Choc Horror?

A sculpture of Jesus Christ - made out of chocolate, has been pulled from an exhibition in New York.

The decision was made after various religious groups (spearheaded by the Catholic League), piled the pressure on The Manhattan Lab Gallery.

I am a Christian, but I'm not going to blindly criticise a work of art without trying to understand what the artist was getting at first.

The points that seem to cause the most offence are the nudity of the Christ figure, the artistic medium used to represent him... and the fact that the public had been invited to eat the work when it was scheduled to be displayed.

Before I go on, I want to remind you that I was one of the people who was upset by The Jerry Springer musical - my reasons were different from most of the zealots... if you want to know my reasons, ask me. However, I feel it is only fair that you know that I had a position on that as it might view this article in a different context.

There are a couple of things that Christians should consider before preparing to cast stones. Firstly, when Jesus was actually crucified, he in all probability was completely naked - for it was part of the punishment of crucifixion: the physical agony of being mortally wounded and hung on a scaffold to die... coupled with the humiliation of being on public display, stripped of all clothing. Most crucifixes probably have loincloths, to stop people from being distracted from the deep meaning of Christ's sacrifice. Although, having said that... I have heard some suspicious people theorise that by putting a loincloth on Jesus, the Church is actually trying cover up his Jewish heritage. Personally I think Christ's Jewish heritage is something to celebrate.

Now, on to the medium being used - chocolate. Chocolate is a luxury food, it is sweet and sensual... not to mention it is comforting on a very bad day. True, it can be argued that it's desirability as a food can allude to sexuality... but I don't think that is what the artist was trying to convey. You could take it on a number of levels... it rather depends on what ideas the artist himself was trying to explore and get across. Chocolate, being a "feel good food" might imply that the artist was saying that followers of religion only worship because it makes them feel better.

What it makes me think about, is the fact that in western Christianity, we have a tradition of stuffing ourselves silly with chocolate eggs on Easter Sunday and celebrating the symbolism of new life. I have been told that the image of eggs and bunny rabbits actually comes from a mythological pagan goddess, who fell from the sky in an egg and possessed the ability to shape shift (usually into a rabbit). It would be easy for me as a Christian to point my finger at the artist's work and say it is inappropriate, that it belittles what Jesus did.

It is also easy for us to tuck into chocolate on Resurrection Sunday (what the Church calls Easter), thank Jesus for what he did and get on with our merry lives without giving him a second thought.

If your father, your mother, brother, sister, spouse or friend lay down their life for you... do you really think it would be appropriate to remember there actions by eating junk food on the anniversary? I am not saying it is sinful to eat chocolate, I am saying it is important that if we really have this belief... we should have some form of conviction that goes beyond some kind of seasonal gimmick.

If we point the finger at this artist's work, we only serve to highlight the hypocrisy in a non-biblical tradition associated with the Church. To condemn this work of art is also to condemn the triviality with which we sometimes treat our own beliefs.

One of my favourite sculptures (admittedly I have never seen it, but I love the concept), is Mark Wallinger's Ecce Homo:

Here, Jesus is portrayed in such a manner as to liken him to his own race... in a way that is relevant to their more contemporary sufferings. He stands stripped to his underwear with the crown of thorns adorning his head. However, his head is shaved... and he bears a tattooed number not unlike those found on the arms of Auschwitz survivors. A very bold and poignant statement on the artist's part, worthy of commendation. Astonishingly this piece of work also came under fire from a London councillor who felt the use of white marble was racist! What an imbecile the man must have been!

We should not be so quick to assume everything is evil. We should look for the good in people's work... and then if we find none, be honest and frank about it based on informed opinion.

I am ashamed at the fundamentalists who have spouted off without thinking... and I am not one of them.

A Saturday Less Ordinary.

Today's been only slightly less mundane than most Saturday's.

I decided to go shopping for shoes, because my work shoes are frankly falling apart. Now, we have a shoe shop in town... I used to work their for a summer job while at college. My mum works their part time now. It's because of those facts that I won't go there, despite there being a possible discount. I'm just not comfortable being served by people who know me... especially family (though mum wasn't there today). I don't know why, its just the way I am. I suppose that's another thing that has to go out the window in the continuous evolution of Nick Payne.

So I checked my blog and emails.

Then I did a Monet!

I decided last night to wipe the mega long entry "Live and Let Live". I don't feel there was anything wrong in what I said... but it was that post which was throwing the sidebar on my page out of whack and after sleeping on what to do about it, I felt it was probably something that people didn't need to hear.

