JESUS FROG?
Friday, August 29, 2008 at 10:48PM 
Did you read about the Italian museum which has defied Pope Benedict by refusing to remove a
statue of a crucified green frog clutching a beer mug and an egg? The Vatican had condemned the modern art sculpture as blasphemous.
Hilariously, the board of the Museion museum in the northern city of Bolzano voted it was a work of art. The 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 .LOL. Pope Benedict, who is German himself and was recently on holiday not far from Bolzano, obviously did not agree. My take on this risible rubbish is that it should NOT be banned and I defend the right for the Museum to show it for those stupid enough to go and view it. Looks like Kermit met a nasty end.
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (26)
David
Well said. If it's ok for the Danish cartoons to mock Mohammed (peace be upon his name) then this must be ok too. But soemhow I don't expect world-wide riots and death threats.
BTW, Bolzano is in the predominantly German-speaking region of northern Italy, known as Trentino Alte Adije. Most of the natives call it by its German name of Bozen, and if it got the chance it would re-join Austria, from whom it was separated in 1919 as part of the Treaty of Versailles. It was briefly re-joined to The Reich by Hitler during WW2.
I agree in a sense, there's no point in banning it, and Christians ought to be able to rise above such nonsense, and to recognise that the world in general will always seek to pour scorn and indignity upon the cross of Christ. Yet to whoever accepts the cross, it is the embodiment of God's love for us.
Actually, I think that God will see to it that "art" like this will actually work against the purposes for which it was created, and will draw people towards Christ, if only as a natural human reaction against the obvious puerile spite and hatred which went into such a "work".
Tom,
That's also how I see it. Christ is bigger than Kermit.
Perhaps, but is he bigger than Miss Piggy ?
The Pope shouldn't have bothered, he gave them the publicity they didn't deserve.
"the world in general will always seek to pour scorn and indignity upon the cross of Christ"
It's a crucifixion, not the cross of Christ. My way of telling this is that Jesus is not on that cross.
And this from the vatican's letter:
"wounds the religious sentiments of so many people who see in the cross the symbol of God's love".
...wounds the sentiments of so many people who see in the cross the literal reality of a brutal method of torture and execution that was used on thousands of people including victims of the Holocaust, and has been used in modern times in places like Sudan and places closer to home.
But since that is just the truth and not 'religious sentiments' it doesn't count, obviously.
Well Frank I doubt the "artist" did one of a frog in the electric chair. He wanted to provoke a reaction and he got one.
Mahons,
And the Pope didn't want to provoke a reaction with his letter?
Why is it OK for the Vatican to publish offensive twaddle but other people can't? Are they going to take account of my wounded sentiments here or is it only their sentiments that matter?
Anyway I trust that when the Pope next publishes some balderdash that wounds homosexuals sentiments, or women's sentiments, or blasphemes against atheism (I am told it is a religion, after all - may as well enjoy the benefits), that he will immediately accede to the demands to remove the offensive material.
Nonsense, the obvious intention of that "artist" is to pour scorn upon Christ, what else could (s)he possibly be trying to achieve? Is there any other context in which crucifixion is readily understood or related to, in the modern world, save that of Christ's? No other person in history is defined or remembered by that method of death. Therefore, this "work of art" is by definition, a reference to Christ and to no-one else.
As I say, it does not offend me; I fully expect it. In fact, Christ told us to fully expect such ridicule from the world, and indeed, told us to rejoice in it, when it is applied to us personally. I pity the creator of this infantile work, and I hope that (s)he may come to see Christ's love.
Tom,
"Nonsense, the obvious intention of that "artist" is to pour scorn upon Christ, what else could (s)he possibly be trying to achieve?"
I'm sure he was aware it was a Christian symbol but so what? He could have been trying to pour scorn on Christians, or himself (which is apparently what he said he was doing). For all you know he doesn't even believe Christ existed.
"Is there any other context in which crucifixion is readily understood or related to, in the modern world, save that of Christ's?"
Yes. See above.
Christ you know it ain't easy,
you know how hard it can be
The way things are going,
they're going to crucify me
Anyway what about the Vatican's offensive letter?
Frank: The artist seems to have purely intended to provoke by offending and little else. One can be offended by anything, but I think common sense indicates that is the story here.
