What you see in the photo is a six foot sculpture made from 200 pounds of milk chocolate. The sculpture is of an anatomically detailed and frontally nude rendering of Jesus hanging on a cross ... sans the cross. It was intended to be displayed in a New York Gallery until an outcry was raised (primarily from Catholics). The exhibit has been pulled. The artist is angry. The gallery's creative director is angry and resigned over the gallery's decision.
The back story is here. The reason for the outcry. One, it was "sickening." Two, it was "an assault on Christian sensibilities." Three, it represents a double standard, since it would be considered unthinkable and intolerant to sculpt a naked Mohammed with his genitals showing ... yet here we see that done to Jesus.
The irony is that we just had a discussion about art at our last Pigfest. Now a chocolate Jesus sculpture shows up in the news.
How ought Christians think and act when we see offensive art that we perceive as an attack against Christianity?
It really is a perception vs reality. Art in the early church had no problems showing nudity and flesh in it's paintings. It was not until constantine (I think) that he made all the classic art from earlier generations get repainted with clothing.
Colson has a good point about Art in one of his books. Art should inspire you and cause creativity. Somewhere in the last 100 years art has turned from something people create to inspire, to something to shock your senses.
My question would be, what were the intentions of the sculptor? Was it done tastefully (no pun intended), or done to demean Christianity (such as piss jesus and others recently)
Posted by: Carl Holmes | April 01, 2007 at 09:41
How ought Christians think and act when we see offensive art that we perceive as an attack against Christianity?
Take a deep breath and count to ten slowly before opening our mouths? I'm having a hard time pinpointing what about this sculpture should be considered offensive.
The sculpture medium? Isn't that a comment on the commercialization of Easter? All those chocolate bunnies and chicks make Easter about candy instead of Crucifixion. Nudity? Victims of cricufixion probably were naked. It would have been part of the humiliation and shame of the execution, and if we don't shy from depictions of nails hammered through flesh and bone, why shy away from the nudity?
And what does Mohammed have to do with anything? Muslims are offended by any depiction of Mohammed. Must we then be offended by all those Sunday School pamphlets depicting Jesus with a lost sheep or child?
Posted by: Nick | April 02, 2007 at 16:38
Colson has a good point about Art in one of his books. Art should inspire you and cause creativity. Somewhere in the last 100 years art has turned from something people create to inspire, to something to shock your senses.
I think Colson is wrong. Shocking art is nothing new. Art has always served many purposes: it inspires, it shocks, it serves political purposes, or it can simply be aesthetically pleasing. Much medieval art, particularly paintings made around the time of the Black Death, is obsessed with death and the grotesque. Medieval literature such as The Canterbury Tales contains much that is shocking and lurid. More recently, Victorian art often served political purposes (e.g. paintings and poetry detailing atrocities of the Sepoy mutiny shocked the senses and stirred up passion for revenge in England).
Posted by: Nick | April 03, 2007 at 08:57
i guess i'm not nearly as offended by the nudity in the art(which is where i expect to find it) as i am by the fact that Christ on the cross--the central point of my salvation--is sculpted in chocolate! ...and on display during Holy Week (surely that wasn't a coincidence!) It is a slap in the face to the christian community and they just got caught. sculpting it in chocolate seems to cheapen the atoning sacrifice of Christ for sin. obviously, the artist doesn't "get it".
Posted by: martha10 | April 03, 2007 at 09:34
Nick, you are right to a point, Art has served many purposes, but the primary purpose has not been to shock and disgust. Art has at times been a conduit for social changes, and that sometimes means being abrasive. But the key was that it was for a time, not all the time.
A fundamental worldview (Mr. Dawntreaders favorite word) in Art has changed to the point that Art does not project societal values anymore, it projects the antithesis of societal values. It is anti anything that is the establishment. Christianity is considered status quo so lets make'em angry.
Posted by: Carl Holmes | April 03, 2007 at 14:43
I think I agree with what Nick said. I see this sculpture as a commentary about the commercialization of Easter. It would have been better with an easter bunny head though. ;)
Posted by: Matt | April 03, 2007 at 16:52
I'll take my cue from Francis Schaeffer and look to the message of the art, the cultural and philospohical forces that formed the outlook of the artist, and try not to divorce these things from the person and predicament of the artist himself and the society that produced him.
Posted by: Aaron Snell | April 05, 2007 at 18:10
Carl,
Is it possible that Art is still projecting societal values, only the newest value for a postmodern society is to shock and offend the establishment?
Posted by: Aaron Snell | April 05, 2007 at 18:15
I think the artist's intentions are pretty obvious given the title of the piece.
I viewed a gallery of his "art" and was treated to an alphabet made with feces, a house entirely covered with cheese, and a bed piled with slices of ham. Lileks linked to it in one of his "Bleats."
Aren't any standards applied to art at all? Someone can just cr*p on the floor, rearrange it a little, and call it art? Call me simple...I just don't get it.
Posted by: Susannah | April 05, 2007 at 22:17