, and present it for review.
It is reviewed and commented on and seen for what it is.
Provided both are done in a heartfelt, honest and sincere transaction, there is no foul.
-Expecting people to not have opinion about work presented?
(and then attacking them for having one that is not positive?)
-That behavior usually is reserved for those who practice tyranny, oppression, fascism, and censorship."

Never have I attacked someone for not having an opinion that corresponds to my own. It is a dishonest attempt to compare my asking for Loyola so present reasons for his assertions, and not giving undue credence to his assertion as to the Undercurrent perhaps being anti-Catholic by printing what he felt was a "vile" image as attacking him. And then to say that it is tantamount to tyranny, oppression, fascism and censorship is absurd.

It is odd that I am expected to prove a negative, when Loyola was the one making the assertions. You write, "-and putting the onus on him to defend a sacred image that he and millions of others hold dear,
-Erodes your previous sensitivity that you were writing about with regard to Judaism, Islam, and the like."?

Again should the onus be put on me to prove a negative? It has already been shown that this is impossible. I've already said that the image wasn't printed to offend. Since I can't prove that negative, on whom should the onus be? It is pretty clear that the onus should be on the one making the assertion. Did the image offend him? Yes. Did it offend other religious people who equally venerate Mary? Perhaps. And it didn't not offend others who likewise venerate Mary. The two equally each other out unless reasons can be given as to why the image is offensive. This has not been done. It is not wrong for me to say so. That he was offended cannot be helped. That I can say that the image was not printed to offend, or to stir the pot for that matter does not seem to satisfy.

If Reza would like to address his motivations that is his business. All that I can say in that regard is that he made clear to me that the image was not meant to offend either.

Spin Doctors

Why is it that the Right insists on spinning everything! This is a piece of art, NOT an attack on the Catholic Church. But, oh no--it HAS to be a dark plot to smear Christians. Why don't the complainers ask the artist what his intent was, but that might require some work. Easier just to complain.

sorry undercurrent, that is not correct.

your citing me as having referenced 'Piss Christ,' is incorrect.

-I mentioned the 'Elephant Dung Madonna' and other works by that artist, I did not mention 'Piss Christ,' and am only vaguely familiar with it.

-My mention of those particular works was with regard to the earlier (Brooklyn) controversy, (which caused the whole gallery to reap a windfall of viewers,) around those works,
--as well as the various explainations given by people to justify the work.
The artist has other works on display at the new MoMA in NY.

Further Note:
The Virgin Mary in the artist's understanding was mixed in with elephant dung, as well as various 'literal,' representations of male and female human genitalia, -as Mary was the one who gifted people with children, and elephant dung is used to enhance fertility in their farming, -so the whole piece was ascribing to folk beliefs of having children, and fertility (in a religious sense.)
It has been said that the use of the materials by the artist was not meant for 'shock value.'

Though I have been taking your presentations and discussion about other issues, (such as the 'bomb pastor,) seriously, -and have appreciated the dialogue on such (both on the string and in private message,)
-I am finding the responses to Loyola to be quite dismissive, as well as your feigning of ignorance as to the present cover's imagery being devoid of meaning, (as well as wondering how anyone's feelings could be aroused by the piece, -let alone your putting it on the cover,)
-not to play well at all.
(You are straying into the same 'couching and biased presentation of issues that you accused the 'bomb pastor,' of.
-This goes from a neutral, unwavering and strong presentation of facts (letting the reader decide what is before them,) to just another spin rag.
I sincerely hope that this is not a new trend.

I have NO doubt that you understand the importance of religious symbol (let alone religion,) in society,
-and am floored that you cannot comprehend that a portrait of a religious figure associated with 'Mercy,' by that denom. -on the head of a skull, -could raise a few eyebrows.
-You are far from ignorant of the practices of beliefs,
-and clearly have the resources as to understanding what things mean, how they could be interpreted,
-and have shown sensitivity to others in the past (regarding to religious practice.)
(-Most of our earlier conversations were about same such issues when discussing the problems surrounding the viewpoints of 'the bomb pastor.')

-Why Loyola's alarm has warranted your callous treatment and remark is beyond me.

I further, (though I appreciate EdLoves's remarks regarding shrines and the like,)
-welcome someone (anyone,) to explain in interplay of Mary or religious figures with death, -or skulls
(be this from any Latin Culture, Roman Catholic culture,
-ANY culture.. -go for it, I'm all ears.)
-Perhaps someone could step up to the plate and offer information on this? It will be met with unbiased ears.

