Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2007 20:22:00 GMT
BBC:
A New York gallery has angered a US Catholic group with its decision to exhibit a milk chocolate sculpture of Jesus Christ.
The six-foot (1.8m) sculpture, entitled "My Sweet Lord", depicts Jesus Christ naked on the cross.
Catholic League head Bill Donohue called it "one of the worst assaults on Christian sensibilities ever".
The sculpture, by artist Cosimo Cavallaro, will be displayed from Monday at Manhattan's Lab Gallery.
The Catholic League, which describes itself as the nation's largest Catholic civil rights organisation, also criticised the timing of the exhibition.
"The fact that they chose Holy Week shows this is calculated, and the timing is deliberate," Mr Donohue said.
He called for a boycott of the gallery and the hotel which houses it.
The gallery's creative director, Matt Semler, said the gallery was considering its options in the wake of angry e-mails and telephone calls.
"We're obviously surprised by the overwhelming response and offence people have taken," he said. "We are certainly in the process of trying to figure out what we're going to do next."
Mr Semler said the timing of the exhibition was coincidental.
Mr Cavallaro, the Canadian-born artist, is known for using food ingredients in his art, on one occasion painting a hotel room in mozzarella cheese.
He used 200 pounds (90 kg) of chocolate to make the sculpture which, unusually, depicts Jesus without a loincloth.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Mar 30, 2007 22:41:23 GMT
We should make a giant chocolate Acorah
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2007 22:44:55 GMT
We should make a giant chocolate Acorah As long as he IS wearing a loincloth!  |
|
|
|
Post by shazzz on Mar 30, 2007 22:46:40 GMT
I thought he only done Green thongs though lol
|
|
|
|
Post by bobdezon on Mar 30, 2007 23:53:40 GMT
I fail to see the offense here, my sweet lord and a chocolate jesus is merely a clever pun. I dont view this as blasphemy.
Bill Donohue however is another matter, he is a radical right wing catholic, hes even been questioned on his alleged political interference on the John Edwards campaign 2008 and used his organisations tax exempt status as the medium for this.
He also likes to blame the victims of paedophillic abuse by catholic clergy rather than the actual culprits he represents.
During the Mel Gibson fiasco Bill maintained that hollywood is run by secular jews and bizarrely "hollywood likes anal sex" (all of it?) He is also just a bigot who would like to ban stem cell research. Recently vocal about the imaginary "war on christmas".
He seems like an odius little man who is using the constituancy of catholicism to pursue his own misguided agenda in the name of catholics in america, he seems to be a catholic version of the Westboro Baptist Church.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2007 0:07:46 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by hellyp on Mar 31, 2007 10:50:55 GMT
Seems to me that if anyone at all who is not a Christian mentions God or Jesus in any way, people like Donohue feel that's all that's needed to launch another blustery tirade on blasphemy. Unfortunately, the stupid among us actually listen to these people, and condemn whatever they are told to condemn, without looking into it any further.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobdezon on Mar 31, 2007 15:19:55 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by harvey107 on Mar 31, 2007 16:44:30 GMT
Well yet again Jesus is free range to have a laugh at and if anybody says anything there far right religous nuts! Well i am glad they have got rid of this offensive sculpture and a pathetic attempt of getting publicity.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobdezon on Mar 31, 2007 17:21:12 GMT
Well yet again Jesus is free range to have a laugh at and if anybody says anything there far right religous nuts! Well i am glad they have got rid of this offensive sculpture and a pathetic attempt of getting publicity. Im not sure where you are going with this, Jesus is an iconic image, it has been used by artists for millenia so "fair game" for an artist to use. If you have seen the art (image in my link) youll see its a very good likeness of a traditional crucifix type jesus sans loincloth. Sure the medium of chocolate is unusual but the artist who made this piece is a specialist in creating art from food so chocolate is a natural choice for him. I fail to see how this could be considered offensive to anyone and I have seen some offensive art based on religion. Bill Donohue is right wing and his past crusades have clearly outlined his political/religous stance. The evidence for this is readily available and he has a proven track record. Art is about generating publicity to some and deeply personal to others, this artist is of the former type and it worked for Damien Hirst. If you dont like the art in question then simply ignore it, this is freedom of choice. The artist is simply using his freedom of expression to showcase an unusual piece. If we ban basic freedoms what will be scrutinised next? because if you give the right wing an inch the take a mile. Past history has proven that on countless occasions. |
|
|
|
Post by harvey107 on Mar 31, 2007 20:53:43 GMT
Why not some other religous character then, its easter so lets get publicity by doing a chocolate Jesus naked. This hasnt been done by artists for a millenia because they would choose to provide art that provides a bit of decency to what they are painting.
If he had chose to a chocolate Jesus sculpture with a towel around him then i would have no problem but they allways seem to choose an easy target maybe he should choose another religion or would that be wrong publicity?
