sacrelicious
i saw this article today about an artist's chocolate jesus sculpture. the guy's done some pretty bizzare things with food, as outlined at the end of the article. it reminds me of the andres serrano 'piss christ' controversy, although i think people are more upset about the sculpture's name (and the time of the year) rather than the medium.
posted by suz at 12:33 PM
2 Comments:
I am interested by Semler's comment, "They jumped to conclusions completely contrary to our intentions." I wonder what the intention was? Also, how would one properly (respectfully?) dispose of such an exhibit after it had served its useful life?
i read some more articles about this, and one said that the artist would encourage people attending the exhibition to eat the statue. i dont know if that counts as proper or respectful....perhaps a play on communion where catholics eat the 'acutal' body and blood of christ every week.
also, it seems like people are more upset with the fact that the statue has no loincloth. have there not been depictions (both anciant and modern) of jesus in the nude before? i think i can recall a few from my art history days.... help me out here, mary ann.
i do find it interesting that probably the only reason we've heard about this piece of art is because someone/group was upset about it. its like they've played right in to the artist's game. controversial material sparks controversy, and controversy sparks press. if religious groups had chosen to ignore what was going on, i doubt it would be getting the publicity it has.
Post a Comment
<< Home