Religious images and urine: should the work of Andres Serrano be exhibited in Melbourne?
Echo Issue Outline 1997 / 38: copyright © Echo Education Services
First published in The Echo news digest and newspaper sources index.
Issue outline by J M McInerney
On October 9, 1997, a Victorian Supreme Court judge rejected an application by Dr George Pell, The Catholic archbishop of Melbourne, to have one of the works of New York photographer, Andres Serrano, banned as blasphemous libel.
Though Dr Pell will not challenge the ruling, his Church and others continue to object to the exhibiting of the print.
The works of Andres Serrano have generated controversy through their use of religious images and their sexual explicitness.
The action of Dr Pell has also prompted a discussion about respect for religious belief and the extent to which this conflicts with freedom of artistic expression.
Though much of Serrano's work has aroused debate the photograph at the centre of the current dispute is titled, Piss Christ.
Background
Andres Serrano is an American photographer who was born in 1950, in New York, where he still lives. His mother was from Cuba and his father from Honduras and he was raised as a Catholic.
Serrano originally studied painting and sculpture and only later turned to photography. His first solo exhibitions were in 1984.
The work at the centre of the current controversy dates from 1987. It appears to represent a crucified Christ against a red-gold background. The whole image is rather obscured and misty. The image was actually produced by Serrano immersing a crucifix in a vat of urine which he then backlit. The work is titled Piss Christ. Serrano has said that the intention of this title is to be descriptive.
Serrano has claimed that this work made him infamous in certain quarters in the United States. A reproduction of the photograph taken from an exhibition catalogue was torn up on the floor of the United States Senate.
The controversy surrounding Serrano's work and that of another photographer, Robert Mapplethorpe, lead to attacks in the US Senate on the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), a government funded body supporting art in America. As an indication of the disapproval felt by some American politicians, the House voted to deduct the total of the grants made to Serrano and Mapplethorpe from the NEA's next budget.
A consideration of Serrano's place in changing social and political attitudes to art in the United States can be found on the Internet. The piece is titled, The War on Culture by Carol S. Vance. The article is taken from Art in America, September, 1989.
There is also a report on a lecture given by Serrano at the Kansas City Art Institute in August, 1996, in which he refers to Piss Christ and other pieces from his Fluids series.
Serrano's most recent works to attract controversy have been some of those in his A History of Sex exhibition. These attracted opposition in the Netherlands this year where attempts were made to prevent posters promoting the exhibition being displayed.
Serrano's A History of Sex collection is also currently being shown in Melbourne. It is being exhibited at the Kirkcaldy Davies Gallery in South Yarra. Despite its apparent sexual explicitness it has not attracted in Victoria the sort of attention it received from some opponents of Serrano's work in the Netherlands. However the catalogue for the exhibition has been referred by police to the Office of Film and Literature Classification for its consideration.
A note on libel
The charge that was brought by Dr George Pell, the Catholic archbishop of Melbourne, against Serrano's Piss Christ, was one of blasphemous libel, supposedly a common law offence, and indecency under the Summary Offences Act 1966.
Libel is a derogatory or maliciously damaging statement made publicly against another person. The effect of libel is to harm the reputation or public standing of another.
Blasphemy is to speak disrespectfully about a god or things which are held to be sacred or holy. Thus, blasphemous libel would appear to be libel against a god or some sacred object. It has been disputed as to whether such an offence actually exists in Australia.
Arguments in favour of the works of Andres Serrano, including Piss Christ, being exhibited in Melbourne
There are five main arguments offered in support of the works of Andres Serrano, including Piss Christ, being exhibited in Melbourne.
The first argument is essentially a legal one. According to this line of argument there are no grounds on which to ban the Serrano work either as blasphemous libel or as being obscene or indecent.
This view was put by Justice David Harper of the Victorian Supreme Court when explaining his refusal to grant an injunction preventing the display of Serrano's Piss Christ.
Justice Harper noted that while blasphemous libel was an offence in Britain, it was not an offence in Australia.
Justice Harper claimed that the offence existed in Britain because that country had an established church, the Church of England, which resulted in a unity of church and state.
Justice Harper went on to point out that Victoria had never recognised an established church and that the Australian constitution forbade the Federal Government establishing one.
Mr Julian Burnside QC, who represented the National Gallery of Victoria before the Supreme Court, noted that only once previously had a charge of blasphemy been brought in Australia and that was in 1919. Mr Burnside went on to observe that this previous blasphemy charge had been dropped before trial.
