5 Lithuanian Journal of Anthropology , 2014, 1 SACRED CRUELTY IN CONTEMPORARY ART AND POPULAR CULTURE Maria-Alina Asavei Institute of International Studies Charles University Introduction Contemporary art and religion seem to be for many art theorists con- trasting cultural ields. Until recently, religious and/or spiritual pieces pro- duced by artists, artisans or religious people were not taken seriously by the contemporary art world. Galleries and museums of contemporary art showed little interest (if any) in this type of art/crat production, grounding their dis- missal on considerations about artists being trained in secularized academic environments. hus, religious and/or spiritual art, regardless of its medium (from embroidery and wall hangings to videos and holograms), has been treated more like “Outsider Art” or “Art Brut”- a cultural production which exists alongside or in opposition to the oicial art of the conventional art world. It should therefore come as no surprise that religious and/or spiritual art has been displayed more in ethnography museums or religious communi- ty centers and not in contemporary art museums or galleries. Institutionally, it has received the same treatment like other “outsider” arts (such as “naïve art”, “visionary art”, “spiritual art”, “mediumistic art”, “psychotic art” or “art of the mentally challenged”), usually being labeled as belonging to popular culture and folk art. Recently, both museums and art galleries have started to express some interest in religion and/or spirituality 1 . Harry Philbrick, the curator of one of the irst contemporary exhibitions on religious issues at he Aldrich Museum of Contemporary Art, argues that this exhibition is built irmly on two presumptions, as are the great religions: that we are, as lesh and blood mortals, transient beings; and that there is a higher order or plan towards which we aspire. For thousands of years art and religion have mutually claimed these truths as their own, oten in ser- vice of each other (Philbrick 2000: 16). 1 Just to mention one example, in 2000 ,he Aldrich Museum of Contemporary Art displayed the exhibition Faith: he Impact of Judeo-Christian Religion on Art at the Millennium. Asavei, M.-A. Sacred Cruelty in Contemporary Art and Popular Culture. Lithu- anian Journal of Anthropology, 2014, nr. 1: 5-20. Over the past two decades, the relationship between contemporary art and religion has manifested many times in the form of art exploring reli- gion in a critical manner then dismissing it for obscurantism, censorship and oppression. Many works of contemporary art have been criticized for ofending religious people and their feelings. Perhaps the most well-known example in this respect is Andres Serrano’s controversial “Piss Christ”. Alfonse D’Amato claims that this “so-called piece of art is a deplorable, despicable dis- play of vulgarity. he art work in question is a photograph of the cruciix sub- merged in the artist’s urine... his work is shocking, abhorrent and completely undeserving of any recognition whatsoever” (D’Amato 1989) Yet, for several art theorists, Serrano’s piece is not abhorrent or ofensive but a contemporary instance of “sanctiication of the profane” because the artist brings to the fore an idea from the Gospel traditions according to which Jesus Christ has efaced the social barriers between pure and impure (or clean and dirty) 2 . Whatever the right interpretation of Serrano’s “Piss Christ” is, a certain degree of sym- bolic violence is at stake in this art piece. he aim of this paper is twofold: to show how cruelty and “ugliness” from traditional religious art have remained a silent partner in the “aesthetic education” of the contemporary profane, and to argue that contemporary artists use traditional religious themes dealing with cruelty and martyrdom in non-traditional ways (but this does not mean that the sacred is completely replaced by the secular). Art that parallels the religious ritual and practice uses pain as a vehicle for religious transport and this motif is quite ubiquitous regardless of religion. Before detailing this argument, the concept of “cruelty” must be de- ined. It seems that there is no single understanding of this term. However, one of the most popular deinitions of cruelty is close to that proposed by Victor Nell in his paper “Cruelty’s Rewards: Gratiication of Perpetrators and Spectators”. According to Nell and others “cruelty is the deliberate inliction of physical or psychological pain on other living creatures, sometimes indif- ferently but oten with delight”. hen he adds that there is no psychological or neurobiological explanation for cruelty’s reward value and ubiquity and that our animal nature explains human cruelty (Nell 2006: 211). In other words, Nell tries to argue that human cruelty has an evolutionary explanation. How- ever, this deinition of cruelty seems unsatisfactory because, as philosopher Nick Zangwill points out: a doctor might inlict physical pain on a patient in the course of an op- eration, and a therapist might inlict psychological pain in the course of therapy that is intended to help a patient. Doctors and therapists might 2 For more on Serrano’s defense, see Steiner 1997: 59.