Actually, the Darwin Ape is funnier. When you put a representation of Jesus' head on the ape, you mix metaphors and it isn't as direct a statement. It assumes a whole line of temporal argument that will eventually cease to make sense in the future (especially since some branches of Christianity accept the theory of evolution). Darwin's connection with the ape is well-documented and direct, whereas the Christian connection, while popular in recent times with the furor over Intelligent Design and the Scopes Monkey Trial, etc., etc., is more of a slam on a nebulous group of religious zealots, rather than a slam on one person and a well-defined single work. Simply put, the Darwin Ape is funnier than the Jesus Ape.
2007-03-29 03:26:10
·
answer #1
·
answered by Black Dog 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
No I do not find it funny, I find it rather ridiculous actually, despite the fact that an image of Jesus IS an IDOL. I still find the idea behind what you call art, a display of infantile behaviour aimed at getting lots of attention by trying to shock. Now while I understand and acknowledge that art can shock, in this case I think the so called "artist" is just trying to draw attention upon him/her self instead of his/her "art"! While some ridicule statements might be funny, I find this one quite tasteless and rather disgusting.
2007-03-29 10:16:26
·
answer #2
·
answered by Yahoo! 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
I do not find it hilarious to belittle, mock, degrade or disrespect another's religion. You aren't interested in art, free speech or trying to help others to higher enlightenment. No, your just interested in tearing others down in the most vicious ways without being held accountable for what you do. You are such a coward. Did you relish being the despised bully in grade school or did you just get others in trouble for the things that you did?
On the other hand, why don't they put Mohammed's head on the top of an ape? Are you worried about a jihad to be put on your head?
2007-03-29 10:01:02
·
answer #3
·
answered by Bud 5
·
4⤊
0⤋
Not hilarious. More like dumb. Not really artistic, it could use a bit more work to clean it up some, I can see the overlap between the two pictures.
I wonder where we got the photos of Jesus of Nazareth.
2007-03-29 10:22:11
·
answer #4
·
answered by awayforabit 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
And just who told you that was the head of Jesus, are you that old that you know what Jesus look like, since they had no cameras in the days that Jesus was upon the earth, we don't know if that is Jesus do we?
2007-03-29 10:03:57
·
answer #5
·
answered by PREACHER'S WIFE 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
I don't like it. And I wasn't too keen when it was Darwin's face on the monkey either. Since my opinion isn't going to make anyone change, I'll just voice it and then walk away.
2007-03-29 09:46:58
·
answer #6
·
answered by sister steph 6
·
4⤊
0⤋
While I think it's acceptable as a cultural critique, like cartoons of Mohamed, and this kind of expression should be protected for the sake of all free expression, it is caricature, which is to art what a pun is to comedy, it's lowest form. It doesn't communicate anything to fundamentalists but an insult to their deity because they are too simple to get it.
2007-03-29 09:43:32
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
3⤋
Not really.
Jesus does represent a huge "evolution" in religion however.
2007-03-29 09:59:48
·
answer #8
·
answered by G's Random Thoughts 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
No, I don't think it's funny. But people can believe whatever they want.
2007-03-29 09:49:59
·
answer #9
·
answered by The_Cricket: Thinking Pink! 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
If stupidity would hurt you would be screaming because of the pain...
and NO! it's not funny!
2007-03-29 09:45:28
·
answer #10
·
answered by Cristian 3
·
3⤊
0⤋