Nude Chocolate Jesus on Cross

[Whopper-lee]

Guys on my job today was talkin and jokin about a HeadlineNews story with me, about a 6 foot nude (dark) chocolate Jesus hangin from a cross.
I really didn't believe them until they showed me a print out of the story...
see/ref WLKY.com Image/Story.

Nude Chocolate Jesus Angers Catholic League and finds offensive.
The story (on TV) kept making a point that it was anatomically correct...
but supposively it's also offensive because the gentials are extremely massive and hanging beyond average size.
The sculptor Cosimo Cavallaro, calls the figure "My Sweet Lord" and said viwers will be invited to lick it and eat it before it's taken down on Easter.
It's being displayed in NY at the Lab Gallery at The Roger Smith Hotel (April2 Holy Week-Easter).
I hope some of our NY LSPG goes to see it, and report back if this story is indeed true or some update.
The guys made comments and laughed. Ask me if I had a part-time job posing for the sculpture. Later, I found a chocolate candy bar from the vending machine, taped on my locker with a little printed note LICK ON THIS YOU BIG DICK CHOCOLATE COON.
Now this was a bit over the top and offenvie to me, but I didn't say anything.
Then I got to thinkin, if they're jockin about something like this, how many others are too, as another way of making fun of some black men who have large gentials and always precieved as being well endowed...only good for lickin' like chocolate candy and used for sex and workin in the fields.
I also understand a young sculptor has done the same with O'Buma=(sorry about the spelling) but you know the black man trying to run for president that Jesse Jackson just endorsed!
Perhaps I'm being too sentive; and just call it art and talent for the sculptors...but what's the real point =SARCASM.
But here in the south (Mississippi) a black-man hangin naked from a cross or any tree at no joke!
It frightens me!
HOW DO YOU FEEL IF YOU CARE TO COMMENT...COME ON MY BROTHAS!
Whopper-lee

 

[BlkIron11]

true..after i read your thread i googled it..it is on display...the christ portrayed didnt look as if he had negro features the artist just used chocolate as his choice product .i mean last time the artickle says he did a whole room in cheese...bro holla at me ,,fellow endowed black man here

 

[ETA123]

Controversial chocolate Jesus exhibit canceled - CNN.com

They cancelled the exhibit.

 

[kalipygian]

The Catholic Church does not own a copyright on Jesus.
As he was a jew, a religion in which religious images where and are not used, I doubt he would take offense at people who take religious images very seriously having their leg pulled. More likely he would have considered christian iconography as pagan. It was a couple of centuries before christians began portrayals.

 

[prepstudinsc]

The Roman Catholic Church doesn't have a trademark on Jesus, but most of the time the crucifix (Jesus on the Cross) is associated with Catholics, eventhough other religions do portray Jesus in that manner. Most Protestants just use a bare cross, to show that Jesus died and has risen again.

However, as a Christian, I am offended. Yes, Jesus is sweet. We sing an old gospel song at my church entitled "He's Sweet I Know". Licking a chocolate crucifix on Easter is repulsive. While the skin color of Jesus is probably more realistic in milk chocolate than most pictures of him looking Anglo-Saxon, Jesus is not something or someone that anyone should be mocking.

 

[naughty]

The Roman Catholic Church doesn't have a trademark on Jesus, but most of the time the crucifix (Jesus on the Cross) is associated with Catholics, eventhough other religions do portray Jesus in that manner. Most Protestants just use a bare cross, to show that Jesus died and has risen again.

However, as a Christian, I am offended. Yes, Jesus is sweet. We sing an old gospel song at my church entitled "He's Sweet I Know". Licking a chocolate crucifix on Easter is repulsive. While the skin color of Jesus is probably more realistic in milk chocolate than most pictures of him looking Anglo-Saxon, Jesus is not something or someone that anyone should be mocking.

Thank you. Some things are and should remain sacred.

 

[playainda336]

I hate to say it, but I think it was more controversial [to them] that it was a chocolate Jesus. As in Black, because ALL of the old pictures of them were hardly clothed. Had nothing to do with the fact that it was nude.

I don't feel the statue was mocking Jesus and I am a Christian. I read somewhere that the sculptor was inspired by "Take eat, this is my body."

I don't think anybody was planning on licking it or eating it.

 

[Shelby]

They should move it to Baghdad and change it to Mohammed.

 

[rubberwilli]

Chocolate Jesus - vs - wafer that actually becomes the body of christ in your mouth? I don't know which is crazier. Maybe it's a comment on how the true meaning of Easter has been usurped by chocolate bunnies and easter eggs?

Of course, the exhibition has been closed even before it opened, and by people who didn't bother to see it in person first. Of course the newsmedia is going to sensationalize it becasue that's what they do.