Though I did not mention 'Piss Christ,' in my earlier writings, I will say (now,) that such a work,
-designed to raise controversey and push the boundaries of 'freedom of speech vs. religion.'
-or sacred symbols, would be an unfortunate dustbin to put this work in.
-I do hope that the artist had something worthwhile in mind with the creation of this juxtaposition. (And welcome, -again, any cultural explaination and wish to be sensitive to it.)

Stuff like Piss Christ, and (lesser known,) pieces of (such as) thousands of cigarrette butts cast in resin in the shape of Christ, (nailed to a cross,) or even band names such as 'Jesus and Mary Chain,' are designed simply to trash and offend sacred symbols.

-They are meant to raise controversey as a way of warranting attention.
I have no respect for this sort of behavior.

It is the difference between actually creating something that is meant to make people aware of things, think about them, and better their world (and lives,) -and simply throwing a tantrum to get attention.
There is no value in vulgarity and sacrilidge done for the sheer ability to do so, any more than there is value, lesson, or decency to be found in smashing kittens with a hammer on videotape -to raise awareness of overpopulation for the local ASPCA.

I would also advise, that treating Loyola's remarks as not being worthy of respect, (let alone explaination,)
-and putting the onus on him to defend a sacred image that he and millions of others hold dear,
-Errodes your previous sensitivity that you were writing about with regard to Judaism, Islam, and the like.

-One of this persons most sacred icons has been put on a human skull.
-Did you expect people to be pleased and comforted by it?
-Do you mean to tell me that you actually have taken leave of your senses to the extent that someone being alarmed with such a thing makes no sense to you at all?
(Are you completely ignorant of religious imagery in appparent contradiction (such as Islamic figures harboring bombs,) recently raising ire in the press???

You are a very intelligent person, and have done good work up to this point, -hopefully it has just been an off day with respect to your reasoning.
-I sincerely hope that you are no capitalizing upon religious defamation and attack.
-Your actions and comments (thus far,) could be interpreted as having done so.
As someone who reads your paper, I'd hope that this is corrected.

I'm hoping that these are not true colors coming out (with regard to your newspaper's behavior explaination for it's choices and mission statement,)

-I think, at this time, out of respect (to Loyola if no one else,) you'd might present your views on presenting the work
(-if only to show that:
-you understand the potentially explosive nature of presenting such,
-and that you understand that such a thing, (as highly offending potential readers, is not only probable, but worth the risk, and somehow warranted.)

Your reasons are as valid as any others, and your responsibility as an editor presents itself at this time. (having just looked over the issue again, I found other paintings of skeletons out having a good time, (P.19) as well as a later work by Eatcho in the paper, -but the characters look emaciated, -not dead. ---If this was a 'theme,' presentation of artwork, -maybe someone should have said something?? (I'm reaching here, at least tryin to.)

I'm open to hearing that this artist was not intending to do such with the skull piece.

Without explaining motive and understanding behind presented work, the viewer, reader, and listener could see this as arrogance, and at the least has every right to take the piece as how it presents.

-In presenting any work, the creator of that work has to understand this, respect this, and be adult enough to cope with it.

(Come to think of it: even with adequate explaination, the viewer/reader/listener has every right to form an opinion and share it back, (being adult in receiving back those comments still is not optional.)

People make stuff, and present it for review.
It is reviewed and commented on and seen for what it is.
Provided both are done in a heartfelt, honest and sincere transaction, there is no foul.
-Expecting people to not have opinnion about work presented?
(and then attacking them for having one that is not positive?)
-That behavior usually is reserved for those who practice tyranny, oppression, fascism, and censorship.

I've made this comment before, and with concern must make it again.
If we take on the very behaviors that we criticize others about,
-are we not ALL the MORE WRONG -because we first know better,
and then choose to act as them?
-Think about it.

another clarification

I should have made it clear, I was refering to OutoftheVoid, who I believe was the first to mention "Piss Christ."

small clarification

"To link this work in the same category as "Piss Christ," or "Elephant dung Mary" (I know it wasn't you that made the association) is a stretch to say the least."

well, i made that association, and it was to point out the gulf that exists between those works and reza's piece, at least in my mind,

but, your post made me think about the use of bones in the greater church tradition. shrines were common, and people would come from great distances to see the bones of a saint, and perhaps receive a blessing. now, i don't think reza's piece is a shrine, a bone of a saint, or will cure cancer. but, it did bring up question i've had for some time. i live in the tower district. right by the shrine of st. therese. are some of her bones there, as was customary for a shrine?

dia de los muertos

yeah, i wish someone would have brought up "dia de los muertos"
earlier on in this discussion.

obfuscation?

