What are your thoughts on the "Chocolate Jesus" issue?
@hockeygal4ever (10021)
United States
April 1, 2007 12:20pm CST
An artist (Cosimo Cavallaro)recently was to open in a gallery with a huge, life sized version of Jesus made from chocolate. That wasn't an issue as much as the fact that instead of using the loincloth (actually what was used during the day) as most artists do when depicting Jesus on the cross he decided to create him "anatomically correct" with all the body parts.
At first I didn't really put too much thought into it and wondered why it was ok to create chocolate crosses, etc. for Easter but then this guy gets slammed. BUT then I started truly thinking about it and realized my own ignorance.
Jesus is to be honored. There's no artistic reason for putting his male parts out there, what so ever. The idea of the huge chocolate Jesus is beautiful. To degrade it with putting something on it that will obviously be focused on by many simply because of what it is would be disgraceful to Jesus himself and sacriligious.
So oddly enough I agree that it's not proper, let alone proper to put it out on Holy Week.
How do you feel?
5 people like this
21 responses
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
3 Apr 07
This isn't "art", this is the sick fantasies of a deranged coward. Fools laud him, calling him "brave" for pushing the envelope. Yet, what has he really done here. He has made a statue for people as sick as himself to lick and bite. There is no bravery as there is no real risk.
Now, if he was to go to a Muslim nation and make a chocolate Muhammed and invite people to lick and bite it... he would be just as sick, but there would at least be enough risk to himself to consider him "brave".
I think he got what he wanted, he go a lot of media attention for doing something worthless.
2 people like this
@hockeygal4ever (10021)
• United States
5 Apr 07
A lot of truth in that! He definitely got what he hoped for... attention.
@wachit14 (3595)
• United States
1 Apr 07
Art is really a matter of opinion. What offends one person may be attractive to another. I have no problem with the chocolate Jesus. I think people had more problems with the medium (in this case chocolate) rather than the body parts depicted. If you look at any Italian sculptures and/or paintings, many depicted people in this way. Art, in my opinion, should not be censored.
2 people like this
@James72 (26790)
• Australia
2 Apr 07
This is somewhat of a touchy area for sure.....
Easter like everything else has been hugely commercialised and the artist is undoubtedly playing on this. Is the statue of David inappropriate? What of other biblical artworks of Angels etc that show genitalia etc? The fact is, this statues is causing controversy so therefore debate. A focus has been placed on Jesus Christ which is in turn the true meaning of Easter. I am a Christian but most certainly do not consider this as sacreligious. The turning of Easter into rabbits and chocolate eggs is more of a religious slur than this statue in my opinion!
And on another level.... Is not the human form a true testament to God's talent (if you have creationist leanings)? Even Adam and Eve commenced there time on this earth sans clothing. It was their negative actions in eating the forbidden fruit that caused their ability to feel shame in being uncovered.....
1 person likes this
@hockeygal4ever (10021)
• United States
5 Apr 07
I think too many people are commenting on the statue of David as a comparison and it's not even close. This is JESUS. This is not a normal human being but God's son and our saviour. There's nothing wrong with the human body and all it's parts and we all know that Jesus had them I'm sure but to display them in a public viewing is just wrong to me.
The sad part is the piece itself is beautifully done, excellent workmanship, very talented artist.
@nuffsed (1271)
•
1 Apr 07
No. Sorry. Can't go along with any idea that it is degrading to depict a man, albeit a very special man by all accounts, with his jewellery intact as god (?) intended. The fact that some lesser mortals are too juvenille to respect the ordinaryness of genitalia is another matter. O.K. perhaps the artist is just courting controversy by not adding a chocolate loincloth...But that's what artists do........I'd want to burn the work as "at the stake", Joan of Arc style.
I am imagining the melting chocolate figure in a somewhat Dali-esque scene. There's art aplenty in the whole project...brilliant!!!!
I would take lots of photos of it melting and eventually cast a bronze from the most inspirational images.....hehehe Get me Mr. Cadbury on the phone!!! lol
1 person likes this
@hockeygal4ever (10021)
• United States
1 Apr 07
He's gotten tons of calls from people who want to purchase it for sure. I don't deny that his work is truly a beautiful piece of art but I just have issues with the entire "family jewels" thing. There are some things that are sacred and I think the image of Jesus is one of them. I'm not denying he HAD them.. lol.. just that it's not really proper to depict them and have others looking at them.
But I guess that's what art is... always controversial if it's of any worth.
@nuffsed (1271)
•
2 Apr 07
I love all the Christian indignation!!! hehehe Isn't the bible full of.. "Let him who is without sin"... and "Judge not lest ye"... but there is so much judging going on and yet, if you cannot know what was in the artists heart you cannot give considered Christian view. IMHO.
And the comment "There's no artistic reason for putting his male parts out there," prompts the reply... Art and reason have no need of one another.
How do we annually come to be performing the symbolic eating of a chocolate egg? The only benefit is to the merchants, the Corporate global masters of us all.
Blessed be.
1 person likes this
@hockeygal4ever (10021)
• United States
5 Apr 07
To be honest many of the "symbols" of Easter we've come to commonly know really have more of a pagan beginning then a Christian. As with many holidays the commercial aspect has come into it and created a very foggy picture of the real intent and reason behind the celebration indeed.
I will agree that art needs no reasoning but I still stand by there are some things that should not be done and tampering with the image of Jesus and what he stands for is one of them. I'm not a bible thumper by any means and to be honest rarely will voice opinions on religion simply because I truly think religion is in the heart but I would NEVER be as disrespectful to take someone's religious idol and create it in a blasphemous image. It's simple respect I think.
