So, artist Cosimo Cavallaro has made a six foot, chocolate sculpture of Christ. He's naked, with arms outstretched as if he were hanging on a cross. When I first read about this I thought, "Oh, it's a commentary on the commercialization of Easter, or on the mixing of faith and non- faith celebrations of the season. Sort of interesting. Not terribly clever."
Apparently, my first thought as a Christian was supposed to be that this is, "one of the worst assaults on Christian sensibilities ever." I was also supposed to be horrified that Jesus was naked, because that would mean he had a penis (and in this case a chocolate one) and he really was a man. Most importantly, I should have felt compelled to utter death threats to the artist and to the art gallery employees that were going to exhibit the piece.
I probably should have said, "Jesus! Made of chocolate? Is nothing sacred! Bread and wine is one thing, but oh my God, chocolate is something altogether different. Kill him!"
I definitely should have felt compelled to celebrate history's most generous sacrifice by protecting it with a little bit of violence and insecurity.
This Christianity thing is tough.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
"One of the worst assaults...etc...ever..." ????
I think I missed the point, too. I assumed one of the worst assaults was the crucifixion.
Ann, touche!
Angela, I had the same sort of reaction. I mean, for a split second I had doubts about myself, for my reaction was sort of just, "huh."
My husband thought maybe it was created by a Catholic pushing the doctrine of transubstantiation through chocolate...
Ann, my impression has been that without the crucifixion there is no Christianity. The crucifixion (consequently His death and resurrection) was Christ's gift to us. It was not an assault- it was our deliverance as it encompasses the totality of our sin. As horrible a thing it may have been- without it our way of life would not exist. Every Christian benefits from it. We are defined by it. In a morbid way we should give thanks for it. Does that make sense?
Everybody has the right to state and defend (at least in words) their points of view. This is the essence of the First Amendment. Artists are just as entitled to this as any one else in society and it is a right that artists (often more than any one in society) are more likely to question in public forums. Problems arise when the Freedom of Speech is used as a means to pose and deliver what are essentially aggressive messages against another group. Some artists present subversive messages of hate and intolerance against other groups through the diverse media of their art as a way of first, qualifying and justifying their world view and second, as a way of separating themselves from any culpability. It is much like standing in a crowd, pulling out a gun, shooting someone you disagree with and then stepping back and saying, "A man was shot but I didn't do it- we all did it but can you point out which one?" The "we" in art circles are the galleries, curators, critics, patrons, buyers, and other artists who support the views of any one artist or artists. This consciousness is a form of guerilla war tactic and it works in that it disguises the perpetrators and makes enemies of faceless many. It defends the action while at once disavowing any one individual of any fault. In fact often the artist is held high as a champion- martyred and exalted in a form that is synonymous with the reverence offered suicide bombers and assassination victims.
Societies strive to reduce the amount and degree of physical and verbal violence in our day to day. But we find it difficult to designate and define violence when delivered through art forms. The general public should be wary of artists who propagate hate and intolerance through the veil of artistic expression. This media exists and it is a real and effective way to deliver messages. There is no time here to deliver a wide discourse on the history of revolutionary art but it should be trusted that if you look for this information it is easily available at your local library. Chocolate Jesus is a prime example of the subtle way in which the occult symbolism employed by artists is used to deliver what at first appears as confusing and dimorphic ambivalent messages. The message is not elusive. It is plainly an assault on the sensibilities and religious freedoms of another group.
The challenge for a sensitive Christian is to discover a way to defend not just the Judeo-Christian worldview but in fact all religious perspectives and all forms of freedom of speech without echoing the tactics of those who would threaten your belief system. To turn and deliver threats or to perform any form of violence simply lowers one to the level of the persons one seeks to defend oneself against. The way is taught in religious texts: tolerance, understanding and non-violence. How is that exercised? Perhaps the first way is to refrain from censorship- this is a form of violence. Turn the other cheek, as it were. Educate. Share. Listen to the criticisms of others as perhaps they have something to teach us. Maybe we should see ourselves through the eyes of our critics and allow room for growth.
For more examples we should ask Jesus. Ask Mahatma Ghandi. Ask Martin Luther King, Jr.
The roads have all ready been paved.
http://www.mysinglemomlife.com/blog/archives/2007/04/statue_bad_cros.php
http://technorati.com/search/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2F%3Fv%3DtlqIUik4WGw
http://www.lyricsfreak.com/t/tom+waits/chocolate+jesus_20138867.html
John, I only now read your comment. While I agree that Christ's crucifixion was indeed a gift that Christians give thanks for, I also see it as an assault-- if not on Christianity, then on Christ and what he embodies. It was an attack on goodness, tolerance and love. I can't see it otherwise. Having said that, however, I add that your comment does make sense and I don't disagree with you.
Post a Comment