Art Museum Shows Jesus in Pornographic Pose

[Mercury]

An art museum in Loveland, Colorado, currently features a depiction of Jesus Christ in a pornographic pose. The piece has sparked heated controversy and debate among residents in Loveland, many of whom assert that the artwork is “blasphemous.”

The artwork in question features Christ Jesus in a variety of sexual poses, including one in which Jesus is engaged in oral sex with another man. In this image, the word “orgasm” appears beside Jesus' head. On display since September 11, it is part of an 82-print exhibit.

According to The Blaze, “The controversial piece is part of a 10-artist exhibit called, 'The Legend of Bud Shark and His Indelible Ink.' The lithograph showing the son of God engaged in a sexual act is called, 'The Misadventures of the Romantic Cannibals,' and was created by Stanford University professor Enrique Chagoya.”

Protestors demanded that the city council de-fund the museum as a result of the controversy, but the city council has asserted that the image “does not meet the criteria of public obscenity.”

Weasel Zippers reports, “Dozens of protestors gathered at the museum over the weekend to object to Chagoy's work, including Loveland Councilman Daryle Klassen, who failed to get the issue on the council agenda but said he'll keep pressing to have what he has called 'smut' and 'pornography' taken down.”

City council member Donna Rice contends that the artwork is the antithesis of the “family-friendly” atmosphere that the “taxpayer-supporter, public museum” intended. “This is not something the community can be proud of.”

Gallery owner Linda King remarked, “It is visual profanity. It disgraces the God of all creation.”

Loveland Christians proclaim the exhibit to be “tax-payer funded pornography”. “We don't think our savior should be put in those kind of poses,” remarks resident Steven Gregory. He adds, “I love art, but this isn't art.”

The Catholic League, a national advocacy group, demands a reaction to the publicly funded artwork from the governor.

“We are writing to Governor Ritter and the Colorado state legislature asking them to justify the use of tax-supported dollars to fund anti-Christian hate speech,” President Bill Donahue wrote in a statement published on the Catholic League's website. “We just want to know how anti-religious programs can be funded with public monies.”

Whether Governor Ritter will prove to be helpful seems unlikely. In July, the governor signed legislation establishing Colorado Creative Industries, which provides grants to various organizations and government agencies. The bill allocated approximately $8,500 to the Loveland Museum.

Jeff Field of the Catholic League adds, “Works like this cannot be publicly funded-and they should not be publicly funded. They always seem to offend Christian sensibilities and it's nobody else. And to have this being on display at the cost of public dollars is an outrage.”

Noting a double-standard applied to Christianity against other religions, Field asked if Chagoya's artwork would be accepted if it depicted the prophet Mohammed in the same poses. “There have been examples in the past of anti-Mohammed artwork. The Muslim community has been outraged-and rightly so-but there's also been different actions taken against the artists.”

Field continues, “Christians thankfully don't react in that way, but at the same time, it is offensive. Somebody needs to be held accountable and something needs to be done about such things being publicly funded.”

Despite the public outcry, the artist has attempted to defend his work allegedly surprised by the public's reaction. “My intentions are not to offend anybody. The main intention of my work is to express my personal concerns about religious institutions, not about the actual religious beliefs, which I respect.”

Loveland painter Edwina Echevarria agreed with Chagoya, stating, “We have to be a country where freedom of expression thrives.”

Nearby in the city of Denver, where residents are known for their liberal leanings, residents were more receptive to the artwork.

Denver resident Carol Ware called the piece “provocative and thought-provoking.” She added, however, that she would not want the artwork in her own living room.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the Los Angeles Times weighed in on the debate, celebrating Chagoya's controversial techniques and labeling him a respected artist. Of the provocative works of art he has created are pieces attacking President George W. Bush, Condoleeza Rice, and former California Governor Pete Wilson.

Chagoya's work is just one of many anti-Christian works of art created in the last decade.

In July of this year, in fact, the Sacramento County Public Law Library came under fire for hosting an art exhibit with anti-Christian artwork. One painting in particular depicted the Bible with a warning label that read, “Warning: May Impair Judgment.”

