Museum defies Pope over crucified frog

[Every Breaking Wave]

From Reuters

An Italian museum Thursday defied Pope Benedict and refused to remove a modern art sculpture portraying a crucified green frog holding a beer mug and an egg that the Vatican had condemned as blasphemous.

The board of the Museion museum in the northern city of Bolzano decided by a majority vote that the frog was a work of art and would stay in place for the remainder of an exhibition.

The wooden sculpture by the late German artist Martin Kippenberger depicts a frog about 1 meter 30 cm (4 feet) high nailed to brown cross and holding a beer mug in one outstretched hand and an egg in another.

Called "Zuerst die Fuesse," (Feet First), it wears a green loin cloth and is nailed through the hands and the feet in the manner of Jesus Christ. Its green tongue hangs out of its mouth.

Kippenberger's works have been shown at the Tate Modern and the Saatchi Gallery in London and at the Venice Biennale, and retrospectives are planned in Los Angeles and New York.

Museum officials in the northern bi-lingual Alto Adige region near the Austrian border said the artist, who died in 1997, considered it a self-portrait illustrating human angst.

Pope Benedict, who is German himself and was recently on holiday not far from Bolzano, obviously did not agree.

The Vatican wrote a letter of support in the pope's name to Franz Pahl, president of the regional government who opposed the sculpture. Pahl released parts of the letter, which said the work "wounds the religious sentiments of so many people who see in the cross the symbol of God's love."

Pahl, whose province is heavily Catholic, was so outraged by the sculpture of the pop-eyed amphibian that he went on a hunger strike to demand its removal and had to be taken to hospital during the summer.

"Surely this is not a work of art but a blasphemy and a disgusting piece of trash that upsets many people," Pahl told Reuters by telephone.

"This decision to keep the statue there is is totally unacceptable. It is a grave offence to our Catholic population," he said.

Art experts defended the work.

"Art must always be free and the artist should not have any restrictions on freedom of expression," Claudio Strinati, a superintendent for Rome's state museums, told an Italian newspaper Thursday.

 

[I Started A Cult]

I know that the religious are going to hate me for this one big-time, but I have to agree with the artists on this case. Two words, my friends, First Amendment.

 

[bell02+]

Except this is in Italy...



(I guess for my actual opinion, yeah I think it's offensive, but I've been raised to think that the artist has rights in displaying this as it isn't really hate speech or anything)

 

[Turtle Tamer Kammy]

Two words, my friends, First Amendment.

Did you, uh, read that article at all?

Back on topic, this type of thing is the reason I actually left the Catholic church, you can be pope and that's cool, run your church however, but pope=/= king of the world.

 

[ShinyFlareon]

Back on topic, this type of thing is the reason I actually left the Catholic church, you can be pope and that's cool, run your church however, but pope=/= king of the world.

No, just the leader of the largest group of people on earth, Christians. T_T

And yet, if a piece of art displays things that most people find offensive, but is in the service of the Church, all they have to do is say 'That's Jesus/insert other prominant religous figure here' and the subject matter becomes totally justified. Because when you think about it, religious art has a surprising amount of material that, under any other circumstances, would be considered gory and inappropriate.

 

[LoudKid]

This reminded me of another time the Catholic church did the same thing...only then they actually succeeded in censoring a vast amount of art.

It was called the Renaissance.

Actually, you know what? They've always tried to censor art.:nono:

 

[Perxio]

No, just the leader of the largest group of people on earth, Christians. T_T

Shitstorm, counting down...

I'll bite my tongue here and just say I'm completely behind the museums' decision. And IMO, art should never have to bend to what religion wants.

 

[Ben Cousins]

To think idiots like that used to basically rule Europe and order stupid crusades. So happy that religion is continually losing sway in Europe.

If it wasn't for religion Europe would still be dragging large unpractical wooden/stone clubs along the ground.

 

[Amewsment]

If it wasn't for religion Europe would still be hitting their own heads with clubs.

Sorry but no, that is simply not the case. If your replaced religion with science your statement might even make sense.

 

[Lilac Hill]

Has it ever occured to you that some people have the ability to speak with their tongue somewhat in their cheek?

 

[Treemo]

I personally think that it should remain on display. It sounds uniqe and original, and they don't have the right to demand it to be taken down. The artwork isn't meant to be an offense, and represtents something completely different than what Christians think it's representing.

Long story short, artists have the freedom to express themselves and others through their art, and people should quit complaining about it.

 

[bell02+]

It's definitely meant in offense (Maybe not personally to him, but maybe the Church or Religion. I said it wasn't hate speech because although slanderous it doesn't portray believable smearing or inspires hate). This also is not something that is exclusive to the Catholic Church or religions in general. It's highly mistaken to think that way, if someone were to build a giant statue of George Bush and each of his family members with a Donkey's Ass for a heads and with his nose poking through it's butt cheeks, tour it around the country (either on private property or publicly in a museum) you better believe the government would be using all their power to try to find their way to shut it down. (You could even take more recent examples like the less than flatter cartoon of Obama from the New Yorker. Highly offensive and supposedly "not intensional" art) It's completely fair for a person to request art to be taken down that they find offensive, of course it's also completely fair to deny that request if you are in the right of the laws for the country you're in.