Jesus Depicted In Sex Act In Loveland Co. Art Exhibit?

[Skwim]

Is it? "Jesus" clearly has a female body.

I enlarged it and it appears he does have female boobs, which I took as his shoulders.

So, what do we have here, a transsexual Jesus? Gotta wonder if this makes it better or worse to those who find the picture obscene.

 

[Smoke]

I enlarged it and it appears he does have female boobs, which I took as his shoulders.

Also no apparent penis. Despite claims that this shows fellatio, the man in the picture appears to be licking his/her thigh.

So, what do we have here, a transsexual Jesus? Gotta wonder if this makes it better or worse to those who find the picture obscene.

Or maybe a regular old bearded lady. Or maybe the artist wants you to see Jesus in everybody. I don't know.

I can't say I care for this artwork; it doesn't appeal to me at all. But I don't see just what's supposed to be so alarming about it.

 

[Smoke]

This is some of Chagoya's other work:

I'm not crazy about it, though the one with Bush as Dopey and Condoleeza as Snow White is hard to resist.

Here's the biggest image I could find of the work that has the good Christians of Loveland in a tizzy:

 

[gnomon]

Klassen tried to get the matter put on the Oct. 5 council agenda but could not muster enough votes from the rest of the council.

​

Good. It's not worth enough to really care about.
​

One story already has a woman with a crowbar destroying the work. I think that pretty much satisfies as evidence that the work is offensive to some.

Who cares. Jail her. Let the artist throw up enough lithograph.

This particular exhibit is not even funded through a public grant. That's more important to me. So I say to the artist......Personally I think it sucks but keep on.

 

[Smoke]

Here it is blown up:

 

[Skwim]

Also no apparent penis. Despite claims that this shows fellatio, the man in the picture appears to be licking his/her thigh.

It does.

I can't say I care for this artwork; it doesn't appeal to me at all. But I don't see just what's supposed to be so alarming about it.

I don't care for it either, which, of course, is neither here nor there. Like those who carry a chip on their shoulder, I think some people have simply decided to take affront at any and all depictions of religious subjects they don't happen to like. No room is given for individual taste. If your taste isn't their taste by default it's bad taste.

 

[dust1n]

Not so simple....it appears to be a taxpayer funded venue. For something found so offensive by some, & of so little
merit by many, it seems an inappropriate display. Now, stop making me be sympathetic to the fundies' side on this!

To bad. It isn't the only exhibit ever. Sure you are a taxpayer and you don't like the current exhibit. So what? Don't go and wait until the next exhibit. You aren't the only taste in town.

 

[dust1n]

Here it is blown up:

There isn't even anything obscene in there. Sexual nature, but no sex organs.

 

[Revoltingest]

To bad. It isn't the only exhibit ever. Sure you are a taxpayer and you don't like the current exhibit. So what? Don't go and wait until the next exhibit. You aren't the only taste in town.

Actually, I'm not a taxpayer there, & I find the exhibit rather uninteresting. (Don't forget - I'm a heathen & no fan of Jesus.)
I only say that when taxpayer funds pay for an exhibit, the taxpayer (as a customer) should be considered to a greater extent.

 

[Kathryn]

It seems to me like this is more of an American hyper-sensativity to seeing anything sexual in public rather than a religious issue.

REALLY? I would think that a graphic picture of Jesus getting a blow job would be pretty offensive to most Christians -from a religious perspective first and foremost.

This is not in a private museum - it's in a tax payer supported museum open to the public.

By the way, if this crap is what passes for art, I'm in the wrong business - I'm a much better artist than this yahoo. Where do I sign up to have my artwork exhibited at public expense?

 

[Revoltingest]

REALLY? I would think that a graphic picture of Jesus getting a blow job would be pretty offensive to most Christians -from a religious perspective first and foremost.

This is not in a private museum - it's in a tax payer supported museum open to the public.

By the way, I've seen the artwork. Very substandard crap.

I wonder how many who approve of offensive portrayals of Jesus object to Westboro Baptist Church's anti-gay rants?
It seems to be largely a matter of whose ox is being gored.

 

[Magic Man]

I wonder how many who approve of offensive portrayals of Jesus object to Westboro Baptist Church's anti-gay rants?
It seems to be largely a matter of whose ox is being gored.

No, I think it's more a matter of how it's done. Obviously, I think the WBC are a bunch of idiots and their message is retarded, but I think the same of the KKK. What really gets me and most people, though, about the WBC is how they go about spreading their message. Protesting at a funeral and displaying this piece of art in a museum are two completely different things.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, I think it's more a matter of how it's done. Obviously, I think the WBC are a bunch of idiots and their message is retarded, but I think the same of the KKK. What really gets me and most people, though, about the WBC is how they go about spreading their message. Protesting at a funeral and displaying this piece of art in a museum are two completely different things.

They are also 2 similar things in that they are both speech & they are both offensive to some.
Perhaps you're biased to see them differently since you find one more offensive than the other.

 

[HonestJoe]

REALLY? I would think that a graphic picture of Jesus getting a blow job would be pretty offensive to most Christians -from a religious perspective first and foremost.

If that is ever produced, I guess we'll find out - it isn't the case here though. Regardless of the technicalities (and I've seen nothing from the artist regarding what it is really meant to depict), I wouldn't consider it "graphic" and, more significantly, neither did the government lawyer who believed it wouldn't be considered legally obscene.

This is not in a private museum - it's in a tax payer supported museum open to the public.

I'm not convinced that is relevant. The tax-payer funds loads of things some people could find offensive and various grounds. If enough people find it offensive, democratic government should intervene. In this case that was attempted but apparently the scale of offence voiced wasn't sufficient. If "most Christians" find this art offensive, the vast majority seem to be coping by simply not looking at it.

By the way, if this crap is what passes for art, I'm in the wrong business - I'm a much better artist than this yahoo. Where do I sign up to have my artwork exhibited at public expense?

Is your opinion on the quality of the art based on pure ascetic reasons or do you think your opinion of (part of) the subject matter influenced you in any way? Would you have been as extreme with your condemnation of it as art had it been in the same style but depicting a subject you strongly approve of?

 

[Magic Man]

They are also 2 similar things in that they are both speech & they are both offensive to some.
Perhaps you're biased to see them differently since you find one more offensive than the other.

Sorry, I thought I was pretty clear about this in my other post.

I understand that both of them are offensive to a lot of people. The difference is the manner of expression. Displaying an offensive piece of art in a museum is quite a bit different than protesting at a funeral. For the WBC to be truly equivalent to this it would be like them protesting at the National Mall. In that case, I'd think they were idiots and their message was stupid, but I wouldn't have much of a problem with them expressing themselves in that particular manner. What really gets me about them is their protesting the way they do at funerals, but that's not comparable to this piece of art in a museum.

 

[Revoltingest]

The tax-payer funds loads of things some people could find offensive and various grounds. If enough people find it offensive, democratic government should intervene. In this case that was attempted but apparently the scale of offence voiced wasn't sufficient. If "most Christians" find this art offensive, the vast majority seem to be coping by simply not looking at it.

Being taxpayer funded is an important aspect to this case. This is particularly true if the museum uses public funds to dis some religions but not others.
Do we see such exhibits mocking Jews or Muslims? My inadequate & cursory survey finds that it's OK to mock some but not others. This looks like a bit
of church & state separation trouble.

 

[HonestJoe]

Being taxpayer funded is an important aspect to this case. This is particularly true if the museum uses public funds to dis some religions but not others.

Is it though? Did the museum management sit down and say "Where can we get some art to stick it to those Christians?" or did they arrange the showing of work from a particlaur artists, one piece of which apparently depicts Jesus in a manner some Christians appear to find offensive?

Do we see such exhibits mocking Jews or Muslims? My inadequate & cursory survey finds that it's OK to mock some but not others.

Muslims revere Jesus too of course and I'm sure there is other art some Jews find offensive for religious reasons. Are you saying this would be OK as long as the was art to offend every other religion too? Do we atheists get to be offended too (I'd hate to miss out)?

This looks like a bit of church & state separation trouble.

On that basis, wouldn't all the "positive" religious depictions in art have to be stripped from state-funded galleries too? Alternatively, we could recognise that taking church and state separation to this kind of extremes is ridiculous?

 

[Revoltingest]

Is it though? Did the museum management sit down and say "Where can we get some art to stick it to those Christians?" or did they arrange the showing of work from a particlaur artists, one piece of which apparently depicts Jesus in a manner some Christians appear to find offensive?

I don't think explicit intent is necessary for the singling out Xtians to be problematic.

Are you saying this would be OK as long as the was art to offend every other religion too? Do we atheists get to be offended too (I'd hate to miss out)?

I don't pass judgment on what's OK & what isn't, since my opposition to all "arts" funding would disqualify me. I merely point out the problems I see.

On that basis, wouldn't all the "positive" religious depictions in art have to be stripped from state-funded galleries too? Alternatively, we could recognise that taking church and state separation to this kind of extremes is ridiculous?

That argument could be made, but I'm not making it.

 

[Smoke]

There isn't even anything obscene in there. Sexual nature, but no sex organs.

My point.

I also wanted to point out that all this chatter about "Jesus getting a blowjob" doesn't seem to be based on the actual work, but on the indignant sputterings of the offended.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Okay, so I looked at it......

....that's it?