I am a Christian. I love God. Easter is the most important time of the year for me.
But frankly, I couldn't give a damn about this statue.
As a Christian, there are so many things that offend me. This is just one of them.
I certainly wouldn't pay to see it.
If the artist is a Christian and did not intend to offend, then that's fine. But if he was simply trying to use religious imagery to get attention, then I am offended, and I pity him.
2007-03-30 15:30:33
·
answer #1
·
answered by Zezo Zeze Zadfrack 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Could there be a race card here? Many white Christian like to see think of Jesus as white, here he is dark brown. Would it have had the same impact if the statue was made in white chocolate.
The nudity really shouldn't be an issue for Catholics, visit the Pope's private church called the Sistine Chapel in Rome. It is covered with anatomically correct naked bodies as painted by Michaelangelo.
From what I hear the hotel holding the exhibition has had death threats, and the Catholic League has used very violent language in its press release. In terms of Catholic outrage, I think this is self defeating - when Monty Pythons' "The Life of Brian" was released the negative publicity did wonders for the films viewing figures. All my Catholic friends went to see it as soon as it was banned. If they call this hate speech how come the Catholic church was so quiet over the publication of Hitler's book Mein Kampf? It never reached their librorum prohibitorum - the index of banned books.
If they manage to ban this exhibition I wonder if their next target is the chocolate Santa Klaus/Saint Nicholas people eat at Christmas?
2007-03-31 02:46:59
·
answer #2
·
answered by Chris C 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
It'd be really hard to bite the ears off first, wouldn't it?
Edited to add - so much for the folks touting the difference in reactions between Christians and Muslims...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070330/ap_on_re_us/chocolate_jesus;_ylt=AlwzerktjC4637aHnt.IHLms0NUE
But word of the confectionary Christ infuriated Catholics, including Egan, who described it as "a sickening display." Bill Donohue, head of the watchdog Catholic League, said it was "one of the worst assaults on Christian sensibilities ever."
The hotel and the gallery were overrun Thursday with angry phone calls and e-mails about the exhibit. Semler said the calls included death threats over the work of artist Cosimo Cavallaro, who was described as disappointed by the decision to cancel the display.
"In this situation, the hotel couldn't continue to be supportive because of a fear for their own safety," Semler said.
2007-03-29 17:15:42
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
I find the nudity kind of unnecessary, and agree that it seems to be done for shock value. But I do find this slightly humorous, the fact the the artist calls this piece "my sweet Lord," being that its made of chocolate and all. My overall opinion..... amusing. I love Jesus and chocolate.......its a good combo!
2007-03-29 17:38:44
·
answer #4
·
answered by meezachickadee23 2
·
2⤊
1⤋
I think it's beautiful.
I've seen earlier pictures of it before the chocolate began to bloom and later photos with the bloom (for anyone who doesn't know: chocolate "blooms" when the temperature changes enough to effect the cocoa butter causing that whitish crystalline look. It doesn't effect the edibility of it).
I don't pretend to know the artist's intent but I see no reason to assume it was to offend. Not all things artists do that are outside of traditional ideas are done to offend.
And nudity needn't be heroic. It was in the "classical" times (Greek, Renaissance) because it was only under such conditions that one was allowed to sculpt or paint a nude. You might, also, notice that in both the aforementioned, parenthetic periods Aphrodite/Venus was the predominant female nude (not counting a more "naked" than "nude" Eve.
We've grown a bit since our historical preteen and teen years. Well, some of us (but that tends to be the case in our mortal lives, as well). We're somewhere in our mid- late twenties. We're accepting our bodies as natural and, even, God-given. If you must: He did, after all, create us in His image.
Jesus had a penis. It's pretty much a requisite for any male, incarnation of God or not. If the intent of the Romans was to humiliate and disgrace him to the fullest degree do you really think they would have nailed him up with the dignity of modesty?
Images of Christ on the cross are used to remind Christians of his suffering for them. You'd rather sugar coat it by hiding his penis? You'd rather believe that his enemies were, actually, at least that merciful?
And, oh, it's chocolate. Simply for the bloom I think it a perfect metaphor for death. The sculpture, itself, changes in form. Whether you believe death leads to rotting or resurrection (or anything in between) this sculpture still captures that concept of change; the idea of death as a change rather than an end.
The true nature of art is to cause an emotional reaction. The artist endeavors to express his emotions into his work but leaves it open to others to experience that work as they feel it.
Art also endeavors to inspire thought and discourse. If we all feel a piece of art is nice and pleasant it pretty much sucks.
Certainly there are "artists" who strive to offend but they are no different than those who paint happy trees by happy lakes with happy deer. A Mary covered in feces intends to offend just as a quiet mountain scene intends tp please. Frankly, an artist who cannot be more creative and metaphorical, to either degree, lacks talent, no matter his or her skill for rendering the human form or a mountain stream.
However, "My Sweet Lord" is, at worst, a cheesy pun on the phrase. Even then the artist succeeds simply because of the way his work is already inspiring thought, emotion, and discourse.
I humbly suggest you look beyond your distaste for an image of Jesus with a penis (chocolate or otherwise it was what you focused on in your question) and consider other possible interpretations.
Please understand I do not believe that your views are wrong. Your views are yours. They are valid for that. Perhaps you have explored other perspectives and I'm simply making assumptions. That said, your question only states the one view.
There may still be redeeming reasons for both the penis and the chocolate.
2007-03-29 21:15:07
·
answer #5
·
answered by ophelliaz 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
Well, maybe... but when shame pervades society, as unnatural as shame is, sometimes it takes a jolt to get people to overcome it. The heroism is that the artist refuses to be shamed into compromising the truth in his art.
2007-03-29 17:09:10
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
I think it's stupid, on many, many levels. The first of which is we don't know what Jesus looked like, other than the fact that He was Jewish, so why make a statue?
2007-03-29 17:09:28
·
answer #7
·
answered by Last Ent Wife (RCIA) 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
Hmmm, and what would your opinions be if this were a NUDE CHOCOLATE DEPICTION OF MOHAMMED? The Muslims would be outraged and the 'artist' would be called 'racist' and be accused of tying to incite..............which is also true of this 'artist'.
2007-03-30 04:29:20
·
answer #8
·
answered by Cherie 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Didn't Jesus say that you had to eat of his flesh and drink of his blood? This tends to make it a little more literal.
2007-03-29 17:09:55
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
The whole thing is chocolate? It's made out of chocolate, it can't be that bad.
2007-03-29 17:08:34
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