Here's some other links besides the media's senationalism of the exhibit:

Artist Cossimo Cavallaro's Website

The DeCordova Museum and Sculpture Park says this about his work:

Cosimo Cavallaro works in a variety of media, creating large-scale works that are intended to express, according to the artist, "the struggle between need and desire; the warm security of the womb and the chill uncertainty of the world." Though his works reflect his own personal emotions and events from his life, they are also meant to involve viewers by encouraging them to consider their own feelings.

​

The Lab Gallery is a Gallery that specializes in installation and performance art exhibitions:

THE LAB (for installation + performance art) is a New York based, converted storefront turned fishbowl producing 30+ fast paced performance art and installation exhibitions annually. Aimed at furious midtown foot traffic, THE LAB’s programming is designed to confront modern relationships between art and audience and seeks to force interaction between high energy, “outropsective” exhibitions and nearly 25,000 daily passersby. It is THE LAB’s goal to reach out through the glass and capture, fascinate, amuse, bemuse, soothe, shake and satisfy any and all who pass within eye or ear shot of the corner of 47th and Lex.
​

Good art makes you think, challenges your beiliefs or makes you think about a topic from a different perspective. Of course some are so offended that they can't open their minds to think another way.

Here are some other Chocolate Jesus' (or is that Jesi?) lest you think Cavallaro is the first and only one doing this. He just got the most press!

Religious Chocolates
Tom Waits Song - Chocolate Jesus
Artist George Heslop and his Chocolate Jesus on the Cross

 

[prepstudinsc]

I hate to say it, but I think it was more controversial [to them] that it was a chocolate Jesus. As in Black, because ALL of the old pictures of them were hardly clothed. Had nothing to do with the fact that it was nude.

I don't feel the statue was mocking Jesus and I am a Christian. I read somewhere that the sculptor was inspired by "Take eat, this is my body."

I don't think anybody was planning on licking it or eating it.

When Jesus was on the cross, He was stripped of His garments. The soldiers cast lots for them. However, the Biblical narrative never says that he was totally naked. He was in what would now be considered underwear.

I don't know how an artist can equate "take, eat, for this is my body" with eating chocolate. The Last Supper was a Passover seder. The bread was unleavened. We know this to be fact. That's why communion bread is usually some sort of unleavened bread, tiny little cracker type things, or the styrofoam-like wafers often used in Catholic, Lutheran and Episcopal churches. The disciples weren't eating candy at the passover.

Art should make you think, but at the same time, it shouldn't be offensive to millions of people.

 

[dreamer20]

When Jesus was on the cross, He was stripped of His garments...

This is not the first nude depiction of Jesus. Thanks for the full picture of the statue rubberwilli. It is not offensive at all IMO.

Art should make you think, but at the same time, it shouldn't be offensive to millions of people.

Sadly this is a case of certain Catholic Church member's prudish attitudes toward male nudity. That same hysteria occurred when Michaelangelo's paintings on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel were first seen. The Pope in that era subsequently had the genitals of many males depicted in the artwork painted over. Fortunately in this 2nd millenia the Vatican was mature enough to have Michaelangelo's nudes restored in the manner that he had originally presented them. I'm surprised that these self same people, who encouraged children to watch Mel Gibson's gory Passion of The Christ, are unable to cope with the sight of a male nude.

 

[chicagosam]

I'm going to tread on dangerous ground here. What is so different about a chocolate Jesus than going to a movie theater, buying all sorts of junk food to chow down on and then watching the extremely violent The Passion of The Christ as a form of entertainment? Is that so much different than the Romans watching the early Christians getting devoured by lions. Also, let's not forget a stunning new version of the Passion represented in The Colors Of The Cross that some find controversial. If the believers accept the teachings of the Church in that God Created everyone in his own image and that God loves everybody, there should be no problem. Unfortunately, bigotry is still practiced by some church leaders. People have represented Christ in thousands of ways from great masterworks of art to controversial forms such as this. (Talk to Hypolimnas about crucifixion art—he is a scholar on the subject and brilliant.) You have a choice. You can choose to look at it or not. You can choose to accept it, or not. We claim freedom of expression as a right until it offends one group, and it seems the religious community is always at odds when it comes to this right. They want the right when it comes to their observances and religious expression, but not always as it applies to others. I have no problem with the religious community and I have always respected their right to worship as they wish, and have respected the practices that they observe within their religious framework. I just have a problem when a religious group asserts its point of view as being the only correct view. If they follow the Bible faithfully, there should be no iconography. Yet there are those that will accept seeing the Virgin Mary in a potato chip or a Christ Image in a water-stain on the wall of an underpass as religious symbols, so why not a chocolate Jesus?

The religious community claims that God gives us our talents, so what is really wrong if art is done in chocolate? Someone gave the artist the inspiration. Besides, I think that the Creator has more of a sense of acceptance and humor about these things than the sometimes narrowmindedness that comes from man's self-righteous and often self-serving interpretation of sacred text. There are far more important things in the world for the religious community to invest their anger and outrage in than this. Look around. So many horrific situations in the world that affect so many, and the concern here is over a candy icon.

