Sweet Lord
If you haven't heard - Chocolate Jesus
Film Critic Gene Siskel had the best take on critiquing film. He says that he doesn't critique a film based on what its message is, but rather how the message is delivered. That challenges me to expand my box on thinking about art, but I know in my head he's more right than wrong.
The problem, though, is on more abstract art, where the message is purposely gray. One is left open to interpret message and delivery as negatively as possible, thus possibly feeling offended.
On the one hand, the Gene Siskel in me thinks that the delivery was poor, ergo this is just bad art and I can just stop there. On the other hand, though, I would want the artist Cavallaro to take it down if it were a sculpture of me or my wife. Why shouldn't I want it taken down because it's of my Lord?
I can see this both ways. Comments welcome?
posted by Lyons at
6:33 PM
7 Comments:
I still have yet to see a decent explanation of WHY this is offensive.
Is it because he's nude? Because I would think, frankly, that God of all people would appreciate nudity, considering after all that we were made in his image, no?
Is it because it's made of chocolate? Chocolate is delicious and truly heaven-sent.
I can't even come up with a third reason.
Please enlighten the heretic -- what's so bad about a chocolate Jesus?
10:47 PM
Adam,
You once told me that you find the Cleveland Indians logo offensive, Native-American though you are not.
I really don't care either way: would you find it, maybe not offensive but...at least a bit crude and perturbing to see a naked chocolate crucified Native American?
6:14 PM
There's a difference (admittedly, perhaps, a subtle one) between a sports logo and a work of abstract art. If there were a professional sports team whose mascot was a naked chocolate Jesus, then yes, that would qualify as offensive. If Chief Wahoo were displayed in a museum, I would find it a tad distasteful, but it's degree of offensiveness, in my opinion, would be far less than having it on a baseball cap.
But back to my original post -- I'm sincerely asking what makes the chocolate Jesus offensive. I'm not saying anyone is necessarily unreasonable to find it offensive, I just want to know what about it is offensive. Jesus' crucifixion is a common image, so that's not it. And the fact that it's made out of chocolate is, as far as I can tell, more of a novelty than anything blasphemous. So unless I'm missing something else, the source of the outrage is apparently the fact that he's naked. Is that it?
10:26 PM
I've been thinking a lot about this the last two days. What is being offended?
First of all, I have no right to not feel offended. To feel offended is so self-defined and subjective that to have said right might just be the end of meaningful communication. One can see that with efforts to remain politically correct in our speech.
Quite often, I suspect, the terms 'bothered' and 'offended' are confused. For the life of me, I can't tell the difference between someone's being bothered and offended, OTHER THAN an expectation from the latter that someone else will change their speech or behavior. Since I do not have a right to not be offended, I do not -- in most cases -- have a right to ask another to change their ways for sake of my feelings.
I'm bothered, not offended, by naked chocolate Jesus. If I were on the gallery's board of directors, I'd be offended and kindly ask my artist (of whom my gallery is a customer) to take his sculpture elsewhere. But in that case, I have a right as his customer to change his behavior for sake of my feelings.
You find an art piece of Chief Wahoo (which, BTW, has to be the stupidest mascot name ever) "a tad distasteful." It bothers you. Naked chocolate Jesus is distasteful to me, but not offensive.
4:36 PM
That's fair enough, and I can't emphasize enough that I'm not trying to imply that one is "wrong" to find offense or be bothered, however you want to phrase it, by the naked chocolate Jesus. That said, you still haven't really answered the question -- what makes it offensive/what makes you feel bothered.
I can clearly articulate why Chief Wahoo offends me. It's an exagerated caricature of a minority group that shows outward disrespect for a historically oppressed people. Even his name, Wahoo, is a mockery and an insult. Still, as I said before, if the logo was displayed as an artwork in a museum, it would have a different connotation.
So, I ask again, without judgment on the validity of your "botheredness" -- can you articulate for me what makes the chocolate Jesus bothersome? Or is it just something you either get or you don't?
10:18 PM
Perhaps I am naive, but my fear is that the abstract nature of the art will lend itself to a less-than-respectable opinion of Christ by the average art viewer.
Am I off?
6:20 PM
Dunno if you're off or not, but isn't that what the free marketplace of ideas is all about? Somebody (purposefully or inadvertently) disparages Christianity, is it not the Christian's job then to show Joe Average Art Viewer why his opinion of Christianity should be higher?
In such a case, I'm guessing that assailing the rights of the artist will not endear your cause ...
11:11 PM
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home