Ok, I couldn’t resist.
Not only do I love chocolate, but I love good art controversy. Artist Cosimo Cavallaro has created 6-foot Jesus statue made out of milk chocolate and called it “My Sweet Lord” or “Sweet Jesus” that was to be put on display this Holy Week in an art gallery attached to the Roger Smith Hotel in New York City. The gallery director ended up pulling the piece, due to pressure from the public and the Catholic Archdiosese.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/30/chocolate.jesus.ap/index.html
Here’s an interesting video with the artist, Cosimo Cavallaro, explaining his intent:
http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/us/2007/03/31/tuchman.sweet.jesus.cnn&wm=9
A representative from the Catholic League makes a comparison: Would the artist make a similar sculpture of Mohammed with his genitals exposed? “All those involved are lucky that angry Christians don’t react the way extremist Muslims do when they’re offended,” said Donahue, president of the Catholic League. Interesting comparison, although the threatening tone is a bit disturbing and representing Mohammed that way seems different. Is it different?
What do you think?
There was a post on Edward’s site the other day about this, which spawned a pun contest in the comments.
My feeling is that artwork like the chocolate Jesus deliberately provokes the kinds of reactions it gets. If it didn’t get them, the artist would be disappointed. Censorship is good marketing, as long as it happens after the work has gotten some exposure.
Confectionery Jesus and Mohammed art is guaranteed to offend members of those religions. I think if it were a chocolate Buddha, the Buddhists would just have a good laugh and a snack. If you meet the Buddha on the road, eat him (do I have that right?).
I had a funny feeling that one of us was going to come out with Sweet Jesus in some form or the other on A&P…
I do not think anyone has the balls to depict Mohammed like that as they would be ‘fatwad’ to kingdom come… The career options that would open up after something like that would be hara-kiri.
I remember a similar controversy regarding the depiction of Hindu gods in the nude by the celebrated Indian painter M. F. Husain (you can see it the Peabody Essex Museum in MA now…) http://www.pem.org/exhibitions/exhibition.php?id=57
I am sure the furor over Sweet Jesus will die down and we will be able to see the Sweet Lord in a gallery some place soon (the same thing that happened with Piss Christ (Andres Serrano) remember)…
As far as the question – Is this art? I am not so sure. I tend to think that some people do it to achieve popularity and publicity. Already popular artists do it to achieve that extra high (rum chaser syndrome)
Very few do it with a real intent… When asked about Cosimo’s intent – he said that he did it because he wanted to portray an iconic image with a ‘taste’ – that’s being a little vague for me…
Personally I do not find this or any depictions of this nature offensive (I just think that that the artists should have a compelling enough intent/reason)…
woops, sorry to be so out of date! Of course I should have checked the iconic Winkelamn’s site :) That post is a good read on the topic. And I am with Edward – I would like to see (and smell ) the piece.
I guess my feeling about the Mohammed version is from the American perspective in which we demonize Muslims and the dominating religion is Christianity. So a questionable image of a Muslim deity would be a different beast in our culture, whether you are a “Muslim extremist” as Donahue put it, or not. It is one thing to criticize the dominant religion of our country, it is another to criticize one that is already under heavy fire these days.
Haven’t followed the links yet — will this be used for a Eucharist?
I remember getting for Easter a “16” magazine when I was twelve with Bobby Sherman on the cover.
In my mind, I refuse to reduce this fine work to the silliness of a public controversy.
As Edward said:
But I suspect it’s not the chocolate but the full frontal nudity that’s the real problem here.
Should one start painting Jesus with full frontal nudity and Maria in the process of child birth?
D.,
who is Bobby Sherman?
Birgit,
Mary in childbirth is an interesting idea. Something makes me think it has been done before!
Sunil,
“I tend to think that some people do it to achieve popularity and publicity. Already popular artists do it to achieve that extra high (rum chaser syndrome)…
(I just think that that the artists should have a compelling enough intent/reason)… ”
I was with you before I read more about him and I guess when I saw him speak about it. Maybe I am naive, but he seemd sincere about this piece and his Catholicism. did he know it would cause controversy? Probably. But I am not sure he would do such a laborious thing just for that reason. He seesm to have this thing for food art. I would venture to say the bed covered with ham piece would be more controversial than this Jesus piece, or just more disgusting I don’t know which. I think he started feeding off the controversy when he invited th epublic to take bites out of the piece! eeew. Wouldn’t want to be at the end of that line!
I guess the other indication of his sincerity is the high quality of craftmanship and facility with the materials! Not easy to sculpt out of chocolate I am guessing. Unless this was made with a mold. There is a tenderness and sensitivity to the form (just as “Piss Christ” has an ethereal beauty). Again, maybe he is as publicity hungry as you suspect. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt and enjoying the debate.
Leslie,
I don’t remember much about Bobby Sherman. He was a singer and teenage heartthrob. I am amused that I associate him with Easter.
