Chocolate Jesus Exhibit Cancelled

The six-foot (1.8m) sculpture, entitled "My Sweet Lord", depicts a naked Jesus Christ with his arms outspread. A New York art gallery has decided to cancel the exhibit after protests by a US Catholic group. The timing, over Easter Holy Week - the most important part of the Christian year - provoked an outcry.

Artist Cosimo Cavallaro used 200 pounds (90 kg) of chocolate to make the sculpture which, unusually, depicts Jesus without a loincloth. It showed him suspended in air with his arms spread wide, as if crucified.

If someone had done something similar with a chocolate statue of the Prophet Mohammed naked with his genitals exposed during Ramadan, the result could've been catastrophic, considering Islamic sentimentalities.

What's with the world??

news.bbc.co.uk...





[edit on 31-3-2007 by mikesingh]

If there was a man named Jesus, he had a penis.
Is the depiction of a penis so offensive that this work of art needs to be banned

Should the statue of David be smashed because his penis is showing

Half the population is walking around with something that dangles between their legs, and it's not like it's a secret, or anything to be ashamed about

This story is a non-issue, and I think this is nothing more than an artist trying to be controversial, just like any great artists has done throughout history.

I wish I could find a large image of this statue to post, complete with genitals.
It's a great piece of work.

Originally posted by mikesingh
If someone had done something similar with a chocolate statue of the Prophet Mohammed naked with his genitals exposed during Ramadan, the result could've been catastrophic, considering Islamic sentimentalities.

well, it's a completely different situation

it's actually a sin to depict mohammed in islam
hell, jesus was crucified naked, it isn't offensive whatsoever to go for historical accuracy

in christianity it's actually encouraged to depict jesus.

What's with the world??

what's with people drawing false similarities?

bet it wouldn't be a problem if it was white chocolate

[edit on 3/31/07 by madnessinmysoul]

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
in christianity it's actually encouraged to depict jesus.

[[edit on 3/31/07 by madnessinmysoul]

Ummm, no. Many Christians view crucifixes and statues of Jesus and Mary as little more than idol worship.

Idolatry isn't an issue here, and I don't think anyone is worshiping this piece of chocolate.

It is a work of art though, and should be viewed as such.

I agree is all about art in its representation, but as usual we are such a politically correct society that we most disagree with everything just for the heck of it.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
bet it wouldn't be a problem if it was white chocolate

Oh, I bet it would! A whole 'nother set of people would be protesting.

I agree with anxietydisorder and marg. It's art. David, a gorgeous piece of art isn't looked upon as a problem because "his genetals are exposed" (except on the Simpson's to prove that point).

People are more and more politically correct. We used to be accepting of others and accepting of differences. Now we seem to think everything that happens is a personal attack! People have become so weak and uber-sensitive, it makes me ill. "An assault on Christians"? Give me a break! It's art, not an assault!

You know, if Christians don't like it, they don't need to go look at it! But they're forcing everyone else to make some sort of "show" of respect.

[edit on 31-3-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]

A boycott is not the same as a death threat, or a call for Jihad..these things are strong-arming. A boycott does not stab someone with a note because of their artistic expression.

I have not seen protesting armies of Roman Catholics calling for death, and not all of them agree that the exhibition should be cancelled. There was a disagreement yes, but it was a non-violent one.

I would also like to ask the artist - not the gallery's director - why the figure of Christ was chosen at this time. I'd also like to know whether or not the artist plans to produce further exhibitions based on other religious symbols, at other times of the religious calendar.

Maybe the BBC will be as interested then as it is now.

As far as I can establish it was the Roger Smith Hotel that closed the exhibition.

[edit on 31-3-2007 by Ross Cross]

Originally posted by Ross Cross
I would also like to ask the artist - not the gallery's director - why the figure of Christ was chosen at this time and whether or not the artist plans to produce such exhibitions based on other religious symbols, at other times of the religious calendar. Maybe the BBC will be as interested then as it is now.

