SJRod55 Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 Amazingly they claim the 'timing' was coincidental for Holy Week - some how I don't believe that - but they cancelled the 'showing' according to BBC reports Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homeschoolmom Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 oh, yeah... chocolates... Jesus.... right before Easter... oh, yeah... just a fluke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birgitta Noel Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 (edited) I'm not offended. He was a man (and God) and he was anatomically correct. The sculpture seems to be tastefully done. If it were in marble would it have not been offensive? The medium is unusual, but the play on words in the title is clever. If the sculpture were made out of cow dung that may have been offensive. The medium can matter if it is considered offensive in and of itself I suppose. Now a few years back when there was dung spread on the picture of the Virgin Mary that was offensive. [img]http://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Video/070330/a_brown_sweetlord_070330.300w.jpg[/img] This I'm just not sure qualifies as offensive. Just my $0.02. Edited March 31, 2007 by The Little Way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thy Geekdom Come Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 Birgitta, I have to disagree. I would say it wouldn't be offensive if, say, some artist at that annual Wisconsin butter carving fair decided to carve out a crucifix in order to Christianize something that wasn't originally Christian. However, if someone wanted to make a crucifix (having that as the starting point) and decided to make it out of butter, it would be offensive because they had many other things to work with other than butter (whereas one who can only work with butter would be doing something artistic, perhaps, in using that necessary medium to portray something beautiful). While the play on words in the title is original, it only makes me think that this artist's intention was to mock a title of Jesus and to make a statue reflecting that mockery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homeschoolmom Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 Does Jesus have a pony tail? Now that's just silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thy Geekdom Come Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 Yeah, he's got sort of a German nose, too. He kinda looks like I might expect Thomas Jefferson to have looked... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morostheos Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 [quote name='The Little Way' post='1224278' date='Mar 31 2007, 10:14 PM']I'm not offended. He was a man (and God) and he was anatomically correct. The sculpture seems to be tastefully done. If it were in marble would it have not been offensive? The medium is unusual, but the play on words in the title is clever. If the sculpture were made out of cow dung that may have been offensive. The medium can matter if it is considered offensive in and of itself I suppose. Now a few years back when there was dung spread on the picture of the Virgin Mary that was offensive.[/quote] I don't find it offensive either. One could see it as a critique of the commercialization of Easter or some other such thing that does not signify something offensive to the Church. Obviously a lot of people were offended though, so I think it's good that they took it down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birgitta Noel Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 [quote name='Raphael' post='1224282' date='Mar 31 2007, 04:24 PM']Birgitta, I have to disagree. I would say it wouldn't be offensive if, say, some artist at that annual Wisconsin butter carving fair decided to carve out a crucifix in order to Christianize something that wasn't originally Christian. However, if someone wanted to make a crucifix (having that as the starting point) and decided to make it out of butter, it would be offensive because they had many other things to work with other than butter (whereas one who can only work with butter would be doing something artistic, perhaps, in using that necessary medium to portray something beautiful). While the play on words in the title is original, it only makes me think that this artist's intention was to mock a title of Jesus and to make a statue reflecting that mockery.[/quote] Mmmm, I can see your point, and I can see why people may be offended, but I'm simply not. This artist does work with food, per the listing of his other works, so it seems apropos that he used food here as well. Would you be opposed to a Jesus made out of sand on a beach? Morostheos, I'm not sure that it's good they took it down because a lot of people were offended. If it were outright blasphemy then there could be justification, but here I'm not so sure....What if as a result museums stopped exhibiting any sort of religious art because they were afraid people would be offended? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birgitta Noel Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 There's a thread about this on the debate table that I just noticed and someone suggested that there were plans to let people nibble off of it. That IS offensive IF it is true. I have seen nothing in the media about this aspect of the display however, so until there is confirmation of that fact I stand by my initial analysis. Poor taste (no pun intended)? Perhaps. Offensive to me? Not particularly. Offensive to others? Yup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 Oh! Nibbling on chocolate Jesus is bad!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musturde Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 I think it's ridiculous that people are spending so much time whining about this. It's just artistic. I see no reason why it's offensive. Is it because Jesus is naked or because he's made out of Chocolate? I think if it was done seperately, there wouldn't be such a riot about this. Now if they started making a line of Naked Jesus Candy bars, that might go over the top. Laboring over this only makes people want to see it more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-I---Love Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 As a person who has a genuine interest in art - including a few spots of paint on canvas that ppl would make fun of but I try to understand, I still think this isn't "art." I'm not sure what my exact definition of art is ... I just want to eat chocolate, not look at a statue of it. I dunno... It seems to be a waste of [food] and very unpractical. Just as mozarella coagulated milk in a room is pathetically lame. And if it was a normal crucifix then when it gets old it would be disposed of properly, burned, buried...but what's going to happen to this "crucifix" ... is it going to be eaten or thrown in a trash can, or melted down and then disposed? Anyways this is a lame excuse for art. Don't use chocolate to make crucifixes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fixxxer Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 they should have made a buddy christ version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Knight Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 [quote name='T-Bone' post='1223244' date='Mar 30 2007, 05:37 PM']They could have at least given the sculpture a loincloth.[/quote] Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josie07 Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 wow that's insane... I agree with Homeschoolmom.. let's crank up the heat!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now