You still have yet to explain why the piece is offensive, in which case it is not the least bit obfuscating to ask whether you find Caravaggio's works offensive, it cannot be the style of the painting that you find offensive, again it may be the canvas Reza used that you find offensive, but this is so culturally specific that it becomes not a topic of discussion but your own problem, of which The Undercurrent has no part. (The use of bones in religious iconography associated with Dia de los muertos not Cinco de Mayo).

I ask again, do you find the art of Caravaggio offensive? If not the artists it must be the media where it was published. You write "The tone of your response, the umbrage that you take that anyone might find this piece offensive puts you in that category..." I am sorry you feel that way but you still haven't given any reason why this cover should be seen as "vile." Aside from your say so.

To link this work in the same category as "Piss Christ," or "Elephant dung Mary" (I know it wasn't you that made the association) is a stretch to say the least.

Did Reza paint it with reverence? I don't know? If you did look at the rest of the paper you will have noticed other art in the issue that was specifically "Dia de los Muertos," if there was any behind the scenes thinking that went into this cover it was in relation to that style.

As to your question concerning whether we would put on the cover similar images of other religious figures, the answer is pretty simple. Being that we didn't use this cover to offend and still believe that one would have to try to be offended (prima facie there is nothing offensive about the image (sorry if you don't agree I am still waiting for you to make an argument about why the image is offensive in itself)) sure we would use other religious figures on the cover. As we don't believe that the picture is offensive (here the idea of putting an image of Mohammed on the cover is a special circumstance, being that any imagery is deemed offensive) any other religious imagery would likewise be inoffensive in itself. If others may find it offensive for undisclosed reasons is beyond our control.

As for Mr. Void, I didn't shrug my shoulders before, but I must now and say "who us?" If our intention wasn't to offend or even to stir the pot but simply to put on the cover an amazing artistic work, that lent itself to the other artwork in the issue I find your protestations puzzling. If our reason for the cover was not nefarious, what are we to do?

nope, sorry

In all honesty, I cannot remember going to Jinnaka (I'm pretty awful with names of places, unless something really hits me in the head, and then I make it a point to remember the artist, rather than the venue.)

I would have liked to see the other works, and always want to see what others have to say about (both,) religious interraction in the arts and society (and) have always been fascinated by how others see various Biblical Characters -as my initial religious upbringing did not allow for depictions of God, Christ, and very few of the Biblical heavies.

I think his style of illustration is quite good,(I have no problem with his ability and technique.)

I do, however, feel that such a depiction should be seen 'in context,' --and that one should be prepped for wanting to see it or not, (Blake (Loyola,) makes this comment as well, (about not caring so much what was hanging in a private collection,)

I think it takes on a different role, however, when you put something on the cover of a freely distributed newspaper.

I also don't care for the whole 'who? US?' stance taken by the cover being chosen, -and it being played like it's as innocuous as an ad for plywood at Home Depot. (At least call controversey and aggressive juxtaposition of themes for what it is,)

I do find it unfortunate that the initial writer, is attacked as having a chemical imbalance, (when their points are valid.)

I'm still not convinced that this is not simply buzz building, (though if it is not, my condolenscences to Blake(Loyola.)

Final Sidenote?
-Mary, because of that whole 'virgin Birth,' thing, (about as believable to folks then as it is now,) was known for having gotten pregnant out of wedlock, ---which made Jesus (for all intensive purposes,) a bastard in society.
It was not uncommon for Christ to go into a town, begin to speak, and to have folks say '...Where's your Father?' --which was a way (in that day,) of reminding him that his mother was pregnant, and not married first. (Something which got women stoned to death in those days.) --so the poor woman has been no stranger to people getting all worked up, that's for sure.

why

well, i could speculate why mary, but it would be just that. all i can say is that i didn't take either as intentionally insulting. i did find them both beautiful, but also feel that they do allow us (or maybe just me) to wrestle with the issue of faith, the beauty of our religion, but also the ugliness that it has revealed at times. i also think that mary as a female figure does slightly play into reza's overall show.

i can't remember if you mentioned whether or not you went to jinnaka on bike hop, but if you did go, how did you feel these two pieces fit within the greater show?

further question in all seriousness

acc: to EdLuv post (which was being composed while I was composing mine.)

-And Gee isn't Raza getting a bit of airplay out of this...

Why has he chosen to depict Mary in (at least,) two 'altered,' presentations?
-presenting her on the top of a skull (ala 'Steal Your Face,' for any self respecting DeadHead,)

-and a 'larger portrait with the face altered.'

I find it interesting that Mary was chosen and altered, (symbolic of Roman Catholicism, which is really ironic because she was actually realllllly Jewish and of two rabbinic lines, -most messianic believers I know who are female are heated that the 'talians swiped her...)

-Are we talking some sort of Picasso 'tribal masks on the heads of presented models here,' (which was not meant to be offensive, just shock a bit,)
or Tori Amos doing her Madonna and Child thing by nursing a pig? (which was meant to,,,, ah heck, who knows with Tori.)

-Why Mary?

Blake get over yourself. As

Blake get over yourself. As someone who comes from a strongly catholic family, I don't find the slightest problem with Reza's painting. I am also friends with Reza and Carlos, and I don't think that either of them ever thought of the piece(or its selection for the cover art)was about making an anti-catholic statement. If you want to take it as you take it and get all bent out of shape...enjoy...But just keep in mind that you may have a slight chemical imbalance which is causing your strange perception of this piece and the Undercurrent. You might want to seek some help...

If nothing else:

Ignatious of Loyola is arching an eyebrow somewhere, putting down his cards on the table, and excusing himself to shuffle a bit closer to the comments... (which will no doubt go down in history as 'two blakes, some blokes, a rag and a Paul.'

art is subjective

i first saw this piece of art in reza's apartment, and it didn't offend me. nor did his larger painting of mary, with the face altered, on a much bigger, traditional canvas.

when i saw it again at his show i was not offended.

i am a Christian. i am seminary trained, and have worked in the ministry. although i now consider myself protestant, i was baptized catholic as an infant. i revere mary. i believe that she is blessed among women, as her cousin said to her. again, this piece does not offend me. but, i can understand that it could offend. art is subjective. and, religious art frequently has been a source of discussion and quarrelling.

i am an artist. i understand that sometimes artists try to push the limits. i also understand that sometimes artists use differing materials, and "find" work in them. i don't know what the case is, how reza came to paint this portrait on this skull. i didn't ask him on either occassion. i didn't ever make a connection to death (although now i'm intrigued) but was instead impressed with reza's skill and creativity. (creativity in death, hmmm.)

when i compare other famous, controversial religious pieces (piss Christ, that mary w/dung) with this piece, i get a much different feeling. maybe it's just me, and you definately are entitled to your opinion, but i think most would agree. honestly, i find the piece beautiful, haunting, and thought provoking.

finally, i don't think that the undercurrent had nefarious intentions. i'm not sure if the cover of every issue has featured the work of a local artist, but many have. for them to showcase a piece, being displayed @ one of the hottest local venues, done by one of the biggest mover/shakers in fresno makes perfect sense. maybe i'm wrong, but i don't think they picked this piece to offend the senses of the Bible belt of california.

p.s. i'd love it if reza would chime in, but he hasn't on previous topics that related to him (like the long thread bagging on the name of the vagabond lofts) and so i doubt he will. prove me wrong reza, prove me wrong.

quid nunc

Mr. Fierro,

My query as to whether or not Undercurrent is anti-Catholic is based exclusively on what you as editor chose to put on the cover of your magazine.

Your assertive opining that the picture in question is "in no way offensive, in bad taste, or degrading" is stupefying in its arrogance.

From reading the content of the Undercurrent, on numerous occasions, I doubt that you would be so cavalier with an image of Mohammed, the Dalai Lama, or Martin Luther King if so portrayed.

To term this piece an "icon," an object of devotion, is to make the word meaningless.

You assume, and grossly so, that I must disagree with the content of your paper to find this picture offensive. This is the most spurious of logic.

Every now and then, and regrettfully on a frequent basis, the hard edges of both the right and the left can take on an "illuminati" attitude in which all who disagree with them must be ignorant. The tone of your response, the umbrage that you take that anyone might find this piece offensive puts you in that category, at least on this issue.

Your refrence to Fared Assemi's religious beliefs, or lack thereof, to Carvaggio and his religious beliefs, or lack thereof are obfuscation in the highest form. In the words of Gilbert & Sullivan - "the flowers that bloom in the spring have nothing to do with the case." This case is your editorial decision to post this vile piece on the front of your newspaper.

Blake
aka/ Loyolalaw98

Reductio ad absurdem.

AntiMusick,

Anyone with eyes can see that the skull contains a picture of the Blessed Virgin Mary, whether untitled or not.

