Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Catholics rage cancels chocolate Jesus

Discussion in 'The Pub' at netrider.net.au started by incitatus, Mar 31, 2007.

  1. An "anatomically correct" chocolate statue of Jesus causes uproar with the cattle licks.

    Huh? are we saying the bloke didn't have the 'full set'? I you believe in him give him a break. While he was here he was a man wasn't he? not a bloody hermaphrodite. I bet he was a big enough man to have seen the funny side.

    Sheeesh......bloody wowsers.

  2. Ahhhh, the sexually guilt ridden, if you touch it your dirty, Catholics do it again.

    This would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

    ...and reminds me way too well of my (now left behind) RC upbringing...
  3. cue homer voice


  4. FFS just lock up all the cutting edge arty farty dumbasses and there would be no problem. Seriously, these so called "artists" who go around poking people with sticks in the name of art should be splattered against a canvas and hung up in the nearest capital city, male public toilet - within peeing range.

    Respect doesn't mean you have to agree with something. And spare me the garbage of it being a two way street that should apply to artists.
  5. Actually I found the 'Piss Christ" painting much more disrespectful than this chocolate statue, but to be honest there was no need for either... and neither are or were art.

    They are just sensationalist attempts to get publicity (fame and money) by taking cheap shots.
  6. :LOL:

    It's a chocolate nude Jesus... it's the perfect juxtaposition of westernised easter commercialised culture clashing against the guilt ridden, limited thinking, unhealthy aspects of the RC faith... that my friends is art, challenging art, art that flies in the face of societies norms (like it has in all the great phases of art over the years) but art never the less.

    It's thought provoking stuff should one care to think.

    Neither this nor the piss christ were selected specifically and solely for the liklihood of the sensationalist publicity.
  7. I'd like to see a "Piss Mohammed" or "Chocolate Mohammed" and see how far people get.

    F*****g tykes are easy targets, and don't really put up a fight or bite back. Christian bashing is old and cliche, especially in the name of art.

  8. The artists are commenting on the society they live in.

    Reading between the lines, you're saying that an artist wouldn't comment on Islam because they'll get lynched... you may be right... doesn't mean that the art that is getting done isn't worthwhile.

    I'm pretty sure there are underground artists who comment on their own Islamic etc religions, we just don't hear about them... and if you're right... we never hear from them again.

    Every cliche has an element of truth.
  9. robsalvv, I completely understand what you're saying. But I'm yet to think of Newtown, Erskineville or Carlton as a hub for Jesus. I don't think they live within a very Christian society - sure, a Christian nation or whatever, but I don't think it intrudes on their life.

    Just strikes me that they're trying to offend, sure, that's fine, but the pissing of Christians thing has been done for so many years now even the church doesn't bite! It's almost become the safest thing for artists to do.
  10. The fact that there is no power lobby who would go ape if it was instead 'Nude Chocolate Galileo' says volumes about the world we live in doesn't it?
  11. + robslavv you hit the nail on the head

    "the catholic leauge for religous and civil rights" mmmm some thing disturbs me about this...religon and civil rights is similar to church and state too me they should be kept well apart.

    + 1 the the cuhurch for supporting the art world with great publicity :)
  12. Galileo TOTALLY rocks! 1022.

    (And my favourite!)

    Marlon, IMHO the organised institutionalised Christian church deserves some robust investigation and/or stirring up.

    In general terms, artists have both challenged and provoked from day dot (e.g. Nazi's had a whole department to track artists lest their be an outbreak of free thinking :roll:) and by their very nature they think differently from others because of their creativity...
  13. Perhaps if the artist instead nailed the Easter Bunny to a cross with a crown of thorns atop head it would have been seen differently?

    I agree with your interpretation, Rob, that it was a timely comment on what Easter has become ... for even those who profess to be religious.

