By Daniel Trotta

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A life-size chocolate sculpture of a naked Jesus will finally be displayed in New York starting in late October, seven months after an outcry by Roman Catholics forced a different gallery to cancel its exhibition.

The chocolate Jesus will be joined by sculptures of several fully clothed saints, but the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights said it will not protest because, unlike before, there are no plans to put the "anatomically correct" Jesus in public view during Holy Week.

The Proposition gallery in Manhattan's Chelsea neighborhood will present "Chocolate Saints ... Sweet Jesus," an exhibition timed to coincide with All Saints' Day on November 1. The show will run October 27 to November 24.

http://www.theproposition.com/wp/chocolate-saints-sweet-jesus/


An earlier show was censored by the Catholic church ... Just curious why the idea that Jesus had a penis should be a big deal...did God not create him that way?

The Catholic Church is too often offended, and not by the right things. In my opinion.

how can the catholic church, of all organizations be offended by anything?

I think the issue is more that Christian revere Him. Would you like to go see a choclate nudy of your mom? Maybe that's not offensive to you. How about a choclate nudy of your mom doing an animal. After you are doing being mad at me for suggesting it, just consider that people love Him. Not that you have to believe it or accept it. But this chocolate sculpture, to a lot of people is a way of taking something very near and dear to many people and commercialising it without regard to their feelings. That's the bottom line. Why do people feel compelled to hurt the feelings of Christians? That's all it really does, in the end.

That's just my two cents. Not looking to get censured or start a riot. You asked.

I agree John - there is much to be offended about ... children dying of hunger when we throw away enough food in North America to feed them all...that offends me ...

Wow php I can see the correlation between a nude sculpture - done with some class I might add ... and my mom doing an animal. I see the commercialization is only okay when it is done by the Church. Thank you for clearing that up...

suppose, just suppose, that there was a painting of a nude mohammed next to the chocolate Jesus. The media would have a fit. and, there would be fatwas and threats and riots all over the arab world. my hell...there is a fit of front page and headline news when a koran might and I mean might, have been desecrated...lol...seems hypocritical of the liberal media to not be up in arms about this. but, that is how they are...so we can only live with it and laugh at their hypocrisy

I'm curious why they chose naked?

They obviously have him in the position of the crucifixion without the cross. Is there any reference anywhere, in any version of the Bible that suggests that Jesus was crucified naked?

If not, then why chose to change things from how they were described?

Just curious.

If the only motivation is to offend people, then it’s the wrong motivation.

I am not sure what the motivation of the artist is but I do not find the piece offensive. Quite the opposite really. The figure is handled with delicacy and care. It speaks to me of being more reverent.

A few years ago there was the big 'Piss Christ' controversy ... but even that was supported by Sister Wendy Beckett, art critic and nun. That piece seemed like it could be much more inflamatory than this one to me.

It is all about perspective ... if we look for reasons to be offended we will never be disappointed.

As for why he was depicted naked in the sculpture ... the artist was making a statement ... but what it means is up to the viewer I suppose. Art is a conversation with the viewer. Each of our filters will colour the meaning ... we all see what we want to in some ways...

To me it represents being bare ... without masks ... there is also such humanity in the human form ... beautiful in its rendering. Fresh in its depiction and brilliant in the use of an edible medium ... are we not taught to take in the body of Christ at communion?

I see many layers of conscousness here ... and find it fascinating...

Sherrie wrote:
“As for why he was depicted naked in the sculpture ... the artist was making a statement ... but what it means is up to the viewer I suppose. Art is a conversation with the viewer.”

I suppose you’re right. When I see something like that I just shrug my shoulders and think, “Hmm? I wonder why they did that?”

I mean, I can imagine all sorts of reasons, but none really satisfying for me personally. Like one reason might be that the artist is trying to portray the “purity” of Jesus by not attaching any “worldly things” to the imagine.

Actually now that I think about it, the fact that the cross is also missing, perhaps that was the motivation then. It’s like saying, “Here’s Jesus, naked as in pure spirit”.

So, ok, maybe that’s what the artist had in mind. But to me, I’m thinking that the very physical body of Jesus was also “worldly” so, it kind of misses the point for me.

But whatever.

I never find art offensive in any case so it really doesn’t matter to me. But the fact that the cross is also missing does seem to lend credence to the idea of removing all material things which would include any clothing. So it does make sense in that context. The artist is striving to capture the purity of Jesus I guess.

Taken in that way, it should be considered as a tribute to the purity that Jesus stood for.

what seems strange to me is that the catholic church is the only christian institution that have the balls to protest to something that as far as i'm concern is undignifying.
but then again call delusional idiot catholic.

nah Miguel ... we just see with different eyes

sherrie, the only thing that i need to tell you
i agree to disagree with u.

I see what you see James

Miguel,

I’m curious. Do you feel that the artist did this to purposefully be offensive?

Or can you imagine that he or she might have actually done this with the utmost love and respect in an attempt to portray Jesus in the purist possible form?

Actually I’m leaning toward the latter. However, it’s always possible that the artist has selfish motives and did it either with spiteful intent to offend people, or for personal greed (i.e. to stir controversy over his or her work).

For some reason I just feel that the artist is pure of heart in this case. I don’t know why, but I just sense this from viewing the picture of the sculpture. Of course, I haven’t seen it in person, I might get a differnet impression from it up close and in person. But as Sherrie points out, the sculpture does seem to have been done with some class, and great care. I think if the artist’s intent were less than pure the finished piece would reek of impure heart. I just don’t sense that this is the case here. But then again, I haven’t experienced the sculpture in person either.

I’m thinking too that since Jesus is the only one in the collection that is naked, that might also have been done to emphasis that he gave the most of himself compared with the others who are portrayed as being unwilling to give all of themselves.

I mean, depending on how you take it, you can actually see it as the highest tribute possible if you are so inclined.

i need to see.
i might have been prejudgmental.
I'm sorry my dearest lady.
i did not mean to be offensive

You are entitled to your opinion Walker ... we just don't share it

Romans generally crucified people naked for humiliation and to aid dismemberment etc.

Soldiers cast lots for his clothing... (Matthew 27:35; Mark 15:24; John 19:23, 24 ...as foretold on Psalm 22:18)

What's never shown is the level of gore and torture (no, not even in the movies that were protested so vehemently) that was described in the Bible. The question: "Was this a man?" was even asked.

Okay - so one more post....
I think willy_cents has a good point.
Maybe I dont get out often enough but it seems that the subject matter in question cannot escape being rendered in so many different ways. I've never heard of the Chocolate Mohammed, nor the Piss Buddah.

Whatever your opinion is of me or the sculptors end product, one cannot escape the question. Why, if you are trying to force a reaction from people, must you use the Jesus?

That makes me think the artists is just trying to get a reaction. Would they have gotten the sponsorship for the display if it was a nude Choloate phpNguitars!?! doubt it.
Thus, reaction. Also, transientmind is correct. Most christians believe He was completely naked on the cross. He is depicted as clothed to present a certain degree of reverence. Those artists were not trying to get a reaction.

Okay - Flame On!

php-

"Why, if you are trying to force a reaction from people, must you use Jesus?

That makes me think the artists is just trying to get a reaction."

It seems likely to me that the reason Jesus was chosen as the subject of the work is because Jesus is such an iconic figure but that could be interpreted many ways...

Some might have more negative connotations towards the sculpter- e.g. "just in it for the money" or the shock value...in a primarily christian culture...

BUT it could also be a more personal reason, which could be as Abra suggests that the artist has a vision of Christ unclothed and "pure" etc...

Or it could just be that the artist was raised Christian and therefore identifies with this image... artists tend to use images that are meaningful to them personally.... Jesus may just be the image in the artists head that they wanted to bring out.