पेशाब मसीह

1987 में, न्यूयॉर्क स्थित कलाकार एन्ड्रेस सेर्रानो अपने ही मूत्र को एक जार में रख उसमें एक प्लास्टिक का ईद्भास डूबोई और तस्वीर खींच ली। परिणामस्वरूप कार्य – पूर्ण शीर्षक : विसर्जन (मूत्र मसीह) – 1989 में मामूली प्रशंसा के साथ प्रदर्शित किया गया था, और इसने समकालीन कला के दक्षिणपूर्वी केंद्र का “दृश्य कला में पुरस्कार” जीता। सेर्रानो ने तस्वीर को धर्म के व्यावसायीकरण पर एक टिप्पणी के रूप वर्णन किया था।

उदहारण

हर किसी ने मूत्र मसीह में सौंदर्य के मायने नहीं पाए थे। कई ने तस्वीर को नीरस कहकर खारिज कर दिया था। वाशिंगटन डीसी से, रिपब्लिकन सीनेटरों ने इसे अश्लील कहते हुए इसकी निंदा की थी। सबसे मुखर आलोचकों ने इस कृत्य को ईश-निन्दा तुल्य कहा था। यह पता चलने के बाद कि सेर्रानो कला केलिएराष्ट्रीय बन्दोबस्तीसे अप्रत्यक्ष वित्तीय सहायता प्राप्त हुई थी, तस्वीर ने संयुक्त राज्य अमेरिका में सार्वजनिक कला के निधीकरण के बारे में एक व्यापक बहस को भी भड़काया था। हालांकि मूत्र मसीह को दुनिया भर के चित्रशालाओं में 20 साल तक प्रदर्शित किया गया है, यह विवाद फ़ीका नहीं पड़ा है। हाल के वर्षों में ऑस्ट्रेलिया और स्वीडन में सेर्रानो के कार्यक्रम पर हमला हुआ है।

अप्रैल 2011 में पाना सिर से ऊपर चला गया, जब मूत्र मसीह को एविग्नोन, फ्रांस के संग्रह लेर्म्बट कला संग्रहालय में प्रदर्शित किया जाना था। प्रदर्शित होने से ठीक पहले, विरोध में 1000 प्रदर्शनकारी एविग्नोन में इकट्ठे हुए। संग्रहालय ने चुपचाप सुरक्षा बल बढ़ा दिए। फिर भी, एक दिन बाद, तीन या चार तोड़-फोड़ करने वाले गहरे काले चश्मे पहनकर संग्रहालय में प्रवेश करने में सक्षम हो गए थे, अंदर जाने के बाद, उन्होंने सुरक्षा गार्ड को शारीरिक रूप से धमकी दी और मूत्र मसीह को हथौड़ा और कुदाल के पेचकश की तरह की एक वस्तु की मदद से अपूरणीय क्षति पहुंचाई। संग्रहालय तुरंत बंद कर दिया गया था, और कुछ कर्मचारियों को मौत की धमकी भी दी गयी थी। लेकिन उसे बाद में फिर से खोल दिया गया था। चित्रशाला के निदेशक एरिक मेजिल का कहना था कि वह लोगों को क्षतिग्रस्त कृत्य को दिखाना चाहते हैं “ताकि [वे] देख सकें कि बर्बर बोग क्या कर सकते हैं”।

क्या संग्रह लेर्म्बट को मूत्र मसीह का प्रदर्शन करना चाहिए था? [हाँ / नहीं]

लेखक की राय

संग्रहालय को कार्य को प्रदर्शित करने का अधिकार था – और प्रदर्शनी को हमला के बाद फिर से खोलने का अधिकार था। आलोचकों का कहना है कि मूत्र मसीह निन्दा की वस्तु है, यकीनन, इसकी 2005 में प्रकाशित मुहम्मद कार्टून से तुलना की गई। फिर भी गहरी क्षति पहुंचाने वाले दर्शकों के जोखिम पर भी कलाकारों की अपने कला, दृश्यगत या अन्य माध्यम, की सार्वजनिक अभिव्यक्त के अधिकार की रक्षा होनी चाहिए। काले चश्मे के पीछे छिपकर आए तोड़-फोड़ करने वालों ने अवैध काम किया था। और संग्रहालय ने हिंसक धमकियों के खतरों के विरूद्ध खड़े होने की बहादुरी दिखाई थी। इस मामले में केवल यह चेतावनी थी कि संग्रह लेर्म्बट संग्रहालय के कर्मचारियों को जान का खतरा था, शायद उनकी इच्छा के विरुद्ध।

मोहम्मद के कार्टून के आलोचकों ने ध्यानाकर्षित कराते हुए बताया कि पाठक, अपने दैनिक समाचार पत्र के विवादास्पद सामग्री से अनजान है, अनिच्छा से चित्र से धक्का लग सकता है। यह आलोचना इस मामले में लागू नहीं होती है। जो ऐसा मानते ​​है कि मूत्र मसीह को देखना ईस निंदा है, उनके लिए एक स्पष्ट विकल्प यह है कि : उस प्रदर्शनी मे न जाएं जहां इस कार्य प्रदर्शन हो रहा हो।

- Katie Engelhart

और पढ़ें:


Comments (5)

Google अनुवाद द्वारा स्वचालित मशीन अनुवाद प्रदान किया जाता हैं. यह आपको बताता है की योगदानकर्ता क्या कहना चाहता हैं, लेकिन इसका एक सटीक, सूक्ष्म अनुवाद की तरह भरोसा न करें.

