Outrage At Naked Chocolate Jesus In New York Gallery

[Piccoli Fiori JMJ]

Wow... I am not exactly sure where to stand on this one. It slightly reminds me of Richard Serra's [i]Tilted Arc[/i] and what happened with that, although this is completely different. Art is always pushing boundaries, looking for new ways to create. There are boundaries, however, that should not be pushed though. Looking at it from a number of different views (as a Catholic, as an art major, etc.) there is much that I can see as offensive, but there are also things that are not.
The pony tail and the medium for the piece have got me raising an eyebrow and tapping my foot in an impatient and upset manner.
I do have to say that contemporary art is not my cup of tea though. I do miss the days of timeless high art and I do wish there was more of that being created today.
I'm still a little undecided about this though.

[Piccoli Fiori JMJ]

Alrighty... The artist has this piece titled [i]I did it daddy[/i] on his webpage. I'm not liking this...

It was also apparently done in 2005, so this isn't somthing new and the timing was very much on purpose I'm thinking. Art is becoming less about the art and more about the press.

Edited April 2, 2007 by FutureNunJMJ

[Mitchell_b55]

As denegrating, irreverent, and infantile this little display by Mr. Cavallaro is, I cannot say that the nudity was of itself objectionable. Many ignore the fact that Jesus Christ sans clothing has never been uncommon in Catholic Art and I would like to offer a couple examples. I have no intention of offending sensibilities, but John Paul II said in 1981 that:

[quote]Nakedness itself is not immodest… Immodesty is present only when nakedness plays a negative role with regard to the value of the person, when its aim is to arouse concupiscence, as a result of which the person is put in the position of an object for enjoyment. (John Paul II. [i]Love and Responsibility[/i]. 1981.)[/quote]

For example, one sees here how a little bronze can censor a piece of art, this is Christ Carrying the Cross by Michelangelo (1521).

[center][img]http://www.johncoulthart.com/feuilleton/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/michelangelo2.jpg[/img][/center]

Furthermore, two studies for the Risen Christ by Michelangelo (both 1533):

[center][img]http://www.johncoulthart.com/feuilleton/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/michelangelo.jpg[/img][/center]

Just a thought. We shouldn't like to scorn nudity as the Puritans do!

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='Fixxxer' post='1225831' date='Apr 1 2007, 04:13 PM']they should have made a buddy christ version.[/quote]

Heh... the ideas are more original on this thread than the debate table which tends to be more "fire and brimstone". Basically I'm pretty much divided about the whole idea. One side of it is the art is raising awareness about what the season is about. People only get serious about easter eggs and bunnies any more. Makes me sad that they disregard Christ all together and this piece of art is a slap in the face of easter bunnies. On the other side of things there is the fact that it will be a waste of chocolate in some sense unless it is melted down and re-casted for consumption. Also, hearing this thing about people being aloud to nibble and lick the statue is just something wrong... also people were getting in a fuss about the nakedness, but of course Christ was most likely crucified naked for added humility. Anywho my two Canadian cents.

[hermit]

Cool post Cappie, I had the same thought myself, it happens every Holy Day we have, the way I see it, its a simple reminder that Saten is alive and well in the world, the way I see it what they call art I call horsesh-t.........
God Bless and Keep
hermit