There has been some controversy,again, surrounding another one of New York's weirdo 'artists'.
The latest involves this guy, and his latest, and obviously successful, cry for attention: NY gallery cancels naked chocolate Jesus exhibit.
I don't know what this artist's intent was in creating a sculpture of some outstretched naked man out of chocolate, and presenting it as Jesus. But a quick perusal of his website may offer some clues. Photographing a bed covered with sliced ham? Using fecal matter as a medium? The naked posterior of a woman with rude verbiage written across it?
This guy does display a minimal level of artistic talent,but he ain't no Michelangelo. I've seen better works when I was failing to attend classes at the junior college. But what ever little shred of ability he does have seems to be overwhelmed by his sophomoric level of expression.
Get real, ya moron... 'poopie' stopped being funny when the rest of your classmates were still in grade school.
And this masquerade just happens to be taking place in what is supposed to be the cultural and artistic capital of the United States? heh... maybe the jihadists are right about us after all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I am notorious for my garbage art and my exploitation cartoons. However, this stuff is mostly for my own amusement, and I would be worried if an anyone confused it with high art.
If the chocolate Jesus guy didn't call himself an "artist," how much do you want to bet that this would be dismissed as a stupid adolescent prank or bad taste by the art gallery. It sometimes baffles me how the label "artist" is abused to mean "excuse to sell garbage at unreasonable prices with an air of legitimacy and critical acclaim."
In my world, we call that a good scam! In the art world, it's called meaningful.
This guy is a glorified pornographer, and the pointy-heads should get over themselves.
Damn, I flushed a pretty thought-provoking installation this morning.
I called it "Corn Muffin and Coffee".
I also have really conservative values when it comes to art. Every time I go to an art museum, without doubt I will come across something that makes me say -- out loud -- "You have got to be kidding."
I think this was a non-story, though. Stupid William Donohue was up in arms over it, I guess because of the nudity issue. Well, hello, JESUS HAD A PENIS, people. It says right there in the Bible that he was circumcised. He was a real, living, actual MAN, not a divine Ken Doll with a nondefined lump in his crotch. And he probably actually was crucified stark-naked; the Bible also says that they took his garment and cast lots to see who would get it, in fulfillment of the Scriptures. They don't say that they left his boxers on him for decency. He's just depicted that way partly because we're prudes and also it solves the artistic dilemma of speculating about...well, you know.
When are these religious conservatives going to learn that by having a cow about things they are upset about they just create notoriety for it? I agree, this is BAD. Not offensive, just stupid. This man deserves to linger eternally in the anonymity he had before this story got picked up. Thanks, William Donohue, for inflicting the Chocolate Jesus on the rest of America. Tool.
As far as the chocolate Jesus goes, I'm shocked the gallery ever thought to bring it in anyway as there is a melting factor to worry about. For the rest of his "art" - not only do I not get it, but I would dearly love to talk to someone who thinks they do. Two memories come to mind when I see this guy's stuff.
One... I was a teenager and went to First Thursday in Portland for the birthday party of my twin friends (first Thursday being the night where you can wander all the art galleries at no charge) I recall coming to a display that showed a napkin in a frame. That's it, just a napkin. I stared at it for the longest time and just kept thinking... I don't get it.
Two... I've read several David Sedaris books, so I don't remember which one had this story, but there is one where he describes being a performance artist. He talked about one night in particular where he had no idea what he was going to do on stage when he got there, he just got up and did one thing or another and ended with dumping a bucket of something on his head. The audience thought it had some deep meaning, but the reality is he was just on drugs and had to fill stage time.
andy:
i was thinking of addressing the penis issue.
if the artist, term applied loosly, was going for realism, then i wouldnt have issue with it, nor would most who gave it some thought. crucifixtion was done naked. it was part of the humiliation factor.
but all realism and accuracy stopped there. where is the crown of thorns? the wounds?the blood and agony on display? the sense of self sacrafice has been ignored.
instead: its just a naked guy, who could as easily been laying on a bed.
jade: a friend of mine does abstract/funky sculptures. he IS an artist with an MA. although his stuff looks strange, it actually does have a calming 'something' to it. he puts a lot of work and thought into it, to get the right mood or affect, whatever.
but at least even a primitive mind like mine can get it.
Post a Comment