By David Pescovitz at 12:28 pm Wed, Apr 15, 2009
A shame you didn’t post this on Good Friday.
No? Too soon?
Darn. You’re totally right.
I’d tax Raquel Welch on a cross. I’ve a feeling she’d tax me.
…And suddenly I’ve found religion.
I’m old enough to remember when blaspheming someone’s religious belief was considered a BAD THING. When did this change? Shame on you boingboing.com contributors! Don’t you ever think before you speak (or blog)?
We blaspheme Islam and orthodox Judaism whenever we post representational artworks (graven images). Nobody ever kicks up a fuss about that.
I’m crucifixated! ;D
Next thing you know Boingboing is going to post something that pokes fun at white males.
Is nothing sacred??
Homohive: Shame on you for not having a sense of humor! God does, after all.
One person’s blasphemy is another’s feminist statement.
@9 Thank you.
This is even hotter than a picture of Jesus on the cross.
I’m not sure there has ever been anyone else as beautiful as Raquel Welch. Inane, I know, but I can’t help myself.
@5 Homehive: Yeah, like back in the 70s when this poster was made?
If someone did this today, I would write it off as cheap commercialism. 30 to 40 years ago when this was made, though, it was a a powerful feminist statement made within the all-pervasive Christian framework familiar to most members of Western society back then.
And take note: The message is that viewing women as little more than sex objects is tantamount to crucifying them. It’s a little extreme, but it kinda gets the point across. The message is not “OMGLOLZ a chickzor in l3ther on a cross! h4wt!”
Phikus: “Homohive”? Freudian slip?
#5: I’m old enough to remember that crucifixion was used to put many many more people to death than Jesus, and therefore this pic may not have intended any religiocity (sweet non-word) at all
Re what I said about the message: Append to the end of my second to last paragraph:
“even if that seems to be the average BB response. Sigh.”
Kieran: Yeah, that’s what it was. Sure.
@ Antinous- Please. You’re kidding, right?
Clarification: Homohive. My intention was to get under the skin of one so easily offended by “blasphemy.” I meant no disrespect to actual homosexual readers. It was a cheap shot, yes. I’m not above that today, given the right impetus.
Yep, many people were killed via crucifixion. It was such a horrid way to die (usually took 2-3 days to die), Rome decreed that its citizens could not be killed that way.
Also, when someone was crucified, their clothes were removed–just to add insult to injury. In other words, if this picture was more accurate, Raquel would be naked.
Now, as a man, after thinking about that, I need to go splash some cold water on my face–it is suddenly too warm…
Delicious blasphemy. Mmm.
Reminiscent of Australian artist Norman Lindsay’s, “The Crucified Venus”, a central theme in the 1994 film, “Sirens”.
I’d like to add that, to me, this image is sacred and I am offended by the idea that it could be simply assumed as blasphemy by outmoded sensibilities; hence my over-the-top reaction, which I do not attempt to excuse. However, if any Christians are offended by these comments, I’d like to quote Rev. Bill by simply asking them to forgive me.
again the bloody fish-cultists start pretending they invented everything. Now get this straight: we were tacking people on crosses, trees, stick things and other upright objects before your saviour was a gleam in your god’s eye. You don’t own it, you don’t hold copyright and if anyone has the right to cry blasphemy it’s us.
Is there a word for making something inappropriately sacred? Kind of like the complement or opposite to blasphemy?
Is there a word for making something inappropriately sacred?
Yes, it’s called Hollywood.
# Nelson: hypervenerate?
I thought it was called religion.
Having never seen the movie “One Million Years BC”, I do have a question for anyone who has: Is there actually a scene like this in the film, where cavegirl Raquel gets crucified?
Images of crucifixion stir up powerful memories from childhood for me. I’m talking of course about the 1982 Arnold Schwarzenegger movie CONAN THE BARBARIAN!
Planettom: No, just the costume (or lack thereof.)
and… TAKE HIM TO THE TREE OF WOE!!!
(You have to use all caps and at least 3 exclamation points to simulate the James Earl Jones voice in text. It’s in the style guide.)
or if you’re a little older you may recall nine days and nights on Yggdrasil.
*Fatally bites the neck of a vulture about to pluck eyes out and spits it to the ground with an embarrassing guttural sound.*
Takuan, what is best in life?
More importantly, here’s Ms. Welch last year at age 67. And the, um, seminal art video Raquel Welch Space Girl Dance.
@5 Homehive: You can’t appropriate the image of crucifixion the same way Jews can with yellow stars. People from all walks of life got hung up over the ages.
It was by good fortune that the Romans decided on crucifixion, it’s visual, prolonged, and sends a message. And hey, we’re still talking about it 1700 years later.
Imagine if they cut his head off, or pushed him off a cliff…. or the best one.. burned him alive! How would that look years later in paintings? Jesus surrounded by flames.
Kinda hard to re-enact that one every Easter.
At least they didn’t shove something up his ass (I don’t mean any disrespect, but there’s lots of unpleasant ways to die).
Wait, so now I’m confused: it was the cavemen who killed Jesus?
To drive your trolls before you and to gut their vowels and hear the lamentations of their fanbois!
Antinous: Obligatory 10,000 BC and Bedazzled, respectively.
What’s not to find sacred?
*Presents shiny sword of teh internets to Takuan*
The comments on blasphemy et al remind me of a current confrontation in Germany: Klinsmann vs taz.
Wot, no Fantastic Voyage?
