Have you seen Poleteismo?

[lingkwyz]

---

pro live activist on tv: if he (the artist) is not pro christ, then he is antichrist!

hala ka diha... pagka nalang jud.. nagsugod nasad ta ani? manipulate the simple minds? haha..
same technique they did with the heretics they call way back long time ago.. then they burn them.. publicly.. whatever happened to thou shall not kill? hahay.. annoying... double standards...

[lingkwyz]

hey... robin padilla is not a pro christ... then he's an antichrist! go get him... hahah

[rodsky]

And for you, Art is to pleasure to your own eyes without thinking what is the story behind it?

This is exactly the trouble with people nowadays, in that the superficiality and shallowness of things prevail. People think that what makes them feel good or what "moves" them (i.e. makes them sad/cry) is all there is about art.

But why limit the reaction to joy and sadness? What about anger, fear, contempt/disgust? In fact, the negative reactions being posted here about the work are in fact making them unknowing participants in celebrating that artwork, through their disgust and derision. "...if it affects the full spectrum of human emotion...", that's how a substantial/relevant/meaningful work of art should be.

And you really think that these events didn't contribute anything positive? Let me demonstrate that this is incorrect.

I believe when all this talk about this controversial work of art started, people started Googling and Wikiing concepts such as "art", "aesthetics", "art criticism", "what is art?", "rebel art", "when is art garbage?". Isn't that a POSITIVE thing? Just think, this incident just upped the index on art and aesthetics awareness in the country!!!--Why do I believe this? Because I'm willing to bet that prior this incident, most people were just Googling Kim Kardashian, Taylor Swift, what Oprah eats for breakfast, and the color of Justin Beiber's underwear, because for some people, the beautiful, the famous, the sexy, the hitmakers, these to them, are the only things that should constitute "art". A pity.

-RODION

[tokidoki_v2.0]

^^ mao. i think he's muslim. mao bitaw bS kaayo to iyang liveraide commercial.

hindi niya tinitigil. BINAWAL siya.

[tylerdurden]

@rodsky, awesomely put

[anubiz]

what is it? i'ts Christ with symbols of pop culture and includes a crucifix with a movable p*n*s.

Poleteismo is an old piece first shown in 2002 at the Vargas Museum of the University of the Philippines. Mr. Cruz wasn’t thinking of the Reproductive Health Bill when he conceived Poleteismo nine years ago.

Offended Filipino Catholics turn to internet to assail CCP over

I havent seen it but agree with the artist but i dont find it offensive.
I agree with the artist interpretation.

"Images are open to various interpretations on the basis of the viewer’s perspective, maturity and imagination"

“My images are mere representations of things we see in ourselves”


Filipinos cry sacrilege over art with Christ, phallic symbols | Reuters
http://facebook.com/pages/Mideo-M-Cruz/

----------------------
update - found the pics here
Offended Filipino Catholics turn to internet to assail CCP over

the other one i get the meaning. but this red thing, wala ko ka gets. it's rude.

then why use such image? pwedi man tingali lahi nga image ang gamiton representation yes but with greater purpose... and i think dili tanan interpretation sa artist ang imohang nasabtan... naa pay daghan

[anubiz]

i think ang artist ani nag pataka lang ug buhat.... i think dili ni cya art.. basura nga gi hugawhugawan sa batang walay bout unya iyahang gi pun an ug drawing2 mao na nahitabo ana..

[anubiz]

really? you're worried about his art corrupting your mind? what are you, a three year old? or is that how weak and helpless your mind is?

well, considering your other comments, apparently so.

on the contrary, the aim of the guy's art is to encourage you to reevaluate your mind and maybe strengthen it or change its flawed assumptions - something you and a ton of other people here really need.

what if a 7 year old kid maka kita atong gallary ni mideo unsa kahay impact sa iyahang huna2 ato?

[anubiz]

the real controversy is when they die, they go to heaven and jesus's face doesn't even come close to what they keep seeing on statues, pictures and other 'holy' imagery.

i can also see some of these people are going to hell (considering the sections of society a few of them come from). i wonder what they're going to do when they find out hell has a ton of dangling, dancing one-eyed-wonders waiting for them.

to be fair, i think heaven should have sexy-man-rods too. honestly speaking, it should be mandatory, right?

yeah but is asure you god isnt look like micky either. let me ask u what is your interpretation with that work?

[anubiz]

i think that kind of art is in the very wrong place.... put that art in Europe i think you can get a happy audience down there...