I do not assume that Reza Assemi is anti-Catholic. What he owns in a private art collection is his business.

I am not joking. This artwork is in my opinion offensive. The same freedom that allows Fresno Undercurrent to publish a photo of this art allows me to weigh in on it's foetid charcater.

believing what we're shovelling here...

To members of their own religious afiliation, there will always be icons and imagery, (as well as characters and sayings,) that are held sacred.
To 'High Church,' (This would be both Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican/Episcopalian, etc.) who hold Christ's mother dear, -how she is depicted is taken very seriously by some more than others.

Most protestants don't actually put a whole lot of stock in Mary, and (unfortunately,) part of the 'protest-ing' part of being protestant is to actually go quite far to 'not deify,' Mary, (nor endorse the perpetual virginity of Mary, --nor the belief, that by having Christ, she in effect was afforded salvation.)
Initially in my faithwalk, the churches I went to actually made fun of, thought it was unfortunate, and accused the Holy Roman Catholic Church of worshipping Mary, (who has actually been called a 'Co-Redemptress,' by John Paul 2,) as well as the other Saints.
-Having gone more 'High Church' in the last decade, I can see where my earlier attitude about Mary and the Saints was little more than an allergic reaction, and really short sighted.
She was actually pretty cool, quite a leader (be it in male or female circles,) and has been historically known to be a great musician.

Though artwork on bones is not new, the skull however, is in most customs associated with death. (Unless this is some sort of custom from Mexico or Central or South America vaguely involving Cinco De Mayo??? -somebody feel free to explain it to this Anglo, -I'm all ears.)

-For most, this can be interpreted as a negative depiction of anything, Mary included.
-Playing it off like it's as banal as painting a picture of Mary on a canvas, (or bringing Caravaggio into it,) is one reallllllly thin foil.

-To deny that combining these two images/media (Mary, loved by Catholics, both Roman and Other,) and a human skull is to ignore the most common public impression of both subjects.
(Have there been positive religious associations with skulls? Yes, but they are way too removed from most people's minds, (It's like putting a dog in a portrait of a couple, ---most people aren't going to get that the dog represents 'fidelity,' (fido.)

(back in Brooklyn some years ago, a painter did a series, --one of which included Mary and had Elephant Dung on the painting, -as well as several erect and flacid images of male genitalia. He did another one that had Mary surrrounded by Female Genitalia as well.

(For me the main attraction, (the paintings really weren't all that,) was watching people bend over backwards to justify the work, (...'In His culture, Mary is about fertility, that's why they have all these crotches surrounding her, because they feel that she blesses them with children...'
.....ahuh.)

What it did was generate a lot of interest in the show, and raised a hoopla, (which was the orig. goal.)
Methinks the same ploy is afoot once again.

I'd personally have more respect if the paper said, '...yeah, we felt like something ballsy, and with all of the recent focus on politics and religion, etc...'
--not 'It's just two uninvolved and neutral images.'

You want to cut the chase on the issue?
-simply expand the question out,
-Why did the artist choose the Blessed Mother?, (-and not his own mother? (I'm sure Mary was just the most convenient model that he had, he's been painting religious themes of the Holy Family, and Mary is the only image he could find... (that and he had to put those skulls lying around to good use doing something, a fella can have only so many door stops and candleholders...)
-Heck, why not claim that she showed up on the skull as a miracle? (Not heard of her on any oil silos or foggy windows in Manayunk lately.)

-I'm sure that ANY of US would want our mothers image (in a pose of spiritual reverence,) painted on a human skull....
-I'm sure my mom would want it hanging in the kitchen or living room, and she'd not be the least bit disturbed by it... (I'm lying through my teeth here.)

Maybe next time different methods could be employed to push buttons and sell free papers.
Maybe that's been the point of the whole string all along...

Technically it's a nice portrait, but over all, it's in Poor Taste.
If the orig commenter was sincere in their being concerned
-I'd agree with it being insensitive to those in the Church, (and echo the concern of the hypocracy that 'it's suitable to bash 'Christian Themes in the Art World -but don't mess with Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, -Wiccan, (etc.) -because that's not cool.')

-I've had plenty of discussions on FrsFam about beliefs, (including a lengthy one with the Editor of the Undercurrent,) and will be the first to go after inconsistancies in the Church's behavior, (with hope that they'll change,) --but that is not the same as this image.

