Should Piss Christ, by Andres Serrano be considered a “beautiful work of art”?
Andres Serrano’s Immersion (Piss Christ), 1987, is a work of art that associates theories from both Immanuel Kant and Ivan Gaskell. Piss Christ is a work of art that pushed the envelope in terms of what is considered “good art” and what is considered beautiful. Kant’s Critique of Judgment on aesthetics and Gaskell’s Beauty strongly implicate works of art, such as Piss Christ, in their own distinct ways.
My recollection of the very first time being introduced to Serrano’s Immersion (Piss Christ) is vivid and crisp. Amidst my fellow classmates, whom for most the feeling was mutual, I sat and pondered what good art truly is. My feeling of ambiguity towards the photograph was perplexing. The question had always abounded, of course but this particular piece intensified the debate exponentially. I distinctly remember questioning, “is that art” and “is that beautiful” and “is it alright to think that it was beautiful”?
Ivan Gaskell mentions Serrano’s controversial work of art in his essay Beauty from Critical Terms for Art History. Gaskell judiciously chooses this particular piece in his attempt to define what beauty is in terms of art and implicit instructions for the art historians when encountering works such as these. Gaskell refers to Piss Christ, and similar works of art, as being from an “X Portfolio”, inferring that these were works of art distinctly unusual, much different than the norm.[1] In a description of Piss Christ, Gaskill refers to it as “transgressively beautiful” and says, “but I shall propose another, even more familiar example in order to illustrate all the phenomenon I have been discussing: Andres Serrano’s Piss Christ (1987). “[2] Serrano’s photograph was Taylor-made for Gaskill to use as an example because of its controversy. The notoriety achieved with Piss Christ led me to ask, “How could something so vulgar and profane in nature be considered good art? The answer is beauty.
Although the photograph contained a religious object, worshipped and adored by many, immersed in the artists’ bodily fluid (which is, I must note, is offensively blasphemous), it is quite beautiful aesthetically. At first glance, rather deceptively, Piss Christ is unusually peaceful to look at. The colors are warm and radiant, and the lighting appears mysteriously technical. Ignorant to the truth about this photograph and at first glance, there is nothing offensive about at all. Gaskill says, “Serrano had hit a nerve by photographing a devotional object—apparently immersed in urine, though that this is the liquid that gives the photograph its dominant reddish golden hue must be inferred from the title of the work”.[3] Gaskill goes on to say that he found the photograph aesthetically appealing, calling the work of art “formally beautiful”.[4]
Kant presupposed that aesthetics are based on feeling and perception, independent of the object itself. That which is beautiful is only beautiful because our minds tell us so. Our mind governs both feeling and perception, and beauty materializes in our minds as a result of harmony, a harmony of understanding, judgment, and reason. Therefore, I believe Kant would definitely have considered Piss Christ beautiful. Kant would have looked at the photograph, independent of the objects, and would have objectively concluded that Serrano’s work was aesthetically appealing. Kant believed that there was a middle ground between understanding and reason, which is judgment. Kant says, “Every reference of representation is capable of being objective even that of sensations. The one exception to this is the feeling of pleasure and displeasure. This denotes nothing in the object, but is a feeling which the subject has of itself and of the manner in which it is affected by the representation”.[5] If I apply the theories of Kant aforementioned, I would learn to look at Piss Christ objectively, thus eliminating the pleasure and pain from the experience. My judgment of the work of art would include understanding and reason, enabling me to see the true beauty in art and not my own suppositions.
To say that Piss Christ is bad art would be a matter of taste. Kant writes extensively on the topic of taste in our reading, both defining it asserting its place I terms of judgment. According to Kant, one must strive for objectivity whenever possible because objectivity demands greater judgment. “One must not be in the least possessed in favor of the real existence of the thing, but must preserve complete indifference in this respect in order to play the part of judge in matters of taste”.[6]
I pondered, for a moment, what Kant and Gaskell would have thought of Piss Christ. Can Piss Christ be considered a beautiful work of art? Is Piss Christ good art? Should Piss Christ be accepted in the distinguished canon of art? Based on our readings of Kant on aesthetics and Gaskell on beauty, I conclude that these great thinkers would have looked upon Piss Christ with stern objectivity, concluding themselves that it contained fundamental elements of beauty. Apparently, many agree. Despite the controversy that abounded in the wake of Piss Christ, it was once featured on a full-page in a 1999 issue of Christie’s Magazine.[7] Wouldn’t this make Piss Christ worthy of being considered “good art”? Christie’s is the world-famous magazine that aficionados of art peruse for auctioned art. There must be some standard of art attributed to selecting what works are featured in this magazine.
In conclusion, after our readings on Kant and Gaskill, and in relation to Piss Christ by Andres Serrano, objective judgment that is independent of taste is a major component of the art historian. Acknowledging the middle ground that exists between understanding and reason will make an art historian much more proficient in his study of art. In applying these truths, I begin to look at Piss Christ in a new light. Although I still feel it is repulsive and disrespectful, I must examine the reasons why I feel this way, and totally exclude them from my professional critique of art. Doing so will ensure good judgment as an art historia
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Ivan Gaskill, Critical Terms for Art History (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1996), 276
[2] Ibid. 276
[3] Ibid. 276
[4] Ibid. 277
[5] Immanuel Kant, The Art of Art History: A Critical Analogy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 64
[6] Ibid. 65
[7] Ivan Gaskill, Critical Terms for Art History (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1996), 276