My Photo
Mobilise this Blog





New Zealand Conservative


AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« TBR Comments policy | Main | How sad, too bad, never mind »



I was pleasantly surprised by the second article but the link to the first didn't work.


Ah yes, the poor judgement of some people that should know better. All is not lost though, judging by this headline: "Pastor had sex with daughters to teach how to be wives
A fundamentalist church pastor had sex with two of his teenage daughters to educate them on how to be good wives, a South Australian court has heard."

John Boy

But what was the winning one like? Serious or more stupidity?

As a competent artist I hatched a plan to see how tolerant Muslims really are in NZ when their founding member is derided in a painting featuring camels and a ladder. It would of course be un-Christian like of me to insult someone in that fashion. What to do then? Probably nothing as, because it doesn't insult Christianity, it would never get past art show scruitineering in NZ.


Link fixed - Thanks usabikes

Link to the winning entry also added in response to John Boy's comment.

Danyl Mclauchlan

Dont'cha think both of them are criticising Islam a lot more than Christianity? Burqua Mary esp strikes me as a statement about the role and perception of women in Islamic culture, while Osama/Christ comments on the widespread muslim admiration for murderous psycopaths.

John Boy

No danyl, I don't think they really do anything. They just seem, like much of avant garde art today, to be saying things that seem simply stupid or pointless. The winner, in contrast, has a real link to a groups personal relationship with the Church so represents something real within the concept of a religious relationship. Its also nice to look at.

The other two featured should be in a fantasy art show with those powerful paintings of women with tigers and spaceships etc..., not a religious one. Even there, they would still be inferior I think.


All linked works of art work well for me.

They link different worlds. I have always been a fan of art such as that painted by the winner.

The other two will simply encourage different thought patterns among different people - as shown by the encouraging responses on the link itself.

I like it.


Andrew Bolt slams dunks it.


It is a shame that Shirley Purdie's "Stations of the Cross" is being ignored.

You see quite a lot of this kind of art on tee shirts from Australia.

The 14 stations pictures could be deployed in this way, if there was any danger of the art not being noticed.

Sam Finnemore

I quite like the Purdie painting - it's probably a lot more impressive in real life, rather than in a net reproduction.

But naturally it gets less media coverage than Mary wearing a burqa or the 'Jesama' hologram, just as most serious art in NZ gets less media coverage than a "portaloo with donkey sounds". Or the way people fume about fundamentalist Islam because normal Muslims are relatively invisible (just as with Christianity, where "fundamentalists" command the headlines and ordinary churchgoers remain invisible to the media).


Having read the above thread, I go back to the original question:

"But is it Art?"

Of course it is art.

Whew, that was easy. Don't we have any tricky questions today?


Hmm, the Purdie painting doesn't do a whole lot for me. I suppose you'd have to see all the entries in context, but if we're talking religious art I'd rather see something a bit more *beautiful* that touches the spirit. I'm afraid Purdie's art doesn't do that for me; in fact, they look like scout badges to me.

Having said that, perhaps they touch other people *shrugs*


I have seen the 14 stations of the Cross modelled in numerous ways in the past.

Like you Fletch, I interpreted the painting as representing scout or guide badges. There is a delicious irony on the border of the badges - where you can interpret the "dots" as part of the art, or as stitches!!

Fletch, you are a true connoiseur.

Paul Litterick

As Peter says, this is an easy question; of course it is art. These objects are intended to be works of art and they are exhibited in an art show, so they are art.

These works are unexceptional. The outrage has been created by conservative politicians and religious leaders who know they can stir up their followers and get airtime by being outraged.

Shout Above The Noise

So let me get this straight.

I could, for example, lay open a copy of the Bible, lay a turd on it, put in a sealed glass case and display it with some works from Johnathan Yegge and there would still be people out there do defend me an an "artist" as well ?

Surely not !


Lay a turd on Bible and call it art then you got WAR !! Enough is enough .


I suppose, Shout-Above-the_Noise, that if this was the extent of your creative ability - you could do just that.

You may or may not find a curator prepared to exhibit your creation.


If he did find a curator to host the satanic work of art exhibit Peter , I have no doubts that you would visit and laugh at it .


You may or may not find a curator prepared to exhibit your creation.

Well Peter in a celebrated court case, an art gallery funded by New York city won the "right" to display Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ", a crucifix submerged in the artist's urine.


So, let me get this straight.

No one knows what christ looked like. weveryone knows what osama bin Laden looks like. bin Laden's followers don't give a tinker's cuss about the painting, but christ's followers are all a twitter.

The comments to this entry are closed.