Chocolate Jesus (UPDATED)
Via CNN (HT: BoingBoing):
NEW YORK (AP) — A planned Holy Week exhibition of a nude,
anatomically correct chocolate sculpture of Jesus Christ was canceled
Friday amid complaints from Catholics, including Cardinal Edward Egan. The
“My Sweet Lord” display was shut down by the hotel that houses the Lab
Gallery in Manhattan, said Matt Semler, the gallery’s creative
director. Semler said he resigned after officials at the Roger Smith
Hotel shut down the show.
The artwork was created from more than
200 pounds of milk chocolate and features Christ with his arms
outstretched as if on an invisible cross. Unlike the typical religious
portrayal of Christ, the artwork does not include a loincloth. 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.
Death threats? A “sickening display”? “One of the worst assaults on Christian sensibilities ever”? Really? At first, thinking I had missed something, I tried to figure out precisely what it was about the sculpture that set off the Cardinal and Donohue. There were really only three possibilities: (1) the chocolate; (2) the goofy name; (3) the nudity. Surely not the nudity, I thought. Maybe, it occurred to me, they figured the chocolate medium or the silly name had the tendency to trivialize the crucifixion. Fair enough, I supposed, but clearly not “[o]ne of the worst assaults on Christian sensibilities ever.” There’s nothing inherently repugnant about chocolate. It’s not elephant dung or urine, after all. [In fact, maybe, as Jean suggests in her comment below, the medium (and
name) were meant to be understood as a comment on the degree to which we Christians
have trivialized the challenging message of Jesus. The artist, by the way, denies this, as you'll see from the CNN interview linked below. He has a history of working with food as a medium, and he claims he used chocolate in this case because it is sweet and he thinks of the message of Jesus as sweetness.] But then I found this quote by the Catholic League’s spokesperson:
“Would they do similar things to other groups? I doubt it,” said Kiera
McCaffrey of the Catholic League. “Would they show a statue of Mohammed
naked during Ramadan? I don’t think so. But yet they have no problem
doing this to Christians.”
So it was the nudity. Is this also the problem the Cardinal had with the sculpture? I can’t tell from the quotes I’ve read. If anyone has seen any other statements by him that clarify the basis for his objections, please link to them in the comments. I can understand Donohue’s involvement in this. It’s pretty much par for the course for him. But the Cardinal? Does anyone else think this makes Catholics look pretty silly? Surely there’s nothing inherently offensive about depicting Jesus naked on the cross. He is virtually naked in most depictions of the crucifixion I’ve ever seen. And for all we know, he was actually naked when he was crucified. There must be more pressing problems on which the Cardinal might focus his attention.
UPDATE: One of the commenters below notes the precedent of Russell Stover’s chocolate crosses and asks why all the outrage about the Chocolate Jesus. He has clearly underestimated the steely consistency of Roman Catholicism’s Theology of Confection. Here is the reaction to the Russell Stover crosses from a humorless spokesman for the Bridgeport diocese in 2005 (Jean and Cathy will please note the reference to the unholy Peeps):
Chomping on a chocolate cross can be offensive to some, said Joseph
McAleer, a spokesman for the Roman Catholic diocese in Bridgeport,
Connecticut.
“The cross should be venerated, not eaten, nor tossed casually in
an Easter basket beside the jelly beans and marshmallow Peeps,” he
said. “It’s insulting.”
UPDATE II: I guess these cross-shaped cakes for baptism, first communion, and confirmation are also way out of line.
UPDATE III: And someone had better alert the Vatican about this chocolate nativity scene. And this one. And this one. And this one made out of, gasp!, cookies.
UPDATE IV: What will we tell the children?
UPDATE V: (Who knew this would blow up like this?) More Christ-like sentiments from Bill Donohue on the Chocolate (Naked) Jesus. Note in particular the threatening, thuggish tone of the last clause (“they may have” as opposed to the expected “they would have”):
All those involved are lucky that angry Christians don’t react
the way extremist Muslims do when they’re offended—otherwise they may
have more than their heads cut off.
