Who ever told you that I was a Catholic?

You did, brother of mine.

I did?

This conversation has the plot-twists of a bad daytime Soap Opera.

Isn't bad daytime soap opera an oxymoron ?

Well, yeah, pretty much. But I keep getting the vibe that this one is set in the senior citizens home.

You know, I'm not even joking when I say I'm really dissapointed over this thread. When I saw it from the main page, I thought it was going to be about a Tom Waits song.

As I posted previously, for years and years I've joked with my passionately Catholic sister that at Easter I was looking forward to a chocolate Jesus. Now, someone has actually created one.

There must be a God!

Yeah, well, I'm under the belief that if they really wanted to "get back" at the artist, the Pope would've shown up personally, and eaten the statue.

Is it hollow or solid?

Thought I'd throw in my two cents. My take on it is that while I don't deny another person's right to produce or create what he wants as art, I don't agree that this work is particularly clever. To me it comes off smart allecky when you consider the medium and the form. It seems to be a shrill call for attention or an attempt to appear outrageous.

Sure there was some skill in the sculpting, but come on. The guy isn't going to make anyone forget Michaelangelo.

Geoff correctly pointed out the fact that those crucified in Jesus' time were generally stripped naked, in order to shame them in their final hours. I have no reason to believe that Jesus was spared this indignity, and have seen artwork that depicted this although there were discreteshadows or anles, and one was an impressionistic piece. In my opinion, I found the work to be moving and believe that if the artists were more graphic in the portrayal of the genitals, it would have distracted from the power of the message.

That said, I am by no means an art critic or expert. Far from it. Perhaps, it's an idiosynchratic part of my nature that makes me feel this way, and perhaps the chocolate artist was trying to convey a different message than that which I received.
But while I do not wish to silence anyone's creative expression, the expression or reaction of the public should equally be free. If people are outraged, they should be free to express it within the confines of the law. The gallery is free to show it or not.

I found this to be in poor taste.

There have always been chocolate Jesuses, crosses, praying hands, and a chocolate depiction of the Last Supper.

By the way, every Sunday I eat His body and drink His blood. It is a fulfilling part of my life.

Jesus has a nice looking penis. I must say, I am jealous.

But what is art but outrageous? The same could be said of religion; and I don't mean that in an offensive way. On a positive approach, you could say religion must be outrageous in order to keep the faith of the truly faithful. Just as art must be outrageous in order to convey the message to those willing to accept the message.

It's not all that dissimilar.

In light of the controversial feature of the statue, that should probably read: "John Holmes is my homeboy."

Interesting point. I would disagree that religion must be outrageous to keep the faith. I think that religion's responsibility is to profess the truth (whatever truth one decides to believe in). I agree some art is outragous, but so too are photos of nude children. I believe that an aeshetic quality (and believe me I'm on uncomfortable ground here) should permeate a work of art that is outrageous. Joyce's Ulysses was certainly outrageous, but it was creative and I enjoyed it.

This chocolate statue is outrageous, but it required artistic skill, but I don't like it.

"Creative" and "outrageous" just seem to go hand in hand. We've reach nearly the same stand point involving art as we have with manifest destiny. The obscurity surrounding space travel has obviously become a commonly accepted reality, but I imagine there was a period of skepticism during the mid-1950s, and even prior to that era, before having established an official governmental department specializing in space travel and space technology. Well, as our oppurtunity to expand westward has closed, our window to making original artistic statements is slowly closing. There comes a time to think outside the box--as in we thought outside the globe--and expand beyond preconcieved limits; physically, mentally, and perhaps socially.

And on that note, I'm going to bed. But I enjoy where this is going. Feel free to respond, and assuming this is one of those nights where I can actually get to sleep, I'll rhetort in the morning.

I seriously can't believe that this thread blew up to 4 pages today or that people actually find this horrible.

Jesus Christ had a penis.

Crucifixions were done in the nude.

What's the problem? Where is the OMG DISRESPEKT?

At first I thought people were pissed about a 8 year old Tom Waits song.

What's the difference between attempting to appear outrageous and simply being outrageous?

If I had to choose between being ordinary, normal, clichéd and everyday, banal or mundane and being outrageous, then I'd at least choose the one thing that was going to make me stand out ahead of all other competition.

Mick, I actually had a thought last night that regarded a point you had made previously in one of our best/favorite debates. I believe the point was that if one sets out to achieve a goal, even if the goal is of negative function, and one responds negatively, then they have achieved that goal. Basically, your point was, if one sets out to make the worst movie ever, and then someone proclaims it is the worst piece of film ever made, they have achieved what they had set out to do.

So, I guess what I am getting at is this; I'm not denying that this piece of art could be interpretted offensively. I'm simply confused as to why the offense is coming from the exposure of Christ's penis. However, I do think that this sculpture, offensive or not (and in relativity, all art is offensive to an extent, it's about as necessary to be offensive as it is outrageous, because again, art functions primarily to evoke emotion, and emotion is not evoked by bland, ordinarily tame images) is art. I think it is well crafted, and in a way, a bit clever. However, if his intention was to offend (as several people here have insinuated), and people are offended (which they obviously are), then is this not good art (contrary of what some are considering)? Did it not evoke the emotions it set out to evoke?

Anger isn't the only emotion out there...

And that wasn't my point. My point was, if the artists intended to offend (which I don't believe was his intention, although others obviously disagree), and he did in fact offend, then I guess he achieved his idea of his master-piece, no?

But anger isn't the only emotion taking hold of those offended, right? Sure, anger, confusion, dissapointment, grief, among others? And on that thought, surely this same piece of art fills others with beauty, perfection, solemn, splendor? Surely those are those who feel uncomfortable as there are those who see it as less of a threat and more as a non-offensive piece of religious artwork?

Setting all moral feelings aside, and stepping back and viewing it as just a sculpture in general, I happen to think that it is a very ugly piece of art.

I agree, DC. Personally, I didn't think that it was very good sculpture. Perhaps the sculptor made up for talent with sensationalism.

Well, that's an impossibility. It's impossible to let go completely of something you believe so dearly in, if only for a few moments. It's like saying, "Now promise you won't get mad, but..." It never works, because it's not how the human mind works. Reminds me of the scene in Pulp Fiction in which Vincent asks Mia Wallace about Antwan's "foot massage". It's just not a part of human nature.

But, again, I'm not really getting at the appearance of the sculpture. I'm more so interested in the ideology or emotional input/output behind it.

I guess the point I was trying to make is that pretty much anyone can be outrageous without being artistic. I don't deny that the chocolate sculptor possesses artistic talent, but if his sculpture didn't prominently the penis, I don't think we'd be talking about this.

I agree with DC, viewing it as an artistic work, I find it ordinary and unappealing. Again though, I'm far from an art connoisseur. If people generally like it for its merit, I have no problem with that.

Perhaps the best protest would be turn the thermostat up to 95 overnight.

Why is it an impossibility? Because you say it is? Maybe for you it's impossible to set aside your moral emotions for a few moments. It's not for me.

Had there been a cloth covering his genitals, I'd still look upon it as an ugly piece of work. In my opinion the sculpture is just plain ugly.

Ooops! Do I have the right to voice my opinon?

Calm down. You seem to want this to lead into personal attacks, the moment we seem to be having a perfectly tame conversation.

I just don't see the brain as working as such. You can tell yourself that you can set aside personal beliefs momentarily, but I don't think we really fathom how hard that is to do. Anything that you invest your emotions or yourself in is bound to clout your thoughts, subconsciously or otherwise. Hence the need to create lines like, "It's business, not personal." It's why people get angry and drunken and demean themselves when they lose a job, whether they lost it rightfully or not. They forget that their business is a functioning business with its own best interest. It's why people tend to feel flooded with emotion and testostorone when someone cracks an immature "your mom" joke, even though it's not intended as a personal attack.

That aside, I happen to think the statue is beautiful. Not based on physical appearance. I do not care particularly for the physical appeal of the statue. But it is beautiful regardless. Why? Look at the detail, the proportions. It took a lot of interest, care, time, and talent to sculpt. I think the Mona Lisa is physically unattractive, but that doesn't mean it's ugly--its beauty is possessed by it's mystical qualities and well-use of paint and shading.

Trying to be fair, and admitting to not being an art expert, I assume this is a form of art. Some good points are made; the possibility of Jesus being crucified in the nude (could be), we probably wouldn't be surprised if we knew for a fact that that was the case. Just as Christians know that he was on earth as a man with the anatomy of a "normal" man. Yet, keep in mind too, that even though we are aware, it has never seemed necessary to flaunt a naked Jesus. It is something I/we are not use to. I assume, if he were crucified in the nude, perhaps the loin cloth was used later on these statues as a show of respect.

Now, I am not one to censor and/or ban something like this,even though I wouldn't walk across the street to see it, and in an honest attempt to try to understand were all you are coming from, and with no disrespect to anyone with another view, I still think it's tasteless.

Everyone's screaming why? why? I don't know. My uprbinging, my faith, modesty? You tell me. All I know is you can throw around "Jesus had a penis...get over it" all you want and to me this just seems wrong. This sounds like my parents talking, but seriously, "isn't anything sacred anymore?" If so, what? Well, that's another thread hu?

No offense to anybody intended here. Just stating my views.

TIS