Home > Art, Christology > Rethinking Serrano’s ‘Piss Christ’

Rethinking Serrano’s ‘Piss Christ’

Andreas Serrano - Piss Christ [1987]ABC’s Encounter Program recently re-ran a  conversation with David Freedman (Rabbi, Sydney), Robin Jensen (Professor of the History of Christian Worship and Art, Vanderbilt University, Nashville), Rod Pattenden (Director, Blake Prize for Religious Art), Steven Liew (Plastic surgeon, Sydney), Maureen O’Sullivan (Plastic surgery patient), and Christine Piff (Founder and CEO, Let’s Face It) on the topic of the human face. The conversations reflected on artistic representations of God, and modern cosmetic surgery and its relationship with experiences of facial disfigurement. It was a fascinating program (and it can be downloaded here). One the reflections that struck me was that of Rod Pattenden on Andreas Serrano’s much-debated photograph ‘Piss Christ’. I appreciated being invited (even compelled) to revisit this piece, and, in so doing, rethink and revisit some earlier reflections, questions and conclusions I drew from it both as a piece of art and as a christological statement. Here’s what Pattenden had to say:

This image is an image of a familiar crucifixion. Jesus is spread out upon a cross, probably it’s a little hard to see because we’re seeing it through an orange or red glowing light, with what appears to be bubbles. It looks like the crucifixion has been immersed in this kind of gaseous, underwater, soft orange light. So at first instance, it looks like a very pious image, something very familiar to us, but in a place which seems unfamiliar.

It’s only when we are told that the title is Piss Christ, that we immediately recoil, and as we understand the artist has made a photograph of a traditional plastic crucifix which he’s purchased in a gift store, and placed it in a large – presumably glass – container and filled it with urine, and photographed it. And so you have what seems like a moment of blasphemy, of an offence, of an artist transgressing what is familiar and pious and precious to a believing person, into a situation that seems horrendously offensive.

One of the issues we face as contemporary human beings, is that we live in the age of AIDS, and other diseases which are passed on by human body fluids, and so here is a crucifix placed in body fluids. So the artist – who describes himself as a faithful Catholic, and grew up in a family that was very pious – is actually making a theological connection in this work, about the very humanity of Jesus, and blood, and death, and what it is to suffer.

And what I like about it is that it reminds me that as a religious person I become very familiar with my symbols; I anaesthetise them, I dust them, I make them into gold and precious ornaments, and they become something safe on my shelf. And he reminds me that Jesus actually died and bled and suffered, and that this is offensive and grotesque and difficult. And that that’s a part of what it is to be human. So in the very offence that arises for particularly people of faith, in Serano’s images I think, is an opportunity to revisit the fundamental shock of the crucifixion, and the meaning of Jesus’ death and life.

Andrew Hudgins, in his (pungent and overstated) poem, Andres Serrano, 1987, echoes Pattenden’s claim that it’s in the naming of this photograph that we ‘recoil’, but that it’s not only in the naming:

If we did not know it was cow’s blood and urine,
if we did not know that Serrano had for weeks
hoarded his urine in a plastic vat,
if we did not know the cross was gimcrack plastic,
we would assume it was too beautiful.
We would assume it was the resurrection,
glory, Christ transformed to light by light
because the blood and urine burn like a halo,
and light, as always, light makes it beautiful.

We are born between the urine and the feces,
Augustine says, and so was Christ, if there was a Christ,
skidding into this world as we do
on a tide of blood and urine. Blood, feces, urine—
what the fallen world is made of, and what we make.
He peed, ejaculated, shat, wept, bled—
bled under Pontius Pilate, and I assume
the mutilated god, the criminal,
humiliated god, voided himself
on the cross and the blood and urine smeared his legs
and he ascended bodily unto heaven,
and on the third day he rose into glory, which
is what we see here, the Piss Christ in glowing blood:
the whole irreducible point of the faith,
God thrown in human waste, submerged and shining.

We have grown used to beauty without horror.

We have grown used to useless beauty.

Categories: Art, Christology
  1. 25 June, 2009 at 3:18 pm | #1

    Amen. When I was first introduced to Piss Christ, I had idea about the story or Christians’ broad outrage — I thought it was a universally acknowledged and beloved piece of Christian art! These thoughts, and that exquisite poem, are right on the mark.

  2. 25 June, 2009 at 3:49 pm | #2

    There’s an excellent discussion of Serrano’s art in “A Trickster Makes This World” by Lewis Hyde. A fascinating book in its own right.

  3. 25 June, 2009 at 8:12 pm | #3

    I’m usually very open to art that challenges our habitual reactions to familiar objects or ideas, but in this case I’m not sure. There is a fine line between, on the one hand, a healthy reminder that Christ suffered, that he was fully human, and, on the other hand, a postmodern obsessive-compulsion to revel in the shocking on the tautological basis that it is…shocking.Coprophilia, for example, is shocking and a reminder of how odd we are as humans with our bodily excretions and our often warped desires, but quite whether we’d want to celebrate that is another question.

    I find this photo more useful as a point of discussion for where we are ideologically and aesthetically, rather than Christologically. As for the poem, it’s terrible. It’s mundane prose chopped up into lines that function under the façade of poetry.

    Stimulating post, though!

  4. bruce hamill
    25 June, 2009 at 9:53 pm | #4

    Wow, great post Jason.Thanks!

  5. dave
    26 June, 2009 at 3:24 am | #5

    I’m still not sure about Piss Christ, after seeing it a while ago, which is perhaps the best way to be towards art.

    Daniel Sidell, author of God in the Gallery, had some interesting things to say about Serrano in his book. At least, I think it was in his book, but it may have been an article somewhere else.

  6. Mike
    27 June, 2009 at 1:32 am | #6

    1) Great and thought-provoking post, which has helped me see this work in a new light.

    2) Still, I wonder why post-modern artists whose work is so self-consciously shocking are then surprised when people are shocked.

    3) Augustine never said “we are born between the urine and the feces” or anything like it. It was Voltaire.

  7. 27 June, 2009 at 11:58 pm | #7

    I wrote a lengthy paper saying precisely this a while back, even down to the use of the same poem. Nice to see someone else making the same point.

  8. j
    29 October, 2009 at 2:11 pm | #8

    yo, I am glad I read everything in this article. Obviously there are some “extreme” points being stated… I do not think the same as you and could not imagine writing so much about Jesus in one article focusing on human feces and fail to give any praise or glory to your savior, it is all more than any human being or angel could comprehend. I pray that your life will continue to be blessed and touched deeply by the Holy Spirit of God who is Love and Spirit who is in all of our lives if we let Jesus into our hearts and follow the example set. God Bless you, you are a very creative and smart and have so much to offer everyone around you, especially kids. thanks for reading, peace.

  1. No trackbacks yet.