Nude Chocolate Jesus on Cross

[B_big dirigible]

Who had heard of Cavallaro before this?

I'll bet the Board of Health has heard of him before. It's probably not the first time he's fantasized about the viewing public giving his "art" a lick. The exhibit would have been shut down for reasons of basic sanitation.

 

[tessa42fma]

So no-one else heres sees the easter chocolate -vs- easter crucifixtion issues that are in play here? Why is the outrage not directed towards Cadbury or PAAS or Pastel M&M's? Because artists are notorious revolutionaries and can never have a point of view that supports a move towards religion or points out a flaw in our mass media/mass commercialization civilization?

...Isn't it possible that the outrage is going in the wrong direction? That organized religion missed a HUGE opportunity to re-focus on what easter is really about. What kind of socio-religious dialogue happens when the church condemns something that hasn't even opened to the public? Or is it that Church leaders couldn't allow people to form their own opinions about something? All they've done is just create the next Maplethorpe or Serrano. Who had heard of Cavallaro before this?

Chocolate and Jesus on the Cross and and Easter exhibition time frame? How could they miss what was being said there?

You're supposed to be offended at the concept of eating the Chocolate Jesus. It's supposed to make you think the next time you bite the ears off a chocolate bunny. I don't think any art gallery would allow you to eat their key exhibition piece and potential commision/profit for the month...

I see it and I agree with you -- very well put, willi! Actually though, Chris Ofili's "The Holy Virgin Mary" came to mind when I heard of the reaction to this work of art... I wonder if either of these pieces would be as controversial if we didn't know the artist's medium. I mean, is it really the piece that's controversial or is it just the medium?

 

[headbang8]

Here's what's offensive:

The 6-foot sculpture was the victim of "a strong-arming...Bill Donohue, head of the watchdog Catholic League, said it was "one of the worst assaults on Christian sensibilities ever."...The hotel and the gallery were overrun Thursday with angry phone calls and e-mails. Semler said the calls included death threats over the work of artist Cosimo Cavallaro, who was described as disappointed by the decision to cancel the display.

"In this situation, the hotel couldn't continue to be supportive because of a fear for their own safety," Semler said...

The bloody crucifixion pictures gave me nightmares as a kid, but I don't threaten people's lives who choose to make art according to their interpretations or inspiration.

Apparently, mockery is more dangerous than violence. Perhaps it is a more potent weapon against false beliefs than "strong-arming". This is religious terrorism.

By the way, the Roger Smith is across the street form my office and two blocks from my home. The other exhibits in the gallery remain...and they gently mock the other symbols of Easter and springtime--the pastel colours, the flowers and baskets. A very gay, colourful scene, indeed.

 

[Ethyl]

Here's what's offensive:

The 6-foot sculpture was the victim of "a strong-arming from people who haven't seen the show, seen what we're doing," Semler said. "They jumped to conclusions completely contrary to our intentions."

But word of the confectionary Christ infuriated Catholics, including Egan, who described it as "a sickening display." Bill Donohue, head of the watchdog Catholic League, said it was "one of the worst assaults on Christian sensibilities ever."

The hotel and the gallery were overrun Thursday with angry phone calls and e-mails. Semler said the calls included death threats over the work of artist Cosimo Cavallaro, who was described as disappointed by the decision to cancel the display.

What sensibilities are Christian in nature? I don't remember hearing anything about that in Sunday School. I've read through this particular article and the thread and still don't understand what it is about this sculpture that is so offensive. The Precious Moments chapel was a huge assault on my senses, aesthetic and otherwise. I remember looking at the depictions of biblical stories on the wall and noticed the crucifixion was nowhere to be found. Kind of an important part of the gospels to leave out, IMO. Maybe they thought a teardrop eyed Jesus hanging bloody on a cross would be difficult to pull off. But a chocolate, naked Christ? It's just another sculpting medium to me, not a mockery in the making.

 

[Montauk]

hey zora, with all due respect, just know this, you have much to learn, and much growing to do.

 

[fortiesfun]

Maybe it's a comment on how the true meaning of Easter has been usurped by chocolate bunnies and easter eggs?

That is pretty funny. I fear your irony was lost, however, on the many who actually think this. (I am a practicing Christian, myself, but even I think that the bunnies and eggs were there first. )

 

[B_cigarbabe]

Obviously we are not terribly enlightened! Well said rubberwilli and Chicago Sam and Madame Zora! We are missing the point, and also Jesus didn't have genitals?
Why should the church be so upset about a sculpture that would make folks think about Jesus! Cavallaro is also Catholic as am I, and I don't find this offensive, its another reason to talk,think,and have a dialogue about Catholicism. I don't think artist's should have to worry about, "ooh, will I offend the mass public with my painting of a flower that looks like a vagina"
Until someone pointed it out, nobody was enraged, were they?
A little off the topic slighty using {Georgia O'keefe!} but the experience is the same. Nobody even gets to see this Jesus, but people want to kill him? Cosimo Cavallaro. Holy Fuck! I would be interested in hearing Hypolimnas's take on this being a scholar and all!
cigarbabe:saevil:

 

[B_big dirigible]

This is religious terrorism.

This is NewSpeak. And hogwash.

Call it what it isn't, and eventually, everybody will believe it; a favorite tactic of patient fanatics everywhere. The less patient ones go in for terrorism; the real sort, not the propaganda sort.

 

[playainda336]

Yeah. Death Threats are Christianlike. And a work of art is not. Because it's "nudy".

¬_¬

Yeah whatever.

People like that make me hate institutionalized religion more and more.

 

[headbang8]

Apparently, mockery is more dangerous than violence. Perhaps it is a more potent weapon against false beliefs than "strong-arming". This is religious terrorism.

This is NewSpeak. And hogwash.

Call it what it isn't, and eventually, everybody will believe it; a favorite tactic of patient fanatics everywhere. The less patient ones go in for terrorism; the real sort, not the propaganda sort.

Let me get this straight, Big D.

"You allow men to see an adult woman's arms, hair and legs. That's immoral. I will commit acts of violence against you, and don't care if innocent people die in the process" A religious terrorist.

"You have made a naked statue of Christ in chocolate. That's immoral. I will commit acts of violence against you, and don't care if innocent people die in the process" Not a religious terrorist.

Hmmm...

The worst bit of Newspeak I've ever heard? God is Love.

 

[madame_zora]

Threatening to KILL someone because they don't believe like you, don't behave like you, or do something non-violent which you find "offensive" is terrorism. Christians are uncomfortable applying that label to "one of their own", nomatter how misguided or dangerous that particular person or group might actually be.

I don't need a God who is so easily overcome (even by something as silly as this) that I couldn't trust him with anything of real importance. If I were to decide I needed a God, he would have to be a big strong God who could take a few punches without crumbling. I wouldn't want a porcelain God who was beautiful to look at but easily shattered. I wouldn't want a marble God who could erode by nothing more than the passing of time, a steel God who could be melted if heated to a high enough degree, nor would I want a God out of any other medium which wouldn't allow Him to grow, expand His great Self, develop, mature, adjust, readjust, or even smile. IF I believe "we are made in His image", then when I look at my fellow Man, I should be able to get some clues about who God is, right?

If we are "made in His image", then the reason we don't need "images" is because we ARE those images. The reason we are not to worship false images that we make ourselves is because we can't improve on what the Artist has already made.

You want to be easily offended that YOUR false images aren't being shown enough respect? You are a hypocrite of the highest order, and I have no motivation to give you appeasement. Stop worshipping valueless things, and look more toward the real issues that evoked a response from Jesus. There you will find things of value, not in the things you drudge up to find your brother less suitable than yourself.

 

[rubberwilli]

The worst bit of Newspeak I've ever heard? God is Love.

Yup...my experience growing up was all Hellfire and Brimstone. No God is Love at my Church. That's one of the reasons I left. I already had enough fear in my life, I didn't need anymore from my creator or "HIS" represenatives here on earth.

 

[HotBulge]

I just saw the chocolate Jesus on the Cross on CNN. It's no more offensive than the pose of the naked man in Rodin's sculpture, "The Thinker". No genitals are showing, and how would the statue be terribly different from a bronze - except for the fact that it's made of chocolate? Chocolate, plaster of Paris, bronze - these are simply materials for fabrication. The chocolate can always be melted down again if anyone is worried about eating Jesus.

The Catholic League, which opposes the display of the statue, is just a fringe organization of Catholics. i think the artist's use of chocolate is simple yet brilliant because the choice of material makes you look 2x at the statue. It's also more fragile, ephemeral as Jesus' body was on the cross

What's the deal ?? It's like people are looking for an excuse to express righteous anger (wrongly).

 

[Male Bonding etc]

I confess, I avoided this thread for a long time because I imagined some boxed chocolate effigy much like the rabbits currently populating the grocery store shelves.

