Sweet Jesus
I don’t see what the big deal is — I like it.
A New York gallery has angered a US Catholic group with its decision to exhibit a milk chocolate sculpture of Jesus Christ. The six-foot (1.8m) sculpture, entitled “My Sweet Lord”, depicts Jesus Christ naked on the cross. Catholic League head Bill Donohue called it “one of the worst assaults on Christian sensibilities ever”. The sculpture, by artist Cosimo Cavallaro, will be displayed from Monday at Manhattan’s Lab Gallery.
March 30th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Yeah… but shouldn’t there be a loin cloth on him? Other than that, what’s the difference between this and a normal Catholic crucifx? The chocolate maybe?
March 30th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
I believe it is actually more accurate to not have a loin cloth. Mel Gibson “fudged” on that — as well as showing nails in the palms.
March 31st, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Just wondering, where in the Bible does it say he was naked, or is it only by implication?
March 31st, 2007 at 11:26 pm
Doesn’t say for sure. Historic records (Josephus, etc.) indicate that victims of crucifixion were usually stripped and all four Gospels document the soldiers casting lots for His clothes (Matt. 27:35, Mark 15:24, Luke 23:24, John 19:24) — one can only assume.
Anybody else got anything?
April 2nd, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Hello!
Long time since blogging here guys and gals!
I sent this same story to Dan at the church thinking it might have made an interesting discussion on the GF blog.
What would be considered true offensive images of our Lord, and what rights do we have to protest or stop this person’s free speech and expression? Really none, other than to be vocal as this was not government funds being used right?
For me it is offensive since using chocolate instead of a normal sculpture of rock is by nature being lighthearted or almost making a joke out of the crucifixion. Then the play on the name since it is made from sweet chocolate. Having Jesus naked is implied disrespect, at least to me. Seeing God’s “privates” is not something anyone would care to or every should see IMO. The blood and gore of the crucifixion is enough to demonstrate the suffering and humility shown for our redemption and His Glory.
Reminds me of the upside down crucifix in a bottle of urine, or a another artist’s depiction of the virgin Mary made out of cow dung.
Had it been made out of stone, do you think there would have been any controversy? Even being naked? Maybe the naked part for some, but otherwise it could have been hailed as great art and I might even agree.
The beauty of those of us who know the true (non-chocolaty) Jesus is that we can show love and forgiveness to this artist, and not threaten or try to kill him. Surely this would be the case if this was a nude depiction of Mohammad in chocolate. You will never see that! That guy would lose his head really fast!!! The artist was asked this very question and stepped around it as he said he was a Christian as this represents his own personal faith.
For me I will hope that this story simply melts away….and it will one way or another.
April 2nd, 2007 at 2:12 pm
From CNN.com
“In this situation, the hotel couldn’t continue to be supportive because of a fear for their own safety,” Semler said.
CA-CA Man, seeing that the artist has a history of using food as his medium why do you limit art to “normal” sculpture mediums as stone, metal, etc? Have you ever tried to sculpt food? (Devil’s Tower out of mashed potatoes doesn’t count.)
You also said, “Having Jesus naked is implied disrespect, at least to me.” Clearly Michelangelo was disrespecting King David, right?
April 25th, 2007 at 7:06 am
Chocolate, mashed potatoes (sic), obsidian, marble, oil on canvas, or watercolors on paper. These are just mediums. Choclate is a bit more fragile than granite, but neither will last for all eternity. The subject matter of this art will (Jesus).
I agree with David, nude or naked, it is still art. There was a time when Adam and Eve (Ish & Isha at the time) walked around and did not realize they were naked. The human body is not inherantly bad, as in naked is wrong or shameful, that came with the fall. God made them nude.
If the artist did it out of protest to God, as in the urine jar cited earlier, I would be offended. I would worry more about God being offended though, the artist will still have to answer for it to the subject matter of the work. I am not looking forward to the day when my actions AND MY MOTIVES are judged. I know I have a great high priest in Jesus Christ, but I will still be miserably humiliated on that day.
- James