May the force be with you. And also with you.
An Australian artist's work that shows a "Star Wars" robot hanging from a cross has outraged some churches.
The Melbourne Herald Sun reports that "Crusci-fiction" is part of an exhibit called False Idols by artist Jud Wimhurst which opens this month at a
Melbourne gallery. "Crusci-fiction" is a room-sized installation with 25 replicas of C3PO nailed to crosses.
Wimhurst said his work is not intended as sacrilege.
" We're talking about sacrilege and the fact that everything's for sale," he said.
But Monsignor Lee Tomlinson, the city's Roman Catholic vicar general, suggested the art trivializes the central symbol of Christianity.
" It's disappointing that Christian symbols seem to be able to be ridiculed, but those of other religions or groups are not," Tomlinson told the newspaper.
Jim Wallace, head of the Australian Christian Lobby, also finds the art offensive.
On the other hand, David Richardson, dean of the Anglican St. Paul's Cathedral, found "Crusci-fiction" interesting and said Christians don't have a monopoly on crucifixion. [Source]
Then C3PO was led by his programming into the wilderness to be tempted by Darth Vader. And he ate nothing in those days; and when they were ended, he was still not hungry since he never ate anyway.
I didn't realize the C in C3PO stood for Christ, but I guess 3 is a good trinitarian number.
Known as 
"Christians don't have a monopoly on crucifixion"? What is that supposed to mean?
I wonder whether the artist will do a follow up with C3PO rising from the dead and ascending to rejoin the great cosmic CPU in the sky.
And while three is a good trinitarian number - a religion dedicated to computers would have to be in binary.
Yeah, it would have to be in binary, wouldn't it? That's funny.
It never ceases to amaze me how crazy things like this are accepted as valid art. I hope no one has to pay money to go see this in the gallery. (I also hope no one would be stupid enough to pay money to see this, but that's hoping too much, I think).
I think it's pretty pointless but at least it isn't disgusting or perverse. Although the one guy saying Christians don't have a monopoly on crucifixion? How stupid can someone get?
I saw this in yesterday's Herald-Sun but, not reading it carefully enough, actually thought it was probably some US piece of junk. Now it turns out it's just down the road!
I was there when then-Archbishop of Melbourne George Pell led the big protest vigil against Serrano's Piss Christ exhibition.
But this one is not worth taking any notice of, unless, of course, George Lucas thinks he could squueze another Star Wars episode out of it.
I'm all for Star Wars and all, but this is just a stupid play on words by a pin head artist looking to make a buck. (Low class artist that is.)
Just to play the devils advocate here ... it's possible that the artist is saying something along the lines of "Star Wars, or pop culture, or materialism has been put in the place of Christ as a false idol".
Which would be a different message to Serrano's work.
I can see how people would be upset or shocked, but this isn't necessarily an attack on Christ or the Church.
As for the comment that Christians don't have a monopoly on crucifixion, I guess that refers to the fact that the Romans crucified many people for centuries.
Nevertheless, the comment is disingenuous, because in our day and age, about the only symbolism attached to a cross is Christian.
i new some people didn't like C3PO but this is a bit much.
it should of been Jar Jar binks
[grumble, curse] So now I can't even watch Star Wars without some [expletive] "artist" [expectoration] using it to again mock something Christian... Will we see an R2D2 in saffron robes and beeping a mantra? NO. Will we see Jar Jar Binks beheaded by a scimitar-wielding turbaned warrior NO! (although this last one kinda appeals...).
Why is it that lately, all the really awful things are somehow connected to Australians?! [gripe]
Actually, this guy could be onto something. C3PO could be a Latin Abbreviation: Christus Passus Omnia. Christ who suffers for all. Okay, I really need to lay off the coffee.
As one of the two artists responsible for this work I would like to try and explain the concept behind it and defend our idea. To our surprise the story has gone worldwide. No effort has been made to even try and find out the other side to the story and has been blown out of proportion to enormous effect. I am only just starting to realise the power of the media from a personal angle. I will repeat for the benefit of the people who did not read the original article (in which we have been subsequently mis-quoted significantly) that we did not set out to offend anyone, religious or otherwise. I was raised anglican and my counterpart was raised catholic, so we both have a good understanding of the christian religion and its symbolism.
The exhibition 'false idols',in which the "offending piece" is but a part, is talking about just that, false idols. We feel, as people, that we are products of our upbringing, surroundings and influences, most of which are straying from the christian ideal. We have emulated this feeling of being products (ie mass manufactured) by using repetition in our work, hence the 25 parts to the whole and are trying to stress the fact that people will worship/buy/indulge in just about anything these days. Saleable items become gods to people including ficticious robots.
Since the media blow-up the piece has taken on new meaning for me personally. Its like a sci-fi version of the film, 'the life of brian'. A mob mentality where anyone can get strung up for anything whether they did anything or not. Even a hapless robot. For those still not convinced, you will be glad to know that under threats of legal action, constant abusive emails and phone calls and the very real fear of property damage, that the gallery has decided to not allow the piece to be shown. Not really the sort of christian behaviour that I was brought up to believe was right. Turning the other cheek is well and truly a thing of the past.
Thanks to steve (see above) who is the first person to have an understanding of what we were trying to say.
"sometimes I just dont understand human behaviour"
c3po.
no, you lot are the stupid ones. referring to crucifixion in a broader context than the Christian one is: a. historically accurate and b. disarms any offence and injury that might otherwise reside in this silly work. It says in effect, well, our beliefs can't be shaken or hurt in this way - we can just view this in a broader context (perhaps even broader than the artist intended). The Dean was being extremely savvy in my view in not 'biting' in the hysterical way of his colleagues.