re: #29 Rightwingconspirator

Only if you think the duty of an artist is to communicate widely, to be comprehensible as to their intent. In this case, Serrano’s claim is that the ambiguity is intentional.

He definitely wanted to provoke, and he definitely understood many would be offended. He definitely didn’t care that they would be offended, or felt that making this was important enough for that.

However, I don’t agree in the least that this is like hate speech. There is nothing in this targeted against any humans. This doesn’t say anything negative about Christians, or incite people against them. At worst, it says “I disrespect your religion, I treat it as though it’s meaningless.”

If someone made a piece of art of a picture of Obama floating in urine, I wouldn’t think it was hate speech. Objectionable, maybe, but not hate speech.

One of my favorite authors is James Joyce. Many Catholics, and certainly the Church in Ireland at the time, found his books objectionable. They were objected to as obscene, but from Catholic grounds. Joyce knew, when writing his books, that he would offend many in his home country, as well as Catholics everywhere. He felt it was important enough to do so.