6-Foot Chocolate Jesus Naked, Crucified Prompts Catholic Boycott

Artist Cosimo Cavallaro calls his chocolate sculpture, "My Sweet Lord". The Catholic League is calling it blasphemy. Although nude crucifixes are not new to art history, I believe that it was not necessary to depict Our Lord in the nude in a chocolate sculpture. A crucifix is supposed to be a devotional work of art that inspires prayer. This work inspires and even invites inappropriate remarks and humor, as you will see if you read most secular news coverage on the controversy.

[Note: I have edited the image.]

Here's the story: 6-Foot Chocolate Jesus Naked, Crucified Prompts Catholic Boycott

It's a shame that he opted to portray Our Lord in the nude (and give him George Carlin's pony tail), because in other respects, the work has some artistic beauty. In some respects it's more attractive than many crucifixes I have seen in many Catholic churches.

As it stands, it seems the intention was to stir controversy and demonstrate a lack of respect for Christ and Christians.

Let's see Cosimo Cavallaro try pulling the same stunt with a chocolate Mohammed.

Any thoughts?

Comments

[jim]

I agree with the League. It is not devotional, it's a mockery.

[Terry]

This is offensive.

If it was a wood carving, I would not find a naked Jesus offensive - especially in this style - it reminds me of the corpus attributed to Michelangelo. (Also the shroud has evidence Our Lord's hair was plaited, or braided, hence a pony tail would be appropriate.)

But a chocolate Jesus is blasphemous - as if he is on the level of a chocolate Easter Bunny. The nudity in this case is pandering to our basest instincts. The fact that the original photo is on an entertainment page is especially offensive.

I am certain the artist did not make this piece as an expression of devotion, but rather mockery, and salacious exploitation.

[Subvet]

Blasphemous indeed.

So what's next? Is the inscription "INRI" replaced by "Eat Me"?

[Ginger]

Subjectivity always attaches itself to objects intended to represent an absolute value in Christian art, ancient and modern. How many times do we drive by a neighbor’s grotto and see “St. Mary in the bathtub or St. Joseph of the half shell” finding these statues tacky or even ugly? Do we send out news letters to the town and blog all our friends and family telling them our neighbors have no taste, of course we do not. This art is similar and we need be wise to the tricks of artists through the ages.

Since the beginning of Art history, it is a common “trick” for artists to attempt to invoke emotional responses in others by distorting a value of that art that is subject to change depending upon who is observing. Art is a traditional medium for people to use to create emotional responses. Artists who are less adapt to create a piece having common subjective value, like Rembrant or Michelangelo, are more apt to create works stirring emotional responses. Artists who are masters also stir controversy, like Pablo Picasso or Jackson Pollock. Artists who know how to invoke positive subjective feelings are pleasant to most of us, those who stir negativity are just weird. Think of Norman Rockwell, Andrew Wyeth. Then, think of the works of Salvador Dali, the strange ancient sculptures of Easter Island and the weird distorted faces of Ancient Midevial Art. Can any of us truly say any of it is “good” or “bad?”

Unfortunately, the appeal to some artists is to prey upon those susceptible to emotionally provocation for attention. They may be good artists or they may be bad. It really doesn’t matter. Artists are like magicians, often playing tricks on our spirits and minds. Those who believe the art “is” or is close to the thing the art represents, are the ones most confused and hurt. Those who know a sculpture isn’t Jesus or even close to being our Lord, are less subject to being provoked. This is not new news.

So, Catholics must be wise and not to place too much emphasis on things of this earth and the ever changing subjective value of things not real, especially art. Separate the dynamic opinionated value of worldly art from the absolute, static value of the things not of this world the art represents and you will have less “trouble” discerning whether or not this Chocolate Jesus is important. If you don’t like it, don’t look at it. At least this sculpture has a shelf-life! I doubt very much the artist or the Catholic Church feels this sculpture is a "devotional" like a prayer to St. Mary using the Roasary. A devotion is only a prayer and contemplation, a devotion is not the object used for devotion. Why do Catholics get so confused about this?

Catholics must be careful how much value we place on subjective objects of art, rosary beads, icons, pictures, grottos and the like as opposed to the emphasis and value do we place on Jesus’ death, resurrection and His glorious presence in our lives today.

We are not “of” this world we are only “in” this world for a short time. The subjective value of an object will never trump neither will it distort the true unshaken principals of our eternal salvation, “World Without End, Amen.!”

[Patrick]

There is no easier way for an "artist" to achieve fame than by stirring up this sort of controversy. It would be better if we all ignored him and his "art."

The church in the town where I live was built in the 1970s. The "architecture" is in a style which which has been referred to as "Our Lady of Pizza Hut." The cushioned pews are are arranged in a semi-circle.

The "art" in the place is atrocious (at least in my opinion). Hanging over the centrally located altar/table is a thing that resembles a tumbleweed. If you stare at it for a period of time you can see the barest outline of a cross shape within the "tumbleweed."

There is a raised relief thing coming out of the wall which I believe is meant to represent the Risen Christ. However, it seems better suited to frightening children (and some adults).

The rest of the church's furnishing look like something from a Vulcan space ship in the old Star Trek TV show.

[Patrick]

It may not have been the artist's intention to create sacred art. By "sacred art" I mean art that is intended to uplift our minds to the things of God. However, if it was his intention, he failed miserably in my case. The art in my local church also fails to achieve this goal (in my case).

I understand we have subjective responses to art (and everything else). Nevertheless, there is usually some sort of consensus regarding what is aesthetically pleasing and appropriate for a given situation. It is called "good taste" (please, no chocolate puns).

