keymaster
(disclaimer- yes, i have a conscience, and could never ever steal from my place of work....well, except for the stickey notes, maybe....we get them from drug reps all the time and we have a huge cabinet full of them.)
i've been trying really hard to think up of a halloween costume for this year. usually i'll dress up as a movie character- past costumes include margot tennenbaum, holly golightly (pictured below), and mia wallace (from pulp fiction). this year's going to be a little more difficult because josh has expressed interest in having a dual costume- and two are harder to plan than one. ideas generated thus far:
1. mitch and mickey from a mighty wind
2. david st. hubbins and janine from spinal tap
3. the dude and maude from the big lebowski
so far none of these has gained any substantial favor with either of us, with possible exception of #3 because josh really likes that movie and quotes it all the time. i personally like #1 because i think it's the most doable. if anyone has suggestions, they will certainly be taken into consideration- the more obscure the better.
*interesting side note- the green thing with wings behind me is parley- dressed as tinkerbell. i sewed his dress myself. we attached little tinsle pom poms to his chucks- it was cute.
when i first saw this photograph, i thought it was quite beautiful- i like the lighting, the way the crucifix glows against the darker background. 'what about this is so controversial?', a casual observer might wonder. and to be honest, at face value there is nothing controversial about it. upon further investigation, however, one will learn that this is a photograph of a crucifix in a large tub of urine, aptly named piss christ. the artist (mary ann probably already knew this one): andres serrano. this photograph caused an uproar in congress in 1989 and all kinds of censorship debates ensued. people argued that it was offensive to christians, sacrilegious, and profane. what i have to wonder is, if it didnt have such a 'descriptive' title, would there have been any controversy at all?
i really enjoyed his lecture because he was nothing like i expected. i though he would drone on and on about the underlying themes of his work or the responses he was trying to provoke from people...but he was very casual and down-to-earth about it all. why piss christ? all the titles of his work are that frank- they describe what's in the picture. why urine? his early photographs were of fluids- mostly blood, urine, and milk. he did all kinds of 'immersion' photographs, in either water or urine. he claimed that he had no idea that piss christ would cause such a stir. throughout the lecture he allowed the audience to ask questions, and one of my favorites was a woman who asked in a rather haughty tone, 'surely you must have realized that the combination of 'piss' and 'christ' would've upset people...'. he kind of chuckled and replied 'surely, i did not.'
anyway, i was glad that i went because i had always heard about andres' work, but never really looked at it before. i had heard about all the piss christ controversy, but had never taken the time to look at the work itself. perhaps it's naive of me, but i believe the artist when he says that it was not his intent to be inflammatory- he just thought it would look good. and i think it does.