UPDATE VI: Here’s the video of an interview with Donohue and the artist on CNN. This really is a must see. A school-yard bully in action.
Sister Wendy, the art maven, said of a similarly controversial work, p*** Christ:
I don’t know what the artist was trying to do, but maybe point out how badly “candy-coated” we’ve made Easter.
Easter Week always finds me on an emotional roller-coaster, and I resent the intrusion of bunnies, enchanted eggs, and candy.
Maybe the folks at the Catholic League are being a bit Philistine about this?
On a side note: Blowing up Peeps in the microwave can be quite satisfying at this time of year. Be sure to put them on wax paper, though, or you’ll have a big mess.
From press reports available on Cosimo’s website:
“He compares his art to a love affair or religion and says it has even helped him work through issues with his sometimes too-tough father.”
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
“The piano piece is a manifestation of his anger at his not being able to play music, a feeling that the artist converts, like a revolutionary, into a political and philosophical attack on bourgeois life. “To discover true power, true beauty, true form — that’s why I took this thing and destroyed it,” he said. It was an enactment of man seeking to take control of the power of nature.
“Cosimo is partaking in the eternal cycle of creation and destruction, like a neo-Fluxus follower of Kali. “It starts off with anger, and then I find beauty in it,” he says. Besides the piano, he burnt a pair of shoes. ‘I’m going to be burning a dining room set, an armoire, a sofa, a bed, a car. And then smaller objects.’”
“…said Kiera McCaffrey…”
Whoa! You mean to tell me it’s not just Bill D. and a computer?
Why hasn’t Donahue started a campaign against Russell Stovers candies and other companies who make chocolate crosses to compete with chocolate Easter bunnies? Unlike “My Sweet Lord,” those chocolate crosses are made and sold to actually be eaten.
I think the sculpture is pretty brilliant, and an obvious statement on the candy-centered bunny fest that passes for Easter. My opinion.
A press release as cited on the New Criterion website – apparently they noticed this three days before the redoubtable Donohue.
Six Foot Jesus Made Of Chocolate
Cosimo Cavallaro’s Most Anticipated Show At Lab Gallery
NEW YORK (March, 2007) — World renowned artist Cosimo Cavallaro unveils his latest and most striking installation at the Lab Gallery (at the Roger Smith Hotel, 47th and Lexington avenue) in the early morning hours of April 1st. Cavallaro’s work, entitled “My Sweet Lord” is a 6 foot tall, anatomically correct sculpture of Jesus Christ in milk chocolate.
“I’m truly thrilled to be working with Cosimo again,” says Matt Semler Creative Director of the Lab. “The sign of any great artist is how their work affects the observer. His art always gets a reaction, but this is the most dramatic piece of his career. It is absolutely amazing” The exhibit can be viewed from the street when the velvet curtains of the gallery open from midnight to 1 AM and 6 PM to 7PM (starting April 1st and closing April 7th).
Although Cavallaro has work in permanent collections of museums world-wide, he is best remembered for covering a New York City hotel room in melted cheese (1999). His Jesus is made with over 200 pounds of chocolate, which has been donated by the San Francisco based Theo Chocolate Company (theo as in the obrommin cacao or “Fruit of the Gods”). The confectionary Christ is having its world premier in time for the Easter holiday.
The exhibit is cosponsored by artnet, the respected on-line art gallery and art magazine. It has a supporter of serious artists like Cavallaro since 1995. http://www.artnet.com/
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 Lexington. For more information, call 212-339-2092, or email rogersmitharts@rogersmith.com.
http://www.newcriterion.com/weblog/2007/03/why-america-hates-new-york.html
I think it makes us look silly. I’m going to take Jean’s advice and blow up a Peeps in the microwave. But not a Jesus-shaped Peeps. That would be wrong.
