Chocolate Jesus Exhibit Cancelled

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

this historically accurate and well sculpted jesus should be cherished. there is so much detail! i'm astounded at the talent of the artist, especially since he can work with such an odd medium.

I agree, but how do you prevent it going mouldy or being stolen by a pre-menstrual, albeit intelligent woman. with the skin of an elephant.

wait, there's more news. some people actually want to buy it!

news.yahoo.com

NEW YORK - An anatomically correct chocolate sculpture of Jesus Christ infuriated Catholics and even led to threats, but the artist says offers to buy or exhibit the piece have been pouring in.

Artist Cosimo Cavallaro said Saturday that because of "some people who are fanatics" and the threats he received, he had stored the sculpture in a refrigerated truck in an undisclosed location.

.....
Cavallaro said the controversy spurred "thousands" of e-mail messages from people offering help, donations and exhibition space.

"It's quite amazing," he said.

[edit on 4/1/07 by madnessinmysoul]


mod edit: shortened link

[edit on 2-4-2007 by sanctum]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Murphs
But is a chocolate statue of Jesus a sin?

According to whom? And as I tried to say, if a person isn't religious or doesn't believe in God, the "sins" of Christianity or Islam have no meaning to them.

Unfortunately many people project their belief and value systems onto others, maybe it's arrogant or maybe it's just part of the human condition, I'm not sure. But I share your opinion that just because something is offenseive to group A doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.

I would have no problem with a chocolate Jesus, Mohammed or any other fictional or real person. I would hope if I was religious and it bothered me then I just wouldn't go to the exhibit and wouldn't support whatever business were promoting such a supposedly offensive item.

Just as "taking the name of the Lord, thy God in vain" is a sin, you'll notice that people who don't follow that religion don't care about it. They use that language all the time. And nobody says, "You can't do that because our religion considers it a sin"!

This reminds me of a lady I worked with who took offense to anyone saying "God Dammit" or "Hell" (she was a fairly religious person) and actually made a complaint because someone said "Dammit to Hell".

I was talked to about using the "God Dammit" phrase too often ... I quietly (and politely) told my supervisor that "My God is Damned and as such I am affirming my belief in my Damned God and would appreciate it if others wouldn't intrude on my religous values" ... since we worked at government job that was the end of the discussion.

The greatest part was this highly righteous lady would also use foul language including the F, S and MF words!!! Gotta love people.

Sigh

It's an issue of respect. When people of faith - any faith - speak out, we are assaulted as narrowminded or smugly presented with infantile arguments like 'If Christians believe that Christ really was a man and the Son of God but He was a man then He had a penis and why isn't it OK to depict it?' Well, I won't argue that the artist has a right to make such art. Nor will I argue that people don't have the right to spend their money to go see it in a museum. But to show it during Holy Week was no doubt intentional for the very purpose of drumming up controversy and news coverage.

Conversely, when people of faith speak OUR opinion, we are slammed. Secular Humanists have freedom to be offensive, I cannot express my views without being slandered. But they are the 'tolerant, open-minded ones.' Fancy that.

BTW, as a Roman Catholic, we don't engage in idolatry. The crucifix is a focus and constant reminder of the suffering that Christ endured for all of us. We don't worship Mary, we venerate her as the woman who raised Christ and we ask her to pray for us in the hopes that her Son will heed His earthly mother's prayers.

Originally posted by mikesingh
OK, BH and Murphs. You've made your points. You know it's always difficult to win an argument with smart ladies (Who thankfully are less than the number of hairs on a bald man's head!)

Having said that, what the devil was the necessity for making a chocolate Jesus in the first place? Aren't there a billion other things to draw inspiration from? Why did he do it when he very well knew that this 'piece of art' is going to hurt the sentiments of many Christians?

So I think it was in bad taste (pun unintended!) and this guy did it for propping up his sagging career by gaining publicity, good or bad.

But hey, what do I know? I ain't a Christian! And so have little idea of the sentiments at work here!

Originally posted by Murphs
I am an active Catholic, my husband is Presbyterian, My mother in Law Anglican.

As for me, I'm a Hindu, with one daughter married to a Catholic and the other to a Protestant! How's that for religious integration?

Whatever, cheers and wishing you both a Happy Easter!!

