Chocolate Jesus exhibit canceled after uproar

[bliz]

I'm not Catholic either. I'm Lutheran. I see why there's outrage though. I'm glad the exhibit was shut down.

True, nudity and ugliness was what was seen on the cross when Jesus was crucified. But does that mean an image of this should be made by using chocolate - a rich desert? That doesn't sound like an attempt to glorify Christ in any shape or form.

Did you look at the photos? If you saw it you would not look at it and say "Chocolate!" It does not look unlike other scluptures in wood or stone. There are not chocolate swirls and roses on the sculpture.

Did you read the thread? Several people have suggested that the choice of medium makes the point that we should be remembering Christ's sacrifice, but our focus in on Chocolate - very similiar to the nativity scenes some people do with Santa in the manager, making the point that Santa (the commercialization of Christmas) seems to have replaced Jesus in our hearts and minds.
That is a very Christian message!

And during Holy Week which leads up to the celebration of Jesus' resurrection from the dead?

Why not Holy Week? Christians will be focusing on Christ all week - what better time?

Back during the Christmas season New York forbade the putting up of a manger scene but allowed all other faiths to place up their symbols. When the ruling went for appeal it was denied. The reason? Symbols of faith were allowed. Images of a deity were not. The manger directly depicted Jesus' birth so it was ruled illegal. Even though Jesus himself is the focus of Christianity.

Get with the program. Nativity scenes are not forbidden anywhere. They now are excluded or limited when on public property, paid for with public dollars. Why should the government pay the bill for Christians (or any other group) to celebrate their holiday?

And don't forget, the display was entitled: "My Sweet Lord" to begin with. (A title of a Beatles' song praising Hari Krishna if I remember right.) Sure the artist probably named it for the chocolate. But, how can one forget the other referance?

So who should name the work of art? You or I or the artist?

 

[moonkitty]

Am I the only one having a huge craving for Chocolate right now?

 

[burrow_owl]

Did you look at the photos? If you saw it you would not look at it and say "Chocolate!" It does not look unlike other scluptures in wood or stone. There are not chocolate swirls and roses on the sculpture.

The apparent visibility of the chocolate-ness is neither here nor there. We know it's chocolate, and that's enough. An example: say an artist did a sculpture of Jesus, but filled the entire inside with rotten meat and maggots. Does the fact that we can't actually see the insides make it any less offensive? No. It's enough that we know about it. And that's because art isn't just something pretty one looks at; it's a complex signification system, something that generates and plays with meaning.

To take another example, I can't "see" the mythologies that many renaissance paintings allude to; if I don't know about those mythologies, I'm missing out on a huge part of what the painting is conveying. The physical form is important, of course, but there's much more to art than that.

Did you read the thread? Several people have suggested that the choice of medium makes the point that we should be remembering Christ's sacrifice, but our focus in on Chocolate

In making that (valuable) point, the act of cheapening the holiday is repeated in the piece. It reenacts that cheapening by cheapening Jesus. That's just how the piece operates. You or I may think it's a valuable enough lesson to justify that cheapening, but reasonable people can differ on that.

 

[burrow_owl]

The original title, by the by, was "I Did It, Daddy."

 

[bliz]

The apparent visibility of the chocolate-ness is neither here nor there. We know it's chocolate, and that's enough. An example: say an artist did a sculpture of Jesus, but filled the entire inside with rotten meat and maggots. Does the fact that we can't actually see the insides make it any less offensive? No. It's enough that we know about it. And that's because art isn't just something pretty one looks at; it's a complex signification system, something that generates and plays with meaning.

Hmmmm... so you regard chocolate as an inferior? whimsical? unimportant? medium? Did not not create chocolate? Is chocolate a tool of the devil? Clearly you and I regard chocolate in radically different ways! Please, can you list what mediums are acceptable for sculptures of Jesus and whihc are not?

And, if the objection is to religious symbols in chocolate, why are we only hearing about this now? People have been making and selling and eating chocolate crosses, and figures of Jesus for a very long time.



Do you have a similiar objection to hot crossed buns? These were first made as an Easter treat -

with the cross on each one. Do those cheapen Jesus?

I can't help but think of Joel 14
20 On that day HOLY TO THE LORD will be inscribed on the bells of the horses, and the cooking pots in the LORD's house will be like the sacred bowls in front of the altar. 21 Every pot in Jerusalem and Judah will be holy to the LORD Almighty, and all who come to sacrifice will take some of the pots and cook in them.

Do you find cooking pots and horses bells appropriate places to inscribe Holy to the Lord? God does. If a cooking pot is worthy to declare God's holiness, who are we to quibble over the use of chocolate?