Like George Lois’ Ali being shot with arrows ala St. Sebastian, artistic statements using a crucifixion are invariably references to someone sacrificing him/herself for a cause, specifically meaning Jesus. It’s disingenuous to insist otherwise or pretend artists or illustrators mean ‘some other’ crucifixion. They mean That One. But, whatever.
It didn’t seem to make much of a fuss when the current governor of my state had a crucifixion scene in “Conan the Barbarian” back in ’82. Maybe because he got nailed to a differently-shaped piece of wood?
#43, Brainspore: Not sure if you’re responding to my post, so I may be out of line BUT, no one – not an artist or illustrator – is referencing Conan the Barbarian when they depict Donald Duck or Bernie Madoff or anyone nailed to a cross. Fuss-wise, I don’t care when crucifixion symbology is used – I just detest the ‘we don’t mean Jesus’ bullshit. THAT crucifixion is the symbol of sacrifice for a cause. Anyone who understands political art knows it.
@ Teller #45: I didn’t mean that people should think of Conan when they see a crucifixion, I just meant that it’s at least possible to show a crucifixion scene without meaning it as a Jesus metaphor.
I also think that many Christians tend to forget that countless thousands of other people also died horrifically in the same manner, and hype up Christ’s last hours as if it were an unparalleled act of suffering and self-sacrifice.
Blasphemy is a religious crime. We don’t recognize it. It’s mind control through controlling imagery and speech, implicitly acknowledging art’s ability to challenge assumptions.
Sure, possible, can’t argue that. It’s also possible that since Raquel is tied and not nailed, it’s not a Jesus reference. I don’t think so for a minute, but one must allow.
Teller:Sure, possible, can’t argue that. It’s also possible that since Raquel is tied and not nailed, it’s not a Jesus reference.
Must. Resist. Nailing. Joke.
I’m old enough to remember when blaspheming someone’s religious belief was considered a BAD THING. When did this change?
That changed when people realised that anyone can make up a religion, that all religions are equally (in)valid, and what it is blasphemous to do according to one religion it may be blasphemous to not do according to another religion.
In other words: It changed when it became impossible to take religion seriously.
Spazzm: Raquel tied and not nailed does strain credulity.
I can imagine the death threats.
Now, I could be remembering my history incorrectly, but I was pretty sure that the crucifixion happened closer to 0 AD than 1000000 BC.
I love it specifically because it brings to mind the Jesus crucifixion, and carries it (ahem) into a postmodern context. No argument there. It is obviously a comment on iconography (Catholic idolatry specifically) while displaying a brilliantly wicked and fearless sense of humor.
And it’s damn sexy, I must say! It helps to point out how all those crucifixes with the scantily clad muscular Jesus are sexy as well, with a simple gender reversal. Dogmas were made to be challenged and broken down for your own good. Maybe then you’ll find some real God.
Bek@10: You’re welcome! =D
#24 PHIKUS-Oh you devious little Munchkin I recognise your anagram for the real you, I PHUKS.
What nom de plume do you use on your Craigslist
rant?Maybe #5 Homehive has some zingers for you.
According to Bible scholars the Greek scriptures
used “stauros'[stake] 27 times,stauroo,a verb 46
times.Classical Greek and Koine define stauros as
a single pole of xylon[wood].A Greek scholar,one
W.E.Vine,states the origin of the two-piece cross
was the brainwave of the Chaldeans and was adopted
from the pagans in the 3rd century C.E by
Christendom.But lets face it Ms Welch looks far more alluring spread-eagled.Sorry, Homehive,Jesus
was impaled on the traditional Jewish stake.You
did not deserve the ad hominem attacks,consider the source and smile
You’d think a website with “Art” in its title would know not to compress the hell out of a JPG like that. It’s probably a good picture — but it’ll take 3,100.00 to know for sure.
always look on the brrrriiiight side….
Wizardofplum: I do phuks. I phuks good! XD Never did the Craigslist for personal reasons. How is it?
Let Homejive come up with his own zingers, instead of leaving it to Dolly Madison.
I nom your nom de plume, an’ a gram. Here is a partial list for you to peruse and take your pick:
a fiz world ump
a flump wiz rod
a fold wiz rump
a frump old wiz
a low friz dump
a lump word fiz
a mud plow friz
a mud prowl fiz
a plum word fiz
a prowl mud fiz
a rod wiz flump
a wiz old frump
ad flu wiz romp
ad flu zip worm
ad for lump wiz
ad lump for wiz
ad lump friz ow
ad lump fro wiz
ad mop wiz furl
ad owl rump fiz
ad pom furl wiz
ad rum fowl zip
ad rum plow fiz
ad rum wiz flop
ad rum zip flow
ad wiz fro lump
ad worm zip flu
ad zip rum flow
ad zip rum fowl
ad zip rum wolf
ad zip worm flu
adolf rump wiz
adz fil wop rum
adz fil worm up
adz film pur ow
adz film up row
PHIKUS.Touche! you cheeky chappie.You saw through my ploy and in only 2hrs. came up with 35 possible alternatives,but not the correct one I am
impressed.Ah! on craigslist you are identified as
Molly’s Dadio ‘N?-clever-so is she your kith or kin?Now don’t be coy boy,at what city do you post
In order that we can all benefit from your bon mots and razor sharp wit.Dolly Madison indeed!lol
Perhaps Homehives silence speaks volumns,either
contempt or censure,we may never know.Pity!
Mail (will not be published) (required)
Art and Design
Submit a tip
The rules you agree to by using this website.
Who will be eaten first?
Jason Weisberger, Publisher
Ken Snider, Sysadmin