Jesus Christ, Sweet and Sour

Even while I know I have a deepening devotion to my Church, her founder, her Pope and her saints – most especially Mary and Joseph, Thérèse of Lisieux, Pio of Pietrelcina, and John Vianney – I have a sturdy streak of irreverence. This allows me to laugh at some things that might shock or even scandalize the more rigid, or more deeply ingrained, faith of other people. Perhaps in time this will change; but this week I got an especially big giggle at an article relating an artist's juxtaposition of a rocketing-up politician, and my own personal lord and savior.

I was going to just link to the article, but I'd better add the text here, too, in case the article is later pulled or archived. This comes from yesterday's online edition of the Arizona Republic:

Depiction of Obama as Jesus causing a stir

By Nathaniel Hernandez
Associated Press
Apr. 3, 2007 08:33 AM CHICAGO - He wears Jesus' robes and a neon blue halo, looks like Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and is causing a stir at a Chicago art school.

An undergraduate student's papier-mâché sculpture of Obama as a messianic figure - entitled "Blessing" - went on display Saturday at a downtown gallery run by the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. By Monday, word of the piece had spread on political blogs, and the school had been flooded with calls.

David Cordero, 24, made the sculpture for his senior show after noticing all the attention Obama has received since he first hinted he may run for the presidency.

"All of this is a response to what I've been witnessing and hearing, this idea that Barack is sort of a potential savior that might come and absolve the country of all its sins," Cordero said. "In a lot of ways it's about caution in assigning all these inflated expectations on one individual, and expecting them to change something that many hands have shaped."

Obama's campaign worked Monday to distance the Illinois senator from the artwork.

"While we respect First Amendment rights and don't think the artist was trying to be offensive, Senator Obama, as a rule, isn't a fan of art that offends religious sensibilities," said Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki.

Cordero said the school had fielded plenty of calls about his work, "some of them from angry people." He also said he had heard from a few potential buyers.

Bruce Jenkins, dean of the art school's undergraduate program, said response to the piece - part of a student exhibition - has been mostly positive. He said people should take a close look at the sculpture and the context it was created in before judging it.

"When you see it, when you spend time with it, you understand that it's not a provocative work at all," Jenkins said. "It opens a set of questions."

The Archdiocese of Chicago had not seen the work as of Monday afternoon and could not comment on it, said spokeswoman Dianne Dunagan.

The piece comes amid Catholic outrage in New York that led to an art gallery canceling an exhibit featuring a nude 6-foot-tall, anatomically correct chocolate sculpture of Jesus Christ.

Artist Cosimo Cavallaro said Saturday that he has received threats as a result of the sculpture, called "My Sweet Lord." Cavallaro said the controversy spurred "thousands" of e-mail messages from people offering help, donations and exhibition space.

Here's a picture of the artist and that work.

So after skimming the article and grinning at the picture, I sent out an email to select friends and associates of similar ilk (and a couple conservative Protestants, just to gauge response):

Subject: Obama? Oh, Mama!
Importance: Low

I think it's funny, myself – not offensive. The artist has found a dramatic way to underscore a good point. (It's the one in New York I have a problem with, myself – although that one's title is a real yuk, I'll admit.)

Regards,

AgingChild 

The first response I got was from Spartacus:

Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 7:06 PM
Subject: Re: Obama? Oh, Mama!

Hmmm...why do you find the one offensive and not the other?

So I answered:

Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 8:56 AM
Subject: RE: Mama, Don't Let Your Boys Grow Up to Carve Chocolate

Good one, O gadfly!

I think it's my sense of modesty, first. Though Jesus was crucified sans every scrap of clothing (as was typical of this form of Roman execution), the sight of him so depicted would be a bit much for most people today… certainly including yours truly. So the first level of offendedness – reactive – is here. Likely I'd react similarly to parallel displays of Muhammad and Buddha.

The next level, and broader, centers on the reasonable question of: Why in an art gallery? Knowing that such a portrayal would offend many viewers for the above reason, it seems to me that the artist may well be looking first to offend, rather than merely make a point (i.e., Jesus is just like one of us; see Joan Osborne's song). That is a poor prime motivation for art, if I may scoot out on this limb a bit further. I would think that an artist creates a piece (of whatever medium) because, first, s/he is moved; and, second, because s/he wishes the viewer to be moved (cf. La Pieta sculpture, Goya's painting of the execution of Spanish soldiers, etc.).

If you want to offend, just stand out in front of the museum in a trenchcoat, blowing a whistle and showing the world. Or take a dump (pardon me) right there on the front steps.

What touches the world – and beyond the circles of Christianity – about Jesus is his humility, his message of peace and compassion, and his willingness to sacrifice himself as the utter fulfillment of the Jewish teaching of the scapegoat. The focus is on his healing ministry, his preaching of love and forgiveness, and his cruel death… not his divine doodads.

Because this portion of one's anatomy is ordinarily sequestered from public viewing, its glorious, in-your-face display will always immediately seize one's attention. Christotheologically speaking, vis-à-vis the chocolate sculpture, this pulls our focus from the man's message to his humanity – which is okay so far as it goes, since it reminds us that, though divine in nature, Jesus was also equally human in nature. But to do this in such a graphic fashion jarringly numbs the mind and heart that ordinarily would look at and reflect on the purpose of his ministry, leaving us no more than gaping a-gaga at the gonads… especially since we're so accustomed to viewing the man enrobed.

I repeat that I do like the title of that piece, and the artist gets a few points back for that reason. But if he'd wanted pun-value alone, he could at least have sculpted, say, the Last Supper. If he wanted to offend, he's certainly done that. But if he wants us to focus on the non-divine aspect of Jesus, he's succeeded there too. However, that could have been achieved by a picture of him laughing, or even picking his nose.

Hot on the heels of that one, I had to send Spartacus this followup:

Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 9:39 AM
Subject: RE: Ars Longa, Vita Brevis (Mors Profunda)

I'm still not fully satisfied with my answer; we're going to have to blog it.

What I didn't answer on my first pass was the first half of the question: why doesn't the Obama image offend me? The answer is that it is obviously a caricature, and so is created out of humor (underscored by using a neon halo). The artist's twin points – that this isn't Jesus, and not to put any leader (or leader-in-waiting) on a grand pedestal – comes through clearly without slapping me in the face.

Some less-flexible folks – worshippers either of Obama, or of Jesus, or both – would at least be rather annoyed, if not truly offended. Me, I still think it's funny.

I also meant to cite some other offensive works, in my previous email – e.g., most especially the notorious "P!ss Christ" photo that is at once truly beautiful and utterly repulsive. I support the right of both these artists to shock, and to mock. But I have my esthetic and spiritual sensitivities… and it seems that so many fringe artists aim for that Achilles tendon first. And the fact that it's specifically Jesus and Christianity that they're almost exclusively targeting is in itself rather troubling. Besides the two suggestions in my last email, if they want merely to offend, they could also beautifully render a scene of a retro-Mormon raping children, say. Or of Jeffrey Dahmer preparing supper. Why don't they? Why not my relatives gloriously aflame in their Dresden basements? How about a candy sculpture of the garroting of Atahualpa?

Jesus is for me a role model, a rescuer, and a brother. You attack him (again, this seems to be a direct objective in too many of these cases), and you can't expect me to be unaffected, or merely moved appreciatively by your esthetics.

Here in this country you are entitled to create and produce art, and open-minded enough private institutions are entitled to put it on display… and I endorse and support these rights. But those rights aren't the most supreme, and there are things of far greater individual and personal value even than the free expression of esthetic impulse. 

This nation, too – cradle and crucible of these wondrous rights – will someday, inevitably pass; ditto this spinning globe, and ultimately the curl of galaxy that enfolds it. There are beauties and esthetics that will endure as long as our universe; the power behind them awes and inspires me, and the seeming "need" to thumb one's nose (or use a different finger) directly at a mortal's most sensitive area… is insignificant and meaningless on that scale.

