March 30, 2007
In another sign of just how isolated from society the "art world" has become, promoters of a life size crucified Jesus made of milk chocolate are surprised that unveiling the work during Easter Week has caused controversy.
From NBC5.com:
NEW YORK -- The Easter season unveiling of a milk chocolate sculpture of Jesus Christ, dubbed "My Sweet Lord" by its creator, left a sour taste Thursday in the mouths of a Catholic group infuriated by the anatomically correct confection.The gallery's creative director, mincing metrosexual milquetoast Matt Semler, described calls for a boycott as "a Catholic fatwa.""This is one of the worst assaults on Christian sensibilities ever," said Bill Donohue, head of the watchdog Catholic League. "It's not just the ugliness of the portrayal, but the timing -- to choose Holy Week is astounding."
Oh come on. Have your artist come up with a statue of Mohammed having sex with child bride Aisha, made of pork suet, and we'll talk "fatwa," you pussy.
Posted by: Bluto at
11:31 AM
| Comments (58)
| Add Comment
Post contains 173 words, total size 1 kb.
----NOTE to self:: Please have Dr. Rusty incorporate the word 'islamofascist' into spell check of this site as it gives me the red dotted underline every time I spell it...AND I KNOW I SPELLED IT RIGHT!!
so it mustn't be in the word database.
Posted by: mrclark at March 30, 2007 10:49 AM (teNQQ)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 30, 2007 11:11 AM (yJKSD)
Posted by: wb at March 30, 2007 11:17 AM (L3O5+)
anyone who worships the illegitmate son of a jew is pretty much delusional in any case.
muslim, christian, filthy jew, buddhist, etc just lame people trying to invent fairy tales to explain their meaningless lives.
however a chocolate jesus is insulting it should have definately been made out of that peeps marsmallow candy instead.
Posted by: Jason Briggs at March 30, 2007 11:23 AM (Nhfns)
Posted by: tbone at March 30, 2007 11:39 AM (HGqHt)
Posted by: wb at March 30, 2007 11:54 AM (L3O5+)
The fact that someone calls this art is just ludicrous.
Especially when, by their glaring ommissions of a particular religion,
they show their cowardice, consistently choosing only one religion to
insult with their puerile interpretations.
Posted by: Oyster at March 30, 2007 11:59 AM (FFmKq)
and you better wake up and learn about the American puppet masters controlling our govt:
http://www.rense.com/general18/werethe911hijackers.htm
Posted by: Jason Briggs at March 30, 2007 12:02 PM (Nhfns)
Posted by: John Ryan at March 30, 2007 12:07 PM (TcoRJ)
Practice much conspiracy mongering? When was the last itme your synapses fired off a shot?
You don't much care either way - right. This is why you use the term "filthy jew". Got it.
Posted by: Oyster at March 30, 2007 12:13 PM (FFmKq)
i do care about the shylocks controlling our government and leaders. they need to be eradicated and governmental control returned to real Americans.
Posted by: Jason Briggs at March 30, 2007 12:16 PM (Nhfns)
Posted by: John Ryan at March 30, 2007 12:33 PM (TcoRJ)
Posted by: tbone at March 30, 2007 12:42 PM (HGqHt)
The funny and ironic part of this story is that the "creative director" is whining about the economic consequences of his decision to insult Christians for commercializing Easter.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 30, 2007 12:45 PM (p52Ne)
I mean it--it's A-OK to offend the sensibilities of Christians, but Muhammed is off limits, why? (Because they'd get their heads handed to them on a platter, that's why!).
Posted by: Richard Romano at March 30, 2007 12:45 PM (/2Xsz)
and Jason, if you have missed your regularly schedule dose, do not double-dose. Simply skip the missed dose and resume your medication at the next scheduled time. That is all.
Posted by: blackflag at March 30, 2007 01:17 PM (Mq5jS)
Take comfort in the fact that according to your beliefs we're going to hell. Isn't that enough? Let us make fun of Jesus all we want. I'm sure he can take it.
Posted by: John at March 30, 2007 01:18 PM (qiTAx)
Jesus came to this earth to be mocked, so yes, he can take it (unlike Mohammed, who came to this earth to conquer).
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 30, 2007 01:55 PM (yJKSD)
...he is oddly quiet about real Catholic-hatin' when it comes from John Hagee, Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council, Albert Mohler, Jerome Corsi, and others who give him face time or that he will stand next to. Strange no peep from him when certain candidates for a certain office frequented Bob Jones University which is just SO pro-Catholic.
And since anti-semitism has been mentioned as a concern here, Donahue has flung off some zingers about "Hollywood Jews"
If you yourself is offended by the chocolate jebuss, fair enough... just don't be because this selective outrage-monger Donohue says tells you to be offended. Beside you might miss out on the real offensive stuff out there.
And just because this idol of chocolate happens to be depicting Jebuss, doesn't mean the artist is obligated to then make a chocolate bust of Mohammed or Buddah or a Noonian Singe - unless folks are suggesting some warped fairness doctrine for art. The curators using the word "fatwa" doesn't open that door. Nor does the fact that fanatics from another religion and their potential for violent reaction any depiction justifies a tit-for-tat "oh, you are mocking my idol, so I'll do something to yours."
Besides, would any of you heard of the chocolate Jebuss if Donohue hadn't set his exploitive sites on it?
And that reminds me, remember you're supposed to not worship any idols in the Christian faith? I expect the same outrage to be applied to all depictions, lest ye be a mite hypocritical because this one happens to be chocolate. That means everything... statues, paintings, depictions and tablets of certain commandments in court houses... need I go on?
Posted by: rpppolyp at March 30, 2007 02:09 PM (7E4ht)
Posted by: wb at March 30, 2007 02:20 PM (L3O5+)
Posted by: wb at March 30, 2007 02:45 PM (L3O5+)
Crenshaw melon my ass. It's called WATERMELON.
Posted by: greyrooster at March 30, 2007 02:53 PM (TRmKF)
Posted by: greyrooster at March 30, 2007 02:55 PM (TRmKF)
Uniformity may be your dream but not modern mans.
Posted by: greyrooster at March 30, 2007 02:59 PM (TRmKF)
Posted by: greyrooster at March 30, 2007 03:04 PM (TRmKF)
Posted by: greyrooster at March 30, 2007 03:13 PM (TRmKF)
good, fair points. You're not the kind of atheist we religious people have a problem with.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 30, 2007 03:22 PM (yJKSD)
Posted by: greyrooster at March 30, 2007 03:27 PM (TRmKF)
Posted by: Gleep! at March 30, 2007 03:30 PM (Zlbra)
Posted by: wb at March 30, 2007 03:31 PM (L3O5+)
Posted by: greyrooster at March 30, 2007 03:57 PM (TRmKF)
Posted by: Mike at March 30, 2007 04:45 PM (HkRXh)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 30, 2007 05:02 PM (yJKSD)
Posted by: wb at March 30, 2007 05:28 PM (L3O5+)
tbone, "actual melanin count" That would be in conflict with all known details of his earthly lineage. Besides, that whole 'black Jesus' thing is a politically motivated revisionism. Trying to claim he was 'black' is as inaccurate a statement AS IT SHOULD ALSO BE IRRELEVENT. I could care less what color the Lord is, except when I see an attempt at political exploitation. Which is what bringing up "melanin" is all about in this case ... right?
"What has been the effect of coercion?" That was Jefferson pointing out that restricting free exercise of religion, or trying to establish a state religion, is a cause for needless death and suffering. It sure wasn't condemnation of Christianity itself. If Jefferson hated Christianity, why did he write the "Jefferson Bible". Anyone???
Jason Briggs, "filthy jew" I read you as an anarchist, and an asshole, besides being an anti-semite. Your also a 'hater' Atheist, as oppossed to a 'none of my business' Atheist. There is a difference. And for those who didn't catch on, it seems real Americans don't believe in the Republic, or voting, according to Jason. Jason wants us to tear it all down ...
Richard Romano, "Nothing is sacred to the kooks on the left"
Except, if I may add, what serves the goal of nihilistic leftism itself. Great observation though!
rpppolyp "I expect the same outrage to be applied to all depictions" Well then you don't have a rational view of the issues. One picture is worth a thousand words. Sinking a cross into urine is a picture that shows the words of the artist responsable. He hates Christianity, and he wants to let us know that. Further, he wants to hurt us with the knowledge of his hatred. The chocolate sculpture says something, and we are meant to hear the message. Can you possibly wrap your mind around that concept?
Now, idolatry is about worshipping the image. It's like when an infidel gets killed for touching a Quran. Or like an infidel would be killed for touching thier black stone. These are just objects, and I'm not intending a message if I touch either of them. Thought goes into art (even hateful art) and it isn't merely innocent expression, when we all know that art is used to communicate an idea. No Christian cares about the chocolate Christ. They care about the hatred shown towards Christianity, and Christians. Get it?
John Ryan "chocolate buddhas" There is no insult there. One of the Buddhist teachings is to sort of reject uniformity, and is captured in the line about 'if you meet Buddha on the road, kill him' and as it was explained by one sorce, "So "killing the Buddha" means killing or wiping out this fantasy image," Your idea is in keeping with the concept, and may be ironically orthodox.
To all, I percieve the artist was attempting to use crude, and hurtful humor, with added shock value, to make a buck while promoting his own political vision. One picture, and a thousand words later, I think that's the nicest thing I could say about it.
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at March 30, 2007 10:42 PM (2OHpj)
Posted by: wb at March 30, 2007 10:49 PM (L3O5+)
Posted by: wb at March 30, 2007 10:55 PM (L3O5+)
Posted by: greyrooster at March 31, 2007 12:53 AM (LDOOz)
Posted by: greyrooster at March 31, 2007 12:56 AM (LDOOz)
Look, I understand fully the issues (and of course you ignored all the other issues I brought up and sadly attempted to cherry pick this one.) Here's the issue, have YOU talked to the artist or did you just divine magically his malicious intent... I suspect not, you have just injected that.
The guy's medium is food, so that must mean he can never depict Jesus? You bring urine into this because you would like to lamely tie this Italian Canadian's work with that obvious provocative unrelated example to draw people to your fumbling attempt to make a point So I guess chocolate is weewee - especially since Donohue bleated that: "This is one of the worst assaults on Christian sensibilities ever!" Really, chocolate is worse than wizz or the lions the Roman's released on Christians? Some Christians may not care about the chocolate Jesus (obvious in the fact NO christians are complaining about this,) but some sure as heck can plumb some hatred of Christianity out of it. Get that?
Did you read the whole article or just cherry pick the "Jesus done in chocolate" and divine hate, because he must THEN also hate 4 poster beds, Manhattan hotels and homes in Wyoming since he did those with foodstuffs as well? You're free to your preception that you don't like it, but please admit that unless you are aware of some other intent of malice, that he has come out and said "I hate Christians or something along those line," that it's only your perception of what he's communicating because of the medium. You can fairly argue about the lack of loin cloth, but again, if the Jesus was in our image, would he not have all the bits? Sorry if some of us in the US have to sexualize everything because something happens to be nude.
And don't you find it odd that in this artist's "hate" he chose to meticulously produce this massive (maybe overly) detailed mold of Jesus and chose a foodstuff that many humans find pleasing? Can you wrap your pompous mind around that concept?
Posted by: rpppolyp at March 31, 2007 01:31 AM (Meltg)
"Please, don't attempt to talk down to me" To late
Chocolate Jesus at Easter time. Needs no explanation. Buuuut since I don't have a picture handy. Artists use thier art to communicate. The message is in the art. Artists invite the interpretation, and tailor thier work to give weight to the interpretations they desire. Sometimes the intention is to only make you wonder. Most of the time, it isn't.
A chocolate Jesus at Easter, is intentionally procative, and inconsiderate. The timing IS part of the message, and intended to 'weight' the interpretation. Unless the artist is just lousy at what he does, his message was pretty clearly to demean Christianity, by making an association to the holiday commercialism that is so sadly rampant. Disrespect seems to be built in.
So he works with food? So what?! What is the message in this ?
"Cavallaro, who was raised in Canada and Italy, is best known for his quirky work with food as art: Past efforts include repainting a Manhattan hotel room in melted mozzarella, spraying 5 tons of pepper jack cheese on a Wyoming home and festooning a four-poster bed with 312 pounds of processed ham. "
Now I'm not a proffessional art critic, so maybe I'll let you explain those 'works'. Maybe HE IS LOUSY at what he does? I admit, when it comes to artists who don't hand out brochures explaining what they mean by putting pork products on a bed, I am only going on the image they have offered me. I admit, I can only imagine what is going through the mind of a man who chooses 312 pounds of ham, and a bad, for his 'medium. Scarily enough, it's not that hard.
When a man takes the time to craft an image which will hurt a community, it is a long odds that he didn't mean to. He has a right to do it. Nazi's can march in US cities to. I'm sure the Jews, and WW2 vets all love that. But lets not pretend he was all innocent. if his point was unintentional, I am certainly willing to read his public statement EXPLAINING IN HIS OWN WORDS, what he meant, and how sorry he was for the misunderstanding. I'd certainly think that it would be fair to let him respond. But .... I'd bet money he won't.
Art IS mind reading. Some minds are easier to read than others.
As for 'cherry picking', I was commenting on the things said by rpppolyp, and others, that I felt strongly about. And I'm not done.
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at March 31, 2007 05:03 AM (2OHpj)
"please don't lecture me on the meaning of art and others perception and the perceptions of idols in or out of a vacuum of being viewerless" Been there, done that. Sorry if my "pompous mind" upsets you.
You are an ass when you try and tell me what I worship. Your an ass when you try to say that all depictions are 'idolatry' and we should all be equally outraged. Your an ass when you expect me to be outraged if a Quran gets used for toilet paper. I'm not a Muslim, so I don't take it personally when that happens. I don't have to read your mind to know your an ass, because you took the time to prove it by typing it for the world to see.
I don't care what Donohue says. He doesn't speak for me. Lots of 'religious' leaders DON'T speak for me. Maybe because to some of them I'm not Christian enough. But that matter is between myself, and them.
You try to be the artist in this exchange, by painting with an overlarge brush. By comparison my 'generalities' were rather modest. Clearly, you are unaware that it is perfectly legitimate to cherry pick, when that is where your issues are to be found. In fact this is what you (rpppolyp) said ...
"And that reminds me, remember you're supposed to not worship any idols in the Christian faith? I expect the same outrage to be applied to all depictions, lest ye be a mite hypocritical because this one happens to be chocolate. That means everything... statues, paintings, depictions and tablets of certain commandments in court houses... need I go on?"
So you see, you DO need a lecture on idolatry, which is what attracted me to comment on your frustrated remarks in the first place. Ironically, trying to equate the chocolate Jesus with idolatry, is consistent with my 'mind-reading' of the artist. It's no wonder you leap to his defense.
For the record, I never said he couldn't display his contemptuous sculture, I was only offering my opinion of it. I rather enjoy the controversial 'Muhammed cartoons' and that seems to a good way of adressing the matter of 'fairness doctrine'. I guess if we started beheading people we would get the same respect, but for now I'll just settle for knowing I'm more tolerant than Muslims, or leftists.
And I can take joke if it's clearly meant that way ... Would you like 'nuts' with your chocolate messiah? I'm pompous, AND smug!
Lotta that going around these days
Try not to get heartburn,
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at March 31, 2007 05:40 AM (2OHpj)
Posted by: greyrooster at March 31, 2007 11:31 AM (zj89s)
Posted by: gerald at March 31, 2007 12:49 PM (h0BrM)
rooster, they are both melons, you knew exactly what I meant and you're just being a dick. As for ass kissing, you can kiss my mine. If I want to tell Professor I like what he wrote I will, if it bugs you, tough shit. I could give a rats ass what bugs you. Take away your racial remarks and there just isn't much there to you. Sad.
Posted by: wb at March 31, 2007 05:03 PM (0HmJb)
Posted by: greyrooster at March 31, 2007 09:09 PM (P64nD)
Posted by: wb at March 31, 2007 09:37 PM (0HmJb)
Posted by: wb at March 31, 2007 10:41 PM (0HmJb)
Posted by: sandpiper at March 31, 2007 11:11 PM (9NBAS)
Posted by: greyrooster at April 01, 2007 12:17 AM (P64nD)
Posted by: Michael Weaver at April 01, 2007 04:49 AM (2OHpj)
Posted by: greyrooster at April 01, 2007 10:16 AM (Met7C)
Posted by: Michael Weaver at April 01, 2007 10:58 AM (2OHpj)
Posted by: greyrooster at April 01, 2007 01:32 PM (Met7C)
Posted by: greyrooster at April 01, 2007 01:33 PM (Met7C)
Posted by: wb at April 01, 2007 09:27 PM (JFQlq)
Posted by: greyrooster at April 03, 2007 11:17 PM (iJS2A)
Posted by: raaeu at June 03, 2007 02:43 AM (j457M)
34 queries taking 0.0643 seconds, 213 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.