Sorry for the brief notes. I’ll try to post something of substance once life settles down a bit.

1.) Rate Your Students shutting down. I have mixed feelings about this. Since I do tech support I see the seedy underbelly of just how horrible college students can be. Then again I’ve been treated horribly by a very, very few faculty, as well. I think there’s plenty of ill will and malice on both sides. Do I think that college students should be more with it and less consumer minded? Sure. But I wonder what kind of example blogs like that are, to begin with.

I’m sure it wouldn’t be difficult to figure out who I am. I think my real name is attached to my email, anyway. However, I don’t write anything here I wouldn’t want my grandmother reading, and that also goes for future academic employers. I have nothing to hide. If they’re going to discriminate against me because I’m a Catholic gamer-geek, who likes to opine on video games and meatless lunch ideas, then they aren’t worth working for. Ditto for any dean who’d order me to take this site down.

2.) Chocolate Jesus. I don’t see the offense. Chocolate? Catholics shouldn’t be offended at the association of Christ with food. We do it every day. Maybe it’s a commentary on the consumerism edging into religion. Naked Jesus? Not like every other man on the planet doesn’t have the same parts. If Jesus were truly human and truly divine, I don’t see what the big deal is. Nor do I understand why the male nude form is always a sex object or something “dirty.” Hello, sexist? If anything, I think it would be a good reminder of the humiliation He faced, as well as a poignant reminder of His humanity. I sincerely doubt the Romans were concerned for the modesty of those condemned. Plus, there have been anatomically correct statues for thousands of years. There’s nothing shameful about the human figure. Naked is not always sexual. If anything, it’s less sexual, since I seem to recall a study that humans are more aroused by what isn’t seen than what is.

If you’ll pardon the vulgarity, Bill Donohue needs a warm cup of STFU. I resent that he thinks he speaks for all Catholics, and I doubly resent his and Cardinal Egan’s philistine understanding of art.


~ by Jen on April 1, 2007.

11 Responses to “”

  1. I fully support your suggestion for Bill Donahue. He’s an embarassment.

  2. I agree with the naked chocolate Jesus thing on some levels, not on others. First of all, i thought it looked kinda creepy. Second of all, I’m not sure the artist had his own heart in the right place, let alone Jesus’s chocolate heart. But I agree that we ought to get used to the fact that Jesus had genitals or stop hanging his corpus all over the place. (1) we don’t really know what he looked like (2) They probably didn’t let him where a loin cloth.All the Best,

  3. Thing is, I hate censorship. I hate artistic censorship more. Sure, it’s probably not what I’d do, if I had the skill, but that’s the beauty of art. 🙂 So even though I probably wouldn’t sculpt a chocolate Jesus (the back of it was lovely, that’s the only picture I saw), I fully support those who wish to do so.

  4. Yeah I can see that. To be honest I barely know who Donahue is, though of course from context I figure he orchestrated a few protests. But where do you draw the line? Now those of us with vivid imaginations can start to imagine lots of really offense ways that could go down. In fact, the very word go down of course brings up a few ideas.Now imagine if the artist, to garner extra shock factor, orchestrated a bunch of hot models wearing catholic school girl outfits: hang on lets have both male and female models to make it even jazzier, what if they had to sorta take turns … well I’ll shut up about there.I mean, with the Denmark cartoon thing and all, I think as a liberal democracy the offended people managed to put the kabash on the whole thing without anything uncivilized happening, and I imagine that the artist can still display, sell, eat the piece, whatever it is he wants to do.

  5. Bill Donohue is the head of the Catholic League, a reactionary group that likes to protest things like this. That artist has every right to be as offensive as he/she wants. And I’ve got the right to make the kind of art I do. Kind of goes both ways. It may not be good art (and people have the right to discuss why).

  6. Did he get public funding for it?

  7. Sadly there isn’t much public funding for art here anymore.

  8. Well then if it was private and he was using a private gallery than I am right with you. But then it was up to the gallery owner, or whomever hoped to exhibit the art for a profit to weight the pros and cons of displaying it right? Or did the government step in and squash it?

  9. Government wouldn’t step in. First amendment and all…

  10. So it sounds like the majority of the viewing public and/or the venue decided against it. On the face of it that sounds OK. I mean what if people decided it would be fun to lynch chocolate effigies on Martin Luther King day or some other offensive thing? Its one thing if a racist group decided to do that as a matter of free speech, and quite another if a gallery or some venue decided to make a public spectacle out of it. Then if Al Sharpton et al raised a retort saying, hey we don’t want this, and a lot of the public agreed, well then, I would say that is a healthy way to deal with things.So the artist could still hang out in his studio and eat chocolate jesus all day, and post the video on youtube, but he didn’t, arguably because that’s not what he was after (pure expression and free speech). He wanteda publicity stunt with some shock value to draw attention to his work and the world said no. Now maybe this Donahue guy is a jerk about other stuff, but on the surfance of it, I mean not knowing anything else about it, this particular thing sounds like it was worked out pretty well!

  11. No, actually it didn’t work out OK. Bill Donohue is a fascist idiot. And since I hate censorship in all forms, we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: