Christian Zealots destroy 'blasphemous' art

[bobalot]

When New York artist Andres Serrano plunged a plastic crucifix into a glass of his own urine and photographed it in 1987 under the title Piss Christ, he said he was making a statement on the misuse of religion.

Controversy has followed the work ever since, but reached an unprecedented peak on Palm Sunday when it was attacked with hammers and destroyed after an "anti-blasphemy" campaign by French Catholic fundamentalists in the southern city of Avignon.

The violent slashing of the picture, and another Serrano photograph of a meditating nun, has plunged secular France into soul-searching about Christian fundamentalism and Nicolas Sarkozy's use of religious populism in his bid for re-election next year.

It also marks a return to an old standoff between Serrano and the religious right that dates back more than 20 years, to Reagan-era Republicanism in the US.

The photograph, full title Immersion (Piss Christ), was made in 1987 as part of Serrano's series showing religious objects submerged in fluids such as blood and milk. In 1989, rightwing Christian senators' criticism of Piss Christ led to a heated US debate on public arts funding. Republican Jesse Helms told the senate Serrano was "not an artist. He's a jerk."

Serrano defended his photograph as a criticism of the "billion-dollar Christ-for-profit industry" and a "condemnation of those who abuse the teachings of Christ for their own ignoble ends". It was vandalised in Australia, and neo-Nazis ransacked a Serrano show in Sweden in 2007.

The photograph had been shown in France several times without incident. For four months, it has hung in the exhibition I Believe in Miracles, to mark 10 years of art-dealer Yvon Lambert's personal collection in his 18th-century mansion gallery in Avignon. The show is due to end next month, but two weeks ago a concerted protest campaign began.

Civitas, a lobby group that says it aims to re-Christianize France, launched an online petition and mobilised other fundamentalist groups. The staunchly conservative archbishop of Vaucluse, Jean-Pierre Cattenoz, called Piss Christ "odious" and said he wanted this "trash" taken off the gallery walls. Last week the gallery complained of "extremist harassment" by fundamentalist Christian groups who wanted the work banned in France.

Lambert, one of France's best known art dealers, complained he was being "persecuted" by extremists who had sent him tens of thousands of complaint emails and bombarded the museum with spam. He likened the atmosphere to "a return to the middle ages".

On Saturday, around 1,000 Christian protesters marched through Avignon to the gallery. The protest group included a regional councillor for the extreme-right Front National, which recently scored well in the Vaucluse area in local elections. The gallery immediately stepped up security, putting plexiglass in front of the photograph and assigning two gallery guards to stand in front of it.

But on Palm Sunday morning, four people in sunglasses aged between 18 and 25 entered the exhibition just after it opened at 11am. One took a hammer out of his sock and threatened the guards with it. A guard grabbed another man around the waist but within seconds the group managed to take a hammer to the plexiglass screen and slash the photograph with another sharp object, thought to be a screwdriver or ice-pick. They also smashed another work, which showed the hands of a meditating nun.

The gallery director, Eric Mézil, said it would reopen with the destroyed works on show "so people can see what barbarians can do". He said there had been a kind of "inquisition" against the art work.

In a statement, he said the movement against Piss Christ had started at the time of President Nicolas Sarkozy's ruling UMP party's controversial debate on religion and secularism in France. At a record low in the polls before next year's presidential election, Sarkozy has been accused of using anti-Muslim and extreme-right rhetoric to appeal to voters and counter the rise of the Front National.

Asked by the daily Libération why the Piss Christ protest had happened now, Mézil pointed to Sarkozy's speech in March lauding "the Christian heritage of France" at Puy-en-Velay, where the first Crusades were preached.

He said: "Clearly we saw in Saturday's demonstration that a Catholic fringe wanted to take the president at his word, with extremely violent appeals." He said there was a climate of tension, with protesters insulting museum staff of north African origin. One guard said he heard: "I'm going to pour donkey piss on the Qur'an." An email to the museum talked about "plunging the diary of Anne Frank in urine".

The French culture minister, Frédéric Mitterrand, condemned the vandalism as an attack on the fundamental freedoms of creation and expression, but recognised that the art work could shock audiences.

The secretary general of Civitas, Alan Escada, told Le Dauphiné Libéré paper: "I don't support or condemn what happened," adding that the attack on the picture "reflects an understandable exasperation" with the museum.

A police complaint has been filed by the gallery and the guards.

