Art or sacrilege? Rutgers removes controversial dartboard Jesus art exhibit

NEW BRUNSWICK — Rutgers University officials removed a controversial art piece depicting a Jesus on a dartboard from a campus library Thursday after receiving complaints that the exhibit was offensive, school officials said.

The piece, which shows a figure of a crucified Jesus stabbed with four darts, was part of an exhibit in the Art Library on Voorhees Mall in the heart of the New Brunswick campus.

Some Rutgers students and alumni turned to Facebook to post photos of the art piece, called “Vitruvian Man,” and demand it be taken down.

Art or sacrilege?

My answer is: both.

Art in the same way child pornography is art.

Good for Rutgers!

Sacrilege! No need for something like that!

Not just sacrilege, but nonsense.

Whenever I hear of such things, I just play the following song:

(Though the empty canvas, at least, isn’t blasphemous!) :smiley:

I think that’s fair. But art, at least publicly displayed, has no right to exist at the expense of sacrilege.

Not that I encourage sacrilege, but I’ve gained a different perspective about such art when I heard Sister Wendy discuss her view of **** Christ:

The very fact that this type of art makes news, gives evidence to the Truth of Jesus Christ.

He is newsworthy. He is not banal. He is provoking and controversial and always will be.

In the same way taking the name of Jesus in vain is found satisfying to the unbelieving mouth for some reason that saying, “Bagels!” or “George Washington!” is not. This is revealing isn’t it?

’tis true. Tis true, ’tis pity,
And pity ’tis ’tis true.

They say they don’t have to “give in” to the Christians wanting it taken down, but just last year (or two years ago?) they were probably saying the people who drew Muhammad “deserved it” when they were attacked. That’s what the media was saying, anyways.

There’s something wrong with this picture.

Art is no excuse. It is meant for all.

Unfortunately, there are different schools of thought in art. One of them being: Offend the viewer in some way. This may or may not be the case, but I find it hard to believe that such a well-known figure like Jesus Christ is not known by most.

A certain photographer and artist, a Mr. Serrano, defiled an image of Jesus. I heard his explanation and found no justification.

Having been trained in the arts, I found two types: art that depicts something real or not real in a realistic fashion. That was definitely not in favor at the University I attended. It was Representational Art. What was in favor was unintelligible pieces that used a wide range of materials. Art is a communications medium. The latter didn’t communicate anything.

The world of Fine Art still favors things that don’t communicate.


I don’t see it as a sacrilege. *

But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities…*

It’s the way it’s done that is a sacrilege. Portraying Christ on a DART BOARD…people try to throw a dart at the bullseye when playing…but this goes too far using a corpus of Christ in the middle of the dart board, as if he was the bullseye. It’s done in poor taste.

Seems sinful to make something like that, so the answer seems obvious.

I agree with you.

I saw it as a portrayal of how people in general treat Jesus. Remembering Scripture, that the way we treat others - even THE LEAST of us- that we did it to HIM as well.

 I know nothing of what the artist intended to portray,but that is the way I saw it.  Perhaps the artist did mean to be offensive..** but I don't have to view it in that way.**  Isn't something used in how its seen- its not the object, but the user's responsibility?  To the pure, all things are pure... etc.  ?

That sounds too much like the argument that pornography can be a beautiful depiction of love. Nope, still just immoral garbage.

At worst, it is disgraceful and sacrilegious.

As best, it is tasteless trash from a poor, well-intended artist with no common sense.

Great choices.

If I recall correctly, there was a famous piece of art work installed in a church in Italy (Rome) I think it was… and the portrayal was of a cherub piercing -or about to peirce- the heart of St. Teresa, with her positioned in a rather (at that time) risque portrayal… that is, in modern terms, looking rather orgasmic. In those days, it was thought of as ‘sinful’. These days it is celebrated. In fact I think its on many tourists itinerary to see it.

We could get into a very big discussion about what is porn and what isn’t. I remember speaking with a protestant friend who had told me about his visit to the Vatican and the Sistine chapel and saying that there was pornography on the walls. That’s his opinion and the way he saw it. It was scandalous to him… obviously someone should tell the Pope he’s got porn in some of his chapels there.

If you are talking about photographic pictures of people having sex, yes, this is wrong because it cheapens the souls who are photographed. They are being used, misused, abused- their likenesses, and it should be private, not for other eyes, and espeically not for other’s sexual gratification.

I would not say that sex cannot be depicted as beautiful though- not sure if that was what you were trying to say or not.   And I've seen very many beautiful depictions of it. even in photographs of real people, real models ... I'm not even the least bit ashamed to say it, and I don't feel its sinful at all to say either.  Sex is not dirty or disgusting...  what is disgusting is when people abuse that gift. 

Anyway, what you wrote in your post- these are your opinions about the art in question... they are your opinions and you are certainly allowed to have them.

And thank you for sharing yours, AnneElizabeth.:thumbsup:

This tacky visual depiction created in the classroom usually goes no further than the classroom. Ridiculous and worthy of no respect. Any fool in today’s collegiate vacuum could create it. I remember the same type of nonsense being created and showcased at my school of art 20 years ago. For instance, one student created The Virgin of Guadalupe with a raised middle finger. If students would like to spend their precious time and gifts depicting hateful and disrespectful visual statements, they will go no further than the sandbox.

But this is exactly what people do when they sin against each other and God, they throw darts at Jesus, with total disdain for what he as said about how to treat each other and God.

Funny how people would be upset over a piece of art-which isn’t even really desirable art but more of a ‘statement piece’, but people wouldn’t realize the offense should be at themselves for their sins. This piece depicts that- in my opinion. (That doesn’t mean I’m going to be lining up to purchase that kind of art)

Now, if people were offered to throw darts and did so with glee, then the offense would be real. Then again, we would then know those hearts who care nothing for the Lord- those who pick up the darts to throw. Their hearts are revealed that they care nothing of Christ, the art didn’t make them do that, and its something the Lord is already knows to begin with who is His and who is not.

Maybe it was a comment on the religious freedom issues in the news and the artist is saying that Christians are being targeted. :shrug: Whatever it is, I can’t help thinking that we’d be calling these students “special snowflakes” if they insisted on the removal of an artwork offensive to a different group.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit