Where artwork is crated to serve to the purpose of worship, it can contrastingly be intertextually adapted to critique using religious symbols. This is evident through Erik Ravelo’s controversial cross project titled “Los Intocables”, translated to “The Untouchables” (source 7), which uses the symbolism of a cross to convey a profane message. Where the symbol of the cross is diversely recognised as a symbol of Christ, this is used to outline issues in society where the maltreatment of children occurs. He justified his artwork where he states that his “intention is not to offend anyone but make people think about a problem" (Porter, 2013), where this is done using confronting imagery with symbolism of the cross, which is universally recognized,
…show more content…
There is clash of opinion in terms of this art as while it uses the religious symbol of a cross to demonstrate how children are being unjustly treated, it is perceivably inhumane and unethical to display children in this way. In this sense, religious context plays a part as this artwork implements the cross in a confronting manner, where somewhat contradicts the purity of religion, where there is a close alignment between religious context and the perception of this artwork. The artist was raised based on the principles of Christianity, being a close alignment between his faith and the perception of his artwork, though it still continues to be misconstrued in this sense as offensive to the Christian faith, where the crucifixion is used to portray somewhat “pornographic” (Porter, 2013) content according to the perception of his audience. Though the alignment between the artist’s faith and that of the artwork are closely related, this has been predominantly met with a clash of opinion from his …show more content…
This artwork is located by the Nan Hai Pu Tuo Temple of Australia, where many people, especially those directly linked to Buddhism would consider this statue sacred It is also a means of achieving mercy, where one can look to the statue to find tranquillity. Contrastingly, the statue can be perceived as profane by those with no religious affiliation, where it may be more valued for its artistry. This may also not be seen as a means of spirituality or tranquillity, but rather a religiously accepted sculpture “for all people who want to learn meditation and have a stress-free retreat to practise” (Jones, 2015). It is based on this that both concepts profane and sacred can be identified, as through this source, both are true depending on the individual who is perceiving the statue. This artwork serves the purpose of enhancing a multicultural society and welcoming diverse cultures into the spirituality of Buddhism. It is not only worshiped by Buddhists but also other cultures as it reminds people through the sacredness of the statue to forgive people, as it is the goddess of
There is clash of opinion in terms of this art as while it uses the religious symbol of a cross to demonstrate how children are being unjustly treated, it is perceivably inhumane and unethical to display children in this way. In this sense, religious context plays a part as this artwork implements the cross in a confronting manner, where somewhat contradicts the purity of religion, where there is a close alignment between religious context and the perception of this artwork. The artist was raised based on the principles of Christianity, being a close alignment between his faith and the perception of his artwork, though it still continues to be misconstrued in this sense as offensive to the Christian faith, where the crucifixion is used to portray somewhat “pornographic” (Porter, 2013) content according to the perception of his audience. Though the alignment between the artist’s faith and that of the artwork are closely related, this has been predominantly met with a clash of opinion from his …show more content…
This artwork is located by the Nan Hai Pu Tuo Temple of Australia, where many people, especially those directly linked to Buddhism would consider this statue sacred It is also a means of achieving mercy, where one can look to the statue to find tranquillity. Contrastingly, the statue can be perceived as profane by those with no religious affiliation, where it may be more valued for its artistry. This may also not be seen as a means of spirituality or tranquillity, but rather a religiously accepted sculpture “for all people who want to learn meditation and have a stress-free retreat to practise” (Jones, 2015). It is based on this that both concepts profane and sacred can be identified, as through this source, both are true depending on the individual who is perceiving the statue. This artwork serves the purpose of enhancing a multicultural society and welcoming diverse cultures into the spirituality of Buddhism. It is not only worshiped by Buddhists but also other cultures as it reminds people through the sacredness of the statue to forgive people, as it is the goddess of