Ambiguously provocative. (Roundtable).

IN 1989, ONE OF MY WORKS, Piss Christ, came under attack. The misrepresentation of my work in Congress and in the media and the cavalier and blasphemous intentions ascribed to me on the Congressional floor bore little semblance to reality.

I was appalled by the claim of "anti-Christian bigotry" that was attributed to my picture. The photograph--and the title itself--are ambiguously provocative but certainly not blasphemous. Over the years, I have addressed religion regularly in my art. My Catholic upbringing informs this work which helps me to redefine and personalize my relationship with God. My use of such bodily fluids as blood and urine in this context is parallel to Catholicism's obsession with "the body and blood of Christ." It is precisely from the exploration and juxtaposition of these symbols that Christianity draws its strength. The photograph in question, like all my work, has multiple meanings and can be interpreted in various ways. So let us suppose that the picture is meant as a criticism of the billion dollar Christ-for-profit industry and the commercialization of spiritual values that permeates our society; that it is a condemnation of those who abuse the teachings of Christ for their own ignoble ends. Is the subject of religion so inviolate that it is not open to discussion? I think not.

In writing the Majority Opinion in the flag burning case, Justice William J. Brennan concluded, "We never before have held that the Government may insure that a symbol be used to express one view of that symbol or its referents.... To conclude that the Government may permit designated symbols to be used to communicate only a limited set of messages would be to enter into territory having no discernible or defensible boundaries."

Artists often depend on the manipulation of symbols to present ideas and associations not always apparent in such symbols. If all such ideas and associations were evident there would be little need for artists to give expression to them. In short, there would be no need to make art.

Do we condemn the use of a swastika in a work of art that does not unequivocally denounce Nazism as anti-Semitic? Not when the artist is Jewish. Do we denounce as racist a painting or photograph that is demeaning to African Americans? Not if the artist is Black. When art is decontextualised however, it can pose a problem and create misunderstanding.

Debate and dissention are at the heart of our democracy. In a free society, ideas are not dangerous. The only danger lies in repressing them.

Continue the Conversation

Art, Religion and Censorship

Catholics for a Free Choice and the National Coalition Against Censorship collaborated on this roundtable, inviting artists, playwrights, critics and film directors to contribute their thoughts on this multi-faceted debate.

As explained in the captions and our contributors' essays, the art that illustrates the roundtable has all come under attack, from a variety of sources. The editor's note on page 1, and Svetlana Mintcheva's introduction to this roundtable, lay out where Catholics for a Free Choice and the National Coalition Against Censorship stand. But where do you stand? What are your thoughts? Tell us, and we will include a selection in our Summer issue.

You may email your responses to [e-mail]; fax them to [phone]; or mail them to Roundtable Feedback, Conscience, c/o Catholics for a Free Choice, 1436 U Street NW, #301, Washington, DC 20009, USA.

ANDRES SERRANO is an artist living in New York City.