I agree. The sculpture makes the sculptor look silly and makes all who admire it look silly, and makes all who hate it look silly. Its great merit is that the question of taste cannot even arise. But that said, I am not surprised the BD bit and that the Cardinal had at it. Onward Christian soldiers!
Cathy, is there a Jesus Peeps or was that a joke? Hard to tell on this thread.
Oh, forgot to note that if you go visit the confirmation cakes link, don’t miss the baby cake.
The baby, which looks very realistic, is sleeping, thank heavens. Because, really, who would want to eat an awake baby?
http://www.casadel.com.au/cakes_baptism.htm
So it’s okay to eat the body and blood of the savior on a weekly basis but it’s not okay to make a complex, very nearly perfect metaphorically, point about the relationship between the savior and the actual celebration of Easter by sculpting a chocolate Jesus. I think the artist is brilliant and Bill Donohue completely out of touch with the actuality of Christ and Easter. I have no doubt that he would be one of those in the crowd screaming “Crucify him!” I mean, it’s how he makes his living.
I meant it as a joke. But thanks to the miracle of Google, I give you a Jesus Peep:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/adampsyche/7568363/
Wasn’t there a performance artiste who appeared on stage clad–if that is the word–only in chocolate?
I’m having difficulty with this one, folks. Please help me out.
I can (and do) deplore Bill Donohue with the best of them (us?). His reaction is way over the top…as is, by the way, the assertion that “he would be one of those in the crowd screaming ‘Crucify him!’”
But in our sophistication in such matters is it not possible to imagine how someone other than a cretin might take strong exception to such a depiction? How some Christians less ‘enlightened’ than we might feel? Are their sensibilities fodder for ridicule? Is there an invitation buried in here somewhere to view the cultural landscape from their perspective ?
In 1988 a student at the Art Institute of Chicago displayed a painting entitled “Mirth & Girth” depicting African American mayor Harold Washington in a bra and panties. The African American community was outraged and the ACLU came to the artists defense. My recollection is that Chicago progressives sought to *sympathetically understand* the wounded sensibilities of that community even while affirming the artists right to free expression.
I am *not* suggesting that the situations are comparable. I am asking whether the impulse to ridicule wounded sensibilities that extend far beyond Bill Donohue suggests a lack of empathy on our part.
For anyone interested, this is the youtube url for the CNN interview with Cavarallo and Donahue
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FaKUDACtVg
Mike, I don’t think you have to be a cretin to dislike “My Sweet Lord.”
I remember reading about a rally years ago where some radical feminists were giving electroshocks to puppies. Their point was that innocent women had been subjected to shock treatments and psychiatric imprisonment in the past. They wanted people to be outraged about the women by having to watch the puppies get zapped.
I understand the point the feminists were trying to make (my husband’s cousin was committed to a mental institution for 18 months for having sex with the Mexican neighbor boy), but the method was so offensive as to be a crime in itself.
If I’d been there, they’d have found themselves puppy-less and the animal cruelty cops on them in about five seconds.
Now, sadly, I’m the type of person who would really like to see any number of elected officials depicted in a bra and panties (Newt Gingrich comes to mind), which is way less than a lot of them deserve.
So “My Sweet Lord” speaks to me and my sensibilities. But I can see where others might feel that the imagery is so repellant as to negate the message.
Thanks SUnil. I’ve added the link above.
Thanks for the link to the interview. It’s both depressing and angering to see Donahue (mis)representing the Catholic Church. I wish we could sue him for defamation. He does more harm to the Church than any art ever could.
I’m sure “the most trusted name in news” (CNN) will repeat the discussion, just as they replayed over and over the Donald vs. Rosie and Anna Nicole.
That will show you the import of this major news.
In my house, we often talk about this as a world of PSBs (poor Sweet babies) where anyone can be easily offended even as they give offense frequently themselves.
So as to Mr. Donahue et al, quod erat demonstrandum
Ah, my old friend Bill Donohue strikes again, showing an uncanny ability to stick to the truly important stuff.
