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

[Nepenthe]

I'm not surprised but I am kinda apathetic that there's such outrage over an innocuous work of like this art when Chagoya has explained that the piece is a condemnation of the Church's sex abuse crimes. Choosing Christ in a sexually suggestive manner is kind of obvious and a bit trite imo but it doesn't affect me at all. It's equally obvious there's no genitalia displayed. But leave it to the pious to get all whipped up in a fervor and commit acts of vandalism to express their outrage (Chagoya's lithograph was destroyed by a fanatic on Wednesday).

It reminds me of Andre Serrano's photograph "P*ss Christ" which was partially funded by the NEA. Of course the predictable outrage from Jesse Helms and the expected pious death threats against Serrano and subsequent attempts to destroy the photo followed.

Yet oddly enough there were no religious protests when Serrano exhibited his Ku Klux Klan photos- photos which seem to almost venerate the klan and elevate them to a mythical status. I guess a plastic Jesus in urine or an artist using Tijuana Bible imagery to condemn sex crimes by the Church is more outrageous than the klan to many.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I wanna see.
What I'm curious about is how good the painting actually was. Doesn't look like it was much, but you really can't tell.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm with Wilde on this one -- art is art. There is no such thing as moral or immoral art. There is only good art and bad art.

 

[Father Heathen]

Religion and freedom have never really been good friends.

 

[Kathryn]

I used to have an old, old uncle who was a simple dirt farmer. He wasn't college educated but he was loaded with shrewd, common sense. The funny thing about him was that he had a slight speech impediment - so when I give you this quote, imagine it said with a slightly Elmer Fudd accent and slow deep drawl:

"It ain't that I ain't never been sh__ on - but I ain't never been s___ on, what I didn't KNOW I was s___ on."

Judging art is like that.

"I know s___ when I see it."

Sure, art is subjective - and that's OK. But some art is clearly meant to be provocative and offensive to some groups - and it should be no surprise to anyone when it DOES provoke and offend.

That doesn't mean we should censor it, or tar and feather the artist.

But we CAN express our feelings and opinions. We can voice our belief if something is inappropriate for a particular place, event, or group of people.

Just because something is "art" doesn't mean that is somehow instantly elevated above criticism. Some of the worst art I've ever seen is "religious" art, and I'm the first to roll my eyes at some of it (check out the art on some of those Catholic prayer candles you can buy in the grocery store!).

I'm not saying ban the artist in this case. I'm not saying torch the exhibit. All I'm saying is that he meant to offend some people with his very suggestive depictions of Jesus, and he did.

He also inadvertently offended many people who have discriminating taste when it comes to art, with his sophomoric and amateurish work. GAK - what tripe!

 

[Caladan]

LOVELAND — About 25 to 30 residents stood outside the Loveland Museum/Gallery this morning protesting a portion of an exhibit that appears to show Jesus Christ involved in a sex act.

"This is not art, it's smut, pure and simple," said Ronald Minto, who said he's not against graphic art per se. But the color lithograph produced by Stanford University's Enrique Chagoya is outright pornography, he said.

"This is a museum, not an X-rated book store," said Minto.

The lithograph is spread over 12 panels, each about 7- by 7-inches, and is called "The Misadventures of the Romantic Cannibals."

Chagoya's work was targeted Tuesday by city councilman Daryle Klassen who said a citizen had complained about it. 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.

Rice said the city attorney has indicated the exhibit does not meet the criteria of public obscentity.

source

​

source

​

So . . . . does it deserve to stay or not?

I don't see a problem. in Christianity Jesus is presented as the crucified savior, in Islam Jesus is presented as a prophet, in Judaism the man is presented as an idolater, in other traditions he is presented as something else, many groups have radically different perceptions about this figure, therefore its a fair play to present Jesus according to different takes, Christianity only has one view on Jesus.. that of viewing the man as a god, obviously to many other people its interpreted as either superstition, abomination, irrational, etc.
why should society be only fed the Christian version?

 

[Revoltingest]

Even the lady who went after the exhibit with a wrecking bar was doing performance art.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Even the lady who went after the exhibit with a wrecking bar was doing performance art.

No, I don't think it was a performance piece she was doing. Art and life are not always joined at the hip, you know.

 

[Smoke]

Even the lady who went after the exhibit with a wrecking bar was doing performance art.

No, she was doing vandalism. ******* lunatic.

 

[Midnight Pete]

I'm not surprised but I am kinda apathetic that there's such outrage over an innocuous work of like this art when Chagoya has explained that the piece is a condemnation of the Church's sex abuse crimes. Choosing Christ in a sexually suggestive manner is kind of obvious and a bit trite imo but it doesn't affect me at all. It's equally obvious there's no genitalia displayed. But leave it to the pious to get all whipped up in a fervor and commit acts of vandalism to express their outrage (Chagoya's lithograph was destroyed by a fanatic on Wednesday).

It reminds me of Andre Serrano's photograph "P*ss Christ" which was partially funded by the NEA. Of course the predictable outrage from Jesse Helms and the expected pious death threats against Serrano and subsequent attempts to destroy the photo followed.

Yet oddly enough there were no religious protests when Serrano exhibited his Ku Klux Klan photos- photos which seem to almost venerate the klan and elevate them to a mythical status. I guess a plastic Jesus in urine or an artist using Tijuana Bible imagery to condemn sex crimes by the Church is more outrageous than the klan to many.

Innocuous work? This is hardly "innocuous." It's obscene and designed to offend a certain group of people. This is a very calculated piece of anti-Christian propaganda. The inclusion of KKK imagery is also blatantly hate-driven. What do the KKK stand for other than hate?

 

[Magic Man]

Innocuous work? This is hardly "innocuous." It's obscene and designed to offend a certain group of people. This is a very calculated piece of anti-Christian propaganda. The inclusion of KKK imagery is also blatantly hate-driven. What do the KKK stand for other than hate?

You seem to have missed his point completely. The point was that there was great outrage over the picture of Jesus, but nothing about the KKK pictures. As you say, the KKK is hate-driven, and so you would expect outrage at pictures venerating them.

 

[Nepenthe]

Innocuous work? This is hardly "innocuous." It's obscene and designed to offend a certain group of people. This is a very calculated piece of anti-Christian propaganda. The inclusion of KKK imagery is also blatantly hate-driven. What do the KKK stand for other than hate?

:no:

You seem to have missed his point completely. The point was that there was great outrage over the picture of Jesus, but nothing about the KKK pictures. As you say, the KKK is hate-driven, and so you would expect outrage at pictures venerating them.

:yes: