Comments on: Do We Have Balls?

By: Peter Rust

Peter Rust — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 17:03:28 +0000

Good thoughts here. Been wrestling with these ideas recently. It (finally) donned on me that “shock” and “offend” are different from (though they include) “crude” and “coarse”.

The former (shock/offend) is what Jesus did, what the gospel does and what we ought to do — but without the latter (crude/coarse), which scripture expressly warns about. I was very, *very* pleasantly surprised that in Driscoll’s latest book (Death by Love), “Driscoll holds his tongue, refusing to bring his trademark humor to this book” (http://www.discerningreader.com/review/death-by-love/). This enables me to use it with the staff, student leaders and students of the youth ministry I serve in.

By: Corey Jamison

Corey Jamison — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 00:13:37 +0000

I am not contemplating anything right now, just showing art that has had lots of attention. I think the phrase has been watered down over the years, so it does not have much shock to it, as would a phrase with female genitalia. But I do see why people would not like it.

The art to me has good intent. Like I said, when I first saw it it made me laugh. Then I went to see more about the meaning. The art fails to me cause there is not a payoff if you will. It does not take you past the saying, and it is hard to grasp the meaning. I myself do not see anything wrong with the phrase, and if you are gearing this towards men it might get more attention. The upsidedown heat, meant to look like “balls” has a cool meaning, but that meaning is only understood when you read more about it on their blog. To be honest if it had a subline, that talked about flipping the way we love, I think it would be way less offensive.

Now with all that said, I completely understand why people do not like this. I understand also that it only talks to men, and women might find this in poor taste. But I do know that the heart behind the artwork was pure. This art is a reminder to me though, before I post art that is shocking, I need to look at it though other peoples eyes.

By: Joe Miller

Joe Miller — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 23:59:49 +0000

So Corey, does this mean you are contemplating “shock art” that features female genitalia?

You have read the comments, but what do you actually think about the art in question?

By: Corey Jamison

Corey Jamison — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 18:05:46 +0000

Yeah, sorry ladies, no luck with this one. I know the heart of the designers was right on, but it is a reminder to think outside of ourselves when creating something shocking. Thanks for the discussion.

By: Amanda

Amanda — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 17:57:31 +0000

I like the concept but not the way it’s implemented. Shock value only goes so far, and while I’m not generally easily offended, that phrase has always been something that has rubbed me the wrong way and struck me as crude.

Plus I feel left out…if love takes balls, I’m out of luck! ;]

By: Jon Hall

Jon Hall — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 06:38:03 +0000

Art should offend? Maybe. Art should provoke and challenge? Absolutely.

By: Harmony

Harmony — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 00:29:54 +0000

I think this is poignant, brilliant, funny! I truly hope no one is actually offended by this. I mean really, what are you offended by? an upside down heart? cartoonish male anatomy? a common (albeit mannish) way of saying something “takes courage”?

this gets the point across succinctly and memorably. I don’t think this is worldly in the sinful sense, but in a down-to-earth sense. Teenage boys should be able to wear this as a T-shirt! Heck, I want this as a T-shirt!

By: Corey Jamison

Corey Jamison — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 18:35:52 +0000

I know what you mean about using offense just to get the point across. It is good to step back and look at art, if trying to communicate something, in other peoples eyes. I have designed things that I never thought would offend people, until I saw their side. And I have also designed things meant to offend people to bring the gospel to light. Great conversations, thanks guys.

By: jason_73

jason_73 — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 18:05:29 +0000

I think it’s a bit of a stretch and we’re taking the “offense” thing and over-licensing it. A lot.

I think it’s a bit banal, and like my dad taught me, it’s the easy/sloppy way out to use certain adjectives/profanities to get your point across.

And I may sound a bit fundy here, but I think this is more within the pattern of the world, and that’s a bit sad. When I clicked on the link to find out what it was about I was a bit embarrassed for some of the profiles of the people that this “Second chance” stuff we’re representing…

Just my opinion is all.

By: Corey Jamison

Corey Jamison — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 17:58:00 +0000

Thanks Roland,
I am not sure how this art should make people feel. When I first saw it I chuckled, and then it made me want to know more about the meaning. One thing is for sure, this art is different than what is being used, but that might not be a good thing. OK people, tell me what you think about it.