 

[jamesrwright3]

Chocolate crosses are vastly different than naked sculptures of Christ

 

[praying]

I don't understand the hangup over nakedness.

 

[Polycarp1]

If it was indeed meant to make a mockery of Jesus's Crucifixion, then all the outrage is entirely deserved.

But I think Burrow Owl, and others, have a definite point. Art -- good art -- is supposed to teach, to get one thinking, as well as its other functions. This one certainly has done so. I'll never look at a chocolate egg or rabbit in the same way -- they're stealing the commemoration of my Lord's Resurrection.

One thing I remember from growing up was a cartoon of the Easter Bunny, frock coat, basket, and all, hung on a cross. Likewise, it aroused protest -- but it made the point. Whose death and rising from the dead are we remembering, anyway?

And Good Friday really needs to be brought home to us. Jesus was tortured and humiliated for our sakes -- we, who fight over issues like chocolate statues.

Thanks, Soblessed, for a thread that really got me thinking!

 

[Randombitsofstring]

For some reason this Sculpture does not bother me, probably because it’s not meant to be eaten; but those little chocolate crosses—those thing freak me out every year.

 

[night2day]

Did you look at the photos?

Yep.

If you saw it you would not look at it and say "Chocolate!"

You know this how? Whether I did or didn't isn't the issue.

It does not look unlike other scluptures in wood or stone. There are not chocolate swirls and roses on the sculpture.

Does there have to be? Many mediums used within art are confused with others. An oil painting could be confused with airbrush. Watercolor could be confused with gouche. Resin could be confused with clay.

Did you read the thread?

Yes.

Several people have suggested that the choice of medium makes the point that we should be remembering Christ's sacrifice, but our focus in on Chocolate - very similiar to the nativity scenes some people do with Santa in the manager, making the point that Santa (the commercialization of Christmas) seems to have replaced Jesus in our hearts and minds. That is a very Christian message!

It's also very prone to be a misleading one. Some could just as easily also point out placing Santa in the manger could mean both he and Jesus are both a myth.

Why not Holy Week? Christians will be focusing on Christ all week - what better time?

Why at all? Especially when usually it is around the time of the Christian holy days when attacks against the Christian faith are the strongest?

Get with the program.

Get on a search engine and look at the reports your leisure.

Nativity scenes are not forbidden anywhere. They now are excluded or limited when on public property, paid for with public dollars. Why should the government pay the bill for Christians (or any other group) to celebrate their holiday?

Look back to my post and read what was stated and why it was stated. In NYC mangers were not allowed on public property even though many symbols of other faiths were. The reason they gave? It gave an image of a deity...the baby Jesus.

Who's birth does Christians celebrate on December 25th? It's certainly not Mohammed's or a Hindu priest's. It wasn't Buddah that was banned from any public Christmas displays. Yet, the symbol of why Christians celebrate Christmas is disallowed while symbols of a majority of other faiths aren't.

But then, Christianity is the only faith who's focus is on one focus; the person and work of Jesus Christ.

So who should name the work of art? You or I or the artist?

Who holds the right to prevent someone from pointing out a references that may be found regarding the naming of the piece.

Just because someone works within his shop, calls it art, and tries to have it displayed does not mean he nor anyone else can force others to like the work or even regard it as a piece of mention.

If you don't find it offensive, well, that's your court. But there are those of us who do.

Not to mention finding it offensive the original article's writer who with the help of the artist referred to civil complaints and phone calls as strong-arming and rioting. They want strong-arming and rioting maybe the artist should have made a chocolate Mohamed during the season of Ramadan instead.

 

[Billnew]

I prefer big butter Jesus, myself.
Can't believe it's not Jesus.
http://brettlive.com/2006/09/26/big-butter-jesus-lyrics/

You have to see the picture to understand.

 

[Foolish_Fool]

Chocolate crosses are vastly different than naked sculptures of Christ

He brings up a valid point. The sculpture is orders of magnitude larger than the candies.

 

[moonkitty]

I prefer big butter Jesus, myself.
Can't believe it's not Jesus.
http://brettlive.com/2006/09/26/big-butter-jesus-lyrics/

You have to see the picture to understand.

Now that is creepy.

 

[platzapS]

I don't see how this is offensive. It appears just to be an Easter-themed publicity stunt for the confectioner, not intentionally outrageous. I could easily understand this if the creator was a devout Christian, who made this in protest in the silliness of Easter. People seem to have no problems with the chocolate crosses that are mass-produced. If you can eat execution devices, why not Jesus?

 

[thenewageriseth]

so he had no loincloth, huh? No wonder they're going nuts, lol.