There were other two, the crucifix with a condom and the one with the wooden replica of the male genital in front Jesus' face but haha yeah I saw it but I'm not putting it up here since yeah honestly it kind of grossed me out seeing the gigantic sausage springing out some image.
I was torn between siding the artists or siding the Church. The thing in question here is the Freedom of Expression. Upon remembering that we are indeed free of expressing ourselves I think maybe even the art contains offensive matters to some people yet we have to let it be. It's what he thinks (Cruz) and it's how he perceives it. He won't sue us, would he, if we had a different idea of Jesus. No he didn't. Well to make things clearer I looked up my 1987 Philippine Constitution book and reviewed Article III about the Bill of Rights.
Art III, sec.4
"...as long as it does not violate the law, or injure someone's character, reputation or business."
Cruz's dead! I thought. Although his art violated no law but it has probably injured someone's character or reputation. Or did it.
"And unless individuals are at liberty to discuss the various issues that confront the community, the government, and the whole web of social relationships, the search for truth and perfection is impeded." Not because Christianity is the most popular religion in the Philippines, doesn't mean it is the truth. It takes a first courageous person to revolutionise the kind of art that very few or none at all attempts to do. His truth is just different from someone else's truth, and who knows, might be the real truth that Jesus is a dick or that Jesus's as funny as Mickey Mouse or as cute. Plus, "if man is not free to communicate his ideas to others, not only is his own moral and intellectual development stifled but his fellowmen are deprived of the benefit and stimulation which he might impart to them." Isn't that clear enough? "Without the right, the full and proper growth of the individual, nay, the nation is invariably stunted."
Art. III, sec.5
Meaning of Religious Freedom
"...Religious freedom is the right of a man to worship God, and to entertain such religious views as appeal to his individual conscience, without dictation or interference by any person or power, civil or ecclesiastical." And so, putting that's how Mideo sees his God, we have no right to tell him he's wrong. It's how he sees Him as appeal to his...conscience. We can't force him to deny or be sorry about it because we cannot dictate or interfere with his way of seeing it. "Everyone has absolute right to believe whatever he wishes." And in Cruz's state, he's free to believe in a Mickey Mouse God.
I do not deny that as wont as I am to how religious icons appear specifically Jesus, I was taken aback and somewhat see Mideo Cruz's artworks offensive but then again, I am only up to feeling bad about it. I cannot condemn the artist and force him to be sorry about it and make him so mournful of how awful his arts appear to others. It's his opinion, it's what's going on in his mind. We cannot sue someone for the contents of his skull. Legally, he is entitled to show such art of his. And art, oh art, is immeasurable. And so I disagree with the other leading artists calling Mideo immature. Because for me he is not. His art is just extremely original and conforms to no cliché. Well, as far as I know, this seems to be the first art to cross the religious norms of our country, so yeah, this might somewhat be a form of revolution, and the next time, other artists can be as genuinely free to how they really view things and how they really feel about it without being restrained of the country's leading faith. And plus, plus, plus...If Christians have their clear view of how God really looks like, they won't just be that affected with one man's picture of it. If they have their firm faith, they won't be shaken with it and then turn out to be more evil with their threats. Anyway, they have their own freedom to express their hate. LOL. But my point is, no one's going to prison and no one's gonna wear a scarlet letter.
We may hate the art, but not the artist.
