http://arts.guardian.co.uk/art/news/story/0,,2046593,00.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=2995983
I don't know, a bunny's about as much chocolate as I can deal with at one time without getting sick.
But, it does bring up some music!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_CHZ8z-t6M
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gq01UYiMyHg
As an atheist one can't help notice it's the Christians who get the "avant-garde controversial thought-provoking" art whenever a bit of advance publicity is necessary.
One can only assume that Muslims already have such finely developed artistic sensitivities that artists deem it unnecessary to produce anything which might offend them (Danish cartoonists excepted).
QuoteThe six-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."
I think this says it all. It's the same thing we had with the Dannish cartoons - many people in the Arab world were protesting against it, but the majority of the protesters has never actually seen it.
Anyway, I don't understand why is it so controversial? We have a crucifixed Jesus hanging everywhere, to display one's faith. Then you make him out of chocolate and there's a problem and it's controversial.
I would consider it provocative, if the chocolate Jesus would be eaten after the display.
Well, ya know, He was nekkid.
That's like being nude, but with intent...
This makes me cringe less than some of the other 'projects' the artist has done.....
QuoteCavallaro is best known for his quirky work with food as art: Past efforts include repainting a Manhattan hotel room in melted mozzarella, spraying five tons of pepper jack cheese on a Wyoming home, and festooning a four-poster bed with 312 pounds of processed ham.
FIVE TONS OF CHEESE?! That's a lot of wasted nacho potential. >:(
Quote from: Kiyoodle the Gambrinous on April 01, 2007, 09:34:50 PM
QuoteThe six-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."
Yeh, well art is all about what the viewer sees, not anything the artist intended. Sounds good to me that people jumped to any conclusions at all. They might just not have even noticed it. Now that would be bad art.
Well..my personal opinions...
I've been too poor too much of my life to consider wasting as much food as this guy has in his "career" anything but pure damn stupid.
Yes, people waste money on all kinds of "art" stuff, but the crassness of wasting food, especially stuff that's going to stink (the ham, for instance) in short order is asinine. Sculpt it in styrofoam and spray it to LOOK like food. That takes a little artistic ability and is less messy to get rid of.
To take the "argument" to the extreme, if using real food, it could be good art for making people so angry about the waste of good food by people who have plenty v. the starving and those living in poverty. That's if good art is about producing an emotion and making people think(regardless of what emotion).
Personally, I agree with Chatty. There are ways of making points about wasting food other than sculpture (if this is sculpture).
And ban napalm! It adds an extra dose of perversion to burn people to death with high quality edible fats (and usually in countries that are short on food anyway).
I'm shocked. They use napalm in Snuff Movies? I won't watch any more.
this thread is a
bout Art, right?
Yes but is has turned into one about abuse of food for non-eating purposes.
Concerning art
Don't ask me what I think about Joseph Beuys :censored:
Quote from: Swatopluk on April 02, 2007, 12:31:02 PM
And ban napalm! It adds an extra dose of perversion to burn people to death with high quality edible fats (and usually in countries that are short on food anyway).
??? Do they use palm oil? The soap method works fine (which may come from edible fats in the first place). :P
Quote from: Griffin NoName The Watson of Sherlock on April 02, 2007, 12:15:48 PM
Personally, I agree with Chatty. There are ways of making points about wasting food other than sculpture (if this is sculpture).
I thought it was interesting.
Some of his other work does sound wasteful, but I heard something somewhere (though I can't confirm it) that the original plan involved chopping up the sculpture on Easter Sunday so people could eat it.
I do think the sculpture was a neat idea, though. In our culture, the holiday of Easter has two faces: on the one hand, it's the religous commemoration of the death and resurrection of Jesus; on the other hand, it's some sort of festival with chocolate eggs and bunnies. Both sides are generally seen to be good and wholesome separately, but as the kerfuffle over the sculpture has made clear, when you combine the two aspects of Easter, people get mad.
No problems per se with the Chocolate Christ (as long as the preaching is not too syrupy ;))
With that it can be expected to be either eaten or otherwise reused. Cheese or meat are something different, those would not be safe to eat after quite a short time.
Concerning Napalm
Stearic, oleic and palmitic acid (all of them of high food value) are still used (in the form of aluminium soaps) as thickener for the flammable oil. Originally used for availability (natural rubber being in short supply) they seem to have worked well enough to stay. Even my chemistry dictionary takes on an disapproving tone when it states that it is more or less a rich man's weapon because only countries with fat to spare could have the idea of something like that.
Brings a new perspective to the old Guns vs. Butter (well, margarine with those FAs) choice, eh?
>:( :P
Back on topic, do you think any of the backlash was due to the fact that the sculptor used dark chocolate, contrary to the 'accepted' (and historically inaccurate) portrayals of Christ?
As for the lack of loincloth, remind me to post the pictures of all-chocolate fashion show I have saved on my other computer. Not sure how they stayed on the models without melting....
I don't think racism is an important factor in this case (otherwise most wooden Christs would be offensive too).
Over here it would be mainly seen as another commercialising attempt (like the manger scene jelly babies) and probably as simply of bad taste (no bunny intended ;)).
I think a perceived lack of dignity is the main objection (like in the "Buddy Christ" of Dogma fame)
It's actually milk chocolate...but the color's not the problem.
I don't have a problem with chocolate deities. I just about consider chocolate a deity itself... :D
I vaguely remember that there was a site on the internet for chocolate deities (I think we talked about that at Omnia).