Looking at the pictures of the sculpture itself, I am impressed by the artist's skill. However, I am not sure what his motives for choosing chocolate as a medium were. Perhaps he was hoping to emulate Maplethorpe. Perhaps he saw something in the texture and coloration of the chocolate that inspired his creative spirit.

I believe Jesus had a sense of humor. He would probably be more flattered than offended by this artistic effort. Perhaps after the piece is shown, it should be melted down and distributed to Christians who gave up chocolate for Lent rather than allowing it to be licked and eaten in its current shape, which would be rather bizarre. Then again, exposed chocolate probably isn't very good after a few days.

 

[ceg1526]

The artist was quite successful - he got much more than his 15 minutes of fame on CNN, a whole thread here, and a lot of people thinking and talking.

Take care,

Ceg

 

[Freddie53]

I'm not particularly thrilled with a chocolate image of Jesus. And I understand how Prep felt about it. And that is his right.

However, I am more concerned about people professing to be Christians giving death threats over this issue. That is not Christlike.

I have a right to not view the Chocolate statue or to eat part of the statue. The sculptor had a right to make the Jesus sculpture. But don't expect me to eat part of it or spend a lot of time gloating over it.

But then I am not going to condemn him either. However, there won't be a chocolate statue of Jesus on our church property and their certainly won't be people eating the chocolate.

I'm not sitting on the fence here. I just recognize where rights are. He had a right to make the statue and the Catholic Church had a right to speak negatively of it.

While there are some activities that I really don't like, it bothers me to have anyone be able to censure anything they or their religion doesn't approve.

He had a right to make the statue and my church has a right to say it is not appropriate to display on our church property.

 

[prepstudinsc]

I'm right with you, Freddie. I don't like the sculpture, so I choose not to look at it in an exhibition. Making death threats about it are way over the top.

God gave us brains, but we have to use them. Threatening the life of an artist is pure stupidity. The best way to protest it is just choosing not to go look at it. This is a free country. We're not forced to see it if we don't want to.

I don't like it, because I think it's irreverent. I'm not a big one on sculptures or statues in church, either. I prefer icons.

 

[Adrian69702006]

The Roman Catholic Church doesn't have a trademark on Jesus, but most of the time the crucifix (Jesus on the Cross) is associated with Catholics, eventhough other religions do portray Jesus in that manner. Most Protestants just use a bare cross, to show that Jesus died and has risen again.

However, as a Christian, I am offended. Yes, Jesus is sweet. We sing an old gospel song at my church entitled "He's Sweet I Know". Licking a chocolate crucifix on Easter is repulsive. While the skin color of Jesus is probably more realistic in milk chocolate than most pictures of him looking Anglo-Saxon, Jesus is not something or someone that anyone should be mocking.

I agree wholeheartedly and find the idea both tasteless and offensive.

 

[madame_zora]

I agree wholeheartedly and find the idea both tasteless and offensive.

How do you feel about Easter being turned into a candy holiday where an imaginary bunny brings kids baskets full of chocolates, jelly beans, sugar-chickies, coloured eggs and prizes, as a means to celebrate the risen Christ? Do ya think just maybe the artist of this piece just *might* have been trying to say something?

 

[rubberwilli]

He had a right to make the statue and my church has a right to say it is not appropriate to display on our church property.

Um, the statue was to be displayed in an art gallery, for 2 hours each day. There was never any intention to display in in a church. I believe the artists intent was to capture an audience that does not attend church and get them to think about what Easter and the Crucifixion means to them personally.

So the question is what right does your church have to shut down an art exhibition in an independent art gallery?

I don't like it, because I think it's irreverent. I'm not a big one on sculptures or statues in church, either. I prefer icons.

I understand your position, but do you think that it was right for the a segment of the church (how ever you wish to define that) to put such pressure to close down this exhibition without even seeing it first and to speak for the artistic merit of a work of art they've never even seen in person?

Most art exhibits, and gallery shows to an extent, also include didactic text which accompanies the artwork to position it in a larger context or docents or gallery workers who answer questions or explain to some extent the artists position or creative impulse for the work. By closing the exhibition we'll never know how specifically this gallery would have presented this work of art.

I'm just curious, how do you balance the Lent, Good Friday, Easter Sunday religious observances with the commercialization of Easter and the Easter Bunny and Easter Eggs as potential rival secular or pagan image during holy week. You've avoided this concept completely in your posts focusing on the literal chocolate Jesus rather than on the potential statement the artist was attempting to convey.

Does the artistic statement have no validity or merit to you because the form it took was "irreverent" even if societal irreverence for the crucifixion was the point being made by the artist?

How does one challenge the position of the church or is that not allowed?