• email article
  • print article
  • small text sizemedium text sizelarge text size
  • comment on this article

Pope angry over crucified green frog sculpture

A modern art sculpture portraying a crucified green frog holding a beer mug and an egg that Pope Benedict has condemned as blasphemous may have its days numbered.

The board of the Museion museum in the northern city of Bolzano are meeting today to choose whether to side with the Pope and other opponents of the frog or with proponents who say it should be defended as a work of art.

The wooden sculpture by the late German artist Martin Kippenberger depicts a frog about 1 metre 30 cm high nailed to brown cross and holding a beer mug in one outstretched hand and an egg in another.

Called "Zuerst die Fuesse," (Feet First), it wears a green loin cloth and is nailed through the hands and the feet in the manner of Jesus Christ. Its green tongue hangs out of its mouth.

Kippenberger's work has been shown at the Tate Modern and the Saatchi Gallery in London and at the Venice Biennale, and retrospectives are planned in Los Angeles and New York.

Museum officials in the northern bi-lingual Alto Adige region near the Austrian border said the artist, who died in 1997, considered it a self-portrait illustrating human angst.

Pope Benedict, who is German himself and was recently on holiday not far from Bolzano, obviously did not agree.

The Vatican wrote a letter of support in the Pope's name to Franz Pahl, president of the regional government who opposed the sculpture.

"Surely this is not a work of art but a blashphemy and a disgusting piece of trash that upsets many people," Mr Pahl told Reuters by telephone as the museum board was meeting.

The Vatican letter said that the work "wounds the religious sentiments of so many people who see in the cross the symbol of God's love".

Mr Pahl, whose province is heavily Catholic, was so outraged by the sculpture of the pop-eyed amphibian that he went on a hunger strike to demand its removal and had to be taken to hospital during the summer.

The museum then moved the statue out of its foyer and into a less trafficked area on the third floor.

But Mr Pahl's opposition was unflagging and he has threatened to resign as regional president unless it is removed altogether.

Art experts defend the work.

"Art must always be free and the artist should not have any restrictions on freedom of expression," Claudio Strinati, a superindendent for Rome's state museums, told an Italian newspaper.

  • Google Bookmarks Del.icio.us Facebook Blogger YahooMyWeb Digg Reddit Stumbleupon
  • email article
  • print article
  • small text sizemedium text sizelarge text size
  • comment on this article

Comments

N.Vella (on 29/8/08)
Read my posts below, the arguement is that if anyone expresses her/himself in a way that we deem not right, thean we can lash out at him but certainly he is trying to riducle us. if then we are in his shoes, then no its fine, we can do that.

you get disgusted because somebody depicts a frog on cross, i get disgusted by church ministers represeting church abusing children, should i say lets destroy them? is that not more a serious issue. the pope asked for pardon when he was in australia last time, and thats was the end of it.

Joe Galea (on 29/8/08)
I am with the Pope on this one!! (I want to make a point that I don't believe in the Catholic church as I find it very hypocritical, discriminatory and instils hatred against minor factions of society like gay people). This sculpture is an insult to Christians. If this had been about Mohammed, most probably, a couple of places would have been blown up. Mocking God and Jesus is a bad taste joke, which hurts the feelings of millions of people. I hope that it is destroyed soon.

I don't find this kind of art funny or appreciative, like that "artist" in South America who tied a dog to a wire and let him die of hunger in an art gallery as part of his (s**t) masterpieces. Thse people should be made victims of their masterpieces, to experience first hand their horrible creation.

However, in Malta we have more blasphemous acts on a daily basis, like the decorated swearing of many people, which I literally and totally disgust.
JN Cutajar (on 28/8/08)
I totally agree with Mr.Galea , with regards to environmentalists. What comes to mind at the moment is a particular incident not long ago where a couple of tourists found a cat crucified to a rubble wall off Siggiewi...
D.Galea (on 28/8/08)
What I find funny in this article is that it's Christianity versus Art...alright I'm neither religious nor an art enthusiast but I can respect & appreciate both, I wonder though, where are the environmentalists!? Shouldn't the representation of a tortured frog be repulsive to them as well? At least for me it is.
Mark Galea (on 28/8/08)
@Noel Vella. The remark was in no way meant to be a personal attack; I don't even know you! It was just a reminder that Jesus Christ, to some of us, is as dear if not dearer than our own father. So sympathising with somebody who publicly tries to humiliate what we hold dear is just not on.
JN Cutajar (on 28/8/08)
I'm simply amazed at how passive we are sometimes...
JN Cutajar (on 28/8/08)
@N Vella:

On my part please rest assured that I would sleep tonight :)

Please illuminate us with some constructive criticism then :P I did not see no light yet from your argument.

The Philippines example you mentioned is done on Good Friday to try and imitate Chirst's cruxifiction you know!
N.Vella (on 28/8/08)
If somebody wants to do that, fine. what difference does it make at a personal level for me? i would still my father in the same light. i hope you can come up with better arguements than resorting to personal attacks. (and if somebody says its a modern art who am i to say it must be destroyed?)

Jesus was not the only person who was nailed to the crossed. still happens today in the philippines.

My argument was why is it that we have to condone anything we do not agree with. if you do not like it, don't look at it. im sure you wont sleep tonight. im sure i will :)
Mark Galea (on 28/8/08)
@ N.Vella. I wonder what you'd say if a photo of your father was stuck on to the frog's face! Would you still expect people to be free to decide whether they can appreciate it or not?
N.Vella (on 28/8/08)
on what basis? in either comments you did not offer constructive criticism. your reasoning is it should be destroyed, period.[because] Apparently you know the artist personal lack of faith and also the critic's personal beliefs. and in the second argument you just mention its empty.
i ask again why?

Mention if it is not true that at least one religious work of art does not portay an image of violence. And if there is one, should it be destroyed?
John Camilleri (on 28/8/08)
@ N VELLA

What an empty argument!!!
N.Vella (on 28/8/08)
Nobody is asking you to appreciate this sculpture or display it in your own home. Everyone is free to decide what he likes or not.

the work of arts depicting people being be-headed or what not, those glorious works of art done for the religious order, for me they convey violence but apparently just because they are hanging in a chapel and showing a saint, we can close an eye.
martin frendo (on 28/8/08)
just ignore it - surely one doesnt built one's faith on others ' opinions and expressions. shall we be copy cats of Islam? come on folks mature -- it is an expression and we only get offended if we allow our minds to take over our souls..

this german guy is not imposing anything . it is our own free will, if we want to acknowledge and visit his works.

I stop short here as if we are to get offended with such sculptures.. let as look at our own islands and just be "mesmerised with holy statues" , some do tend to insult our faith . let me say "unknowingly" ..
JN Cutajar (on 28/8/08)
If Muhammed was depicted in an 'artistic' work of this nature, most probably a couple of Italian emabssies have already been attacked and destroyed.

To hell with art experts!
Mark Galea (on 28/8/08)
How shocking and blasphemous! When something like this happens in the world of Islam, all hell breaks loose! I wonder why there aren't so many more blogs below condemning this disgusting piece of news! Is it possible we have come to a point where we see nothing wrong with this, either?
John Camilleri (on 28/8/08)
Zuerst die Fuesse is undoubtedly sheer blasphemy. It should be destroyed. There is no art in it! It just reflects Martin Kippenberger's faith crisis. Defence mechanisms are equal to self-projections. Claudio Strinati's argument is totally pathetic, immature and based on his personal needs!!!

Poll

Was the budget good for Malta?

  • yes
  • no
  • don't know
  • don't care


View results

Fun Stuff


Play Sudoku