Well, I don't see John Lennon's above lyrics in any other sense than a cheap dig at Christ either, (coming from someone who proclaimed himself to be "bigger than Jesus"). (In musical terms, Ballad of John and Yoko is an utterly clapped-out. boring, "lost the plot" rubbishy, run-of-the-mill song too, compared to the Beatles' earlier legacy, by the by). Lennon strikes me as a nice, well-intentioned dude who seriously lost the plot and allowed himself to wallow in typical nice, mushy socialist brainless nonsense. I'm sorry he died; perhaps he would have matured further, had he lived. RIP.
Any letter from the Vatican (and indeed any comment by me on ATW, not that I deem my comments equivalent to Vatican statements) will, as I say, always be derided and deemed (insert predictable leftist "-ism" of choice here) "- - -ist" by those who deride it. No surprise there then.
Tom,
A lot of the output from the Vatican is ridiculous yes, however much of it is offensive as well, including this support for censorship here.
So why is it OK for the Vatican to offend whoever it wants, while demanding that nobody offend it - even finding offence where it is not obvious that any is intended. Similarly people here don't mind giving offence to Muslims, where it obviously IS intended, or calling them on their attempts at censorship.
"In musical terms, Ballad of John and Yoko is an utterly clapped-out. boring, "lost the plot" rubbishy, run-of-the-mill song too"
Now that's blasphemy.
Anyway my more serious point was that there are indeed other contexts for crucifixion. I personally cannot look at any crucifix including the one above without thinking of the concentration camp experiments. Usually the placement of the nails is all wrong, like the one above, the nails are through the hands which is impossible - it could not support the weight of a body. And the reason we know this, I was told, is those experiments. It is the only thing I know where I feel contaminated just by knowing it.
So Frank, crucifiction is so common and nothing to do with Christ everybody knows that, but over the centuries everybody manages to get the details of this very common procedure wrong. Until the whole thing is proved quite recently by the Nazis who everybody knows always told the truth.
Orlando,
As usual you use the word 'So' in a non-standard way.
Sorry Dude, no hablo bullshit.
It is NOT alright for the Vatican to take offence while demanding that it must not be offended against. I agree with that position, although I'm a practising Catholic. Dare I say it, the Vatican does not necessarily have a monopoly on truth! (Cue lightning bolt upon my house! Kaboom!) But they do try their best to understand and interpret/distribute Christian faith as best they can, I'll give them that (as does the Protestant community too).
True, most traditional images of Christ's crucifixion are inaccurate: the nails were most likely banged in around the wrists rather than in the palms of the hands. But what of it? The main point is that he was crucified, and so the real question is, what does his crucifixion have to do with our lives, here and now? Christianity says "a great deal, and it is of enormous relevance, right here, right now".
However, I need sleep right now. Must get to bed. As always, we shall continue to talk about this whole thing, bit by bit, on other threads. Goodnight.
Don't be coy, you're fluent. I can tell an expert.
Orlando,
I doubt that as you usually can't even tell the truth.
Anyway here's a template that you can use for your next post so that it will be the equal of the others you have posted:
---begin Orlando post---
So <non sequitur> and <something Orlando pulled out of his ass>, but <something Orlando pulled out of his ass>. Until <something Orlando pulled out of his ass>.
---end Orlando post---
FYI it was a Jesuit who told me that about crucifixion. I guess he didn't know it was blasphemous.
Mahons,
I might be wrong but I think part of Frank O'D.'s point is that if, instead of 2000 Our Lord had been killed 20 years ago Catholic kids would be wearing little replicas of 'Old Sparky,' as y'all call it, around their necks rather than crosses.
Lenny Bruce illustrated the absurd grotesquerie of the situation by imagining how He would feel when/if He comes back and sees all these folk who profess to love him sporting CROSSES!!!!
T.T.,
Re: 'no other person in history being defined by that manner of death...' Spartacus?
Alexander: Actually we define him by the fact that he defeated the Cross. Something of course people are free to believe or not. The "art" is pathetic and a sign of gross immaturity, and sensible people recognize it as such.
Has the Pope written to the museum asking them to remove the exhibit? No.
Has he made a public statement urging them to do so? No.
Let's be clear about what happened.
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".
First of all he letter to Pahl was a reply to his letter asking for an opinion. And he has only released part of it.