  1. There’s a difference between satiric picture published in media and a work of art, as the first one is usually thought to be rather a comment on current (political/social/economic/etc) situation, whilst the work of art ex definitione is to be considered on every level: from aesthetic up to methaphysical.
    At this moment it in my opinion kind’a mistake to compare the two mentioned opera.
    The problem of modern art is that it becomes impossible to define it’s borders – what is yet and what isn’t already an art.
    At this point vandals had the same rights to express themselves by destroying the Piss Christ, like its author. By this I mean the performance of devastation which becomes a part of artistic process. This is the result of what the art became and how it is being understood by viewers.
    There are many cases of formally static work of art (sculpture, painting, instalation etc) becomes a part of a dynamic action which changes its meaning even if it wasn’t intended by either authors and vandals.
    In this case supporting artists with public money is just a part of the cultural and artistic development of society with all the risk included.
    On the other hand public or private media cover completely different area and level of society activity focusing on everyday common problems, up-to-date situation in politics, economy etc. which brings also different way response from possible opponents. In the Mahomet case the response wasn’t just devastation of exhibit, but a bomb attack on embassy.
    The difference in the publishing context and its consequences makes these two cases incomparable.

    (P.S. sorry for any misspelling and grammar error – I’d rather write in polish language, as it is much easier to clear up point of view in writing)

  2. The art was created with intention and message. It was political, a tool, and within the artist’s right to create and display.

  3. Language in itself is a public tool. Following your arguments you would have to say that no one is allowed to say anything because it offends someone. Artist or anyone can say and print whatever he or she wants. It’s only a problem of ‘religious’ people that they identify themselves with the symbols and treat its reuse as offensive. As a result thay oppress non believes and freedom of speech. No one is an owner of Mahomet or Jesus and no one has the right to say how you can or can not use their images.

  4. The author argues “the right of artists to publicly express themselves, visually or otherwise must be protected, even at the risk of deeply offending audiences”, yet she offers no reason why.

    Everyone who enters the public realm, as artists “expressing themselfes in public” do, assume certain obligations towards all other members in public. They enter a space within which their liberty to do/say whatever they want must be balanced against everyone else’s liberty to do/say whatever they want. It follows that where a person’s actions have the potential to “deeply offend” other members of the public – encroaching e.g. in this case upon their entitlement to respect for their religious believe, the offending actor has to justify whatever he/she does. So in order to defend the Piss Christ properly, one has to explain the value of trampling upon an object that is very special to very many people compared to the value of having certain limits in society of courtesy and respect towards otherness. In my personal opinion, there are much more effective ways to criticise the commercialisation of religion than to urinate on a crucifix. The message was certainly lost on me.

    The fact that the Piss Christ was displayed in a museum and not printed in a paper does not distinguish it from the Mohammed cartoons for at least two reasons. First, apparently the Piss Christ did receive public funding, which compared to the Mohammed cartoons – published in a private newspaper – is actually even worse, because every tax payer whether or not he/she wanted to do so, contributed to the display of the object. Second, it is of course true that one has the choice not to attend the exhibition, however, it would be naive to assume that only those believers who actually saw the cartoon were offended, while everyone else was totally fine with them. The problematic nature of both the cartoons and the Piss Christ does not attach to their visual accessibility, but to their very existence in public spaces (whether it be behind the walls of a museum or on a market place) as such.

    Andres Serrano’s, no doubt, important message regarding the commercialisation of religion could have been delivered in a much more effective manner, had he written an essay on it and spend his evenings in the private company of the Piss Christ at home.

    • I have written my views in some freedom of speech blogs on the internet concerning the nature of or reason for freedom of speech.
      I am certain that many such internet sites are little more than some equivalent of black holes, sucking our mental energies into useless quagmires.
      Even so they do have their uses, for I am not making an argument in a vacuum. My argument is fully functional in the form of a work of art.

      “9/11 The Clouds” https://plus.google.com/u/0/115593826388803739707/posts/p/pub

      Guernica is a painting by Pablo Picasso. It was created in response to the bombing of Guernica, a Basque Country village in northern Spain by German and Italian warplanes.

      9/11 The Clouds is a painting by my self, Perreaoult Daniels. It was created in response to the destruction of the original World Trade Center of New York City, destroyed in the September 11 attacks of 2001

      These two works of art hold a existence and properties parallel in our experience despite our separation in time. The Spanish Republican government commissioned Picasso to create a large mural for the Spanish display at the Exposition Internationale des Arts et Techniques dans la Vie Moderne at the 1937 World’s Fair in Paris.
      I created 9/11 the Clouds, of my own volition, shortly after 9/11.
      I shall not go into the details of the image created by Picasso. Guernica has become a universal and powerful symbol warning humanity against the suffering and devastation of war.
      9/11 was not an event occurring between two nations at war. It was a claimed a religious war and sparked great numbers of people to anger and hatred for beliefs not of their own.
      In the buildings, people burned and out of them they fell. In the clouds descending from the Towers high overhead, thousands of burning fluttering papers fell from the sky – their destruction of no concern to anyone. And to the people who did this thing, how could they care about burning papers, when the burning bodies did not move them? Yet I knew instantly that some of those burning falling clouds of paper had to be holy books.

      9/11 The Clouds unlike like Guernica, cries a warning to humanity against the insanity of murder in the name of faith.

      For 9/11 The Clouds, I destroyed in order to create, three holy books. The end result is this Work of Art that I have chosen to Give as a gift to The American People.

अपनी भाषा में टिप्पणी दीजिये

सुर्खियाँ

Swipe left to browse all of the highlights.


'वाक्-स्वतंत्रता पर चर्चा' ऑक्सफोर्ड विश्वविद्यालय के सेंट एंटनी कॉलेज में स्वतंत्रता के अध्ययन पर आधारित दह्रेंदोर्फ़ कार्यक्रम के अंतर्गत एक अनुसन्धान परियोजना है www.freespeechdebate.com

ऑक्सफ़ोर्ड विश्वविद्यालय