Corporate Sacrilege

November 26, 2006 11:20 PM

Dick Detzner's Corporate Sacrilegeis a series of paintings substituting advertising icons for religious ones.
posted by jonson (30 comments total)

That's great. I absolutely love juxtaposition of religious and marketing imagery. Cake's song Comfort Eagle totally rocks:

He says now do you believe
In the one big song
We are now accepting callers
Who would like to sing along
posted by XMLicious at 1:03 AM on November 27, 2006

Opus [Matris] Dei
posted by rob511 at 1:15 AM on November 27, 2006

Lovely, cheers.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:15 AM on November 27, 2006

I like the Doubting Thomas finger going for the Pillsbury Doughboy's side.
posted by pracowity at 3:08 AM on November 27, 2006

Fun stuff. I remember a few years ago there was some outrage over his Last Pancake Breakfast being displayed here in Chicago. I hadn't seen Detzner's work until the news coverage of church groups trying to have it removed.
posted by Slack-a-gogo at 4:58 AM on November 27, 2006

Any Muslim ones? Or we not quite that bold and transgressive?
posted by jfuller at 5:06 AM on November 27, 2006

I can actually imagine some American Christians wearing this on a T-shirt with no sense of irony. This, on the other hand, is awesome, but the missus would never let me have it in the house.
posted by Faint of Butt at 5:06 AM on November 27, 2006

I think my favorite was Lot's wife, but this whole series is done quite well. Great find.
posted by piratebowling at 5:34 AM on November 27, 2006

Any Muslim ones? Or we not quite that bold and transgressive?

Yeah, we should all be thankful that in Christianity we have a religion we can poke fun at without fearing for our lives.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 5:39 AM on November 27, 2006

Yeah, we should all be thankful that in Christianity we have a religion we can poke fun at without fearing for our lives.

At least not our mortal ones. Heh. Great post.
posted by beelzbubba at 6:20 AM on November 27, 2006

"T-Shirts Now Available!"





not!

also, the open letter from Pastor Mark Coppenger reads like a MeFi religious thread 1000 comments in.
posted by carsonb at 6:47 AM on November 27, 2006

Aw, these are sick, funny, and uncomfortable to look at.

If we're talking about the "juxtaposition of religious and marketing imagery," I'm gonna have to warn about a [self-link] before I talk about "The Passion of the Claus."
posted by Milkman Dan at 7:30 AM on November 27, 2006

Why all the accolades on this? The "art" is plagiarism and the point Derzner is making is sophomoric. Shallow stuff in every way.
Full disclosure: No I am not a religious wing-nut and I don't find the work offensive - just slightly puerile.
posted by speug at 7:33 AM on November 27, 2006

I'll bite. How is it plagiarism?
posted by found missing at 7:37 AM on November 27, 2006

Yeah...I kind of agree with speug on this one. I've seen stuff like this in hundreds of freshman sketchbooks over the years. Nothing fresh here...unless you count actually going to the trouble of painting and marketing the stuff. Which I don't.
posted by Thorzdad at 7:38 AM on November 27, 2006

The advertising icons are all the work of other artists, the paintings (e.g. Last Supper) are the work of other artists - only the modifications and the juxtaposition are Denzer's.
If you prefer "not original" or some other wording I'm OK with that - but in art class we were rapped sharply across the knuckles for this type of copying.
That's the artwork per se.

The justification for this is that the copying is essential to make his point - but IMHO the point is weak.

Neither the art nor the point are impressive...
posted by speug at 7:50 AM on November 27, 2006

How did your art teacher like Andy Warhol?
posted by found missing at 7:53 AM on November 27, 2006

Yay! More arguments about what is and isn't art.

You know what's really wrong with these artists? How they pronounce "nuclear"!
posted by GuyZero at 7:55 AM on November 27, 2006

Thought he was hilarious!
posted by speug at 7:56 AM on November 27, 2006

No - not arguing about what is and what is not art!
Merely commenting that, IMHO, this isn't particularly praiseworthy.
(Of course if he's making $$$$ at it then I guess it's a good thing. Right?)
posted by speug at 7:59 AM on November 27, 2006

I like it, speug. You wanna take this outside?
posted by Faint of Butt at 8:08 AM on November 27, 2006

jfuller: Any Muslim ones? Or we not quite that bold and transgressive?

*Al Gore sigh*

jfuller, it would be bold and transgressive to poke fun at Islamic religious art if the artist lived in an islamic nation. The point Detzner is making is that "big religion" and big business have a lot in common in the US. Shocker, I know.

People in the US are not familiar with iconic Islamic religious art, because there really isn't anything comparable to the images that Detzner has appropriated. No saints. No images of Allah or the prophet Mohammed. Nobody would get it if Detzner dropped a McDonald's logo onto some calligraphy.

So it's not a lack of "boldness", but a lack of relevance that kept Detzner from lampooning Islamic religious art.
posted by Mister_A at 8:21 AM on November 27, 2006

Made me chuckle.

But the fact that folks're willing to drop $6000+ for fairly generic Photoshop Phriday Phare kind of makes me feel that the artist and his patrons are just as guilty of consumerism as the people and companies the art condemns.

Unless that's part of the artist's intent, in which case, nice work!
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:21 AM on November 27, 2006

I like it.

It is derivative, sure, but it still has value solely because so few people create stuff like this for public consumption.

There is a remarkable difference between what is hidden in notebooks versus what is openly available and even more bitingly available for sale.
posted by Ynoxas at 8:27 AM on November 27, 2006

I agree with speug: the theme is sophomoric and very tired. Like Alvy says, this is the kind of thing you see in a Worth1000 photoshopping contest. Plus, the technique doesn't seem particularly impressive. Perhaps they look better in person, but in the online thumbnails, they're ugly and unsophisticated.
posted by mr_roboto at 8:28 AM on November 27, 2006

Ugly and unsophisticated and priced $6,500

unless... maybe thats the irony!
posted by criticalbill at 8:49 AM on November 27, 2006

This made me think of Carol Lay's "Shroud of Bozo".
posted by TedW at 9:31 AM on November 27, 2006

I half agree with speug. The man's not a very talented artist. Though I don't have a prob with the use of the ad characters--it just seems very obvious and art student-y to me, like something you'd see in Adbusters. It also seems about 2 decades too late. Winston Smith's In God We Trust pretty much trumps all of Detzner's works, combined.
posted by dobbs at 10:04 AM on November 27, 2006

Terry Rowlett does the religious aspect of this so much better.
posted by mdiskin at 10:44 AM on November 27, 2006

Chalk up another agreement with Speug. I just plain wasn't impressed.
posted by sotonohito at 6:34 PM on November 27, 2006