I'm not Buddhist, Islamic, Jewish, nor Mormon,
--but I'd not put up with any of their leaders depicted in an insulting and degrading manner either.
-Further, --as a Christian, (and a white german male at that,,, I NEED to be particularlly sensitive to those who've been abused by folks who were like me in the past, -or even in some cases, now.) -That means going out of my way to remove imagery that depicts racism, sexism, and bigotry with regards to beliefs. I don't even bother with the debate of 'well, is it art, or is it free speech,' -if it's wrong and offensive, I won't have it, I have no other option and want no other option, it goes.

What I'd caution the paper against would be this.
-If we're as creative progressives all about respecting the rights of others, and respecting others beliefs -where does a cover like this come from? -Again, I welcome any positive explaination.
But it would appear that there is no respect towards those who have any care for 'Mary,' in this cover.
-the Double Standard is glaring, I was hoping for better from the Underground.

Better luck next time.

-Eric

anti-Catholic???

Loyola,
I don't know you so I can only comment on what you've written. I don't believe that you know me yet oddly you allude to this idea that The Undercurrent is anti-Catholic, not from what we have written, but you've seemed to have devined it some how. Your reason for coming to this conclusion is that we showed on the cover of our paper a painting of the Virgin Mary painted on a skull. The image is in no way offensive, in bad taste, or degrading. The image is an amazing piece that is classical in its style and I don't believe there is any sanction against using a human skull as a canvas. Is the problem that you don't feel that someone who you don't know should paint religious icons? I don't know what Reza's religious ideas consists of, I didn't ask him. You can if you like; however, do you have the same problems with religious paintings by Caravaggio, not a very good Catholic by any stretch of the imagination? Is it that you don't believe that a paper that you may not agree with should use religious imagery, even if it is done respectfully? It can't be that we have shown ourselves to be anti-Catholic, anti-Christian, or anti-religion in our writing. Where do you find fault aside from devining our supposed true intentions.

your joking right?

Under current is only supporting a Reza Assemi's art work, and since it is "Untitled" it's up to you to assume what the work it about.

I'll assume just like you that Reza Assemi, must be "anti-catholic" ... but really I'm Joking and I hope you are too.

LOL

I often travel in circles too!

Heya Loyola,
Yeah, I totally got that(the bit with the equal signs). I'm guessing that there are also folks in the world of the makers of Undercurrent, and the readers of Undercurrent [hey, that'd be me] that "get that" as well.

As has been stated in these pages before, in a town and nation so full of churches, and so quick to CALL itself so Christian, we see a lot of what many folks would call severely un-Christ-like behaviour---thus, in some circles, earning "Christians" the great ironic 'honor' of being considered some of the least Christ-like folks around---and thus a big target for ridicule.

and of course, the folks 'Christians' or not, who are doing humble selfless service to mankind are usually doing it in a way as to not so much draw attention to themselves. So LOTS of cool stuff gets done quietly. The Big Loud Folks (politicians etc) raise lots of ruckus, paint big Superman Crucifixes on their chest, and thus feed back into this misapprehension.

[It was just weird, having a name that is not-unheard-of-but-more-rare-than-say-'John', and seeing it in a place where I (admitedly) post probably wayyyy too much! ]
--ThereBlakeMan

p.s.
and once again the disclaimer that I haven't seen the new issue of Undercurrent, so still can't say how I'd react to the icon superimposition.(was that last a word?==)

Observing not expounding.

Thereminman,

I wasn't saying that the view that Right=Christian and Left=anti-Christian was correct, merely that it was prevalent. The artwork in question feeds that prevalent misapprehension. There should be enough in the world to make sport of while leaving the Mother of God (at least for some of us) out of it.

PS - I'm the only "Blake" I know, but I travel in limited "circles."

I gotta see it to comment but here's my comment (ha)

The above would be a different (cough)
"Blake"
than the one who oftentimes posts around here.

I haven't seen the cover.
I do find interesting Loyolalaw's comment about how somehow:
Right="Christian" and
Left= anything but Christian.
---but I actually think that's been discussed pretty well on FresnoFamous.
I usually have no trouble swinging pretty hard to the Left, but avowing Christianity at the same time. I will have to check out the cover of Undercurrent myself to see to what extent, if at all, I can hang with Mr. Loyalalaw's comment.
signed,
BLa...I mean...Thereminman

I 'member back at Vinland Elementary, if there were two kids in the class with the same name, they'd make you sign Matt S. or Matt T. or whatever.
I also remember in third grade our teacher would often play Harry Nilsson's "The Point" LP after Lunch recess. Great record.