The president of the New York hotel that had planned to exhibit the life-size anatomically correct chocolate statue of Jesus in its gallery has cancelled the showing. The gallery’s art director resigned in protest, calling the reaction against the showing a “Christian fatwa,” which is laughable because a real fatwa from Muslims would have been a whole lot more than a call for a boycott. A Muslim fatwa based on an insult to Mohammed would have called for his head.
The six-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.”
What could their intentions possibly be that would counter the outrage? Like I said the other day, I’m beyond being shocked by these tendentious “artists”. Offending Christians by blaspheming Christ is old news; maybe they should try offending Muslims next. I’m sure they could get a big reaction from them.
Technorati Tags: Catholic | art | chocolate | sculpture | Jesus | anti-Christian | blasphemy | Cavallaro |
You have to love the hyperbole of Bill Donohue (of the Catholic League)- “one of the worst assaults on Christian sensibilities ever.” The man is good at what he does, though. He gets results.
So were most people offended by the genitals, or by the ignoble and temporary medium of chocolate?
The genitals shouldn’t be a big deal unless we think we ought to burn that thing Michaelangelo did in Santo Spiritu in Florence.
Blasphemy?
Can’t be the genitals. Too many pieces of Chistian art with those on display. Chocolate? Maybe it’s good others are getting up in arms about this because I seem to have misplaced my sense of outrage.
Fatwa?
What a trivialization of the term.
Jesus was stripped once, i don’t see why the world needs to strip Him again, in chocolate, no less. I’m not sure about right/wrong on this issue, considering that art has done it before and been lauded for it. But chocolate? It’s very insensitive in that chocolate will rot. What do they intend to do with the carving later? Eat it? Melt it? Bury it? Throw it away? Or watch it rot?
Artistically speaking, I saw the back of it and it was beautifully done from that angle. But at what price art?
Scandal-wise, however, there is nothing more scandalous than the Cross itself, and the world is still crucifying Jesus today. What we do can’t be accomplished again in Christ’s actual flesh, but we’re sure doing an excellent imitation in other ways.
Off-topic but not, Planned Parenthood in Providence Rhode Island has at least two abortions scheduled for Good Friday. (Is “business as usual” going on in your neighborhood, too? One thing’s for sure, not one of those babies is a thief!) If anyone has an idea of how to abort the abortions, please suggest them. Meanwhile, please pray for us. One of the mothers is my daughter’s best friend, who so far resists all pleas and prayers because she has “already made up her mind.”
The title of the piece was “Sweet Jesus” so my guess is that their intention was mockery (and publicity). And I don’t think people had to jump too far to come to that conclusion. I know I didn’t.
I believe that the chocolate Jesus chocolate sculpture was to be eaten. Which is simultaneously offensive (for trivializing Jesus’s crucifixion) and “religious” (we eat Jesus’s body every Sunday, no?). The Eucharist, the transubstantiated body of Christ, is central to our faith. Of course, the chocolate sculpture isn’t the same as a consecrated host, but this is not obvious blasphemy to me.
I was offended when I first heard about it, but when I saw the sculpture, I thought it was quite beautiful and evocative. Would have preferred a loin cloth. I thought that doing this during Holy Week was insulting, but maybe not. What better time to remind the world that Easter is about Jesus’s crucifixion and resurrection, not just Easter baskets?