[edit on 1-4-2007 by mikesingh]

Like I said 'unless I misinterpreted the post'. What is less than the #'s of hairs on a bald mans head? Winning an argument with smart ladies? or did You mean smart ladies are fewer than the hairs on the head of a bald man? The latter is how I read it to mean. So, if I did take it the wrong way I deeply apologize. If i didn't take it the wrong way then it IS sexist. Hey Murph as far as the WTF, toughen up that hide of Yours.

mikesingh, I do apologize.

Peace. K*

Originally posted by Tea

Everyone has a right to their opinion about art, or anything else that crosses their field of vision.

Precisely.

as an artist, I really could give a flying [expletive] what you think of mywork (sic).

Just as I don't give a flying intercourse what you think of my opinion.

What make you think I even considered your opinion in the first place?

For those that find the chocolate Jesus offensive; I wonder how many of them have a plaster cast of Jesus in thier home that they paid for. Talk about crass. But if that's the way the devout want to express their devotion; go for it!!

How crass and commercial is it to make plaster casts of Jesus and offer them for SALE!!



[edit on 1-4-2007 by whaaa]

[edit on 1-4-2007 by whaaa]

Um ... it's almost Easter isn't it? A time of deep inner reflection. Christians are encouraged to ritually eat the body of Christ on a regular basis... Drink his blood as well. (Those pesky cannibals) So, ...Chocolate is a good source of nutrition that is also a good brain stimulant which promotes a calm state of being. Jesus, was all about people remaining calm and loving, and as far as I can remember... ONLY GOD CAN JUDGE OTHERS. (according to the Christian faith anyway) So, that being what it is ... the folks who are freaking out about a chocolate Jesus need to just chill for a moment and stop being so judgmental and negative. It's just Art. It isn't that big a deal. No one is trying to make fun of anyone's religion, not are they calling your religion anything negative. By being so negative and harsh about the subject, you are in fact going totally against the basic tenants of the faith. That makes for a poor Christian.

I wish everyone would convert to the FSM and the world would be a happier place ... especially for Pirates Yo!

I'd be all for a FSM done in chocolate. Sweet!!!!!

Art is supposed to be about stretching the boundaries of expression. That is exactly what was done here.

You can't expect artists to be restricted to repeating one particular subject manor in one particular style... thats not art, thats a human photocopy machine.

Artists continually look for something that hasn't been done. Just like scientists test untested theories, the moment you tell them that they can only work on what has already been done, they cease to have purpose.

With that being said, artists are destined to piss a few people off now and again. And you know what? Too bad. The art community isn't about to start telling each other what they can and cannot do.

Do you know why it's offensive? Because you let it get to you. Because it conflicts with YOUR view of the world. Well, quite frankly, people who oppose art, or science offend me. But I know they will continue to exist, so I don't bother them.
It's high time everyone realised that offensive materials will always be around... it's about time you grew up and got over it.

Originally posted by Demetre


Like I said 'unless I misinterpreted the post'. What is less than the #'s of hairs on a bald mans head? Winning an argument with smart ladies? or did You mean smart ladies are fewer than the hairs on the head of a bald man? The latter is how I read it to mean. So, if I did take it the wrong way I deeply apologize. If i didn't take it the wrong way then it IS sexist. Hey Murph as far as the WTF, toughen up that hide of Yours.

mikesingh, I do apologize.

Peace. K*

Hey, Demetre, no problem! You're in the category of the smart ones too!
So cheer up!

Honestly, there was absolutely NO intention of making any 'sexist' remarks!
I ain't no male chauvinist pig! The trouble is I love a little humor and joking around now and then (Not that I'm a joker!! Jees! )

Anyway apologies if I've hurt your sentiments!

Cheers, and have a great day!

Originally posted by Demetre
Hey Murph as far as the WTF, toughen up that hide of Yours.

My comment about no need to swear was made tongue in cheek..I thought it was funny considering the whole topic of the thread. Maybe I should have added a smilie for easy interpretation.

Well I'm a Christian and think it's in bad taste (no pun intended) but I'm really not offended by it.

The reason he made this was to get attention. If he made a chocolate Zeus or Rosie O'Donnell or something, no one would have cared.

I think the talk of boycotts and everything just played into the artist's hands.

Can't help myself..

Originally posted by djohnsto77
If he made a chocolate Rosie O'Donnell or something, no one would have cared.

If he made a Chocolate Rosei O'Donnell, how long before the real Rosie devoured it?



Seriously though, I don't think he did it for attention for himself.

On a side-note, I watched an interview that had both him and the
president of the Catholic league, or whatever organization it was,
and the Catholic guy was an ass, started attacking him from the get
go, and would barely let him respond, and when the artist said he
was christian, the Catholic league guy said something along the lines
of don't lie.

So, I'm siding with the artist on this.

Originally posted by iori_komei
Can't help myself..

Originally posted by djohnsto77
If he made a chocolate Rosie O'Donnell or something, no one would have cared.

If he made a Chocolate Rosei O'Donnell, how long before the real Rosie devoured it?



Seriously though, I don't think he did it for attention for himself.

On a side-note, I watched an interview that had both him and the
president of the Catholic league, or whatever organization it was,
and the Catholic guy was an ass, started attacking him from the get
go, and would barely let him respond, and when the artist said he
was christian, the Catholic league guy said something along the lines
of don't lie.

So, I'm siding with the artist on this.

So am I..People are issuing him with threats but yet won't let him defend himself.
What happened to the right to defend yourself and innocent until proven guilty??

I'm still not understanding why people are offended by this. Is it because he created an image of Jesus, or because it's made of chocolate, or because it makes him look black, or because it depicts his body as it is?

DJMessiah, I can't say for sure, but I think a LARGE part of the reason that some people are offended is that if the same were to happen with Mohammad, there would be a huge outcry. I think it's simply a matter of a feeling of "unfairness".

And I can totally understand that point. It IS unfair to say that it's ok if the world makes an image of one deity (if that's the right word) but not another deity.

BH, that wouldn't make sense though. If the outcry was because there is an image of Jesus made, then why has movies like the "The Passion of the Christ" not received the same attitude, or the painting of the Last Supper, or even "Pieta" which is housed in the Vatican?

[Edit] Included the full movie title.

[edit on 2-4-2007 by DJMessiah]

What's even funnier is the images of Christ showing up in food! A tortilla, a potato chip, a Kaiser roll! Show an image of Jesus in those and people come for miles around to pay homage to it!

But it's not about an image of Jesus being made alone, but in combination with perceived disrespect. It's about something that's could possibly be considered disrespectful. Whether it's because it's chocolate (not bronze or some other "respectable" material) or because he's naked (From what I understand, Christians aren't all that comfortable with public nudity, let alone of their Savior's nudity) or because it's being displayed during Easter Week. (Many people give up chocolate for lent.)

But mostly, it's because of the unfairness regarding Mohammad I mentioned before (IMO). Back when Piss Christ was displayed, Islam wasn't in the picture because it was pre 9/11. So people were just angry because of the disrespect they perceived. Now, we have the added bruises of the Mohammad cartoon scandal that just adds to the feeling of "rightness" the offended people feel thay have.

Here's an analogy - (I love analogies!) I don't like the idea of illegal aliens. I'm upset that this country lets illegal aliens come in here, live and work in our system and take advantage of our social systems. Why? Because what they're doing is ILLEGAL. Now, I'm not really being hurt by their presence, but they are breaking the laws of the US and getting rewarded for it. Am I allowed to go out and break our laws and be rewarded? NO! I'll be punished!

So, why do these people have "rights" to break the laws of my country when I would get punished for doing the same?

Why do people have the "right" to make disrespectful images of Christ when making ANY image of Mohammad gets them "punished"?

Does that make sense?

[edit on 2-4-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]

I'm a reformed Catholic. I'd eat it. And I'd start with the penis just to tick off the Christians.

I understand what your'e saying, but what is being done by the artists that is disrespectful? If he had carved a turbin with a bomb on Jesus' head, then yes, it would be like the Mohammad caricatures, but what exactly did he do wrong?

I suppose this a kind of update. Spoke to my local Canon a little while ago.
I bumped into him coming back from kids school..
I said I liked his comment yesterday and how I hoped it would diffuse any tensions people might have.
His response.."I believe what I said."
I asked him about the Catholic League and he said he had never heard of them before, until now. He had to look them up. He said the are US based only and very few he has spoken to believe what they believe. Even the Bishop thought it was a hoo haa over nothing. There you go!
He said every church has their "pedants and fanatics"...

It is a pity it has boiled down to the poor artist receiving death threats.