4 comments

  1. Is that site blasphemous? Maybe yes, maybe no: I’m a little loath to make the accusation.
    Or do you mean: is it blasphemy for us readers to make fun of images of our Lord?
    Sometimes, no: some of the items shown are attempts to commercialize our Lord’s image: that sort of merchandising deserves to be laughed at.
    OTOH, some of the images and comments on the site probably are intended as mockery of our Lord; I wouldn’t advise that anybody get their yuks from those.
    A third category has sincere but inferior works of art: they have a humorous side in that they reveal human imperfection, but one has to keep a sense of sympathy for the devotion that even they can express.
    Even some of the images obviously meant as jokes have a good side: the “Buddy Christ” statue from the “Dogma” movie is a spoof on the trend of reducing Jesus to the status of our “buddy”. I can give credit where it’s due.

  2. Well said, RC! I think the spirit in which the image is intended is the key to whether it is blasphemy or not. I think in most cases, it’s just a matter of mediocre artists (at best) trying to do something a little different with an image that has been depicted in so many spectacular works of art for two thousand years now.
    Mockery would be blasphemy, but I would like to think that is the exception and not the rule in the art world. Remember “Piss Christ” from about ten years ago, the so-called “piece of art” that was a crucifix submerged in a glass of the artist’s urine? Now THAT was sickening blasphemy!

  3. That artist claimed to be making a commentary on how people treat Christ. That rationale might have been able to provide some justification for the work, if he hadn’t used real urine.

Comments are closed.