@TAURUSGIRL (735)
•
2 Apr 07
nice point nuffsed the egg is said to symbolise new birth as i'm sure you know and as i said i wonder why he picked chocolate I know hes an artist who uses many foods in his sculptures but he also could have made him of sugar i dont understand why the offence of seeing his male parts after all he was made in gods own image, yes your right the only gains to be made are from the chocolate manufacturer when it comes to easter eggs and yes was he making a statement that he loved god as much as he loved chocolate. Either way its brought him attention long may he go on to do other great works of art what next a jelly virgin mary and no i'm not being flippant i was raised a catholic although not practicing anymore but i also have a sence of humour tc blessed be
2 people like this
@Destiny007 (5805)
• United States
2 Apr 07
I consider it to be degrading, shameful, and disgraceful.
One way to look at this would be to imagine if that was a person instead of a slab of chocolate. Imagine being put on display that way, naked for people's amusement. How would you feel?
Would you be ok with that, or would you feel ashamed, degraded, and humiliated because of that?
Now imagine that was your religion, and that the One you worship was put on display naked, to be mocked and disgraced.
This is how it was during the Crucifixion, all the paintings and pictures show a loin cloth, but the Bible says that Jesus was stripped and the guards gambled for His clothes.
Everyone says it is art. To a Christian it is blasphemy of the worst kind. It is mocking and degrading to a Christian, and is making light of their religion. It shows an utter disrespect to the Center of our beliefs.
Is it any wonder why the Christians are angry?
I think the artist should look to another issue than religion for his work.
1 person likes this
@Destiny007 (5805)
• United States
2 Apr 07
Well, I can see you support this type of trash.
I do not.
1 person likes this
@KrauseHome (36447)
• United States
3 Apr 07
I had not heard much about this, nor have I seen a picture of this. But I can see how this could be construed as not good in both parts. I guess I need to look into this one more maybe?
@jhartana (1084)
• Australia
2 Apr 07
If it is for the sake of art I don't think it would offend or causing any outrage. Like what you're saying, Jesus is to be honored and we should remember Him as he have sacrificed His life to take away the sins from all of us. It's weird idea for me but I would let it alone, I don't have any further comment for this.
1 person likes this
@alchemistrx (2547)
• Philippines
2 Apr 07
I feel that it was not proper to clearly present his male parts but with the chocolate as a medium of the art was okay but for the depiction that is uunholy for me.
1 person likes this
@imadriscoll (2228)
• United States
3 Apr 07
I think the whole thing is disgusting. Jesus is the Creator of the Universe, He is the Savior of the World and He will call all into an account of thier actions. I wouldn't want to be Cosimo Cavallaro when that time comes ... heck, I don't even want to be me when that time comes.
I agree with you that Jesus is to be honored and that there is no artisitic reason (or any reason for that matter) that Jesus needs to be portrayed without a loin cloth.
1 person likes this
@crystal8577 (1466)
• United States
5 Apr 07
This is the first I had heard of it. It would not bother me one way or another. It is really not something that I would find of interest. It is his work of art reguardless of how others may view it.
1 person likes this
@nuffsed (1271)
•
9 Apr 07
There is relevant precedent for sculpting Christ anatomically correct...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifix_%28Michelangelo%29
Millions of children have walked past that statue, and stifled a giggle I'll bet!
Michelangelo's David is as beautiful and correct.
1 person likes this
@hassanchop (820)
• United States
5 Apr 07
As a Christian, it's honestly too stupid for me to even care. I mean, what's the motivation for a chocolate Jesus with the junk hanging out? It's called attention-wh0ring. This guy is in it for the news time and possibly the auctioning-off of this sculpture, and you guys are giving him what he wants (well, at least the first part of it).
@bosing143c (564)
• Philippines
3 Apr 07
for christian believers, God commanded, that no person shall use His and His son's name in vain; not to make and venerate idols;chocolate jesus issue is an out and out idolatry and blasphemy!
1 person likes this
@Idlewild (6090)
• United States
1 Apr 07
Yeah, I don't think the chocolate Jesus would be allthat controversial in itself, but the fact that it's an 'anatomically correct' version without a loincloth pushes it over the line.
The artist has supposedly gotten a lot of interest from galleries, etc. wanting to display the item, but they'd have to endure threats, have heightened security, etc. if they wanted to show the object.
1 person likes this
@TAURUSGIRL (735)
•
2 Apr 07
I really dont see a problem with christ being complete on the cross as he was on that fatefull day many moons ago the fact that he had no loin cloth on is of no significance, those of us who believe in him and his work and words would not be offended he was a man and i think by not depicting him as complete would attract more attention. I think it is the exact time to put this sculpture out christ means many things to many people what i would like to know is why he used chocolate as against why he made him complete. good topic tc
1 person likes this
@whiteheather39 (24403)
• United States
1 Apr 07
I agree with you there was no need to make it anatomically correct. Why chocolate does the artist expect some one to eat the fugure?
1 person likes this
@onabreak2 (1161)
• United States
2 Apr 07
I guess my opinion is not going to be the popular opinion but I thought it was terrible. Even if they had put a loin cloth on Jesus, I think it is very sacrilegious and wonder what the artist was thinking of. I am glad they took it down. I was shocked when I saw it on Television and I can see why there are so many people that were offended by it.
@healer (1779)
• India
1 Apr 07
Yes its weird to be artistic depicting the anatomical parts of Jesus. I don't like the idea of creating chocolates or anything that is edible in the form of Jesus. I am a Christian and I strongly will object those works if it were in my area. Crazy people without knowing what they are really doing and without knowing properly who Jesus Christ was does such weird things. Anyway hope such things does not happen in the future.