This is simply a freedom of speech issue. Martin Kippenberger was entitled to produce the piece. The museum is entitled to display it. And the Franz Pahl is entitled to dislike it. Once nobody has the power to censor it and nobody threatens or uses violence then it is just business as usual in a free society.
But of course Vatican Censors Art is a better headline than Local Politician Seeks Publicity.
The Pope is reported as angry and as demanding a ban but all it is based on is a selective quote from letter which neither expresses anger nor calls for a ban.
"wounds the religious sentiments of so many people who see in the cross the symbol of God's love."
That's all.
"I guess he didn't know it was blasphemous"
Or maybe he did.
I am in the USA. I am surfing the net and I come upon this blog. I am wondering if you all who posted here on this blog are all seemingly so tolerant of the rights of the museum to display such art. Yet I do wonder if you all would be so Nambe Pamby (spineless) and so very tolerant if it if was an Irish Leprechaun in place of a green frog on display at the museum? If it were a green leprechaun, would you then support the Pope in his efforts to have the artwork removed from display at the ITALIAN museum? I bet in that case yes you would .And not only that you would scream foul if he did not try to have that artwork taken off display. The Pope is right to try to have all Blasphemous artwork removed from public view and my good conscience would support his efforts and I am going to back him up on that right effort right now and say that he did make a right effort to have the distasteful art work removed for the good of the Christian people . In medieval Europe, the frog was a symbol of the devil. THE ART WORK ON DISPLAY IS THE WORK OF THE DEVIL. Because Christians are, a lot of us shunned where we live so we do not need any more ridicule of our deeply held religious beliefs and for us followers of Christ made to look like silly cartoon characters or worshipping a silly cartoon character is just so wrong . In addition, there is nothing comical about the cross or crucifixion. People like me who did not ever see that artwork until today on your blog are going to be upset as I am about all the namby pamby people who are ALL AROUND the world so tolerant of all the wrong things and so intolerant of all the right things in the world that go on. Whoever you are that posted this blog. Remember ‘the man with a new idea is a crank until the idea succeeds“. If good men and women do not stand up for right thinking and right doing well then who will? GREEN FROG HOLDING A GREEN BEER MUG says TO ME the artist was thinking of the Irish culture and the Religiosity of the Irish who love Jesus. Therefore, he depicted Christ as an Irishman CAN’T YOU SEE THAT the frog was substituted for a leprechaun type figurine. He used the green of the IRISH and even went so far to put a green beer mug in the hand of the figurine so everybody would know he was talking IRISH. He did that for the entire world to see except for you Irish posters. I guess there really is truth in the statement “there are none so blind as those who refuse to see“.
Love you all. Stay well. God Bless .I hope I did not hurt anyone’s feelings by calling you namby pamby but if the shoe fits, wear it because right is right and wrong is wrong. I have to speak up, as my LORD Jesus Christ would want me to. The Lord expects us to rebuke one another when we are not right thinking or right doing.
Pinkroseteacup
Yet I do wonder if you all would be so Nambe Pamby (spineless) and so very tolerant if it if was an Irish Leprechaun in place of a green frog on display at the museum?
What kind of sicko would want to crucify a Leprechaun. I can assure you of one thing. They'd have no luck for it.
>>GREEN FROG HOLDING A GREEN BEER MUG says TO ME the artist was thinking of the Irish culture and the Religiosity of the Irish who love Jesus. Therefore, he depicted Christ as an Irishman CAN’T YOU SEE THAT the frog was substituted for a leprechaun type figurine.<<
No, the frog clearly evokes France and the green Ireland, so it is obviously a disturbing reference to the harsh death sentence passed on Wolfe Tone, Irish revolutionary who died in a French uniform.
>>the obvious intention of that "artist" is to pour scorn upon Christ, what else could (s)he possibly be trying to achieve?<<
Many things. First - as Frank indicated - the term "crucified" is now part of our common vocabulary and in fact does not usually refer to the crucifixion of Jesus. Besides, the artist did not exhibit this work; how do we know he even meant it for exhibition. Artists, and many others besides, often doodle around with things like this. I think it's quite plausible that he meant it as a wry dig at himself, his weaknesses and how he's being tortured to death by them.
Who thinks of Jesus when we read, e.g. "The media crucified the politician for breaking his campaign promises", or who's offended by it?
Man... this is not creative. The whole idea was already done by Peter Jackson in "Meet the Feebles"