http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11669242?GT1=9145

I myself think it's rather clever. People need to lighten up.

Within itslef his making a chocolate sculpture is not offensive to me. What is offensive is his showing of Jesus's private parts. There is absolutely no reason to disrespect the God of one's religion.

It's quite obvious that the only reason for his showing the private parts was to purposely create controversy which in turn is drawing attention to this artist. His mission is being accomplished.

Disrepectful bastard.

They've been making Jesus chocolates forever...



I think this one's causing a stir because he's packing...



I find it rather ugly, and somewhat disturbing personally. Regardless of who it's trying to portray... but that's Art for ya!

I'm really getting tired of all of these attacks on Catholicism.

They pick on Catholics/Christians because we are a peaceful group, but enough is enough. Would he have done this with a chocolate depiction of a nude Allah, where he would be in fear of his life ? I doubt it. And he had to pick Holy Week to unveil this thing ? It's just well timed senstationalism.

Another punk fa***t "artist" hiding behind his "freedom of expression". I hope some lunatic Evangelical puts one right between his fucking eyes.

There, I said it. Hey, it's my right to do so, under my own "freedom of speech".

You know,I only heard on the news about this Jesus chocolate, and didn't know what the fuss was about. This is the first I've seen the picture. I have to agree with everyone else. I think it is disrespectful, tasteless, and totally unecessary.

Being spiritual, but far from a holy roller, yea, I'm offended by this. It's a cheap sick attempt to attack a religion.

Now, if there were chocolates of Buddah (sp) in the buff or, I don't know,any other religious figure that people worshiped and held dear, all hell would break lose.

TIS

How is this an attack on catholicism? Can someone explain please?

Also, I don't recall reading that the sculptor was gay, but ok?

What's ugly about it? Because he has a penis? That's the only way I can see why it might be ugly. (Ugly: honest?)

And the exhibiting of it is very timely; when else to view Jesus but on the week of His resurrection?

I think it's a very clever merging of the original reason of Easter and the commercialisation of that(chocolate eggs).

The whole thing is laughable and ridiculous.

Pizzaboy, I'm really not quite sure if your post is satirical or not. I would hope it is. But then again, optimism has brought up nothing but emptiness in the history of humanity.

I didn't mean fa***t in that context. I meant it as an adjective for cowardice.

It's an attack on Christianity because of the timing. You can't tell me he didn't know he was going to offend some people and by picking Holy Week he made sure that he'd get maximum exposure for his "art".

Who cares DC? JEsus can't have a penis even though he is a man? No one minds it on Roman/Greek statues or even The Last Temptation of Christ.

"Wait! If Jesus has a penis that will make us rich!"

I very much agree.

Some responses to this kind of stuff make me want to make one of my own and give Jesus a massive fucking erection on it, to return the compliment to the reactions of the public to stuff which is really rather tame.

FWIW - It was customary to crucify "criminals" in the nude, to humiliate them. Jesus may have been also, no one really knows. Probably out of respect, though, He's usually depicted as wearing a loin cloth.

I'm not certain, however, whether this "artist" was being intentionally controversial or portraying it historically accurate. Probably the former, of course...

It's total disregard for Christians and their beliefs. PERIOD!

This guy is a real douchebag who's looking for his 15 minutes of fame. As the saying goes. "Be careful what you wish for because you just might get it."

A while back when a NORMAL picture was drawn of Mohammed, and many in the muslim communities around the world began to riot, commit acts of violence and even threaten the lives of other religious leaders, some said that they were provoked because the image of Mohammed is held in high regard and shouldn't have been shown in a drawing.

I can just imagine if a sculpture was done of Mohammed with his private parts showing.

We'd probably be having WWIII at this moment.

Some of you need to understand that there are people in this world who still have morals and hold their religious beliefs in high regard. There should still be a level of respect for the religious teaching and beliefs of others.

It's not really that hard. But then again I guess it's how one is brought up.

Of course...! Accidental controversy is out of the question, here, and historical accuracy (whatever that means) and intentional controversy are mutually exclusive terms, right? Right. I disagree, though.

And why are people putting the terms "art" and "artist" in speech marks? It's as if Art can only be acceptable and comfortable, and as soon as you disagree with it, it stops being Art and turns into something else, I don't know what. Propaganda, maybe? Please, come on.

To whom or what is a loin cloth being respectful? A guy's meat and two vegetables? The guy? The people who follow him? Everyone who hasn't seen a penis? Everyone who has a penis? The conservative approach to sexual honesty and/or intimate portrayal is the same kind of stuff which leads to censorship and all that kind of narrowing baloney, the same kind of stuff which led to old paintings of Adam and Eve with leaves covering their genitals.

Why?

[^^ Really fragmented thoughts, because a) I didn't structure the argument, because b) I can't wait for the thread to fill up with this idea and that idea before I enter it to defend this guy.]

P.S. "Moralists have no place in an art gallery." - Han Suyin

And there are some who think that they are a man just because they have a penis!

But how do you know?

I still fail to see how this is an attack on Catholic beliefs, or a disregard for them at all.

I'm not sure why I put "artist" in quotation marks in that sentence -- perhaps because I didn't want to appear like I'm condoning it. However, I agree w/ you more than you think - Art is supposed to stir emotions and thought. If it doesn't, it fails. In this situation, it certainly succeeded.

And I didn't think it was "ugly" because he's nude -- I just, personally, think it's an ugly work. That's a personal opinion, as are all interpretations of art.

What consitutes a man, what doesn't constitute a man, moral beliefs or how many people you have sex with in one night and how long you last with each of them before ejaculating inside of them, doesn't really matter to me.

Taking things literally, though, I think Vercetti was referring to the physicality of a man, or a male. You know, that defining or most immediate factor when deciding whether or not somebody is a man or not. Blindfolded and told to feel somebody to see if they are a man or not, you'd probably hit the crotch first, no?

No need to say that; it should be a given.

I guess the question is to distinquish why is this considered an attack on Catholics rather then an attack on Christianity in general.

Not being a scholar on religion, I believe in Catholic places or worship they have statues and replicas of Jesus being crucified on the cross. Growing up in the Baptist faith you'll never see a crucifix in a baptist church. We'll have empty crosses or pictures of Jesus, but nothing of him on the cross. Maybe that's why a statue of Jesus on the cross in a disparaging way would be an attack on Catholics.

I don't know. I don't know the artist, and I didn't interview him. That's why I used words like I'm not certain and probably.

Nor do I think it's an attack on Christian beliefs -- and I'm Catholic myself. It can easily be interpreted as disrespect; but disrespect isn't an "attack" on "beliefs", as something like this isn't trying to challenge anyones beliefs.

But since when has the male sex organ been disparaging or derogative?

If there was perhaps a condom on it, then I could understand why people are getting all upset about it.

(Perhaps I'll put a condom on mine. )

A little white chocolate for a loin cloth might have been a nice touch.

I won't buy your chocolates

[This was originally in response to a post which has been deleted.]

You could start to get finicky and say things like, "Beliefs in the first place question or challenge the idea of non-beliefs." Catholicism stays in Church so long as this stays in an art gallery, and there should be no overlap - because from an overlap would come a petty debate which doesn't really bring much productive criticism from either side. I don't see much of a difference between this evocative (or even provocative) sculpure which has led to outcry and a leaflet put through my letterbox telling me to give money to Church or something to that effect. In fact, the latter is far more intrusive upon my life.

Nothing is inherently offensive. I've said for years now that people are only offended if they allow themselves to be. That's openly evident in the fact that JG, a Catholic, is not offended by this sculpture.

In many ways, I could always turn around and say that somebody who preaches on the street to me about how Jesus saved me, how He died on the cross for my sins, and that I should give myself to Him and start living my life like this or that... I could easily say that that kind of stuff offends me, disrespects my (non-)beliefs, my lack of faith, because it is making me feel really uncomfortable by trying to appeal to my empathy or inherent conscience. But I don't because it doesn't.

I don't go to Church because I'm comfortable with not believing in God.

Perhaps Catholics shouldn't go to this art gallery because they don't believe in images of their saviour with a penis.

They wouldn't be for sale. They'd be put in private booths for people to masturbate upon.

Tell me, would that same Evangelical be hiding behind the term "lunatic" in order to justify killing the artist? And why should artists have to hide behind the term which labels them as such? I don't get it. Unless I've mistook you, in which case I would congratulate you on your subtle, self-effacing irony in this last sentence:


Furthermore, upon reflection, I would say, and say specifically to Pizzaboy if not to anyone else, that this guy is decidedly not a coward. Cowardly to me is wanting to make it and deciding not to because you're afraid it might offend people.

And I'm not even saying he's trying to offend people here. But I am saying that, as an artist, it is his obligation to take responsibility for the fact he'll offend people. I'm pretty sure he was aware that this would cause an outcry, but I'm also pretty sure that he was also aware that those causing that same outcry are people who are not his "target audience". The term "target audience" is an iffy concept for me, because it implies you're trying to sell a product. But what I mean by it is that an artist wishes to connect with those who feel the same way as him. And what I mean by that is not a bunch of people who believe Jesus had a penis or that Jesus was crucified in the nude, but people who see that sculpture and for whatever reason decide they like it. And deciding whether they like it should exist outside of questions of authenticity, religious belief, artistic integrity, and be fully open and honest. It's not as if he's put it up outside of a Catholic Church or something. It's in an art gallery, and nobody is being forced to go there. It's not some kind of Michael Moore campaign to change a presidential election. It's a sculpture which is running in tandem with Holy Week because it happens to be a topical image - and, like I've said, one which I think is not only extremely clever, but also incredibly crafted.

If he wanted to stir up controversy, he would have given Christ a vagina, or maybe he'd throw a party and invite both genders of genitalia.

I don't know what the big deal is; is it a shock that the son of God had a penis?