How I interpreted the piece: Catholics typically in Lent give up something (or they all do here). Then on Easter, they go nuts on chocolate bunnies and Easter baskets. This is a combination of the two, imo.

I can't believe it was cancelled.

This is one of the reasons I dislike organized/religion.


I wonder if it will be eaten, considering it's made of chocolate.

I call the..uh..oh never mind.. ;P

Originally posted by iori_komei
I wonder if it will be eaten, considering it's made of chocolate.

I call the..uh..oh never mind.. ;P

I ain't Christian, but the moot question is why make a chocolate Jesus in the first place? All this stuff about 'art', I feel is nothing but a publicity stunt on the part of the artist concerned. He could've made a two storied chocolate Easter bunny instead. As for me, I baulk at the thought of eating Jesus' genitals, though made of chocolate!

Probably a chocolate Anjolina Jolie would have been better. I would've eaten her up from head to toe, and whatever's in between!!!


Cheers! Have a Happy Easter!!



[edit on 31-3-2007 by mikesingh]

The display of a chocolate crucified Jesus entitled "My Sweet Lord" is in extremely bad taste, whether the subject is nude or not.

This "art" can in no way be construed as respectful or reverent and is justly viewed as an affront to Catholics, especially during Holy Week.

I would eat his genitals...is that bad? hey, I like chocolate.

I don't think the colour of the chocolate had anything to with the outcry.
I'm sure there are a lot of black christians who would have found this offensive too. Why does everything have to have racist overtones.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
The display of a chocolate crucified Jesus entitled "My Sweet Lord" is in extremely bad taste, whether the subject is nude or not.

and why is that?

This "art" can in no way be construed as respectful or reverent and is justly viewed as an affront to Catholics, especially during Holy Week.

sorry to disappoint you, but art isn't supposed to be respectful or reverent

it could just be a critique of the way easter has grown into a celebration that has absolutely nothing to do with jesus. think about it, chocolate jesus...
chocolate bunnies

see the connection?
it's called commentary on society.

honestly, what do eggs have to do with the ressurection of a messiah figure?
or bunnies?
or chocolate?


hell, it wasn't even a charicature of jesus

and i hope the use of chocolate as a medium of sculpture continues, i find it intriguing

Originally posted by Flighty
I don't think the colour of the chocolate had anything to with the outcry.
I'm sure there are a lot of black christians who would have found this offensive too. Why does everything have to have racist overtones.

i guess my attempts at humor on ATS are never seen as such...

[edit on 4/1/07 by madnessinmysoul]

I think more than anything else this is quite rude to diabetics, they can't have chocolate unless it's sugar free, and that stuff is Horrible, this is just another form of racism...

Happy easter ( and ban chocolate, unless it sugar free for everyone )

(this post was poking fun at the PC crowd, in what ever form)

Agree with Grady here. This is another case of valueless 'art' and also in poor taste. There are better ways to communicate the supposed meaning.

The artists' true intentions will only be known to him. We can only assume what he meant by looking at his art and coming to our own conclusions. That's the beauty of art, it can have different meanings for people.

Why would it matter if he were made of chocolate, marble, or plastic? If nudity is the problem, then why is nudity present in Christian art work, such as paintings of Mary of Magdalene, and yet no objection has occurred?

controversy makes art popular.

an angry mob, is a popular mob.

the interesting question is what is the part that people are offended by?

the color of the chocolate.

or

the penis issue.

there would be no other offensive, as jesus is depicted many times being crucified. so what are people offended by, is it that jesus had a willy or that jesus is dark?

Originally posted by anxietydisorder
It is a work of art though, and should be viewed as such.

It's a piece of crap.

It isn't 'art'. It is some guy's way to get a lot of publicity. He purposely released it during Lent and made it in a way that would make people yak about it.

This isn't art. It's just some idiot looking for attention.

Try making a naked Muhammed out of chocolate and displaying it during Ramadan. Would that be art too? No, it would be just to inflame people. And that is exactly what this is. Crap - not art.