"My Sweet Lord"

Anna Gregoline | March 30, 2007
Chocolate Jesus Stirs Bitter Controversy

I'm curious to know what other people think about this type of art. I'm not particularly shocked when people boycott and freak out over this stuff, but I don't think that this type of pressure is warranted. We have freedom of religion and expression - not freedom from being offended by something.

(My personal opinion is that it's a freaking amazing piece of art - looks so lifelike, and it's made out of chocolate!?! Also besides the main point, but of course we can't see a FULL picture of what it looks like on CNN, it includes GENITALS for crying out loud!!!)

Kris Weberg | March 30, 2007
I'm not really getting the outrage, myself. The exhibit seems to me to be more of a satire of the secularization of the Christian Easter* than of its religious importance, precisely because it works by pointing out the grim disparity between the Christian idea of Crucifixion** and Resurrection and the kids' holiday full of chocolate bunnies and marshmallow peeps.

* I probably don't need to go into the various pagan elements of the ways in which most people celebrate Easter, not the least of which is the name itself.

** Of course, to talk about the Christian version of Easter in the context of people complaining about a Jesus with genitals, we also have to deal with a very strange idea held by plenty of American (and probably European) Christians. Plenty of them seem to assume that Jesus was a white guy with nice, well-kept hair and beard, and that he was crucified while wearing a tasteful, long loincloth. Quite where this ideas came from -- the movies? sheer stupidity? -- is not clear to me at present.

Aaron Shurtleff | March 30, 2007
Well, there are two valid points, I think:

1) It's a statue of a naked guy in a window in downtown New York for anyone to see. I've honestly never gotten the problem with people seeing nudity (it's pretty much the natural state), but I guess you have to admit that if someone has a problem with children possibly being exposed to chocolate schlongs, that could happen here. I think all nudity should be considered equal, though.

2) I can't recall the exact quote, but the quote about how they wouldn't put a naked chocolate image of Mohammed out during Ramadan. Also very valid. If this was an image of Mohammed, we've already seen what effect that would have, from the comic a while back. Granted, there's no prohibition against images of J.C. in Christianity (that I know of...), and I think there is one in the Muslim religion (correct me if I'm wrong), but that point is true.

And this is much better than the elephant poop Mary they mention in the article!

Personally, I think the artist wants the notoriety in order to get people to pay attention to his work. This affects me not at all. I have no intentions of going to NY to see it, and I had none previously. It does look like nice work, though.

Anna Gregoline | March 30, 2007
I think the strangest pictures of Jesus are where he is lily-white. Although what's really interesting to me is when you see Jesus depicted in different cultures as the race of that culture. That's so cool! If God supposedly made man in his image, then it makes sense to imagine Jesus as whatever race you happen to be.

Genitals covered is probably just because sex is evil, natch. (rolls eyes).

And it does amaze me how many pagan elements and traditions have been co-opted by Christians. I know way back when this was a way to keep pagan people interested in Christianity (look, you can still do all your rituals! Just worship the Lord!) but it's neat that it's still how many do it.

Aaron Shurtleff | March 30, 2007
Not for anything, but I find the many different images of Santa Claus being all different races to be similar! I think it's awesome that people can take the spirit of what Santa represents, and make it apply to themselves!

Of course, being Catholic, I can't feel that way. ;)

Anna Gregoline | March 30, 2007
Granted, there's no prohibition against images of J.C. in Christianity (that I know of...), and I think there is one in the Muslim religion (correct me if I'm wrong), but that point is true.

I think that we can't discount how important that point is though. There isn't any prohibition in Christianity against depictions of Jesus, only in the consciousness of many Christians.

I think it was dumb of them to want to put it in a window at street-level. They had to have known this would cause uproar. I don't like controversy for controversy's sake, but I don't think the actual ART is doing this, I think the placement is.

Chocolate schlongs!
Censorship sucks!

=)

Jackie Mason | March 30, 2007
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | March 30, 2007
I think it's the nudity, actually, that is more upsetting to people rather than the chocolate. But I could be wrong.

Jackie Mason | March 30, 2007
[hidden by request]

Kris Weberg | March 30, 2007
The chocolate on Easter isn't really part of any religious ritual, though -- you don't go to church and receive a Hershey's bar for Communion/Eucharist, after all. It originates not with the post-Lenten feasting, but with the entirely secular tradition of the Easter bunny leaving a basket of treats for the kiddies, and the bunny idea is partially from European pagan traditions that predate Christianity....and partially the result of deliberate secularization carried out by...get this: Christians.

Easter eggs are a vaguely bastardized Christian traditon, though: Catholics couldn't eat eggs for Lent -- iself a descendent from Romanized Passover traditions, and so made multicolored hardboiled eggs to celebrate getting to eat them again on Easter Sunday. German Protestants of the 18th century, generally not fans of Catholics for political reasons having to do with the Holy Roman Empire and its aftermath, didn't care about the Catholic restrictions on Lent. (Protestants of many stripes don't give things up for Lent in the first place, after all.) They did like the egg thing, though, so they came up with a non-religious excuse to keep doing it, inventing the modern Easter Bunny from half-remembered folklore and claiming that it laid the colorful eggs. And post-Vatican II, Catholics generally don't ascribe any special religious meaning to Easter eggs either, not that most of them had for many decades prior to that anyway.

Neopagans have tried to tie the Easter bunny into the pagan feritility goddess Eostre, from whom the word "Easter" is derived. Rabbits have their mating season in spring, and so they do figure into some ancient European fertility rites, but the Easter bunny seems to be more a peculiar case of one Christian denomination deliberately secularizing another denomination's tradition. Bunny-shaped chocolate doesn't enter into it at all, cheap molded chocolate being the product of distinctly late 19th century manufacturing technologies and the birth of the modern candy industry, well after any genuinely religious tradition would have been long established.

Kris Weberg | March 30, 2007
Indeed, a quick check at Wikipedia reveals that candy chocolate (as opposed to baking chocolate and cocoa) wasn't invented until 1828; that commercial chocolate bars weren't around until the Fry's bar was created in 1847...and milk chocolate wasn't widely sold until 1875.

Tony Peters | March 31, 2007
what a waste of good chocolate....that's all i'm gonna say

Jackie Mason | March 31, 2007
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | April 2, 2007
Yeah, sheesh, Kris!

I think that the reason chocolate IS so popular around Easter does have a lot to do with the end of Lent.

Kris Weberg | April 3, 2007
I did a bit more looking online, and found that the first association of chocolate with Easter appears to be from the 19th century, and that it wasn't bunnies, but dark chocolate eggs for children. Since the egg thing is very tangentially a post-Lenten celebration, Anna and Jackie are essentially right.

Now that I've embarrassed myself, anyone have any further thoughts on Christ Chocula?

Steve Dunn | April 3, 2007
Bible thumping art protesters annoy me slightly, but only slightly, more than purveyors of self-consciously controversial political art. You can make a lot of money immersing a crucifix in piss or smearing the Virgin Mary with elephant dung, but no one will remember your work in 100 years.

A pox on both their houses, I say.

Scott Hardie | April 3, 2007
My thoughts as I caught up on this discussion:

- It's gotta be a satire of the secularization & commercialization of the holiday, which means that anyone who calls it offensive is, in effect, standing up for the secularization & commercialization, which has gotta be the artist's point...

- ...unless the artist's point is how great it is that an artist can create a statue like this and people can protest it, because neither of those things can happen in certain parts of the world.

- Edible Jesus? Isn't that what the wine and the wafer are about? Is this also part of the artist's point? Why do I feel like the artist is about seventy steps ahead of me?

- The elephant-dung-Mary artist is the real deal, imo, not someone in it for the controversy. (link) I'm also a fan of Renée Cox, the Yo Mama's Last Supper artist who I gooed a few years ago.

- Sweet! Now my site is going to show up when someone searches for the phrase "chocolate schlongs."

Anna Gregoline | April 3, 2007
You can make a lot of money immersing a crucifix in piss or smearing the Virgin Mary with elephant dung, but no one will remember your work in 100 years.

Yeah. But this is gorgeous. AND CHOCOLATE. I mean, com'on! =P

And yes to everything Scott said! I think this art piece is really clever, the more I think about it. Shame I can't see it up close.

Sorry for the possible porn link! Oops!!!

Anna Gregoline | April 5, 2007
I'd say, it was bound to happen.

Aaron Shurtleff | April 6, 2007
Oh, please tell me that's a joke! :D

Tony Peters | April 6, 2007
2 quotes that brought tears to my eyes
"I shudder to think where the Lord's member might wind up."
"Imagine waking up and finding that in your Easter basket,"

all I can say i that I hope they melt it before they eat it because cutting it up is just wrong

Scott Hardie | April 7, 2007
The article is a joke, and a funny one.

Anna Gregoline | April 8, 2007
When I first saw it, I thought it was real and I thought it was really amazing - imagine some crazy fundie shaking with fear, thinking, "I have to remove this!" And then....they took the penis off of Jesus. Off of a life-sized Jesus on the cross. And then *hid* it and ran away. Can you imagine the psychological damage that would occur from doing that?

Amy Austin | April 10, 2007
I am really wanting now for there to be a band that will call themselves the Chocolate Schlongs, Jesus Penis, or Fearing Fundies...

Aaron Shurtleff | April 10, 2007
All right! Since no one else is going to say it, I will!

The article (the joking one) states that the chocolate schlong in question was "three-quarters of a foot". 9 inches? That's it?! For the Son of God?!?

I'd hate to think Jesus wouldn't measure up to some of us average joes! :D

Oh, Lord, I'm going to Hell. :(

Tony Peters | April 10, 2007
so 9 inches and he's a gentle god right????

right behind you Aaron

Lori Lancaster | April 10, 2007
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | April 10, 2007
9 inches is beyond average. I think that's good enough - they were going for a normal looking dude, not some crazy porno guy. The penis wasn't the point of the statue.

Amy Austin | April 10, 2007
I'd say 9 inches was more than fair to middling.

Lori Lancaster | April 10, 2007
[hidden by request]

Tony Peters | April 10, 2007
damn I lead this discussion down a dark road....ummmm dark chocolate

Scott Hardie | April 11, 2007
Some church groups sell candy bars door-to-door as fundraising drives, especially for the kids. I wonder if someone will get the idea to sell chocolate Jesus schlongs for charity. That way, you're damned if you buy one and you're damned if you don't.

Aaron Shurtleff | April 11, 2007
huhuh...penis wasn't the point of the statue...huhuh

Seriously, if you're going to give "da mad love" (as the younger kidz today say it) to Jesus, then you gotta hook him up!

Although that hentai tentacle thing might be a bit too much. From the rumors I've heard. Just the same rumors! :P

Oh, and by the way, when discussing penises, it is never acceptable for another man to follow up one of my statements with the phrase "right behind you Aaron". Makes me nervous! ;)

I'm sorry to have led this topic into sillyness. I will try to get it back on track...

So...um...yeah...I got nothing...

Amy Austin | April 11, 2007
huhuh...penis wasn't the point of the statue...huhuh

heheh...

Tony Peters | April 11, 2007
Aaron, I'm a sailor for 2 more years, we line up "nut to butt" in just about any line even if it's going to hell so sorry if I scared you

Amy Austin | April 11, 2007
Right in front of you, Tony.

Amy Austin | April 11, 2007
Don't. Reply.

Lori Lancaster | April 11, 2007
[hidden by request]

Aaron Shurtleff | April 11, 2007
*snicker* ...must....not.....reply.....

Tony Peters | April 12, 2007
reeeeaaaaallllllly now

Amy Austin | April 14, 2007
In the line to hell... yes. But I'm pretty sure Aaron's right in front of me. But wait a minute... if you're already right behind him, then... oh, yes, of course -- we must be in the "first class" line. ;-D

Tony Peters | April 14, 2007
not sure I trust YOU behind me

Aaron Shurtleff | April 17, 2007
I'm not sure this line makes sense to me now...but I did get one thing out of it:

There's a line-up on the road to Hell, and I'm the lead dog.

Why me? Is it 'cause I'm Catholic? It's the Catholic thing, isn't it? Why does everyone pick on the Catholics?!

;)

Michael Paul Cote | April 17, 2007
Because it's so easy. My favorite quote from the joke article was about "the eye following ... around the room."