On reflection this reduces, for me, much of that offense – and also yanks from under the artist any smug position that his/her "art" is as rich in value as tonight's starscape. Pass.

Spartacus must have run out of metal to mill, or wood to plane; he fired back:

Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 12:01 PM

Fair enough bro, I didn't realize the "Chocolate Christ" was nekkid. I can understand how that might offend. You lay out a number of very good points explaining why you found that offensive. I can empathize.

OTOH, Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel depicts nude biblical figures--are they offensive too? Artists of the Renaissance in particular routinely depicted the Christ child naked, and I also recall several images of Mary suckling baby Jesus at her naked breast--yet these works (including Michelangelo's) are widely venerated throughout the Christian world (I seem to recall the Vatican owns some of these "racy" works. hubbah-hubbah--NOT!). I believe these nude images are meant to convey sweet innocence, humanity and beauty--not prurience.

I did an extremely quick and cursory Google search under "classical nude Jesus" and found at least one reference to a pre-Renaissance master "Pisano" whose depiction of a nude Christ is one of many treasures in the cathedrals of Florence, Italy. I wouldn't be at all surprised if a more sustained search effort turns up more nude Christs which have ruffled nary a hairshirt.

Is Michelangelo's work (and other biblical works by the "Great Masters") not offensive or somehow less offensive because of the artist's reputations, or because they worked in more "accepted" mediums such as oils and marble? Or is it because their motives were clearly intended to glorify God and the chocolatier's motives are less clear? Is it a matter of era? Was it somehow more acceptable to depict nudity back in the 1400's than it is today (and if that is so, what does that say about our so called enlightened values?)

I visited Cavallaro's website and viewed "My Sweet Lord" (it is a mighty tasty title!). I didn't find it offensive at all--it depicted Jesus in all his humanity and vulnerability. Even the choice of chocolate is something people like/love/desire/value--it's certainly less offensive than the depiction several years ago of Christ in IIRC elephant dung?

That same quicky websearch (and another under simply "nude Jesus") turned up tons of references reporting people's objections to Cavallaro's chocolate sculpture. Isn't this vociferous intolerance and hatred being expressed toward this work of art akin to the same type of intolerance and hatred we find so reprehensible when it issues from the mouths of Muslims?

I don't know what Cavallaro's motives were (are)--as I stated previously, taking his "...Sweet Lord" at face value, it doesn't seem at all offensive to me. Even if his motives were less than pious, instead of venting all sorts of spleen in outrage over it, wouldn't it be more fruitful to explore the reasons for his arguably less than flattering depiction of the Christ? Again, isn't this automatic and vehement rejection of something we interpret as offensive exactly the same criticisms we level at Muslim fundamentalists?

IMHO, Christians, whatever their church, creed, sect, denomination, etc, have a LOT to answer for to the rest of humanity and to God (if you believe in a judgmental God). Instead of frothing in outrage over this ultimately-inconsequential-in-the-larger-scheme-of-things artwork, it would be far more productive to take a good hard look at the motives, actions, effects and legacies of their religion, in both historic and contemporary contexts. Perhaps an artist makes a less than pious image of Christ to call attention to grievances and injustices committed by Christians. Instead of shooting the messenger, how about trying to listen to the messenger's message? Provocative art is not meant to provoke only anger---it's meant to provoke the beginning of a thought process, and hopefully maybe some reasoned dialog. Unfortunately, all too often it only provokes outrage from those who are inclined to shoot first, and to not bother to ask any questions later.

Oh, and if anyone thinks I'm unfairly targeting Christianity, I'm not--the same criticisms apply to virtually all other religions I'm aware of. Also, lest anyone think I'm being critical of Jesus, I'm not--I make a distinction between the Divine, which is perfect, and religion, which is man-made, and therefore susceptible to all the failings and corruptibility of human beings.

It's time to wake up, people, and start using that lump of gray matter between your ears.

Spartacus

More tomorrow; I want to respond to Spartacus here.

(Yo; Sparks: could you please track down Pisano's depiction of Jesus and send me the URL? I want to link to it, so my three other readers might get to see it as well.)