• This article was amended on 19 April 2011. The original referred to the Senator Jesse Helms as Jesse James. This has been corrected.

Source

I'm a bit surprised this happened in France. However, the behaviour of the very religious doesn't surprise me however. They feel they should have special privileges (such as censoring 'blasphemous' art) because of their faith.

[Hillary]

Not that surprising, really. Although France is a secular nation in terms of government (for now), it is also a very religious country from what I have seen of it.

Hardline Christianity is on the rise in Europe, partly as a reaction to the increased militancy in Islam. Sarkozy's canvessing of Christians (and the far right) and the, not unrelated, Burka ban appears to have given the extremists a certain amount of confidence.

[Molyneux]

Disgusting...and good on the gallery to show off the damaged works. A nice little fuck-you to the cultureless bastards who tried to destroy what wasn't theirs.

I just wish they had been able to catch the pigs.

[General Trelane (Retired)]

Considering the photo was "a statement on the misuse of religion", it seems that it makes that statement even more clearly than ever. Oh, the irony.

[Simon_Jester]

Speaking about the thing as art...

Something about the whole idea behind the piece seems off to me. It's such a crude mockery, such a third-grade insult, that it has more an air of "neener neener" to me than it does of actual art. There are so many ways to communicate that meaning that show adult-level mental sophistication that sticking a crucifix in a jar of urine strikes me as a bad way to convey the desired message.

Is there a distinction between "art" and "I did this because I can, so I can shock you with it?" Or are they one and the same? To me, the latter seems intellectually bankrupt, and an intellectually bankrupt artist is doing something wrong.

[Zed]

Of course, Serrano didn't do it to shock people, nor did he mean it as an insult.

[Molyneux]

Speaking about the thing as art...

Something about the whole idea behind the piece seems off to me. It's such a crude mockery, such a third-grade insult, that it has more an air of "neener neener" to me than it does of actual art. There are so many ways to communicate that meaning that show adult-level mental sophistication that sticking a crucifix in a jar of urine strikes me as a bad way to convey the desired message.

Is there a distinction between "art" and "I did this because I can, so I can shock you with it?" Or are they one and the same? To me, the latter seems intellectually bankrupt, and an intellectually bankrupt artist is doing something wrong.

I really don't find that relevant, actually - I mean, offensive or no, it's not their property to damage. The question of whether it's art or not is subjective.

[Serafina]

Speaking about the thing as art...

Something about the whole idea behind the piece seems off to me. It's such a crude mockery, such a third-grade insult, that it has more an air of "neener neener" to me than it does of actual art. There are so many ways to communicate that meaning that show adult-level mental sophistication that sticking a crucifix in a jar of urine strikes me as a bad way to convey the desired message.

Is there a distinction between "art" and "I did this because I can, so I can shock you with it?" Or are they one and the same? To me, the latter seems intellectually bankrupt, and an intellectually bankrupt artist is doing something wrong.

I really don't find that relevant, actually - I mean, offensive or no, it's not their property to damage. The question of whether it's art or not is subjective.

Indeed. Whenever someone questions whether something classifies as art, i ask myself "why does it matter?"
If it is SO offensive that there is a reason to ignore free speech and ban it, why should that not be the case when it's art? Why should art be held to a higher, or different, standard than other forms of speech or expression?

[Bakustra]

Speaking about the thing as art...

Something about the whole idea behind the piece seems off to me. It's such a crude mockery, such a third-grade insult, that it has more an air of "neener neener" to me than it does of actual art. There are so many ways to communicate that meaning that show adult-level mental sophistication that sticking a crucifix in a jar of urine strikes me as a bad way to convey the desired message.

Is there a distinction between "art" and "I did this because I can, so I can shock you with it?" Or are they one and the same? To me, the latter seems intellectually bankrupt, and an intellectually bankrupt artist is doing something wrong.

Why is shocking someone artistically bankrupt? The goal of art is not to make reasoned arguments, but emotional ones. Picasso's works from his blue and rose periods are not intellectual presentations of sorrow and depression, but efforts to evoke those emotions and responses to those emotions. This is supposed to shock and enrage the viewer- but also to make them question whether this is really more damaging then the way society treats Christianity and the values of Jesus.

Obscure? Perhaps. But so is Ulysses, and Ulysses was quite shocking in its day. But nobody would call James Joyce intellectually bankrupt for deliberately choosing provocative subjects, either.

[someone_else]

Dunno, I find very hard to consider pissing in a vase with a crucifix and taking pics of it as "art". But must be that I tend to think of most "art pieces" I could have done myself as scams to make easy money.

That's still a case of destruction of property, though.

Of course, Serrano didn't do it to shock people, nor did he mean it as an insult.

Unless you ask the artist, you never know. And it's very likely we'll never know the real reasons behind his "art" anyway since there is no sane reason to force him to tell the truth on the matter.

[Bakustra]

What do you define art as?

[Zed]

Of course, Serrano didn't do it to shock people, nor did he mean it as an insult.

Unless you ask the artist, you never know. And it's very likely we'll never know the real reasons behind his "art" anyway since there is no sane reason to force him to tell the truth on the matter.

He has explained the work numerous times, and the explanation is provided in the article.

[bobalot]

Speaking about the thing as art...

Something about the whole idea behind the piece seems off to me. It's such a crude mockery, such a third-grade insult, that it has more an air of "neener neener" to me than it does of actual art. There are so many ways to communicate that meaning that show adult-level mental sophistication that sticking a crucifix in a jar of urine strikes me as a bad way to convey the desired message.

Is there a distinction between "art" and "I did this because I can, so I can shock you with it?" Or are they one and the same? To me, the latter seems intellectually bankrupt, and an intellectually bankrupt artist is doing something wrong.

How is that relevant to this thread? I think most modern "art" is shitty.

[Simon_Jester]

Of course, Serrano didn't do it to shock people, nor did he mean it as an insult.

Could you expand on that?

I believe you, but given the sheer number of people who interpret it that way... When art is persistently misunderstood, there's something very important and nonobvious that needs to be explained about the work. I would appreciate that explanation.

I really don't find that relevant, actually - I mean, offensive or no, it's not their property to damage. The question of whether it's art or not is subjective.

Speaking about the thing as art...

Something about the whole idea behind the piece seems off to me. It's such a crude mockery, such a third-grade insult, that it has more an air of "neener neener" to me than it does of actual art. There are so many ways to communicate that meaning that show adult-level mental sophistication that sticking a crucifix in a jar of urine strikes me as a bad way to convey the desired message.

Is there a distinction between "art" and "I did this because I can, so I can shock you with it?" Or are they one and the same? To me, the latter seems intellectually bankrupt, and an intellectually bankrupt artist is doing something wrong.

How is that relevant to this thread? I think most modern "art" is shitty.

Bobalot, Molyneux, I was playing art critic, not trying to justify vandalism.

Vandalism is vandalism, and engaging in it because your religious views have been offended is a crime. We're not going to see any other position endorsed on SDN except by trolls. If there's to be discussion, it might as well be on the vandalized artwork as art as on anything else.

That's why I raised this question: because I'm not really interested in watching everyone agree that vandalism by religious fundamentalists is bad, while I am interested in a discussion on what art is and on how artists communicate meaning via shock value.

Indeed. Whenever someone questions whether something classifies as art, i ask myself "why does it matter?"

Well then, why does art criticism matter? Again, I'm not talking about censorship or lack thereof; I'm talking about this thing as a work of art, and saying that I find it too unsubtle and (it seems to me, I may be wrong) too shock-oriented to be of much value as a work of art, compared to other works of art.

There is no "therefore, it should be censored/not displayed/whatever." The above paragraph is the sum and total of my entire argument. I am engaged in art criticism, not a discussion of censorship.

If it is SO offensive that there is a reason to ignore free speech and ban it, why should that not be the case when it's art? Why should art be held to a higher, or different, standard than other forms of speech or expression?

In this case the only "higher standard" I apply is that I traditionally consider "art" to be a specially respectable category of speech. A novel is more respectable, in this sense, than my random Internet remarks because it has coherent plot, attempts to convey more complex messages, and represents a serious investment of labor by the artist. Ditto for a painting, a collection of artistic photographs, and so on.

However, that does mean there's a standard to live up to- art gets extra respect, and rightly so, because it conveys a message, reflects deliberate effort by the artist to communicate the message in an efficient fashion, and so on.

Why is shocking someone artistically bankrupt? The goal of art is not to make reasoned arguments, but emotional ones. Picasso's works from his blue and rose periods are not intellectual presentations of sorrow and depression, but efforts to evoke those emotions and responses to those emotions. This is supposed to shock and enrage the viewer- but also to make them question whether this is really more damaging then the way society treats Christianity and the values of Jesus.