In 2009, Harvard hosted an anti-Christian art show, which was funded by President Obama's Safe Schools Czar. One of the pieces equated Catholic Bishops to used condoms.

More than a decade ago, a major controversy was sparked when a publicly funded New York City museum featured a painting of a “dung-covered” Virgin Mary, prompting New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani announced that the city would cut off funding to the Brooklyn Art Museum unless it canceled the exhibit. Unfortunately, the museum went to court against the city of New York, resulting in a settlement allocating money to the museum and an additional $5.8 million in capital funding.

Such artwork is not limited to the United States either. Sicilian artist Giuseppe Veneziano has drawn the ire of the Catholic Church on more than one occasion for his depictions of the Virgin Mary. One in particular, entitled “The Madonna of the Third Reich”, shows Mary with baby Hitler in her arms.

One blogster notes how far removed America is from the days of its founding. “As a country founded on Judeo-Christian principles, American society sure has devolved in the last century or so.”

Noting the progressive influence on the devolving state of America, he adds, “Nowhere is this more apparent than in the efforts of the 'progressives' to not only expunge Judeo-Christian principles and thoughts from society, but to demonize Christianity itself.”



http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/culture/family/4791-art-museum-shows-jesus-in-pornographic-pose

Surprisingly this man painted similar pictures depicting Mohammad in sexual acts with little outrage. Perhaps the media didn't report on it?

[Eldritch]

Hasn't this pornographic Jesus thing been done to death years ago already? :coffee:

[Mercury]

Hasn't this pornographic Jesus thing been done to death years ago already? :coffee:

Yeah I don't know why it is still considered art.

[Eldritch]

I mean The Onion was already parodying this sort of art almost a decade ago:


Non-Controversial Christ Painting Under Fire From Art Community

NEW YORK–Miguel Nunez, a Brooklyn-based artist, has sparked protest and outrage within the art community with his "Jesus Rising #4," a non-controversial, non-feces-smeared painting that in no way defiles or blasphemes Jesus Christ.

http://media.theonion.com/images/articles/article/308/onion_news761_jpg_600x1000_q85.jpg

"Jesus Rising #4," included in Nunez's new Divinity exhibition at the Whitney Museum, has received harsh criticism from artists and academics since its June 6 debut. The painting has been picketed nearly around the clock by angry protesters, who say they are stunned by its lack of obscene imagery metaphorically conveying a provocative, highly charged theopolitical message.

"Why isn't this [painting] splattered with donkey semen?" asked sculptor India Jackson, one of the protesters. "And I defy anyone to find a trace of urine, human or otherwise, on this entire canvas. The piece does not appear to be an enraged howl against Christian patriarchal hegemony at all. Frankly, I'm shocked."

"It's the duty of all artists to expose Judeo-Christian brutality through images of Christ engaged in acts of masturbation, rape, and torture," said Diana Bloom-Mutter, curator of New York's Rhone Gallery. "When I look at a painting of Christ, it's supposed to make me say to the person standing next to me, 'Yes, this is obscene, but do you know what's really obscene? Two thousand years of white, male oppression in the name of God.'"

Other detractors point out the "outrageous, inexcusable absence" of subversive commentary on the pervasiveness of materialism in our consumer culture.

http://media.theonion.com/images/articles/article/308/onion_news762_jpg_250x1000_q85.jpg

From The Onion (http://www.theonion.com/articles/noncontroversial-christ-painting-under-fire-from-a,308/#enlarge).

[Grey]

Blasphemy is fine; this is just tasteless.

[Loddfafner]

I am glad that a few art museums still have the balls to risk accusations of blasphemy. I would rather see a batshit-stained Jesus on a pogo stick than some dull Mondrian or some vapid sculpture of a giant vegetable. Anyways, most crucifixion scenes qualify as gay SM porn already.

[Óttar]

“As a country founded on Judeo-Christian principles, American society sure has devolved in the last century or so.”
:rolleyes2:

Most of the founding fathers were Deists i.e. non-Christian.

