Is this really art?


I’m an artist myself and have to deal with hanging with many other artists who are atheist and at times snarky about me being religious. Either way that’s fine, I just hang on my own or with respectable people. But i saw this article about this artist from brooklyn who made a “piece” which was wine popsicles and when you finished them the popsicle stick wa a cross with Christ on it and it was red from the wine… I posted a picture below and the article has more info. Kind of fed up with artists using this as a way to gain exposure… What do you guys think, am I taking it to much to heart?

That’s the article.

Can’t wait to get to talk with other fellow Christian artists

Stay Blessed,

Edit/Delete Message

Well, I guess that could be viewed as being in bad taste.

But you know what they say … “there’s no disputing taste.”


To me, it’s rather tired and pathetic. It doesn’t provoke any interesting sentiment or feeling in me… just a sigh and a roll of the eyes. But I can get that from almost anywhere in MSM, from watching an episode of The View to reading a Doonesbury comic strip. Just my $0.02.

Bill Donahue of the Catholic League has something to say:

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the work of artist Sebastian Errazuriz:

I never heard of this guy until about 10 minutes ago, but I already know he is a bigot, a hypocrite and a rip-off artist.

He is a bigot for making “Christian Popsicles”—the wooden stick is inscribed with the image of Jesus on the Cross. The flavors are made from what CNN is reporting as “frozen holy wine transformed into the blood of Christ”; the wine was “inadvertently blessed by the priest while turning wine into the blood of Christ during the Eucharist.” His magnum opus will be handed out on Saturday in New York City at some dump in the Flatiron District.

He is a hypocrite because he says that although Americans should be “rightly worried” about the threat that radical Muslims pose, he decided to stick it to Christians instead. Why? Because religious extremism can be dangerous, he explains. So can sticking it to radical Muslims.

He is a rip-off artist because he recently ripped off the Occupy Wall Street
demonstrators: while expressing solidarity with the anti-capitalists, he capitalized on their campaign by selling folding chairs with some of their signs painted on the back. My favorite was the stunningly brilliant, “I’m So Angry I Made a Sign.” The asking price was $2,500. Not a bad profit, especially for a socialist.

Its sad and disappointing in a way because the Sacredness of Jesus is almost seemed to be downplayed. I don’t know but maybe the intention was good… It could actually be a reminder of Christ in a way to finish your ice cream and be rewarded with seeing the Crucified Jesus. I suppose it depends on the artists intention

I’m not sure the thing about it being transubstantiated wine is good at all. That is terrible

i’m waiting for them to start doing this kind stuff to Muhammed and Islam. haha

Why would Sebastian Errazuriz be interested in that? The US is not a predominantly Muslim country and he is not from a Muslim background. He would have no personal reason to make commentary on Islam.

I am not defending this work of his. I think it was created mainly to draw attention to himself. He seems to be primarily a designer, and perhaps he believes that any publicity he gets in the news will benefit his trade.

Is his popsicle art? I don’t think so. It seems more of a stunt.

I don’t believe it. Think about how it might have happened. He claims to have snuck a cooler of wine into a church, where it was a “inadvertently blessed” by a priest. Did he place the cooler under the altar? Or on top of the altar? And the priest didn’t notice?

Besides, isn’t intention vital to the act of transubstantiation?

This guy is a fraud, because he is claiming that he tricked a priest into inadvertently consecrating some wine in a Mass.

The reality is that this jerk smuggled in a cooler full of wine bottles and put them under his pew. Then this self-appointed sacramental theologian contends that the wine was consecrated at the same time as the chalice and host on the altar.

As you might expect, his popsicles are made from nothing more than ordinary wine with the substance of wine.

So, thankfully, he is merely committing blasphemy in bad taste, rather than aiding his customers in sacrilege.

The priest has to intend that the wine undergo transubstantiation.

Wine doesn’t get transubsantiated merely by proximity.

I am a Christian artist and I don’t really know what the example you just gave me is. It doesn’t look like art but instead what a little child did who was angry that they had to go to Sunday School. It’s just an animalistic expression that a cat or a dog could probably do…

I would not call that art.



P.S. I’m an artist too.

No, I don’t think this is art. It’s a sad excuse for art if anything.

This is transubstantiated into the very Blood of Christ! This is desecration, is it not?
This is the Lord’s BLOOD that these are made of. Our Lord, King of all Creation! Sovereign.
It’s angering, is what it is.

As was explained above, it’s not. Don’t worry so much about this random guy.

That, is not art. He’s doing that to get attention.

Colour me embarassed :blush:

Forgive me, I never saw the clarifying post.

This is not art. It is blasphemy of the sacred image revered by Catholics and other Christians.

Here is another example, though I would never condone violence against an object like this. I would lodge a complaint and ask for its removal.****-christ-destroyed-christian-protesters

There are two types of art. Art that depicts something recognizable and that has some virtue. This is also called “representational art.”

