Lest you forget that it’s not just Muslim believers who get enraged by images of gods and prophets, have a look at this article from the Times of Israel (click on screenshot) about a big tempest in a small teapot at the Haifa Museum of Art. Haaretz also reports on the physical battle.
Enlarged, from Haaretz:
Apparently hundreds of Arab Christian demonstrators, incensed that this artwork—“McJesus,” by Finnish artist Janei Leinonen—tried to force their way into the Museum, leading to a clash with the police. Three cops were injured by rocks thrown by protestors, and the police retaliated with tear gas and stun grenades. A protestor also threw a Molotov cocktail at the Museum on Thursday.
The crucified Ronald McDonald has been on display for over five months as part of the Museum’s “Sacred Goods” exhibit, whose purpose is to “focus on the responses of contemporary artists to issues of religion and faith in the contemporary global reality, which is dominated by the consumer culture.” This statue seems to be right in line with that purpose, and reminds me of a similar protested artwork: American artist Andres Serrano’s “Piss Christ“. That was a photograph of a crucifix immersed in a beaker of the artist’s own urine:
Like “McJesus,” Serrano said his work wasn’t intended to make fun of Christianity, but to call attention to the commercialization of icons in modern religious culture. Nevertheless, it too was protested when exhibited in 1989, and even the budget of the American National Endowment for the Arts was cut. When “Piss Christ” was shown at the National Gallery of Victoria in Australia, it was attacked with a hammer and the Gallery had to cancel the show. And it was “vandalized beyond repair” when exhibited in Avignon, France, though it was reconstructed from the original photograph.
One would think that believers would best leave this alone, as it only calls attention to a work they despise. But when museums cancel these exhibits, the believers win, and even when the work is not anti-religious, canceling it attacks freedom of expression and unduly privileges religion.
Even the avowed secular government of Israel caved to the protestors. As the Times of Israel reports:
On Thursday, Culture Minister Miri Regev sent Haifa Museum director Nissim Tal a letter calling for the sculpture’s removal.
“Disrespect of religious symbols sacred to many worshipers in the world as an act of artistic protest is illegitimate and cannot serve as art at a cultural institution supported by state funds,” she wrote.
Of course it’s legitimate! State funds shouldn’t be used to protect religious sentiments whose meaning is dissected in works of art. And of course disrespecting religious symbols is one of the best ways to raise attention to “artistic protest.”
In response, Museum has proposed a reasonable solution to those enraged:
In response to Friday’s protest, the Haifa Museum said Tal agreed during a meeting with church leaders and officials from the Haifa Municipality to put up a sign at the entrance to the exhibit explaining it contains potentially offensive content.
h/t: Jószef
Yes, this is certainly nothing to clown around about but as long as no quarter pounders are harmed it should be okay. Some people just have no sense of humor or of art.
The bigger crime is artistic.
That’s my problem with these things, too! The problem isn’t that you’re suspending a cross in urine, it’s that you’re suspending ANYTHING in urine and calling it art. That’s disgusting.
And the crucified clown is something a grade school child would think is profound, but is just utter tripe to any over the age of 12.
Actually, if I didn’t know how the Piss Christ was created, I’d appreciate this blurred image in hues of yellow, orange and red – it somehow gives me the impression of a painful end. If the artist had kept his mouth shut about how he had made it, I guess some would admire his work. But he wanted to provoke.
Isn’t utter tripe considered a delicacy by some?
Yes.
Which is obviously the point that DW is making : works of profundity like this, which cause the viewer to examine their own assumptions about what they believe matters and to re-assess what lorem ipsum, quia dolor sit, amet, consectetur, adipisci velit, sed quia non numquam eius modi tempora incidunt, ut labore et dolore magnam aliquam quaerat voluptatem. Ut enim ad minima veniam, quis nostrum exercitationem ullam corporis suscipit laboriosam, it is that actually does influence them, instead of what they think influences them, is indeed delicate work of great taste.
Onions with mine, please. No need to throw in any bulking agents.
Thanks for the comment, gravel. While you were talking I thought I heard some Roman speaking an ancient tongue. Must be my friends and countrymen ears.
Outrage cannot properly be called outrage, unless it is *shared.*
This may be derailing the thread, so please feel free to delete my comment.
Coincidently, I just saw a tweet on my feed concerning this event. As seen through the lens of an apparent antiZionist, her account differs remarkably from the objective take here on WEIT:
https://twitter.com/Partisangirl/status/1083957384056266753
Unless the status quo is changed they will get their wish. Life inside Gaza will be unsustainable in a few years. They will die from starvation and disease.
I don’t have an easy solution to offer.