[Loddfafner]

:twwp:

[Debaser11]

:rolleyes2:

Most of the founding fathers were Deists i.e. non-Christian.

I like the Founding Fathers as much as the next guy, but let's not conflate the culture with the state actors. The culture was and still is undoubtedly a Christian one.

[Raikaswinþs]

If poor old Jesus would rise his head..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkPgYbdQ1kQ

[Mercury]

:rolleyes2:

Most of the founding fathers were Deists i.e. non-Christian.

Not most. But intellectual giants like Jefferson (http://www.sullivan-county.com/id3/jefferson_deist.htm) had some deistic traits. And Thomas Paine was 100%.

[The Ripper]

Modern art is not art in any deeper sense, it is cheap political provocation.

[lei.talk]

:twwp:


http://www.sharksink.com/images/EC02-01f.jpg



addendum: this image added

http://i55.tinypic.com/987y9x.jpg

after publisher removed it from their web-site (http://www.sharksink.com/images/EC02-01f.jpg)
because the work was destroyed (http://www.reporterherald.com/news_story.asp?ID=29699).

[lei.talk]

Colorado town upset
over artistic depiction of Jesus Christ
David Ng (David Ng) | October 1, 2010 | 2:23 pm

Citizens of the Colorado town of Loveland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loveland,_Colorado) are upset this week over the display of a work of art that they claim shows Jesus Christ involved in an act of oral sex.

Enrique Chagoya (http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/17/entertainment/et-chagoya17)'s "The Misadventures of the Romantic Cannibals (http://www.publiusforum.com/images/The%20Legend%20of%20Bud%20Shark.jpg)" is being shown as part of an exhibition at the Loveland Museum/Gallery. According to a report in the Loveland Reporter-Herald (http://www.google.com/search?q=Enrique+Chagoya&sitesearch=reporterherald.com), protesters were scheduled to gather Friday morning at the art space to show their opposition to work that they consider obscene.

Chagoya's lithograph, which was created in 2003, is a multi-panel work that shows "comic book characters, religious iconography and imagery, appropriated engravings, Mexican pornography, ethnic stereotypes, Mayan symbols" and more, according to the artist's publisher, Shark's Ink.

The lithograph can be viewed on the Shark's Ink website (http://www.sharksink.com/artists.asp?artists=15), but the company has not given permission to reproduce the work online. The company said that the work resembles an accordion folded book that opens to a frieze 90 inches long.

A professor at Stanford University (http://art.stanford.edu/profile/Enrique+Chagoya/), Chagoya is a widely respected artist whose work is in the public collections of institutions including the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, the Museum of Modern Art in New York, the Whitney Museum of American Art and the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art.

Protesters claim that part of Chagoya's creation shows Jesus engaged in an act of fellatio. The city's cultural services director, Susan Ison, has denied the claim, telling the Reporter-Herald that "Jesus is not having oral sex."

A Loveland city councilman who believes the artwork to be pornographic failed earlier this week to put the matter on the council's agenda, according to a report from Denver's ABC-7 News (http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/25239730/detail.html). But Republican Councilman Daryle Klassen has expressed his intention to keep trying.

Chagoya has a history of making politically and socially provocative art. In the past, he has satirized George W. Bush, Condoleezza Rice and former California Gov. Pete Wilson.

You can learn more about the art of Enrique Chagoya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrique_Chagoya) in the video below:


Stanford Humanities

[Treffie]

Jesus portrayed as post-op transsexual? Hmm, amusing :p

[Mercury]

“As a country founded on Judeo-Christian principles, American society sure has devolved in the last century or so.”

I always wonder why people stress the Judeo part of it? Christianity has the Torah in it already-- why go the extra mile to call it Judeo-Christian? Kind of weird.

[Monolith]

I always wonder why people stress the Judeo part of it? Christianity has the Torah in it already-- why go the extra mile to call it Judeo-Christian? Kind of weird.
It's a terrible misnomer favored mainly by people who are not religious themselves. I'm as much a "Judeo-" as a random Jew is "Christian".