Just remember, Donohue’s best friend James Dobson (well, second best friend after Deal Hudson) recently decreed that only evangelical Christians are real Christians. Sorry folks, that rules out us Catholics. Well, had it been anybody else, Donohue would have pounced on this one. But nothing. But this is not the first time Dobson gets off the hook. When confronted with the anti-Catholic statements of some of the evangelicals at the “Justice Sunday” rally, where some even branded Catholicism a false religion, Donohue thought it was no big deal. Instead, he attacked those who raised the issue, declaring that “Dobson is our friend.” and that it is “fat-cat, left-wing bigots like George Soros who concern us.”
The obvious question: does George Soros like chococate?
http://www.reasons-and-opinions.blogspot.com/
Mike:
You say: “But in our sophistication in such matters is it not possible to imagine how someone other than a cretin might take strong exception to such a depiction?”
I hope you will not be offended if i point out the irony here. The word “cretin” is ultimatel;y French–but not the French of Paris–and it originally meant Christian. Then it became a kindly way of referring to the mentally incompetent.
Morning’s Minion, thanks for your blog post.
I can only conclude that Bill Donohue wants to buddy up to the evangelicals because their views on abortion trump even the fact that they reject Catholic doctrine and teachings on other things.
One of the sickest things about Donohue’s comments is his comparison of the forbearance of angry Christians who would refrain from mutilating those who promote offensive art–even though they want to–with angry Muslims, who presumeably do.
Ironic that someone who is hypersensitive to Catholic defamation could be so callous about other religions.
Why isn’t the Catholic League board yanking his chain over that one?
Donohue is basically a partisan hack. Unfortunately, the wholesale embrace of the abortion lobby by the Democrats provides an enormous amount of ammunition to the Donohues of the world. But there is no masking Donohue’s real agenda, and it is more attuned to the secular politics of Dobson than defending Catholics from attack.
Just compare his treatment of Bush and Kerry in 2004.
Things Dohohue said about Bush: “most observers, regardless of their political bent, agree that President George W. Bush seems at home with his Christianity”; “most Americans appreciate and admire President George W. Bush for his strong religious convictions”. Even more disgusting, Donohue noted approvingly that Bush “prayed for the strength to do the Lord’s will” before the Iraq war. Speaking of the war, he claimed, falsely, that Pope John Paul never said that there was “no legal or moral justification for the war”. And he angrily denounced those who “exploited” the pope’s position while not respecting “his teaching on all subjects”.
Now look at his Kerry comments. The core theme is that Bush is a Christian, Kerry is a phony (funnily, Dobson and the folks at Bob Jones would agree). So when Kerry talks about religion (such as when he stated the Catholic belief that both faith and good deeds are required for salvation) he is denounced as a hypocrite, and insincere. Donohue is disgusted by Kerry trying to defend his religiosity, asking “whether Kerry is playing politics with his religion”. To Kerry, “religion is an enigma”. Donohue even feels the need to list friends of Kerry’s who claim he is not religious.
Anyway, I have much more on this on my blog: http://reasons-and-opinions.blogspot.com/2007/02/time-to-revisit-donohues-partisanship.html
Joseph: No offense taken. One more thing I’ve learned hanging out at dotCommonweal. Thanks!
Apropos of Jean’s excellent question (” Why isn’t the Catholic League board yanking his chain over that one?”), does anyone know if pressure is being exerted on the Catholic League governance structure regarding Donohue’s out of control comments?
Morning’s Minion,
Not to get too far off topic w/my BFF Donohue, but as to his partisan hackery:
Remember when he declared Bush “our second Catholic president,” “focused on matters Catholic in a way that John F. Kennedy never was”?
http://www.catholicleague.org/catalyst/2001_catalyst/07_0801catalyst.htm
Mike McG,
Don’t hold your breath waiting for the CL board to reign in Wild Bill. Treat yourself, and go have a looksie at the roster of board members (scroll about 5/6 down the page):
http://www.catholicleague.org/faqs.htm
My five year old daughter has asked for a Bratz Easter egg. Now that’s what I call an Easter chocolate obscenity.