Obscure? Perhaps. But so is Ulysses, and Ulysses was quite shocking in its day. But nobody would call James Joyce intellectually bankrupt for deliberately choosing provocative subjects, either.

Much then hinges on context, and on the artist's efforts to create the context in which the piece should properly be understood. Which I admittedly am not familiar with. Are you?

A single quotation from any number of novels is, by itself, purely shocking and of little value. In the context of the novel, it becomes more meaningful.

While Serrano has no doubt explained the piece, what does he do as a matter of routine to make the display of it understandable in the terms it's described as? I really do not know this, and am curious.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Whilst I don't know much of art, the following has occurred to me having read this thread:

I thinkt he problem with this artwork isnt that it's unecessarily shocking or whatever, it's that it makes no sense as a piece of art outside of it's context.

Consider, for instance, a portrait of a King or Queen. Completely out of context now, but you can still appreciate it as a fine work of art, a good depiction, whatever.

A landscape of an idylic countryside, again, can still be appreciated out of context.

A crucifix dunked in urine, would make no sense to someone who doesn't know much or anything about Christianity. Show this paiting to, say, a Buddhist monk or a Chinese peasent and they would have no idea what it is, or why people get so worked up about it.

Just my two pence.

[Molyneux]

Something about the whole idea behind the piece seems off to me. It's such a crude mockery, such a third-grade insult, that it has more an air of "neener neener" to me than it does of actual art. There are so many ways to communicate that meaning that show adult-level mental sophistication that sticking a crucifix in a jar of urine strikes me as a bad way to convey the desired message.

Is there a distinction between "art" and "I did this because I can, so I can shock you with it?" Or are they one and the same? To me, the latter seems intellectually bankrupt, and an intellectually bankrupt artist is doing something wrong.

I do tend to figure that if the producer calls it art, it is art, whether good or bad...though personally, I have to say I do find this piece to be pretty poor. I'm not too much for abstract symbolism, I prefer works that actually resemble what they represent - though I do love my surrealism, especially Magritte's work.

[Bakustra]

*snip*

The context is pretty simple. The chief parts are the photograph and the title. Without the title, then it would be obscure (in fact, have you actually seen it?) and inoffensive. It is also part of a series of pictures of a crucifix dunked in fluids, title similarly. Piss Christ is just the most controversial. But that's not necessarily all that relevant, and it's interesting that you think that a photograph or sculpture needs a great deal of context beyond the work while a novel can provide that context on its own. I disagree, to be honest.

If you look at the photo, too, it's framed in such a way that we see Jesus obscured, washed-out and practically glowing. The other pictures in this series also used fluids like blood and milk to similarly wash out and obscure the form of Jesus. That, at least, seems to be the central aspect of criticism- that the actual Jesus has been replaced with this washed-out, indistinct figure. But that's just me.

Whilst I don't know much of art, the following has occurred to me having read this thread:

I thinkt he problem with this artwork isnt that it's unecessarily shocking or whatever, it's that it makes no sense as a piece of art outside of it's context.

Consider, for instance, a portrait of a King or Queen. Completely out of context now, but you can still appreciate it as a fine work of art, a good depiction, whatever.

A landscape of an idylic countryside, again, can still be appreciated out of context.

A crucifix dunked in urine, would make no sense to someone who doesn't know much or anything about Christianity. Show this paiting to, say, a Buddhist monk or a Chinese peasent and they would have no idea what it is, or why people get so worked up about it.

Just my two pence.

Have you seen it? It's quite pretty, aesthetically speaking, outside of context and the presence of a crucifix is no more off-putting than the clothing in a portrait or anything else.

[Simon_Jester]

I do tend to figure that if the producer calls it art, it is art, whether good or bad...though personally, I have to say I do find this piece to be pretty poor. I'm not too much for abstract symbolism, I prefer works that actually resemble what they represent - though I do love my surrealism, especially Magritte's work.

I'm satisfied if the work's symbolism clearly communicates to the audience. The fundamental reason why "Piss Christ" got vandalized is that a large fraction of the audience sees it as saying "piss on Christianity" and, by extension, "piss on you." While this is not justification for vandalism, I do not think it hard to understand why vandals showed up to react to this particular work of art and not others.

In short, if I follow what the man was trying to say... his work was vandalized based on a misinterpretation of the art, or of the point of the art, which was obscured by the highly abstract form of the work.

In short, "Piss Christ" does not adequately convey its own message- or if it does, that message is literally "piss on you, Christians," which really is a juvenile and stupid message. At which point, well hell, I do have to question whether the message deserves a state subsidy. The fact that I say "when I say 'piss on you,' it is ART!" does not automatically mean I should get money or free opportunities to say "piss on you" in public venues.

My right to say it is, of course, undisputed. But it's not at all clear to me that the public has an interest in subsidizing people to say "piss on you," whether this in any real sense contributes to our collective culture, provokes significant thought, or otherwise has the characteristics normally lumped under "artistic merit."

But that's not necessarily all that relevant, and it's interesting that you think that a photograph or sculpture needs a great deal of context beyond the work while a novel can provide that context on its own. I disagree, to be honest.

A photo or sculpture of a thing, one which conveys something the viewer can learn just by looking, does not need extra context. An abstract artwork does.

If I show you a blank canvas, it might symbolize any number of things. It might mean "art is empty." It might mean "art is so full of meaning that even a blank canvas is meaningful." It might mean "when you look at art, you see what you think you see, not what I paint." It might mean "Um, I haven't gotten round to painting this one yet."

Without the context of what this particular blank canvas means, we cannot say whether the piece has artistic merit, or even whether it is an "artwork" at all: it might simply be a blank piece of canvas straight from the factory that the artist hasn't gotten round to painting yet.

This is a common problem with abstract and symbolic art- it does not convey meaning reliably unless the context is provided. Novels do not have this problem because they can devote more internal effort to world-building; the theme of the novel can be delivered entirely within the novel. The theme of a blank canvas cannot be delivered entirely by the blank canvas; it needs someone to stand by it and explain it, or a caption, or something.

"Piss Christ" has the same problem. Left to itself, a crucifix in a jar of urine does not convey a consistent meaning. It might mean "I rebel against organized Christianity." It might mean "I rebel against our commercialization and politicization against Christianity." It might mean "piss on Christians." These are not all the same message, but knowing purely that it's a crucifix in a jar of urine, we have no idea which of these messages, or which combination of them, Serrano was trying to communicate.

This is the context that I want to know- what did Serrano want to say? How does this item interact with the other items in his exhibit to convey that message? Because that's what could convey artistic merit on the item, such that it might actually make sense to present it in public places.

If you look at the photo, too, it's framed in such a way that we see Jesus obscured, washed-out and practically glowing. The other pictures in this series also used fluids like blood and milk to similarly wash out and obscure the form of Jesus. That, at least, seems to be the central aspect of criticism- that the actual Jesus has been replaced with this washed-out, indistinct figure. But that's just me.

And yes, that is more the context I'm looking for.

So, why his choice of fluids? Why milk, blood, urine, and so on?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Indeed. Whenever someone questions whether something classifies as art, i ask myself "why does it matter?"
If it is SO offensive that there is a reason to ignore free speech and ban it, why should that not be the case when it's art? Why should art be held to a higher, or different, standard than other forms of speech or expression?

If we are going to play the free speech card, on the flip side, the vandals were perfectly justifiable to vandalizing the art, since after all, it is their free will and speech to make a response to something they find offensive. Certainly, they could have gone another way to express their free speech but hey...

[Bakustra]

The thing is, there isn't any one meaning. Looking quickly, I found two different Catholic art critics giving different interpretations of the photo- one arguing that it's about the intersection between the sacred and profane, and the other arguing that it's about the way society treats Christian values. I dispute that your invocation of a blank canvas is not really all that meaningful- it's essentially taking the most smartassed example you can think of, and then pretending that people regularly assert something as vague as that as having a definite meaning. Serrano himself simply says that this is what he thinks Piss Christ is about. But let's take Athanor, a painting by Anselm Kiefer. While this is a painting specifically about the Holocaust, even without that context the painting still evokes despair, and burning, and agony- especially in person, as it incorporates ash and sand into the paint. Context adds meaning, but meaning can still be evoked by people from Athanor, or from far more abstract works, like Picasso's paintings. Guernica is still meaningful even without knowing about the events of the Spanish Civil War.

I can't be sure why he chose those specific fluids, but my guess is that since they're all translucent and related to life, he thought that they would work well together in creating a tied-together series. You could even suggest that they (since he also used semen at one point) represent the different stages of life, from conception to birth to life to death. But who knows? Serrano, but he's busy on other stuff, I think.