[The Ripper]

It's a terrible misnomer favored mainly by people who are not religious themselves. I'm as much a "Judeo-" as a random Jew is "Christian".

It is favoured by Atlanticists and neo-cons, the heretics! ;)

[Eldritch]

More on the anti-Pornojesus crowbar rampage:

Police Say Woman Went After Jesus Art With Crowbar

http://llnw.image.cbslocal.com/19/2010/10/07/320x240/folden.jpg

A truck driver from Montana who is accused of destroying a controversial piece of artwork at a public art gallery in Loveland was scheduled to appear before a judge through a video link on Thursday afternoon.

Kathleen Folden allegedly screamed "How can you desecrate my lord?" on Wednesday at Loveland Museum and Art Gallery just before breaking some plexiglass surrounding the print of The Misadventures of the Romantic Cannibals with a crowbar. She then allegedly tore the print and sat on the floor until police arrived.

Romantic Cannibals was a 12-panel lithograph that depicted Jesus involved involved a sex act and it also included comic book characters, Mexican pornography, Mayan symbols and ethnic stereotypes. It ws part of an 82-print exhibit by 10 artists that opened in mid-September and was scheduled to run through late last month.

Folden, 56, of Kalispell, Mont., was treated for a hand injury in the incident. She is now facing felony charges of criminal mischief and is at the Larimer County Detention Center.

Gallery director Susan Ison has been dealing with many upset people in the past week who don't agree with displaying the image and had been protesting the piece. Police said Folden is a long-haul truck driver who came to Loveland to join the protests. Ison said Wednesday's incident was a senseless act of violence.

"There's been a lot of emotion in the last couple of weeks and I wish that people would think about the consequences of what they do," gallery director Susan Ison said.

On Thursday at the gallery there was a note in the spot where the artwork had hung saying "This piece was destroyed by an act of violence and is no longer on exhibit."

...


Police first responded on Wednesday to the crime in force because the emergency call came in as shots fired. After units arrived they discovered the sound was most likely the crowbar hitting the glass case where the art was housed.

"The SWAT team shows up and all kinds of cars showed up all at the same time more or less and shortly thereafter I guess there was a female that had her arms behind her back all cuffed and being escorted to the car," a witness told CBS4.

During the incident Folden was wearing a T-shirt with the slogan "My Savior Is Tougher Than Nails." *

Link. (http://cbs4denver.com/news/crowbar.kathleen.folden.2.1951165.html)

* Well, a certain Roman Centurion named Julius might beg to differ on that one, but whatever ....

[blan]

people who create this kind of filth are cowards, i dare them to do the same to Muslim icons or to the jewish talmud, they wont you know why? because they know there heads would be on platters,

[Debaser11]

^ Or even worse, someone might call them a "wacist."

[Loddfafner]

She is just upset that no one ever thought of painting her in a pornographic pose.


More on the anti-Pornojesus crowbar rampage:

Police Say Woman Went After Jesus Art With Crowbar

http://llnw.image.cbslocal.com/19/2010/10/07/320x240/folden.jpg

A truck driver from Montana who is accused of destroying a controversial piece of artwork at a public art gallery in Loveland was scheduled to appear before a judge through a video link on Thursday afternoon.

Kathleen Folden allegedly screamed "How can you desecrate my lord?" on Wednesday at Loveland Museum and Art Gallery just before breaking some plexiglass surrounding the print of The Misadventures of the Romantic Cannibals with a crowbar. She then allegedly tore the print and sat on the floor until police arrived.

[Korbis]

IMO a giant sculpture depicting Jesus jerking Abraham while banging Mohammed´s ass would be quite ecuanimous with everybody feelings and even eloquent regarding the current relation between those faiths. But I doubt we will ever see something like that outside Northern Europe.

[Aemma]

I always wonder why people stress the Judeo part of it? Christianity has the Torah in it already-- why go the extra mile to call it Judeo-Christian? Kind of weird.