Then there is “fine art.” I have dealt with fine artists and it mostly boils down to posing and lame cleverness, like a joke that’s almost funny, but the punch line is lame or the goal is pointless or inexplicable. However, with all due respect, it has a distinct class structure that borrows heavily from religion

Once again, meaning no disrespect, I believe the following comparisons are valid to a greater degree than not.

Art Critics are the priests. They decide what is and what is not art. If they grant you the title “important” then your work has their blessing. They are also denominational in the sense that Abstract, Cubist and Post-Modern are denominations of art.

Art Gallery Owners are higher in importance than Art Critics. You can offer your work for showing but it must receive the blessing of the gallery owner, or better still, a known art critic.

When I was taking art classes, our class was taken to one of the finer art galleries. In that case, while the art depicted people, it accented the color of their veins in blue. It was mind-numbingly pointless. A quick glance told me I wouldn’t have any one of these pieces on my wall for free. However, our art instructor showed us the proper ritual behavior in what I would compare to a primitive place of worship. She sat and spent a significant amount of time looking at the paintings.

In my basic drawing class, our instructor invited a non-representational artist in to let us view one of his latest works. It was about 14 by 20 inches tall. It was done totally in graphite on a very thick illustration board. Some of the lines were thick and some were medium and some were thin. He smiled broadly as he indicated to us a special feature. He pointed out that some of the graphite had run like paint by using a liquid called Bestine. Well, we looked at it for a while and I realized three things, (1) There was no starting point for the eye, (2) it was incomprehensible, and (3) it could probably be duplicated without much effort. Or, to put it another way, there was no evident craftsmanship involved

Then something unexpected happened. A student in the back of the class said, "Isn’t that the letter K in the lower right corner? The artist was shocked. He looked, and I looked, and sure enough, there was a letter K. Dejected, he excused himself and left the class.

Another example. A name local artist was showing his latest painting in a room adjacent to me. I could see the painting and the unidentified man he was talking to. The artist explained that he had stretched some gessoed (whitened) canvas across a frame, and then he applied thick, horizontal bands of different colors from top to bottom. He then cut strips of natural canvas, which is a brown color, and applied it to the paint at regular spaces from top to bottom, the paint acting like glue. The punch line: “You see. Instead of the canvas holding the paint, the paint is holding the canvas!”

Give. Me. A. Break.

This is not about exposure, it is about a philosophy. A form of brainwashing, really. In my Art Indoctrination class (they called it Art Appreciation) we sat in movie theater style seating as our instructor put up slides on a large screen at the end of the stage he was standing on.

In one example, we were shown a solid, clear, lucite plastic, rectangular block with metal rods sticking out of it at intervals. Our instructor, with great passion in his voice, said, “This is a man’s life!!” Really? I don’t get it.

Or get this:

“Art should offend people because art should challenge people.”
Eriq La Salle

Yep, that’s the art I want. Every time I walk by it and get offended I should what? Love it?

The last straw came when our life drawing instructor took us to the local art museum. While walking around, I came across a spiral of duct tape about 10 feet across on the floor. It was totally meaningless and inexplicable. However, I was granted the answer. There was a small white card next to it. On it were these words: “Please do not remove. This is art.”

Yes, I now saw the man behind the curtain and his brainwashing machine in action. Only a true Initiate into the cult of Fine Art would instantly recognize it. But the average person, like the cleaning lady who might scrape it up off the floor? No. She and the rest of us were not members of the tribe.

When I got back to class, I talked to my life drawing instructor with whom I had a mutually friendly relationship. I didn’t mention the little white card, I asked him what the heck was a spiral of duct tape doing in an art museum.

He grabbed me by the lapels, and with theatrical anger in his voice, said, – surprise – surprise: “That’s a man’s life on that floor.” He went on to tell me a tear-jerker of a story. I told him: “You know what? If that guy wanted people to know him and understand his work, he should have dropped a stack of little pamphlets next to his art. You know, so people would get it.”

So, no, it’s not art. It’s a form of anger in my view. Like someone poking you with a sharp stick and knowing it will hurt to some degree.


The link didn’t work for me. If anyone else is having trouble, just Google the name:

Andres Serano

The white card was necessary. Sometimes works are thrown out by the cleaning crew. :o

[quote=BBC News]A bag of rubbish that was part of a Tate Britain work of art has been accidentally thrown away by a cleaner.

The bag filled with discarded paper and cardboard was part of a work by Gustav Metzger, said to demonstrate the “finite existence” of art.

[quote=BBC News]It is not the first time such a mistake has been made. In 2001 a cleaner at a London’s Eyestorm Gallery gallery cleared away an installation by artist Damien Hirst, having mistaken it for a pile of rubbish.

The collection of beer bottles, coffee cups and overflowing ashtrays was said to represent the chaos of an artist’s studio.

And in the 1980s the work of Joseph Beuys, which featured a very dirty bath, was scrubbed clean by a gallery worker in Germany.

Here is the Metzger exhibit which the cleaning crew mistook for trash.

(click picture to make bigger)

Actually my dog has a showing next weekend…


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