If we are going to play the free speech card, on the flip side, the vandals were perfectly justifiable to vandalizing the art, since after all, it is their free will and speech to make a response to something they find offensive. Certainly, they could have gone another way to express their free speech but hey...

There's a pretty obvious leap between speech and violence that you didn't stop to consider in your devil's advocacy.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

There's a pretty obvious leap between speech and violence that you didn't stop to consider in your devil's advocacy.

And speech cannot be violent in nature?

[Norade]

There's a pretty obvious leap between speech and violence that you didn't stop to consider in your devil's advocacy.

And speech cannot be violent in nature?

Breaking the law isn't generally protected by free speech, and trashing something you don't own is most definitely breaking the law. If I beat the shit out of you and write something on your chest with fresh shit then it's saying something, but it also isn't protected in anyway by free speech laws.

[Shroom Man 777]

Heeheeheee, Fin might be correct in the "free speech" tangent if the vandals used the loundness of their voice to destroy the artwork, like by amplifying the sound waves of their voices into some kind of sonic weapon. Or if they used tongues. lol

But it turns out if they used crowbars or whatever to break the art, that actually has nothing to do with free speech and actually involves property damage, which has nothing to do with free speech. lol

turns out property damage is property damage and equivocating it to the artist's act doesn't work because the artist didn't damage anyone else's property unless we count "feelings" as property now, he probably bought the crucifix himself and used his own urine to fill his own glass, lol who knew am-i-rite

[Simon_Jester]

The thing is, there isn't any one meaning. Looking quickly, I found two different Catholic art critics giving different interpretations of the photo- one arguing that it's about the intersection between the sacred and profane, and the other arguing that it's about the way society treats Christian values. I dispute that your invocation of a blank canvas is not really all that meaningful- it's essentially taking the most smartassed example you can think of, and then pretending that people regularly assert something as vague as that as having a definite meaning. Serrano himself simply says that this is what he thinks Piss Christ is about. But let's take Athanor, a painting by Anselm Kiefer. While this is a painting specifically about the Holocaust, even without that context the painting still evokes despair, and burning, and agony- especially in person, as it incorporates ash and sand into the paint. Context adds meaning, but meaning can still be evoked by people from Athanor, or from far more abstract works, like Picasso's paintings. Guernica is still meaningful even without knowing about the events of the Spanish Civil War.

Guernica isn't entirely abstract, though; at a glance you can tell that there's injured, distressed people there, it's conveying that emotion quite effectively even though the people are (deliberately) drawn with bizarre proportions.

A blank canvas (or a solid yellow one, which I've seen, or a painting of a Campbell soup can) is more abstract still- and the more abstract the art is, the greater the challenge in interpreting the symbolism. In the extreme limiting case, which I chose to illustrate the point, the blank canvas will not reliably mean anything to a viewer unless it is explained by some information outside the canvas.

Piss Christ has this problem to a lesser degree- note disagreement from art critics on what the piece means, on the basic level, as you yourself cite. No one can look at Guernica and doubt that at the deep level, it is about horror, chaos, and despair- even if you could, the title of the painting is suggestive in its own right to someone who knows the history of the 1930s.

Whereas I can look at Piss Christ and be honestly unsure whether the message is "it's disgusting the way we treat religious values in everyday society" or "piss on Christians."

That is a sign that the work needs its meaning conveyed to others by a means outside the work itself. Whether this is a bad thing, I don't say- but it is definitely something to keep in mind when looking at highly abstract art.

[Serafina]

Indeed. Whenever someone questions whether something classifies as art, i ask myself "why does it matter?"
If it is SO offensive that there is a reason to ignore free speech and ban it, why should that not be the case when it's art? Why should art be held to a higher, or different, standard than other forms of speech or expression?

If we are going to play the free speech card, on the flip side, the vandals were perfectly justifiable to vandalizing the art, since after all, it is their free will and speech to make a response to something they find offensive. Certainly, they could have gone another way to express their free speech but hey...

Since when is the destruction of someone elses property considered free speech?
They'd have been free to protest it, draw a painting criticizing it etc. And no, free speech is not necessarily allowed to be violent even if it is just speech - if i'd publicly call for someones assassination, that speech is not necessarily protected. Where did you even get the idea that physical violence could be covered under free speech?