Justice Harper also concluded that he did not have grounds to declare the print obscene or indecent under the Victorian Summary Offences Act 1966.
Justice Harper noted that Victoria was a multicultural, partly secular and largely tolerant, if not permissive, society. Justice Harper suggested that to find the image obscene would be inconsistent with the contemporary standards of this society.
Justice Harper also observed that it was difficult to judge the image obscene as it was not visually offensive.
Justice Harper noted that to the extent that it gave offence, this came from the title of the work and the knowledge that the image was produce by photographing a crucifix immersed in a vat of urine. Without prior knowledge of its title and the method of production, Justice Harper considered that the image might be seen as a reverent treatment of a sacred symbol.
Secondly, it has been argued, most forms of censorship are inappropriate in a plural society.
A plural society is one made up of people of diverse values and beliefs. In a plural society, for example, different types of religious belief are accepted, and people are free to have no religious belief at all.
This point was made by Supreme Court judge, Justice Harper, when explaining why he had not granted an injunction against the print.
`A plural society, such as contemporary Australia, operates best where the law need not bother with blasphemous libel because respect across religions and cultures is such that ... deep offence is neither intended nor taken,' Justice Harper claimed.
Thirdly, the question of whether Serrano's work should be banned is a question of the extent to which freedom of expression should be allowed in Victoria.
Defenders of the works note that the freedom of the National Gallery of Victoria and of other private galleries to exhibit particular works is not only a question of general freedom of expression, it is particularly a question of artistic expression freedom of expression
According to this line of argument artists frequently have a fresh and unique vision which challenges established views. Sometimes it is the deliberate intention of an artist to confront popular preconceptions and question traditional values.
Those who defend an artist's right to challenge accepted attitudes argue that if we restrict artist's freedom of expression we are weakening the intellectual and aesthetic life of our community.
After Justice Harper's ruling, the director of the National Gallery of Victoria, Mr Tim Potts, noted, `There's nothing to celebrate about the fact that we had to go to court to defend such basic rights as intellectual freedom and freedom of artistic expression.'
It has been argued that artists should be free to explore ideas and images and that no institution, including organised religions, should be able to prevent this. Robert Nelson, a painter and art historian at Monash University has argued, `No church has a copyright on the sacred. Artists are free to re-evaluate the terms of holiness ...'
Fourthly, it has been argued, anyone who believes they may be offended by a particular image does not have to view it.
This position has been put by the Victorian premier, Jeff Kennett, who advised anyone who felt they might find the work distasteful to `stay at home, see Rembrandt or have a game of tennis'.
This is one of the basic arguments against most forms of censorship - so long as adequate warning is given and people do not find themselves viewing material they would chose to avoid, then those who do wish to view this material should be free to do so.
Defenders of the Serrano exhibition at the National Gallery of Victoria have noted that only those over 18 are allowed to enter and there is a notice outside the exhibit warning that it contains images which some may find offensive.
Fifthly, Serrano has claimed that his work is not intended to give offence.
Serrano has stated that he was brought up as a Catholic and though he does not accept all that is proclaimed by the Catholic Church he still considers himself in some sense a Christian.
Serrano claims that `Piss Christ is a representation of the pain and the suffering Christ underwent for all of us. My use of a fluid like blood or urine is a way of humanising him, identifying with his indignity and sorrow. The intent was neither to desecrate not to offend ...'
Arguments against the works of Andres Serrano, particularly Piss Christ, being exhibited in Melbourne
The primary argument offered against the work of Andres Serrano being shown in Victoria is that one of the key exhibits, Piss Christ, is extremely offensive to all Christians.
The Catholic archbishop of Melbourne, Dr George Pell, has stated, `Both the name and the image Piss Christ not only demean Christianity but also represent a grossly offensive, scurrilous and insulting treatment of Christianity's most sacred and holy symbol. It is calculated to outrage the feelings of Catholics and other Christians.'
Dr Pell has argued that `The conjunction of the sacred symbol and excrement is `recognised universally as deeply insulting'.
It has been claimed that though the immediate impression given by the image may not been one of extreme disrespect, the title is sacrilegious and the fact that the image has been produced by immersing a crucifix in a vat of urine is widely known and causes great distress to most Christians.
Dr Pannam QC representing the Catholic Church at the Supreme Court suggested that it was as though the crucifix had been urinated on.
Secondly, in response to the suggestion that artists should not be denied freedom of expression, those who would have Piss Christ banned from public exhibit argue that an artist's freedom is not absolute and that there are certain topics which it is not acceptable to denigrate.
It has been argued, for example, that the sacred symbols of other religions, such as the Star of David, the Koran or the Rainbow Serpent would not be able to be treated in a way that would appear to hold them up to public ridicule.
It has been claimed that one of the features of a plural society is that it shows respect for the beliefs of others and that this is not being demonstrated in the work in question.
Dr Michael Haines, a Sydney-based international lawyer, has claimed that the photograph contravenes Australia's international law obligations, specifically the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights 1948.
Dr Haines has argued that these two articles guarantee the right to freedom of religion, which includes the right to be protected from `discrimination, vilification, violence, unfounded and unwarranted ridicule and the like.'
Dr Haines has claimed that the photograph, in desecrating a sacred Christian symbol, ridiculed the Christian faith, discriminated against Christians, promoted religious hatred and was ... grossly offensive and provocative.'
Relatedly, it is argued that the Catholic Church is seeking particularly to have the work removed from public display in the National Gallery of Victoria.
It is claimed that it is inappropriate that the work is to be shown in the state's national gallery, because this appears to give the piece official endorsement.
It has been suggested that it is a more significant offence to the religious sensibilities of those who are offended by the print that it is being displayed in the state's major exhibition venue.
It has also been claimed that while it is being shown at the national gallery, it is being exhibited at taxpayers expense.
Dr Pell summed up this position, asking, `Why should Christians or any other religious or racial group be insulted publicly at government expense?'
In response to Andres Serrano's claim that no offence was intended, those who would have his work denied exhibition at the national gallery are skeptical.
Opponents of the work claim that the title of the work and that manner in which it was produced mean that it will inevitably give grave offence to most Christians.
Mr Alan Hoystead, who is one of those who has gathered outside the National Gallery of Victoria to take part in a prayer vigil has stated, `A true Christian wouldn't insult the image of his own religion by urinating on a sacred image of him.'
Ms Jacinta Heley, who has also taken part in the prayer vigil has claimed of Serrano, `He can't really put those words Catholic and Christian to something that is obviously very anti by action. He's really a contradiction in his own terms.'
Further implications
The Serrano exhibition at the National Gallery of Victoria is likely to attract at least some media attention over the seven weeks it is scheduled to run.
A Christian group has begun a series of prayer vigils outside the gallery which are intended to take place over the course of the exhibition.
Shortly after the Serrano exhibition at the national gallery opened a man was taken into custody after having attempted to take the work titled Piss Christ off the wall.
It remains to be seen if those taking part in the prayer vigil or others who hold opposing views will cause a public disturbance and thus attract the attention of the police and the media.
In the longer term it is difficult to say what the impact of this controversy will be. The director of the National Gallery of Victoria, Tim Potts, has not appeared to waver at any stage in his support for what he sees as artistic freedom of expression. It seems unlikely that he would be reluctant to stage future exhibitions simply because they were likely to provoke heated public debate.
It is harder to say whether the trustees of the National Gallery of Victoria will adopt the same view. Mr Potts claims to have had their full support in the decision to stage the Serrano exhibition. It is impossible to know at this stage how they will have reacted to the current controversy and whether it may make them inclined to greater caution in the future.
It is the view of Dr Pell, the Catholic archbishop of Melbourne, has called on those considering making bequest to the gallery or otherwise supporting it to recall the Serrano exhibition. It appears that the archbishop is suggesting that those who have been offended by the showing of the Piss Christ image not support the gallery as they may otherwise have done.
Dr Pell has also claimed that the protest he led and the court case the Catholic Church sponsored have served `to increase society's awareness of the necessity to maintain public standards.'
As already noted, it has yet to be seen whether the actions of the Catholic Church and the statements of other religious leaders will have any effect on subsequent exhibitions at the gallery.
What has been marked has been a readiness on the part of many Christians to express their disapproval. It has also been notable that the Catholic Church has been supported in its actions by a wide range of other religious denominations, both Christian and non-Christian. For a number of religious leaders the issue appears to have become one of respect for the sacred in a largely secular world.
Some social commentators have wondered whether this debate marks a turning point in Victorian popular attitudes marked by a return to more conservative values, at least within some sections of the community.
It should also be noted that the Catholic Church approached the premier, Mr Jeff Kennett, presumably in his capacity as minister for the arts, rather than as premier, to request that the Piss Christ exhibit not be shown.
Mr Kennett stated that he did not have the power to intervene in the matter and appeared to consider it inappropriate that he should do so. It is, however, concerning that a direct representation should have been made to the government to determine what the National Gallery of Victoria will hang on its walls.
Finally, it will be interesting to note whether Serrano' A History of Sex exhibition, being shown at a private gallery also attracts public criticism.
Sources
The Age
8/10/97 page 1 news item by Tim Pegler and Robin Usher, `Crucifix picture fight to court'
8/10/97 page C2 (Metro supplement) comment by Babette Francis, `The hotseat: what's so offensive about urine?'
9/10/97 page 1 news item, `Art or blasphemy: Serrano flies into a burning question'
9/10/97 page 4 news item by Peter Gregory, `Court hears of blasphemy, God and urine'
9/10/97 page 4 news item by Jason Koutsoukis, Gareth Boreham and Rachel Gibson, `Police refer Serrano work to censors'
9/10/97 page 4 news item by Rachel Gibson, `Treading the line between art and pornography'
9/10/97 page 4 news item by Robin Usher, `Gallery's chief hits back over unholy row'
9/10/97 page 14 Access Age comments by Joe Clifford and John O'Connor, `Washing the hands/Spread it around"
9/10/97 page B1 (Metro supplement) news item by Alan Attwood, `Artist in the storm'
10/10/97 page 1 news item by Tim Pegler and Peter Gregory, `Serrano wins TKO, Pell claims moral victory'
10/10/97 page 2 news item by Fergus Shiel, `Artist arrives to yet another row on crucifix photo'
10/10/97 page 18 editorial, `Viewing the art of offence'
10/10/97 page 18 cartoon by Leunig
10/10/97 page 18 letters from Bill Backhouse, John Bolton and John Carroll, `Following the Taliban example/Real relationships with our gods/Setting the boundaries'
10/10/97 page 19 comment by Robert Nelson, `Blasphemy or just bad taste, it's all in the eye of the beholder'
11/10/97 page 3 news item by Rachel Gibson, `Controversial work a way of humanising Christ, says artist'
11/10/97 page 11 comment Dr George Pell, Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne, `In respect of sacred symbols'
The Australian
8/10/97 page 5 news item by Richard Yallop, `Image of Christ draws ecumenical fire'
9/10/97 page 5 news item by Chip Le Grand, Susan McCulloch and Stuart Honeysett, `Full frontal assault on "obscene" Serrano"
10/10/97 page 5 news item by Susan McCulloch and Chip, Le Grand, `Artist backs rejection of church injunction on portrait of Christ'
10/10/97 page 10 letters from Gary Bouma, John Cosgrove, Prapti Mehta and Nigel Poole under the heading, `Painting's critics assume God is a wowser'
11/10/97 page 22 comment by B.A. Santamaria, `Selective blasphemy'
The Herald Sun
9/10/97 page 5 news item by Kim Wilson, Mark Butler and Norrie Ross, `Police inspect photo'
9/10/97 page 5 news item by John Hamilton, `Obscenity in your face or in the eye of the beholder?'
9/10/97 page 18 editorial, `Art? We know what we hate'
9/10/97 page 19 comment by Jill Singer, `Outrage bandwagon'
10/10/97 page 3 news item by John Hamilton, ``Artist declares: I am not the enemy'
10/10/97 page 3 news item by Norrie Ross and Kim Wilson, `"Offensive" image OK to stay"
10/10/97 page 81 analysis by Annie Lawson, `So what's all the fuss about?'
10/10/97 page 81 analysis by Annie Lawson, `Art or art-ache'
10/10/97 page 83 analysis by Beryl Langer, `New spin on an old argument'
11/10/97 page 9 comment by John Hamilton, `Totally artraged'
11/10/97 page 9 news item by Kim Wilson, `Archbishop refuses to meet artist'
Internet
A consideration of Serrano's place in changing social and political attitudes to art in the United States can be found on the Internet. The piece is titled, The War on Culture by Carol S. Vance. The article is taken from Art in America, September, 1989. It can be found at http://www.english.upenn.edu/~jenglish/English104/Vance.html
There is also a report on a lecture given by Serrano at the Kansas City Art Institute in August, 1996, in which he refers to Piss Christ and other pieces from his Fluids series. This can be found at http:www.kcvac.com/reviews/seranno.htm