As I mentioned early, I have not followed the media debate on Chocolate Jesus. I have thought about the piece itself and I really really like it. And if I was a Christian, I think I would appreciate it as a valid critique of how my religion was terribly warped by our consumer culture and that spiritual matters should not be reduced so easily to a Rush from some candy. Though… one does drink wine (oh the disillusionment when I discovered it was Welchs’ grape juice) for his Blood. Welcome to the compexities of Symbolism.
And why are we (especially artists) so easily dismissive to an artist’s success. Are we too easily jealous? It is nice to be reminded (like Karl recently sort of did) that what Matters is the Art.
D.,who is Bobby Sherman?
Leslie, he was kind of an American Hello Kitty from the sixties. And he sang.
David,
If Hello Kitty had a mouth she would certainly sing !
ps – you are dating yourself
It is nice to be reminded (like Karl recently sort of did) that what Matters is the Art.
D.,
I think I was saying that what matters is the Work, but let’s not quibble. Looking at this work, I think this artist did a prety good job. He got onto the front page of Art & Perception, and also that other blog (Winkleberg or something). And, he made a pretty good sculpture. That it is chocolate, well, who cares about that? Certainly (almost certainly) it was made in a mold. Probably it was first a wax model (just guessing here). The artist could next cast it in bronze. In fact, he could use the “lost chocolate” method instead of the lost wax method, it would probably work just as well. I have be doing some bronze work lately, and I always felt that wax lacks a sensuous quality. You can’t lick it to much effect, for example. Chocolate might be a fantastic medium.
The sculpture itself, it’s good but not great. I feel a lack of weight of the body — it is as though Jesus has been crucified in outer space rather than on Earth. As for the artistic effect, it really has nothing whatsoever to do with sweetness or chocolate. I’d bet a dollar that the chocolate concept was some last minute idea applied to a project that had nothing to do with chocolate whatsoever. But then, I didn’t see the video.
Leslie,
You are correct. I did not know about Cosimo’s predilections for food art. I read about this later and I think it makes sense now.. Teaches me to do a bit of research before commenting… I still wish Cosimo would speak his mind a little more clearly though… Hey, but artists are known to talk in riddles (Warhol rules in this realm with his monosyllabic “Aaa, yes, Aaah no” monotone)
I liked Karl’s theory on the ‘lost chocolate’ method… I am still not too sure how this was sculpted. Seems too smooth to have been done by hand…
And now – Coke Jesus…
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117962553.html?categoryid=19&cs=1
Karl,
“That it is chocolate, well, who cares about that?”
Are you kidding me? How can you not? Are you really so determined to dismiss this work to not even consider the material. Really? Really?
“…made in a mold.”
Of course. Its merchandise. Religious Candy!
“…lack of weight of the body…”
Hollow or just Transcendent?
Michael Bloomberg got it right: “If you want to give the guy some publicity, talk more about it, make a big fuss. If you want to really hurt him, don’t pay attention.”
hype art, it’s a con and a gimmick.
J.
Obviously I disagree with you and M. What is wrong with publicity? Why hurt him?
Do you also dismiss Tom Waits when he sings “Chocolate Jesus”?
hype art, it’s a con and a gimmick.
J, I have to agree w/ D on this one.
If something is hyped when there’s no there there, then it deserves to be ignored. But just because a work of art employs a gimmick (a clever unusual idea) that doesn’t mean it’s not good art. Chocolate Jesus is a simple image, but it’s also a complex, muli-layered commentary on various aspects of religion and contemporary culture. It works on visual, conceptual and political levels. And, from the photos, it seems to be well-crafted. Why shouldn’t it get publicity?
D.
I’ve been thinking over the chocolate issue. Here is my feeling: I’m not so interested in the medium as a gimmick. That’s what I meant with when I said, “who care?” But I am interested in chocolate as a sculpture medium, and in that respect I do find the work interesting. Set aside the entire religious scandal for a moment and think about chocolate as a medium for representing the figure — color, optical properties. It’s quite interesting and it makes a nice contrast to the endless stream of bronze patinas that are produced. The main problem with the chocolate is it’s lack of permanency. But perhaps this is not normal chocolate, perhaps it is made with some non-edible but durable medium.
Daivd and D., I agree. Gimmick is the vessel of art today. You can’t dismiss a work because it got publicity.
The main problem with the chocolate is it’s lack of permanency.
I don’t think all art is meant to be permanent. It’s one thing if a painting falls apart because of poor craftsmanship or improper care. It’s quite another situation if something is deliberately made of temporary materials.
“I am interested in chocolate as a sculpture medium…”
Me too, and can you imagine the heavenly smell?
woops, pun not intended but how inadvertently clever, ha ha:)
hmm, re temporary materials — I’m thinking about an Andy Goldsworthy sort of thing out of melting ice — or sand sculpture below the tide line. Wonder what that would do to the minds of the faithful. And Leslie, of course you meant that pun!!! Don’t try to get around us like that. “Inadvertent”, indeed!