Take this one step further: How humorous is this that an edible chocolate divinity is being discussed at a site whose main thrust—pardon the expression—is the celebration, diverse sexual use, and multi-faceted care of large male genitalia? Holy Crap, how more secular and hedonistic can you get than that?

A chocolate Jesus? Maybe not the best idea. Maybe offensive. Maybe inspiration to some. Maybe a true expression of the Divine. It's not my decision to make. What I do know is that there are far more important issues to concern ourselves with. I don't need an icon for what I know in my heart, and I am strong enough in my thinking not to be offended by the choices of others—right or wrong—I know what I know, and no one can shake me from that.

 

[Mr. Snakey]

The Roman Catholic Church doesn't have a trademark on Jesus, but most of the time the crucifix (Jesus on the Cross) is associated with Catholics, eventhough other religions do portray Jesus in that manner. Most Protestants just use a bare cross, to show that Jesus died and has risen again.

However, as a Christian, I am offended. Yes, Jesus is sweet. We sing an old gospel song at my church entitled "He's Sweet I Know". Licking a chocolate crucifix on Easter is repulsive. While the skin color of Jesus is probably more realistic in milk chocolate than most pictures of him looking Anglo-Saxon, Jesus is not something or someone that anyone should be mocking.

Yes. Well said.

 

[dreamer20]

... Unfortunately, bigotry is still practiced by some church leaders. People have represented Christ in thousands of ways from great masterworks of art to controversial forms such as this. Talk to Hypolimnas about crucifixion art—he is a scholar on the subject and brilliant.

Here is the Hypolimnas post to which refers to nude representations of Jesus in art from the famous "Jesus" thread:

97


http://www.lpsg.org/celebrity-endowments/26685-jesus-7.html?highlight=Jesus

 

[rubberwilli]

So no-one else heres sees the easter chocolate -vs- easter crucifixtion issues that are in play here? Why is the outrage not directed towards Cadbury or PAAS or Pastel M&M's? Because artists are notorious revolutionaries and can never have a point of view that supports a move towards religion or points out a flaw in our mass media/mass commercialization civilization?

At the "Winter Holiday" season we are told repeatedly that "He's the reason for the season" of "Keep the Christ in Christmas" but at Easter where is the commentary or catch phrase that reminds us of the real sacrifice of Christianity? What pulls us away from easter egg hunts and fluffy bunnies, easter hats, easter dresses, tulips, and the mass commercialization of gluttony and self-satisfaction through chocolate and other sweets at this time of year? Were it not for the crucifixtion that Easter remembers/celebrates, then He wouldn't be the reason for the season and there would be no Christ in Christmas.

Isn't it possible that the outrage is going in the wrong direction? That organized religion missed a HUGE opportunity to re-focus on what easter is really about. What kind of socio-religious dialogue happens when the church condemns something that hasn't even opened to the public? Or is it that Church leaders couldn't allow people to form their own opinions about something? All they've done is just create the next Maplethorpe or Serrano. Who had heard of Cavallaro before this?

Chocolate and Jesus on the Cross and and Easter exhibition time frame? How could they miss what was being said there?

You're supposed to be offended at the concept of eating the Chocolate Jesus. It's supposed to make you think the next time you bite the ears off a chocolate bunny. I don't think any art gallery would allow you to eat their key exhibition piece and potential commision/profit for the month.

I thought we were a more enlightened civilization, democracy was supposed to have this freedom of speech clause thingy. Is the church going to boycott chocolate companies pushing people into their yard to hunt for eggs (and away from their collection plates) or are they going to boycott artists who may be trying to push people to church or to reflect on their spirtuality? History tells us it will be artists regardless of what their motivations might be.

 

[dreamer20]

When Jesus was on the cross, He was stripped of His garments...

And thus several artists throughout history, including Michaelangelo, have depicted him naked based on what they learned from scripture i.e. that his clothes were taken away from him. The statue was featured on CNN tonight and is indeed a beautiful work of art. The opponent of this artwork was unable to explain why the nudity in old paintings and statues was OK and yet it was not acceptable for this modern piece.

 

[playainda336]

What is so offensive about his being nude?

Catholic nuns teach that he was nude on the cross anyway. Or so I hear.

I don't see anything offensive about the piece.

 

[madame_zora]

Here's what's offensive:

The 6-foot sculpture was the victim of "a strong-arming from people who haven't seen the show, seen what we're doing," Semler said. "They jumped to conclusions completely contrary to our intentions."

But word of the confectionary Christ infuriated Catholics, including Egan, who described it as "a sickening display." Bill Donohue, head of the watchdog Catholic League, said it was "one of the worst assaults on Christian sensibilities ever."

The hotel and the gallery were overrun Thursday with angry phone calls and e-mails. Semler said the calls included death threats over the work of artist Cosimo Cavallaro, who was described as disappointed by the decision to cancel the display.

"In this situation, the hotel couldn't continue to be supportive because of a fear for their own safety," Semler said.


So, apparently Jesus would be alright about people making death threats on his behalf, but not about being portrayed as a human male. Jesus has had a penis already in other works of art, I really don't understand what is so shocking.

I can't improve on what Chicagosam or rubberwilli have already said, but any work of art only carries the significance to which you assign it. It should evoke a response, and I wouldn't expect it to be a positive one for everybody. The bloody crucifixion pictures gave me nightmares as a kid, but I don't threaten people's lives who choose to make art according to their interpretations or inspiration.

I am offended by the commercialisation of both xmas and esther bunny, and to take it further, the dumbing down and oversimplification of the religion to the place where it's deep messages are not a very big part of the picture anymore for so many.

There are no statues of Yahweh for a reason, and I seem to remember something about a golden calf.

 

[kalipygian]

When Jesus was on the cross, He was stripped of His garments. The soldiers cast lots for them. However, the Biblical narrative never says that he was totally naked. He was in what would now be considered underwear.

I don't know how an artist can equate "take, eat, for this is my body" with eating chocolate. The Last Supper was a Passover seder. The bread was unleavened. We know this to be fact. That's why communion bread is usually some sort of unleavened bread, tiny little cracker type things, or the styrofoam-like wafers often used in Catholic, Lutheran and Episcopal churches. The disciples weren't eating candy at the passover.

Art should make you think, but at the same time, it shouldn't be offensive to millions of people.

A person subjected to a Roman crucifixion was stripped naked before being put up. It was intended to be as humiliating and painfull as possible. It was not allowed to be used on citizens.

In our society, underwear is almost universal, it was not usual in ancient societies, though it did exist, more often worn by women during their period. The usual dress for someone of that time and place was a single garment, knee length and cut square like a large T shirt, sewn from two peices of cloth, usually tied with a cord around the waist, nothing under it. Over it for cold weather, pinned in place, a cloak that was not cut, fitted, or sewn. When thread and cloth were hand made, they were more labor intensive than now, and of higher relative value, most people would not have had a change.
The loincloth/breechclout or strip of cloth, in this case is an artistic 'modesty' convention. Also incorrect are portrayals with long loose robes looking like those worn by Arabs in recent centuries, those are not ancient.
It was not allowed for a person who was not a Roman citizen to wear a toga, that was a specific and formal over garment. It was only worn by a person of status while on 'business', not all day, everyday, by anybody.

 

[kalipygian]

So no-one else heres sees the easter chocolate -vs- easter crucifixtion issues that are in play here? Why is the outrage not directed towards Cadbury or PAAS or Pastel M&M's? Because artists are notorious revolutionaries and can never have a point of view that supports a move towards religion or points out a flaw in our mass media/mass commercialization civilization?

At the "Winter Holiday" season we are told repeatedly that "He's the reason for the season" of "Keep the Christ in Christmas" but at Easter where is the commentary or catch phrase that reminds us of the real sacrifice of Christianity? What pulls us away from easter egg hunts and fluffy bunnies, easter hats, easter dresses, tulips, and the mass commercialization of gluttony and self-satisfaction through chocolate and other sweets at this time of year? Were it not for the crucifixtion that Easter remembers/celebrates, then He wouldn't be the reason for the season and there would be no Christ in Christmas.

Isn't it possible that the outrage is going in the wrong direction? That organized religion missed a HUGE opportunity to re-focus on what easter is really about. What kind of socio-religious dialogue happens when the church condemns something that hasn't even opened to the public? Or is it that Church leaders couldn't allow people to form their own opinions about something? All they've done is just create the next Maplethorpe or Serrano. Who had heard of Cavallaro before this?

Chocolate and Jesus on the Cross and and Easter exhibition time frame? How could they miss what was being said there?

You're supposed to be offended at the concept of eating the Chocolate Jesus. It's supposed to make you think the next time you bite the ears off a chocolate bunny. I don't think any art gallery would allow you to eat their key exhibition piece and potential commision/profit for the month.

I thought we were a more enlightened civilization, democracy was supposed to have this freedom of speech clause thingy. Is the church going to boycott chocolate companies pushing people into their yard to hunt for eggs (and away from their collection plates) or are they going to boycott artists who may be trying to push people to church or to reflect on their spirtuality? History tells us it will be artists regardless of what their motivations might be.

The word easter is teutonic and pagan, cognate for east, as in the direction the sun comes from, and the name of a dawn goddess. It is not originally christian, nor are the spring folk customs. The term in romance languages come from jewish passover, the english is paschal.