    I'm not what I'd call religious, though I have "beliefs", and when I read the uproar and then saw the actual sculpture, I thought two things:

    "Wow, how'd he do that with chocolate?! Mmmm, chocolate...."
    "Very clever ... and how true ..."
  14. Art for the masses (ie: the type that doesn't upset, just entertains) can be viewed in cartoon form on Ch 10 most week nights.
    Art takes on many forms. Without the renaissance, the only visual aspects (other than nature) that we'd be exposed to would be religious icons.
    That's not to say that pieces like "Piss Christ" aren't offensive to some people, and probably in poor taste (Loz can comment here about tasting urine :LOL: ) but should we live in a society where we avoid critique on things that others find sacred?

    the chocolate Jesus, has the potential to be interpreted on many levels:
    The commercialisation of religion.
    The ties of religious morals that make us feel guilty about nudity.
    Profaning the Sanctity of a Religious figure by "exposing" him although evidence suggests that the Romans DID crucify people naked.
    The fact that being made of chocolate in turn makes Jesus (Brown skinned), definitely a dig at the common belief (held by white people) that Jesus was "like" them.

    Shall I go on?

    Sensationalist? Maybe.
    Exhibited at a specific time in the Christian Calender? YEP
    Offensive? Define offensive.

    I would define offensive as the "Phelps"
    Do a google search on this family of Christian Zealots in the States.
    Conducting protests and waving placards at dead soldiers funeral services as a way of getting their message across that homosexuality is wrong.....

    Now That's Offensive to me. Perhaps they could try getting their point across in sculpture?
  15. Those Phelps guys are nutters. But even the other religious people out there think they're bonkers.

    I still think that art that offends is the cheapest shot an artist can take, especially in this day in age. Granted, this one has a good message, but I still think it's picking on the same old bunch of people, and it's old.

    Slowandsteady, I think the point I'm trying to make is that we DO live in a society that avoids critique on what others find sacred. Certain other religions and cultures we daren't touch with a barge pole.

    I'm not even a Tyke, but I'm getting sick of the Jesus-bashers.
  16. It's a bloody good sculpture. Can't have been easy to do. To be honest I can't see why it should cause a fuss just because you can see the Lord's donger. I guess the American catholics are more conservative than here. :)


    I also found a nude painting of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It would seem apparent that the FSM has much bigger meat balls.
  17. Marlon wrote:
    Do you think this is because we've become so PC?

    The focus gets to stay on Christian bashing because Christians don't have Jihad or fatwah as a suitable deterrent. The Dutch cartoons depicting Alah and the ensuing uproar showed how vocal Muslims are.
    Is it because most Christians just couldn't give a damn?

    True, the attack can be perceived as a cheap shot at publicity but most artists do this a means of getting attention. There is a real debate in most artistic circles regarding individuals that are percieved as selling themselves out to get recognition/patronage.

    There's also a difference between criticism and questioning the accepted norm.
    When supermarkets are clearing off Christmas stock to make way for Easter Eggs then we have to ask ourselves some serious questions about what's acceptable.
    It's acceptable to make a profit out of Christianity (Even some of my Jewish and Muslim friends get their kids Christmas presents!!) but not acceptable to criticize a religion's determination to allow it?

    America, the land of the "free", the nation that stands for "freedom of speech" and has more BAC's than any other country. Will allow people like the "Phelps" (agreed, they're nutjobs) to invade the sanctity of a funeral also must allow the very thing they stand for be criticised.

    Perhaps we don't criticise other religions in the same way because they're perceived as a minority?
  18. So that's it is it?? I didn't know that Jesus 'trimmed'!! :wink:
  19. LOL at the statue's title: "My Sweet Lord"

    I think all religions should be grounds for pisstaking. As should all motorcycle brands, fashion trends, and musical tastes, but kooky spooky supernatural stuff especially. It's all a loaf of shit (I went to correct that typo but decided I liked it) when people take ANYTHING too seriously.
  20. Ah we are talking about it so as art it works. :grin:

    True art touches you emotionally and in rare cases spiritually, this does on a few levels. Can't say I "like" it but that's not the point.

    Sweet Jesus a common profanity :LOL: