Page 227-228 (2007 paperback edition): "Serrano's Piss Christ (1987), a large colour photograph of a plastic crucifix submerged in a container of his own urine and lit in such a way as to make it radiate like a Sacred Heart statue, alerts us to some of the key tensions between art of the era and this (aforementioned; my addition) censorship campaign. Serrano conflated the sacred (Jesus) with the profane (bodily fluids), using erotic (????; my addition) religious iconography as a means of both addressing the taboo of sexual desire (how????; why all of a sudden sexual desire????; my addition) and AIDS (AIDS????, how are we supposed to grasp this?; my addition) and discussing political impotence and religious intolerance before the epidemic." Remember: the text quoted is all there is about this work; I simply do not understand how a photograph of Jesus submerged in urine should make a comment about sexual desire (is the artist a known lover of the golden shower?)and specifically AIDS (what is the connection between Jesus Christ, urine and AIDS?; to me there is at least no obvious connection between the three; by the way: when seeing the work, how are we supposed to know the urine is the artist's own?). Maybe I have no feeling for art, but I would say this passage is full of non-sequitur's.
That in my opinion is the first problem with this book. In many instances the text is incomprehensible to me, and I really think this is due to the author and not to my incompetence. I could give quite a list of similar enigmatic quotes.
The second problem concerns the issue of looking, when the author describes a work that we can see for ourselves, because there is an illustration available. More often than not the author nevertheless seems to look at a completely different work. In these descriptions the author introduces conceptions that form the basis of further discussion, but as I do not see how these conceptions relate to the work described, the subsequent discussion passes me by. Convince me, I would say, that I might see what you say you are seeing.
My last remark: the book seems to be about politics as much as about art; I know that this is a common approach, but I always think it is a shame, in my ideal world in the end art transcends or eludes politics and erotic art in particular speaks to my senses instead of making dull political statements, "explained" in more often than not incomprehensible texts.
So these are the words that come to my mind when I think about this book: enigmatic (or simply poorly written)and dull, sometimes even page after page extremely dull. No, I do not recommend the book at all. Just live your life as you want to and have as much fun and erotic pleasure as you can imagine. Believe me, this book will not be of any service whatsoever.