Possibly, "uplifting our minds to the things of God" doesn't mean what it once meant. This is the same complaint I have about the new liturgy.

[A Simple Sinner]

This sort of crap hardly merits the column inches devoted to it. More telling even than the artist's impiety and offensive taste (as well as those who support him) is how this gets treated versus a cartoon of Muhammed.

Imagine had the subject matter been a grotesquely obese naked Buddha. On second thought, don't actually IMAGINE that.

But cheer up! Let's not get so high-minded that we lament this as yet another sign of the moral decline of Christendom's old stompin' grounds (though surely it is!) Let's be joyful for being mocked and ridiculed and treated poorly. If we were not reviled and treated by disdain by some, we would be doing something WRONG.

Our Lord suffered much. We should expect no less.

[MJ]

"It may not have been the artist's intention to create sacred art."

Even if it wasn't, this "art" borders on blasphemy.

I'm sure Dan Brown didn't intend to write a factual history either, yet The Da Vinci Code has been taken as such.

[Patrick]

MJ,

When I was a kid, glow-in-the-dark plastic rosaries were common. There were also little plastic statues of Mary and the saints for placing atop cakes and cookies. And then, there were those ghastly "pious" pictures depicting saints with hands clutched and eyes turned upward toward heaven. Today, such things are called "Catholic kitsch." I have even seen collectibles price guides for the so called Catholic kitsch.

That is one side of pre-Vatican II folk Catholicism that I am not sorry to see fall by the wayside. Although, we still have to see those lowered Monte Carlos with an image of Our Lady of Guadalupe sharing space with the chromed naked lady silhouettes.

Somehow, I am not surprised that some clown has decided to create an anatomically-correct, chocolate Jesus. I think it is better to ignore these things than issue fatwas.

[James]

Ignore it.

Put it in the dusty warehouse with the Madonna made of women's private parts and elephant dung shown in the Brooklyn Museum, and a copy of the Vagina Monologues, and that art crucifix in a jar of urine.

Some people think art is meant to shock - but those folks are so-so-lonely today. Why? Because there's nothing shocking left. We've all been shocked out.

And hey, what would really shock people?

Why, something that exalts, of course.

James

[Rita]

Hey, I love pictures of saints with their hands folded and eyes to heaven. They remind me when life feels so burdensome of the real reason we're here. They're very sweet and give comfort.

[John Hetman]

Truly an act of unspeakable insensitivity not to mention utter cowardice from another idiot posing as an avant-garde artist. How courageous of Cosimo to attack Christians when the most dangerous reply is from an elderly Catholic attorney along with outraged emails.

Why not really go big time and sculpt something regarding Islam--or does that require a subsequent identity change and a dozen body guards?

[James]

Is it shock art, or shlock art?

So hard to tell, so hard to tell...

James

[Qualis Rex]

I agree with the sentiments of Patrick and James here. The EASIEST way for ANYONE to make a name for themselves, be it artist, author, perfomer, comedian etc. is to do something blasphemous. Saddly, too many people these days mistake shock-value for talent.

And I disagree about the nudity part. There is nothing (or rather should be nothing) shocking of a nude depiction of Jesus since a) He was fully human (and divine) which meant he was anatomically correct and b) He was most likely publically naked during baptism and crucifixion. These are the realities, and artists have portrayed him as such for centuries, with respect and reverence. But the fact that it is made of chocolate is indeed a statement...a BAD statement. What do we see made of chocolate? Easter eggs, Easter Bunnies, Santa Clause, Christmas trees etc. The artist is trying to equate the deity of the Christians to other frivolous myths/children's stories through camp.

I will say this, it IS original. But distasteful is putting it mildly.

[Patrick]

Rita,

I am sure your pictures are very nice. They are most likely not what I had in mind.

[Michael Burgard]

why catholics have to be so prude about nudity?
Jesus was just an ordinary human beeing in his time just like all of us. 'Sweet Jesus' is an artistic beauty and looks even 'tasty'.

[john]

I can't help myself: That's Sacralicious!!

[MJ]

Michael,

Catholics aren't "prude" about nudity.

Check out the Sistene Chapel sometime.

We're talking about respect here, as well as genuine modesty and dignity.

[Bjork]

So... Is anyone going to eat it?

[James]

Watch out, it's melting, it's melting...

James

[James]

I find this depiction of Jesus unsweet and very dark...

James

[James]

And: This is NOT his body...

James

[Mech]

Come on. Even the author above says it has artistic merit. Chocolate puts him on the same level as the easter bunny? LMAO. Please. News Flash. Jesus had a penis. Big deal. So the artist decided to use chocolate as his medium. What if he used butter? or cheese? You people here calling it Blasphemous are out of your freaking mind.It was done very tastefully IMO.

[A Simple Sinner]

"Why, something that exalts, of course."

That reminds me of a time a few years ago I was trapped in front of a TV playing Entertainment tonight. I think I was at a mechanics or something...

At any rate Mary Hart comes on promising us "what's to come" after the commercial break.

"And up next, is Madonna's latest Album goint too far? Here is what some folks in the Catholic Church have to say..."

I laughed out loud! Is there ANY sense of propriety or boundry left???? What could possibly be "going to far" in America????

What, was she going to sing church hymns? Now there I WOULD be shocked. (Then I would find out they were techno...)

-Simple

[MilkToastMohammed]

What is most disgusting is the way Cosimo Cavallaro wastes food when billions go hungry and wipe their butts with their left hand because they can't afford toliet paper.
Cosimo's relatives must have lived in Constantinople when it fell to the Muslims in 1453.