While I cannot muster up enough emotion to be completely outraged by the idea of a 6 fit chocolate Jesus without his loincloth, I also can’t say I’m not bothered by it.
I’m not so enlightened, apparently, that I can feel comfortable reducing the central figures of my faith down to nothing more than modern kitsch or oddities to be sold on e-Bay and that would include chocolate rosaries, Jesus peeps, and the Virgin Mary appearing on pieces of toast.
In my view, it’s a stupidly juvenile display and a waste of perfectly good chocolate.
I also don’t think people realize that the more frequently it’s considered acceptable to let what we hold sacred be the butt of someone else’s joke, the more acceptable it becomes for people to dismiss the sacred entirely as a waste of time.
If we don’t want to take Jesus seriously, then why should anyone else?
Art lovers with a social conscience may be interested to learn that the Theo Chocolate Company, the donors of the chocolate for Cosimo’s brilliant masterpiece, is “proud to be the first roaster of Fair Trade Certified™ cocoa beans and the only roaster of organic cocoa beans in the United States.” That reassurance may not be sufficient, however. I surmise that there is some debate whether their product meets all the requirements for being “organic.” New Yorkers will also want to know if the chocolate passes the city’s strict new trans fats regulations.
This incident recalls Irving Kristol’s description of a liberal as “one who says that it’s all right for an 18-year-old girl to perform in a pornographic movie as long as she gets paid the minimum wage.”
Donohue most certainly lives out the old axiom:
When in wonder
When in doubt
Run in circles
Scream and shout.
Patrick Molloy said: This incident recalls Irving Kristol’s description of a liberal as “one who says that it’s all right for an 18-year-old girl to perform in a pornographic movie as long as she gets paid the minimum wage.”
Jean says: Ouch! I guess that means that the definition of a conservative would be to put the 18-year-old girl in prison for making smut movies and give a tax break to the pornography studio.
On the contrary, the conservative would secure for the girl a job as a model for a non-transgressive artist, a contemporary Bernini, say, fashioning a Magdalene sculpture. The new team through clever predatory pricing techniques resulting in a monopoly position would drive Cosimo out of the market and accumulate obscene profits. These princely sums in turn would allow our new team to lobby for the replacement of foolish minimum wage legislation with an enhanced Milton Friedman-inspired Earned Income Tax Credit. Of course, the lobbying would be accompanied by contributions violating the McCain-Feingold Bill. A wicked scenario, to be sure, but this guarantees that the plot will be an authentic and lasting conservative achievement.
I hope this detour doesn’t distract from Donohue-bashing, the main theme of this chain. Commenters were just getting warmed up.
Touche, Patrick. Thanks for the laugh of the day.
Also, just so’s you know, I’m a liberal and I don’t support the sex trade biz. Not even if they offer optical and dental.
Hello All,
I know very little about the Catholic League other than what I read and hear from Mr. Donohue. I agree with Eduardo and with many others who have responded here. I think Donohue is a bully. However, I think that at least Donohue does not pretend to be anything other than a bully.
At Craig’s suggestion I visited the web site of the Catholic League and looked at its list of board members. I was at first dismayed to see Robert George’s name on the list, but I had to remind myself that I simply don’t know if Donohue’s views and conduct are representative of the Catholic League. I confess I was not at all surprised to see George Weigel’s name on the list. And for what it’s worth, much as I despise Donohue’s conduct I have witnessed, I’ll take him any day over Weigel. I gave up reading anything by Weigel long ago in large part because he tries to pass off his nonstop ad hominems as serious arguments. I tend not to read or watch anything by Donohue anymore, either, but at least Donohue does not try to feign intellectual rigor.
Okay that is my tantrum for the afternoon. Take care all.
