Sweet chocolate Jesus!

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

SWEET CHOCOLATE JESUS! shock

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

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.

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
[B]
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"?

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.

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 😂

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 😘

*stares into space*

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.

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

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.

😂 The sculpture is actually very nice. Great textures.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 !!!