As for freedom of expression it is to a certain extent but not when it is of offensive to others.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobdezon on Mar 31, 2007 21:21:04 GMT
Why not some other religous character then, its easter so lets get publicity by doing a chocolate Jesus naked. This hasnt been done by artists for a millenia because they would choose to provide art that provides a bit of decency to what they are painting. If he had chose to a chocolate Jesus sculpture with a towel around him then i would have no problem but they allways seem to choose an easy target maybe he should choose another religion or would that be wrong publicity? As for freedom of expression it is to a certain extent but not when it is of offensive to others. Why not some other religious character is upto to the artist, maybe he himself is christian and so jesus is a natural choice. True it is easter maybe the chocolate jesus is the artistic message here (the commercialisation of easter). Artists have been painting, sculpting nudity for millenia and people have been accused of heresy because of it. Michalangelo painted nudes on the ceiling of the sistine chapel, the raphelites painted nudes as far as I am aware there are no rules governing deceny in art, and since when has a naked man become an indecent icon? If this offends you then you need to ask yourself why? If you are a practising catholic do you really think jesus himself would be offended? The jesus I read about was a person of great compassion and understanding, its funny how religious sorts forget that when trying to tell people what their god/gods/phrophets really want. Hypocrasy is a funny thing when exposed to the light of reason. |
|
|
|
Post by benvolio on Mar 31, 2007 22:00:46 GMT
It seems to me that the furore has nothing to do with the medium the sculpture is rendered in.
Or even the timing of the showing.
But more to do with Christianity/Catholicism and it's twisted view of sexuality.
I see nothing wrong with the depiction of Jesus as a man.With all the proper accoutrements on show.
He WAS a man.
Now some may argue that he was much more than that.He was divine,he was the Messiah etc.
Fair enough.But that does not alter the fact he had the body of a human male.
And therefore had all the bits!
If having a penis was not on for a divine being.
Then why was he not born without one...?
It seems to me that these detractors see a naked icon and immediatly link nakedness with sexuality.
I am sure jesus bathed WITHOUT his loincloth and may even have had sexual feelings.
(That is a whole different argument,but there is much evidence that Jesus and Mary were married or companions.Not the Da Vinci Code rot though!)
See The Gospel of Phillip eg (Jesus) "loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on the mouth...
Yet again.Religion tells us we must be ashamed of sexuality,ashamed of the gift of love,touch and sensuality.
I hope someone has the gall to sculpt Jesus with an erection.
Really put the cat among the pigeons.
And celebrate sexuality.Celebrate the fact that human desires ARE divine, (they were given to us by God were they not?) and not shameful.
I am not a religious person...Spiritual perhaps...(not sure ;D).
And I respect others beliefs.
But not when those beliefs tell us it is wrong to embrace our 'humaness'.
And to deny Jesus that 'humaness' is to make him into something that he,If you actually study the subject.NEVER ever said he was.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobdezon on Mar 31, 2007 22:12:38 GMT
I could not agree more, and incidentally I was raised Roman Catholic, although not militant.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2007 10:10:58 GMT
I could not agree more, and incidentally I was raised Roman Catholic, although not militant. Me too. Great post B. |
|
|
|
Post by oh2bhappy on Apr 1, 2007 10:14:13 GMT
Mm. Wonder if I could get a smaller version for my ex for easter?  |
|
|
|
Post by hellyp on Apr 1, 2007 10:15:04 GMT
This reminds me of the Victorians going about and sticking vine leaves over all the penises on classical sculptures of men. Prissy, prudish and downright ridiculous. I am completely gutted that the exhibition has been scrapped because a few people disagree. Why the hell should they dictate what everyone is allowed to see? People talk about the injustice of being offended by 'obscene' things, but what about the injustice of knee-jerk censorship, in a supposedly democratic country? It makes me sick. If you're offended by the sculpture of a chocolate Jesus, DON'T LOOK AT IT.  |
|
|
|
Post by oh2bhappy on Apr 1, 2007 10:15:33 GMT
Seems to me that if anyone at all who is not a Christian mentions God or Jesus in any way, people like Donohue feel that's all that's needed to launch another blustery tirade on blasphemy. Unfortunately, the stupid among us actually listen to these people, and condemn whatever they are told to condemn, without looking into it any further. Quite. |
|
|
|
Post by harvey107 on Apr 1, 2007 10:29:09 GMT
I don't think it was about Jesus being a man and the church and Christianity being anti sexuality but what would be appropriate and decent.
As for Jesus kissing Mary on the mouth this is yet another idea not researched thrown out there, as kissing on the mouth was almost certainly a reference to the well documented kiss of brotherhood among Christians, and/or to a passing on of breath (spirit) from one person to another.
This is not about Jesus being human and having the same feelings as all other humans (even being the son of god he probably could have kept his feelings in check) but just about this sculpture, maybe would could do a naked sculpture of the unknown soldier or a 9/11 victim but we wouldn't because we shouldn't and thats providing human decency.
|
|
|
|
Post by oh2bhappy on Apr 1, 2007 10:41:45 GMT
I feel the two examples you use still have people reeling and trying to cope with the events.
I feel the point put forward about this being the material the artist used and it being directed at the commercialisation of Easter seems to be the most relevant so far (sorry for not using quotes for that).
Had the Catholic League head Bill Donohue not made an issue of this, perhaps people - believers or non-believers - could have chosen to see it (or not) and make up their own minds.
One person makes a point, and it would seem that the 'followers' merely join in without working it out for themselves.
Had it been a local exhibition, I would not choose to see it. The same reason I chose not to watch the Mel Gibson film.
But that was my choice, un-influenced by others, and not influencing others either.
|
|