I’m still trying to figure out what is controversial about a chocolate Jesus. Why isn’t it more shocking that a hotel would display a six foot tall chocolate Easter bunny? Why is there a controversy only when someone makes Easter “about Jesus?” I saw the depiction and it’s no ruder than what you would see with, say, Michelangelo’s David. Isn’t the proper response to get a delegation of true believers, march over to the hotel and hold a prayer vigil? Is outrage the only proper response to anything you personally don’t like about someone else’s views on religion? I am truly at a loss here.
As I said, it’s not anything to go to war over, and the folks like Bill Donohue can muster outrage in any situation that suits their purpose. However, my discomfort might be because in my view there’s more to it than differing views on religion.
I wonder if I would be outraged if someone were to (without consent) put a 6ft chocolate statue of my naked child on display. Would it genuinely honor my child to the full depth of his value to have him sculpted in milk chocolately goodness?
Or a 6ft chocolate statue of a naked Holocaust victim to express differing views on Hitler’s Germany.
Or a 6ft chocolate statue of a naked slave in chains to express differing views on human trafficking.
Or a 6ft chocolate statue of a naked crack mother and her addicted newborn to express differing views on drug abuse.
Certainly we have seen some of these images in other formats, but they’re not items one would expect to find in their Easter basket or Halloween bag or given out as class treats. Michaelangelo’s David will not melt in the heat.
Personally, I find a certain level of disrespect inherent in the medium. It’s like Willy Wonka decided to become a serious artist, and my question is do we really want to reduce the image of Jesus Christ, the core figure of our faith, to a piece (albeit a large piece) of candy?
Then again, I’m also the person who thinks Jesus painted on black velvet in a gilded frame hanging under a tassled lamp is just as tacky.
Is it worthwhile to show reverence for the things we believe to be sacred, or is nothing sacred and human expression is all that matters?
Donna, your examples just aren’t really germane. Crucifixion was and was intended to be a brutal and humiliating death, and t here are thousands upon thousands of representations of Jesus in the buff or semi-buff. And the use of chocolate — it’s society not artists that use chocolate as the sine qua non of Easter. You could just as easily interpret this as — why is it that people only pay attention to Easter when chocolate is involved? Isn’t that a thought worth exploring? And velvet crucifixions and all the other tacky and “offensive” imagery — all I can say is, you better never got to Lourdes. Tacky imagery is at least 50% of what the Catholic Church is about in a real life kind of way. Like I said, I really don’t get this one. It makes zero sense to me.
“it’s society not artists that use chocolate as the sine qua non of Easter. You could just as easily interpret this as — why is it that people only pay attention to Easter when chocolate is involved? Isn’t that a thought worth exploring?”
Umm…no. Because as I keep saying, this is not at the heart of the controversy for me. If seeing a 6ft sculpture of Jesus made out of chocolate inspires you to think about the link our culture has made between chocolate and Easter, more power to you. If I want to contemplate that particular issue, I can stop in any card store or supermarket the week before Easter and be struck by the same inanity. Better yet, I can walk down the street and observe my neighbor’s inflatable Tigger with bunny ears that sits on their lawn next to the cross shaped flower arrangement.
As far as the statue is concerned, to me, it’s just a piece of pseudo-art.
The examples I gave are germane to the issue of how we, as human beings, choose to treat and view that which we hold sacred even when we’re using it to make a point. At what point do we cross the line between making a statement and debasing what was once the object of reverence and respect?
And Donna, so you might think about these things walking down the supermarket, so might I, but I bet many people look at it as status quo without further sentiment — and I have to say that nothing quite makes the point like a chocolate Jesus. And it’s hard to take offense at the mode of portrayal: Jesus (unlike Holocaust victims or Mohammed) has been portrayed thusly for many centuries — I am guessing that Jesus has been portrayed in a lot of different materials, I’ll bet including snow and ice. Maybe no one wants to admit that Easter is as much about chocolate as it is about Jesus, but there’s something really spooky about our culture of outrage — to see slights and victimization in so many gestures without even trying to figure out whether they were actually intended to offend.