Me too, and can you imagine the heavenly smell?

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’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.

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?

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”?