A large proportion of Gazans have refugee status and are supported by the UN. There are also other flows of cash into Gaza. Had the Gazans been forced to make a living like all normal people, I suppose that the dominant mood there wouldn’t be so belligerent.
“Life inside Gaza will be unsustainable in a few years. They will die from starvation and disease.”
You might want to Google “Gaza markets” and look at images section. Doesn’t look like people are starving or shelves are bare.
Google “Gaza shopping” Gaza restaurants” or “Gaza tourism”. Check out Gaza Real estate listings.
Either your scenario is another false Palestinian propaganda product, or everything on Google is controlled by Israel.
Harvard University Center for Middle Eastern Studies
Any colonial occupation has “good bits” for the locals willing to play along with the power in question.
With apologies to John and Yoko.
As though Jesus were the only individual ever to be crucified.
Far as I know Ronald McDonald is the only fast-food mascot to be crucified.
So far, anyway. I hear le roi du Burger King and Chuckie Cheese are gettin’ nervous. Colonel Sanders has gone to ground somewhere in Kentucky.
As a kid, my favorite part of church was the McCommunion nuggets and Hi-C Orange, but I became an vegetarian in my 20’s. Apostasy is good for my cholesterol levels.
LOL!
cr
Ronald died for your sins…of having bad taste. (I confess I love McDonald’s bacon, egg, and cheese biscuits.)
A challenge – a veritable challenge.
And since the Holy Incantations of Python have been invoked, “Ni!”
Putting up a sign warning of potentially offensive content is not going to placate the offended. But I don’t see a better way to respond to this. One could wish that the protesters would see the light, but that does not seem remotely likely.
I would suggest a warning at the entrance of ALL museums:
WARNING. CONTENTS MAY OFFEND.
Displays in this museum may not comport with your beliefs/religion/philosophy/worldview/alternative facts. If any display is offensive to you,it is your democratic right to look at something else instead.
cr
+1
I just had a mental image of the gift shop having a line of McCrucifixes (and Col.Crucifixes, Chicken Crucifixes, God, Mohammed’s body-double (give the guy some extra income from the Jeebus double-act), Buddha-fixes etc), suitably-sized urine containers, and instruction manuals. “You too can make your opinions of one, all , or some religions as clear as piss.
You’d need some sort of preservative to stop the urine going off. A pH buffer too, I suspect. All grist to the sales mill.
Ah, dreams!
Spaghetti and meatballs for supper tonight! I feel the need to perform sacraments.
It’s sad that this gathering didn’t take the moral high ground as a peaceful protest, which would have been the right thing to do. I don’t think displays desecrating religious or national symbols are generally appropriate in museums (imagine if it were a Star of David or the flag of Israel or the United States – I would personally object to that myself, if I saw it here in the US) – but violence is never the answer in such cases, a worse wrong doesn’t make a right.
If I were an Israeli Christian offended by this item, I would stand in silent protest in front of the museum with a reproduction of some famous, beautiful Jesus painting.
It is nauseating how artists smear the venerated icon of Ronald McDonald with tawdry religion. What sacrilege will they think of next; images with buns between burgers or fries without salt!?
My thoughts also. Why mix the great Ronald with religion.
2 for $5 going on right now in SW US. Disclosure: I’ve got two boy swimmers whose caloric needs marvel most. A McDonalds diet is not for everyone.
But is there a historical Ronald McDonald, or is it just a myth?
🙂
I’ll ask Bart Ehrman next time I see him.
A more relevant message would have depicted the evil Spawn of Kroc crucifying a decent hamburger.
Well, I think crucifixion is a little extreme, even for Ronald McDonald (though I suppose many French gourmets would say it’s too good for him), but I can’t say I feel impelled to riot on his behalf.
If Amnesty International started an online petition on R McD’s behalf I guess I might sign it.
cr
“C’est un debut. Alors que nous preparons un plan specifique.”
“Ronald! Come down off that cross and quit clowning around!”
The thin skins of the deluded reveals itself yet again.
….he’s not the messiah, he’s a very naughty boy!…
And so, because of religious outrage, everyone on the planet gets to see a crappy piece of art.
Unfortunately.
I sense a Jesus and Mo strip coming on!
I’ve wondered, these crucified figures always have nails through their hands. Could that carry enough weight? Wouldn’t the weight of the body just rip the hands to pieces? I’m not sure, shouldn’t it be through the wrists, between radius and ulna?
Note, I’m not volunteering for a real experiment to find out.
I think the same. Or maybe the wrists or arms were tied to the cross and the nails are just auxiliary. But I have never seen a crucifixion depicted by an eye-witness, which would answere the question. Early Roman artists were not drawn to this theme, unlike their Christian successors. I suppose that such a widespread display of the image of a torture victim makes people from non-Christian cultures roll their eyes.
I don’t have the precise reference to hand, but I do recall reading somewhere that experiments using human corpses have been performed to test the mechanics of crucifixion, and that the nails do indeed have to go through the wrist. Nailing through the hands isn’t strong enough to support the weight of a human body.
It would depend perhaps on the weight of the body. As we can tell by Ronald above, he’s usually portrayed as being emaciated. Could have used a double cheeseburger now and again.
There is a cult/ sect/ mass hysteria, I think in the Philippines, where the Easter “celebrations” includes one or several people getting crucified. They’ll know what is needed.
Various TV crews turn up on a regular basis, and I vaguely recall at least one surgeon with a predilection for god-bothering throwing his ten cents into the cut too.
Archaeological evidence shows the nails were driven through the wrists.
I’ve been looking it up: it is a nest of nails. There is no unanimity (to put it mildly) and there are dozens of ways of ‘crucifying’. Some with ‘support’ by nailing through the genitalia, which would allow to nail through the hands instead of the wrists.
I think the archaeological evidence you refer to was presented by Mr Haas, but his findings have been disputed by several others. One thing is sure, this is a problem that has been under discussion for centuries, nothing original 🙁 Books have been written, and I’m sure one could write another one.
As far as I can see the only areas where crucifixion is still used in the 21st Century as punishment is in some arab countries (United Emirates, Saud -how does that fail to surprise me?).
Yes, between the radius and the ulna. There is also evidence that the cross had a “seat” bar. This kept the victim alive longer to prolong the agony.
Was it a ‘seat’ or a (wooden nailing -kegging?) nailing through the genitalia? But yes, that is mentioned indeed.
Often the legs were broken, increasing the suffering while shortening it at the same time. Reminiscent of breaking on the wheel.
When you start looking up these ways of executing you see there is no end to the creativity humans have in torturing their conspecifics to death.
One thing has a near consensus: the crucified were stripped naked, no loincloth, although Jewish women were crucified facing the cross, “modesty” privilege. Apparently this modesty was only granted to Jewish women (by Romans? I somehow find that hard to believe).
So all these statues of Jesus (who didn’t actually exist) hanging on a cross with his dangly bits discreetly wrapped in a loincloth are bogus? I mean, even boguser than usual.
Maybe, as a genetic freak (considering his ancestry and his apparent disinterest in wimmin (except, possibly and apocryphally, Mary Magdalene)) he didn’t actually have dangly bits for the Romans to whack a nine inch nail through.
The possibilities are fascinating.
cr
A misericord?
Girl’s crosses had no seat bar, but did have tassels at the end of the arms.
I have, however, some understanding to the poor Israeli Christians. Sandwiched between Islamists and ultra-orthodox Jews (the dread of flight crews and air travellers), they never get any limelight and must feel neglected. I suppose that museums in Israel, as in other countries, never show images of Mohammed so that not to offend Islamists; the ultra-orthodox Jews recently got evolution exhibits curtained; so Christians end up as the only group with no say about museum exhibits. Time to catch up!
Religion–the original outrage culture.
Are there other places in the world where Christians would behave like this – throwing a Molotov cocktail at a museum over an art piece?
Or are they just picking up bad habits?
Never ever heard of McJesus – until they started rioting over it.
It seems likely Serrano and Leinonen knew there works would likely trigger violent protest from believers. They probably think of the protest as part of the work of art broadly construed. The physical object of art can be destroyed and still, the destruction can be seen as part of the artistic statement.
Less controversially, Banksy (left or right, I’m unsure)
Had God waited 20 more centuries to send His Son to save us, the Last Supper would have taken place at McDonald’s.
There’d be massive competition to host that meal. Wendy’s, Burger King, Arby’s, etc. would all be fighting for it. Priceless PR value:
“Jesus ate here”
Be big bucks in New Testament product placement.
I could see Wonder Bread and Birdseye vying for the “loaves and fishes” concession. The Via Delorosa would have more product promotions than a NASCAR race.
While they were eating, Jesus took the fries box, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take it; this is my body.”
Not really, McD would have been discarded as junk and something else would have come up
Smashing a urine-filled jar truly is an act of martyrdom.
😎
cr
Though I think, re-reading, the exhibit was merely a photo of said jar. For all we know the artist could have used beer. (Which of course is colloquially known as ‘piss’ in many English dialects).
(Restrains the impulse to make a series of dreadful puns on the subject).
cr
I’ve just realised it’s all in how you parse the sentence “That was a photograph of a crucifix immersed in a beaker of the artist’s own urine:”
Thus:
That was a photograph of a crucifix, immersed in a beaker of the artist’s own urine
Or thus:
That was a photograph, of a crucifix immersed in a beaker of the artist’s own urine
cr
You dined on his sins
English is not my mother tongue, so, pleae, tell me : shouldn’t these Arab Christians be called Christian Arabs ?
That’s what feels right to me, but I can’t say why.
Either way is correct.
Thank you.
I am also a non-native English speaker, but I suppose that in this case, “Arab Christians” is to be preferred because they act motivated by their religion. Actually, “Arab” could be omitted altogether, but it specifies that the protesters are citizens, not visiting foreigners.
Thank you.
They could be visiting arabs.
Damien – either of those words can be a noun or an adjective. In English generally the adjective comes before the noun.
So ‘Arab Christians’ means Christians of Arab ethnicity, i.e. a sub-group of ‘Christians’.
‘Christian Arabs’ means Arabs whose religion happens to be Christian, i.e. a sub-group of ‘Arabs’.
It depends which attribute you wish to emphasise, I guess. I think, in this context, ‘Arabs’ is probably a more coherent group than ‘Christians’, so ‘Christian Arabs’ would be slightly more correct.
cr
Though I note maya came to the opposite conclusion, for quite good reasons.
I don’t think there’s a lot in it, either way.
cr
Thank you.
Perhaps they should just turn the room temperature to below freezing so the little snowflakes don’t melt.
It just looks stupid to me . I don’t kniw why anyone would make it, or display it. The museum director should be fired for lack of taste.
Yeah, from a purely interpretive point of view, putting any kind of offense aside, I have no idea what the point of such a piece is supposed to be, other than a moment of carnivalesque, Lady Gaga style POMO “weird for the sake of weird” (in the words of Moe from the Simpson) shock value. The artist says he wasn’t trying to be offensive so presumably he’s not *calling Christ a clown; and from the opposite angle, no one is calling McDonald’s some sort of sad ‘crucified’ figure (somewhat off topic, but on reflection, Christians are generally ok with and even encourage using the Christ archetype if one does it to symbolize *actual perceived hardship in one’s life – look at Puff Daddy and Kayne West, for example, both dressed up as Christ on the cross at one point – it struck me as pretty self-aggrandizing, but I don’t remember much or any outrage about that, as they were working through feelings of perceived persecution or whatever and not doing it in a mocking way.)
Even when interpreting the Piss Christ piece, one can come up with plenty of plausible interpretations; as one can anytime you put two ends of a dichotomy side by side. The sacred and the profane, they seem so polarized, and yet is God not in *all things, etc., etc. That’s a term paper and a Vision Quest to the East for some prep school kid practically writing itself. But McDonald’s? If anything McDonald’s is more Pontius Pilate, the one *doing the slow killing these days, if you look at obesity rates.
Reminds me of painting of the dogs playing poker.
More Velvet Elvis.
The one that Trump had himself painted into and hung in his office?
I would guess that the artist was intending to make a statement or criticism about worshiping consumerism. A common though perhaps cliche subject. As with any thing humans do, 90% of the art produced isn’t really all that noteworthy.
I agree this is not a particularly fine piece of art, but in the context of this particular incident I think the behavior of the people involved and the religious & cultural beliefs inspiring them are exponentially more worthy of criticism than the art or the people who decided to display it in the museum.
How dare they desacrate the image of Spartacus, the symbol of revolt inn the face of oppression .
Because Spartacus in the Kubrik movie is a zionist symbol, is that it ?
Antui zionism in the heart of Israel itself, is that it ?
THAT would be one “unhappy meal”
Who was it in the sixties that said they were more popular than jesus christ… the golden arch has a lot in common with religion, in a nutshell, its crap food for your nutritional needs, like religion is for your intellectual needs. Mind the children I say.
Yes. It was John Lenin, of course, who said that popularity thing, and he triggered a storm of angst from you know who. Certainly the work does suggest that we compare and contrast Mac D and our lord and savior. It is out of this comparison that the art begins to have it’s most interesting effect. Humans (that means you and me) are subject to urges and tendencies that we should all explore form time to time. Whether it be the urge to engulf nutrient particles like an amoeba, or to be engulfed by a power greater than ourselves.
I think that’s a very charitable interpretation of Shock Jock Art. But even if I roll with that idea, the piece still doesn’t make sense, in that ‘overcoming the ego’ takes a great deal of discipline, training, and work (or at least *perceived discipline, training, and work – dang, now I must lapse into zen-speak); whereas McDonald’s is sort of like a visual manifestation of “Need. More. Impulse. Control. But. Fries. So. Yummy…”.
I think you nailed it Roo.
Ba-dum-ch. 🙂
“Lest you forget” … seriously? I really can’t believe that you equivocated about this. Moslems slaughtered 893 people over Shiite like this last month. The comparison is utterly inane.
Incivility and a Roolz violation. Did you even read the commenting rules before you posted?