Sweet chocolate Jesus!

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



ragesRemorse
Well apparently someone decided it would be a good idea to sculpt a life size jesus with a life size dong. Not sure what the big deal is, the sculpture doesnt even look that good.

what do you think, did this guy embark on this venture soley for shock value or an actual art project to be enjoyed? MYself as a Catholic fail to see the offensivness in this, maybe its cause im a progressive catholic, but what ever.

A few years back an artist made a life size cross and urinated on it. Now that i can see being nothing but offensive and pittifull

http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?in_article_id=43503&in_page_id=2

Symmetric Chaos
SWEET CHOCOLATE JESUS! shock

lil bitchiness
I think genitals look a bit much. I'd totally eat Jesus, but not if he's nakkid. teehee!

Alfheim
Originally posted by ragesRemorse


A few years back an artist made a life size cross and urinated on it. Now that i can see being nothing but offensive and pittifull



I totally agree.

inamilist
Originally posted by ragesRemorse

A few years back an artist made a life size cross and urinated on it. Now that i can see being nothing but offensive and pittifull


are you referring to Serrano's "Piss Christ"?

ragesRemorse
Originally posted by inamilist
are you referring to Serrano's "Piss Christ"?

Not sure, just remember that a man, had constructed a duplicate style of cross that Christ was said to be crucified on, and pissed all over it. this to me offers nothing artistic.

ragesRemorse
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I think genitals look a bit much. I'd totally eat Jesus, but not if he's nakkid. teehee!

I never ate jesus candies at easter time. It always felt so wrong to me to eat Jesus. Funny how we can magnify such trivial things into grand emotional morals when we are kids laughing out loud

I'l eat the shit out of a chocolate jesus today, as long as it's good chocolate. Most Easter candy taste like wax to me though sick

TRH
*stares into space*

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by ragesRemorse
Well apparently someone decided it would be a good idea to sculpt a life size jesus with a life size dong. Not sure what the big deal is, the sculpture doesnt even look that good.

what do you think, did this guy embark on this venture soley for shock value or an actual art project to be enjoyed? MYself as a Catholic fail to see the offensivness in this, maybe its cause im a progressive catholic, but what ever.

A few years back an artist made a life size cross and urinated on it. Now that i can see being nothing but offensive and pittifull

http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?in_article_id=43503&in_page_id=2

In the art world, the best thing, from the view of an artist, is for people to love your art work. However, people liking your art is not the second best thing. The second best thing is for people to hate or be offended at your art work. No one writes articles about mediocre art.

lord xyz
Lol, you said sweet chocolate Jesus, and Jesus is black.

inamilist
Originally posted by ragesRemorse
Not sure, just remember that a man, had constructed a duplicate style of cross that Christ was said to be crucified on, and pissed all over it. this to me offers nothing artistic.

ah

Piss Christ was a photograph Serrano took of a small crucifix submerged in a bottle of his own urine. He was awarded 10 000 dollars from a federal grant to the arts because it is such an amazing picture.

LOL, turns out that he, Robert Mapplethorpe and this lesbian stage performance almost had all federal arts funding cut in America...

But man do I love transgressive art. If art is about invoking emotions, then something that makes you upset is clearly fantastic art.

Alliance
laughing out loud The sculpture is actually very nice. Great textures.

ragesRemorse
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
. The second best thing is for people to hate or be offended at your art work. No one writes articles about mediocre art.

but is creating something with premeditated knowledge, have any artistic integrity? Knowing that what you are going to create is going to offend somebody and that is your sole intention is not something i consider art. I understand what you are saying and agree with it. However, art should be a natural action, not a forced motive. Anyone can create something that will offend the morals of another, but only few can create something that challenges the person to accept what they are viewing.

Knowing that you are gay and making a sign saying fa.gs are below humanity right above monkey's, and adding a peace sign on the bottom and calling it art does not make it art.

Alliance
Woah. THats a little extreme.

Art has a long tradition of making political statements. So you're simply dead wrong there.

Can you pleas explain how a chocolate jesus offends someone's morality.

ragesRemorse
Originally posted by inamilist
ah

Piss Christ was a photograph Serrano took of a small crucifix submerged in a bottle of his own urine. He was awarded 10 000 dollars from a federal grant to the arts because it is such an amazing picture.

LOL, turns out that he, Robert Mapplethorpe and this lesbian stage performance almost had all federal arts funding cut in America...

But man do I love transgressive art. If art is about invoking emotions, then something that makes you upset is clearly fantastic art.

wow, i had never heard of that. That just seems pathetic to me

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by ragesRemorse
but is creating something with premeditated knowledge, have any artistic integrity? Knowing that what you are going to create is going to offend somebody and that is your sole intention is not something i consider art. I understand what you are saying and agree with it. However, art should be a natural action, not a forced motive. Anyone can create something that will offend the morals of another, but only few can create something that challenges the person accept what they are viewing.

Knowing that you are gay and making a sign saying fa.gs are below humanity right above monkey's, and adding a peace sign on the bottom and calling it art does not make it art.

I basically agree, but I have a fine arts degree, and what they teach in collage is not the craft, but the way to think. This teaching of a young artiest how to use icons to manipulate the viewer has it's dark side.

Alliance
Have you guys even read an artists' statement or anything? Before we jump to conclusions about how this is "only intended to offend."

The sculpture is clearly artisitic.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Alliance
Have you guys even read an artists' statement or anything? Before we jump to conclusions about how this is "only intended to offend."

The sculpture is clearly artisitic.

I agree, this sculpture is not that offensive. I was responding about the art work out there that is intended to offend and why.

inamilist
Originally posted by ragesRemorse
wow, i had never heard of that. That just seems pathetic to me

ya, people are really touchy

he did a series of really beautiful head shots of Klan members as a series, and a man god so offended during the exhibit that he took one of the pictures off the wall and smashed it.

However, reading what you up above :/

1) If all you think transgressive art is just about offending people, you are wrong. For instance, Serrano is a gay catholic ethnic minority. So why would he do Piss christ and the Klan?

Piss Christ is his way of un-deifying Jesus. The statement is that, as a man, Jesus would have peed and all those other things. Pathetic eh?

The Klan pictures are about beauty and hate.

2) You really seem interested in painting art into a very small corner of acceptable expression. Saying what can or can't be art is ridiculous. There is taste, but you cannot objectively define where the line of art ends.

3) Sometimes I like to make art. Any picture that I have put a great deal of cognitive effort into ends up looking crappy. When I just let myself express, it looks very beautiful. Normally highly abstract, but really nice. This may just be an extension of point 2, but you cannot define "art" in any way, even with premeditated meaning.

Art can be accidental. I would also believe that it is not necessary for there to be a creator of art, as to me art is defined by the observer, however that would be a more contentious point I am sure.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I think genitals look a bit much. I'd totally eat Jesus, but not if he's nakkid. teehee!


droolio Jesus is DELICIOUS ! I'd EAT HIM OUT ! CHOCALATE OR FLESH !!!

Lord Urizen
And whether or not Art is offensive is irrelevant. The statue is a work of art....end of story.

ragesRemorse
Originally posted by Alliance
Have you guys even read an artists' statement or anything? Before we jump to conclusions about how this is "only intended to offend."

The sculpture is clearly artisitic.

i was speaking of a different piece of art. not chocolate jesus.

ragesRemorse
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
And whether or not Art is offensive is irrelevant. The statue is a work of art....end of story.

I dont think anyone denies that.

I was talking about a piss stained crucifix

whether or not art theory claims it to be so. I cannot accept that a piece of work made entirely to offend is a piece of art. and cannot understand how it could be

chithappens
Jesus was black

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by chithappens
Jesus was black

Jesus was Jewish.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by ragesRemorse
I dont think anyone denies that.

I was talking about a piss stained crucifix

whether or not art theory claims it to be so. I cannot accept that a piece of work made entirely to offend is a piece of art. and cannot understand how it could be


You ever saw that painting of the Virgin Mary that had cow dung on it ? In India, Cows are sacred and so are thier excrements. The intention is what matters.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
You ever saw that painting of the Virgin Mary that had cow dung on it ? In India, Cows are sacred and so are thier excrements. The intention is what matters.

It was a shitty painting.hysterical No, really...

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It was a shitty painting.hysterical No, really...


lol

lord xyz
Well, this is funny. It's like the argument against profanity, "It's okay to curse, as long as it doesn't offend me."

chithappens
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Jesus was Jewish.

We are not in disagreement

Alliance
Sorry I misconstrued the piss stained comments for the actual statue, but what I said still applies.

First read what the artist intended. Obviously people can have differing opinions

Templares
"Body of Christ"
"Tasty"

I wonder if the Roman Catholic Church would approve chocolate eucharist though.

office jesus
Originally posted by lord xyz
Lol, you said sweet chocolate Jesus, and Jesus is black.

Thanks for pointing out the obviousness of said statement. big grin

Storm

Grand_Moff_Gav
Originally posted by Templares
"Body of Christ"
"Tasty"

I wonder if the Roman Catholic Church would approve chocolate eucharist though.

Most certainly not.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.