The reason I mentioned Monet, is because I was told a story about him once. He was renowned for his soft blue and green works... but there was a period in his life when he suffered from cataracts. It was during this period that he painted pictures in vibrant reds and yellows. He had one set of cataracts removed and painted half the picture in his older colours and the other half in the reds and yellows. When Monet realised that his eye problems had interfered with his artistic efforts, he destroyed most of his paintings from that time. Now that is a philosophical question for art... our pains, hardships, joys and sorrows form the backbone for our creative works... so was Monet right? Did his cataracts damage those particular works... or enhance them?

I digress. As I waited for the bus, a teenager came and asked what time the bus would come, he was very civil. However, five minutes later his mates came along and he had a personality transplant. It's interesting how easily we change our behaviour to suit our company... all the more interesting for me having made personal observations regarding myself.

Got my shoes and purchased two books from Waterstones to keep me out of trouble - "Stardust" by Neil Gaiman and "Hood" by Stephen Lawhead. Looking forward to get stuck in to those. The latter should be extremely interesting because it relocates the Robin Hood legend into Wales. Having said that... Robin himself is most probably an amalgamation of several different legends. I'm a fan of Lawhead's work, especially the books he has written that tie into Celtic culture and the ancient legends and lore of the British Isles.

Part of me was thinking of going out tonight and wandering into a pub to do some crazy man dancing. However I'm cooking myself chicken and asparagus with pasta in a pesto sauce... so I won't get time.

I'm hoping to cycle over to Astwood Bank tomorrow, to attend the church of some friends. However there is a very big hill between us... and last time it nearly wiped me out. I want to tell some of them the things I have concluded here recently. I'll let you know how I get on.

Blessings

N

Episode III Review

Well, I've never been to a film which received a round of applause... until last night (that was despite the fact that the audio channel for the dialogue and sfx went a little wonky at one point).

I went to Amistad and Saving Private Ryan, but the reaction was a fitting, revered silence in those cases.

The scale of the space battles was awesome. The manipulation of Anakin as he turned to the Dark Side was disturbing, being told the only way he can save the one he loves from death is to join the Dark Side, while ironically the result of making that choice was the catalyst for her death. In that respect, the Emperor was just like the serpent from Eden. Masking the true outcome of a decision with a possible benefit. There were clear parallels between the politics of the film, and the ones we find ourselves exposed to today. Liberties being reduced in the name of stamping out a terror, when the real terror is the one who is assuming authority.

I shall say no more on that, I promised a lighter entry!

I was really depressed as the Jedi were systematically betrayed and taken down. I really felt sorry for the blue twilek jedi who was killed... she was really fit! Why did they kill her?

The climactic battle between Obi Wan and Anakin really set my pulse racing. Anakin is more powerful, but Obi Wan is wiser. The pain of having to take down your own student is immense, but the right thing has to be done.

The ending with the binary sunrise sent a tingle down my spine, it perfectly mirrored the binary sunset in "A New Hope".

I was watching the critics attack it a little on Newsnight Review. Sometimes I respect what they say, but I find a lot of critics fall to the temptation of being snobbish. Take the current situation with Rolf Harris being commissioned to paint the Queen. Nice move! Popular choice, someone the British public can relate to. However, the critics have begun to frown on the appointment already. Why? Rolf has done a lot for classical art in the past few years, he has used his popular appeal to front programmes about the classical artists, and revealed a genuine fondness for there work. These critics are a lot like the popes and cardinals of old, who tried to prevent the translation of biblical texts into the common tongue. In the same way, these critics want to keep the semiotic messages and themes within great works of art to themselves, believing that only "well-educated" people should be allowed to translate these works, because it gives them an air of superiority.

I fundamentally disagree with this entire attitude, every man woman and child has the right to be personally enriched by satisfying their own thirst for knowledge. They should not be held back by the learned, no it is the responsibility of the wise man and the scholar to pass on his knowledge... to empower others... to facilitate the student, not restrict them. This is the problem I have with the antiquated church, but the attitudes are not confined to the church, no modern culture is also rank with it.

A lot of the critics are dismissive of blogs you know. They see them as self indulgent. I personally see nothing wrong with sharing your perspective of the universe, it's equally as valid as any philosopher or renowned writer. Every life makes an impact on the universe. You never know who you might influence by just sharing your opinion.

I've always believed our actions are more life and death than they appear on the surface, but again that's a subject for another time.

I'm looking forward to the Chronicles of Narnia at the cinema, which will be released at Christmas. The trailer on T4 this morning looked impressive!

May the force be with you...

...always.