The reason is exactly that, to recognise that the Old Testament is as much Christian as is the New Testament. There really isn't anything wrong with depicting this leg of the Abrahamic tradition as being Judaeo-Christian. Interestingly I find that most Christians who lean more towards anti-semitism are the ones who more often than not have their ire raised when the term "Judaeo-Christian" is proposed. It just is what it is, dear people. No need to get one's knickers in a twist about it.

[Aemma]

people who create this kind of filth are cowards, i dare them to do the same to Muslim icons or to the jewish talmud, they wont you know why? because they know there heads would be on platters,

Well didn't some Danish journalists try this kind of trick depicting something *ahem* untowards about Mohammed some couple of years ago to *ahem* rave reviews? ;) :D

It's ALL target-worthy if you ask me!

[Psychonaut]

The reason is exactly that, to recognise that the Old Testament is as much Christian as is the New Testament. There really isn't anything wrong with depicting this leg of the Abrahamic tradition as being Judaeo-Christian. Interestingly I find that most Christians who lean more towards anti-semitism are the ones who more often than not have their ire raised when the term "Judaeo-Christian" is proposed. It just is what it is, dear people. No need to get one's knickers in a twist about it.

The only ones I ever hear use the term in the US are Neocons (who use it for obvious reasons) and Fundamentalists. Funnily enough though, some of the oldest usages of the term are found in Nietzsche's writing.

[Korbis]

Yeah, Jesus was basically a kike with magic powers and too much ego.

[blan]

Yeah, Jesus was basically a kike with magic powers and too much ego.

its is obvious you never read the scriptures because christ had little ego.

[blan]

Well didn't some Danish journalists try this kind of trick depicting something *ahem* untowards about Mohammed some couple of years ago to *ahem* rave reviews? ;) :D

It's ALL target-worthy if you ask me!

people like him are very rare ad often very dead,
i think anyone has the right to express themselves any way they want but dont expect our public resources and money to fund things that attack us.
doesnt the USA and europe ave laws about not allowing any public funds go to religous groups? why should public fund go to those who attack religous groups?
attacks on my christian heritage and culture are attacks on my family, anncestors, on me and my culture.

[Aemma]

people like him are very rare ad often very dead,
i think anyone has the right to express themselves any way they want but dont expect our public resources and money to fund things that attack us.
doesnt the USA and europe ave laws about not allowing any public funds go to religous groups? why should public fund go to those who attack religous groups?
attacks on my christian heritage and culture are attacks on my family, anncestors, on me and my culture.

Yes blan, and that's entirely legitimate as well. I just mean that there's a fine line between having a gag order on people who even dare to speak up against the (religious) status quo and those who make it a personal attack on people. I'm not for attacking anybody on a personal level, no matter who or where you come from. But I am for people's right to voice their discontent with the effects of living in an age of organised, institutionalised (politicised even) religion. There's a big difference there in my own mind and always will be.

I would never however disparage anyone's personal modes of spirituality though. It's not what I do nor condone.

[RoyBatty]

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/culture/family/4791-art-museum-shows-jesus-in-pornographic-pose

Surprisingly this man painted similar pictures depicting Mohammad in sexual acts with little outrage. Perhaps the media didn't report on it?

I imagine that the media didn't report it.

[Debaser11]

Freedom of speech to most people these days simply means the freedom to be vulgar. The freedom to say crass things and the freedom to consume dirty media. Very few appreciate the foundational importance for such measures. In part, it's because people are too ignorant and indolent to care otherwise. They've been bought off with gadgets and gizmos.

[RoyBatty]

people who create this kind of filth are cowards, i dare them to do the same to Muslim icons or to the jewish talmud, they wont you know why? because they know there heads would be on platters,

Some of them do try their luck with Muslim related items and then expect to be protected against the predictable violent backlash by the Authorities (wasting our Taxes in the process).

It's seldom to never that these "arteests" and gallery owners go after the Jews though. Wonder why that is........ :confused:

[Debaser11]

^ Because people like RoyBatty would start putting 6 million of them in ovens all over again. ;)

[Aemma]

The only ones I ever hear use the term in the US are Neocons (who use it for obvious reasons) and Fundamentalists. Funnily enough though, some of the oldest usages of the term are found in Nietzsche's writing.

And the ones I used to hear using the term, way back when of course, was during uni days at my good old alma mater: all of my religious studies profs used to refer to all aspects of Christian thought or philosophy as Judaeo-Christian. I guess for me, it just stuck. :shrug:

[Murphy]

The reason is exactly that, to recognise that the Old Testament is as much Christian as is the New Testament. There really isn't anything wrong with depicting this leg of the Abrahamic tradition as being Judaeo-Christian. Interestingly I find that most Christians who lean more towards anti-semitism are the ones who more often than not have their ire raised when the term "Judaeo-Christian" is proposed. It just is what it is, dear people. No need to get one's knickers in a twist about it.

Very true Mamma Bear. The Catholic Church is Israel. Abraham and Moses are as much my ancestors as are my grandfather and his father. But I still reject the term Judeo-Christian because it legitimises modern Talmudic-Judaism and tries to imagine that Christianity and this Talmudic mess are linked with one another outside of the Church's Old Covenant roots and the imagined link between modern Talmudic-Judaism and the old Israelite faith. It misses that Talmudic-Judaism is rupture with the old Law of the Israelites (never mind that that Law isn't salvific any more).

It also flows into dangerous waters in politics. Like has been mentioned in this thread, many Neo-Cons etcetera use the term to try and justify their support of Israel. This leads Christians into the dangerous waters of thinking that the Zionist religion is in some way capable of offering salvation.

This is a long winded way of saying you're right but I prefer a simple "Christian" :P!


Yeah, Jesus was basically a kike with magic powers and too much ego.

You and your opinions matter why? Is there a reason you need to be insulting?

[Wyn]

There really isn't anything wrong with depicting this leg of the Abrahamic tradition as being Judaeo-Christian.

I don't know what you refer to when you say "this leg" , but the term Judaeo-Christian is a very misguided one. To be Christian (of the Christ, the anointed) is to believe believe in the inspiration of the Torah, to prophethood of Moses, the concept of Messiahship etc. The Judaeo prefix is completely redundant.

[Aemma]

I don't know what you refer to when you say "this leg" , but the term Judaeo-Christian is a very misguided one. To be Christian (of the Christ, the anointed) is to believe believe in the inspiration of the Torah, to prophethood of Moses, the concept of Messiahship etc. The Judaeo prefix is completely redundant.

No it's not. It's used. End of story.

[Wyn]

No it's not.

Well, I'm glad we cleared that up.


It's used.

A most compelling argument.


End of story.

I'm convinced!

[Murphy]

I don't know what you refer to when you say "this leg" , but the term Judaeo-Christian is a very misguided one. To be Christian (of the Christ, the anointed) is to believe believe in the inspiration of the Torah, to prophethood of Moses, the concept of Messiahship etc. The Judaeo prefix is completely redundant.

Christ did come to fulfill the law did He not? The problem is people take it to extremes. I've met so-called Catholics who deny the Old Testament and pagans who imagine Christianity as being crypto-Talmudic Judaism.

There has to be a balance. It must be acknowledged that our Church is Israel and Abraham is our father.

[Wyn]

Christ did come to fulfill the law did He not?

He did. He is the Christ. The anointed one.



There has to be a balance. It must be acknowledged that our Church is Israel and Abraham is our father.

Absolutely the Chuch is Israel and Abraham is our father. This does not make the prefix Judeo any less redundant. The word Christian itself means follower of the anointed one. By default it recognises the OT prophecies, Israel etc.

[Loddfafner]

The problem with "Judeo-Christian" is that it leaves out a third major faith that has filled in a huge portion of the former Roman Empire. Abrahamic seems as good a word as any that is more inclusive of the variants of that kind of religion.

[Don Brick]

Dayum! Jesus is getting his freak on! :eek: