Art Exhibit Depicting Jesus in a Sex Act Sparks Outrage
J
No matter what one's personal religious beliefs may be, this exhibit is an
affront to common decency and an insult to the American public. This art
gallery should end this travesty immediately
Art Exhibit Depicting Jesus in a Sex Act Sparks Outrage in Colorado
By Diane Macedo
An exhibit at a Colorado art gallery is stirring up outrage from critics who
say it depicts Jesus Christ in a sexual act.
Enrique Chagoya's "The Misadventures of the Romantic Cannibals,"created in
2003, is a multipanel piece in which "cultural and religious icons are
presented with humor and placed in contradictory, unexpected and sometimes
controversial contexts," the artist's publisher, Shark's Ink, said on its
website.
The lithograph, on display since Sept. 11 at the tax-funded Loveland Museum
Gallery in Loveland, Colo., is part of an 82-print exhibit by 10 artists who
have worked with Colorado printer Bud Shark. It includes several images of
Jesus, including one in which he appears to be receiving oral sex from a man
as the word "orgasm" appears beside Jesus' head.
--
J Young
jvis...@live.com
Spartakus
> No matter what one's personal religious beliefs may be, this exhibit is an
> affront to common decency and an insult to the American public. This art
> gallery should end this travesty immediately
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/04/outrage-art-exhibit-depicting-je...
>
> Art Exhibit Depicting Jesus in a Sex Act Sparks Outrage in Colorado
>
> By Diane Macedo
>
> An exhibit at a Colorado art gallery is stirring up outrage from critics who
> say it depicts Jesus Christ in a sexual act.
Black velvet paintings of dogs playing poker is about as controversial
as JYoung/IBen can tolerate.
Don Martin
> The lithograph, on display since Sept. 11 at the tax-funded Loveland Museum
> Gallery in Loveland, Colo., is part of an 82-print exhibit by 10 artists who
> have worked with Colorado printer Bud Shark. It includes several images of
> Jesus, including one in which he appears to be receiving oral sex from a man
> as the word "orgasm" appears beside Jesus' head.
There since September 11? The "outrage" that was "sparked" is a
pretty sluggish one, wasn't it? Perhaps Jesus needs a bit of Viagra
to get his creative juices flowing.
W.T.S.
>
> No matter what one's personal religious beliefs may be, this exhibit is an
> affront to common decency and an insult to the American public. This art
> gallery should end this travesty immediately
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/04/outrage-art-exhibit-depicting-jesus-sex-act-boosts-gallery-visits/
>
> in Colorado.
>
> By Diane Macedo
>
> An exhibit at a Colorado art gallery is stirring up delight from
> say it depicts Jesus Christ in a sexual act.
>
> Enrique Chagoya's "The Misadventures of the Romantic Cannibals,"created in
> 2003, is a multipanel piece in which "cultural and religious icons are
> presented with humor and placed in contradictory, unexpected and sometimes
> controversial contexts," the artist's publisher, Shark's Ink, said on its
> website.
>
> The lithograph, on display since Sept. 11 at the tax-funded Loveland Museum
> Gallery in Loveland, Colo., is part of an 82-print exhibit by 10 artists who
> have worked with Colorado printer Bud Shark. It includes several images of
> Jesus, including one in which he appears to be receiving oral sex from a man
> as the word "orgasm" appears beside Jesus' head.
Good grief, "J", have you no sense of humor? Such a wonderful art
exhibit should be show everywhere.
--
http://folding.stanford.edu
Save lives, visit today!
Jude Alexander
"J" <jvis...@live.com> wrote in message
news:44c7ir....@news.alt.net...
Just goes to show you that there IS no low that juvenile adults can't reach.
thomas p.
news:cf7e03d5-7105-4316...@l20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
thomas p wrote:
Celebrities are expected to put up with this sort of thing. Jesus is, after
all, a public figure, and one would think that he was strong enough to
survive it - being omnipotent and all.
Jimbo
> affront to common decency
Your religion is an affront to common decency, so your claims as to
what common decency is is dubious at best.
Bill Allen
> No matter what one's personal religious beliefs may be, this exhibit is an
> affront to common decency and an insult to the American public. This art
> gallery should end this travesty immediately
Why do you hate all free speech other than your own, Auric?
>
> An exhibit at a Colorado art gallery is stirring up outrage from critics who
> say it depicts Jesus Christ in a sexual act.
That's why they call it "art", Junkman.
Art is intended to provide thought and emotions, at least among those
capable of thought.
As for those offended...boo hoo!
Dead Ted
Creating such rubbish is only asking for controversy. I am appalled
that this was allowed to be on display. Whether you believe in Jesus
or not it is very rude to create something that will only invoke anger
in the Christians.
I seem to remember recently that a newspaper created a comedic
parody of Muhammad which in turn sparked such a controversy it
was promptly removed and apologies were delivered.
Perhaps it is the Muslims willingness to explode bombs that made
the difference?
Tedward
Dakota
> No matter what one's personal religious beliefs may be, this exhibit is an
> affront to common decency and an insult to the American public. This art
> gallery should end this travesty immediately
>
Why should they do that? According to your Fox News link, the exhibit is
boosting gallery visits. Apparently the American Public is lining up to
see it. It's difficult for me to believe atheists would have any
interest in the exhibit so I'm guessing it must be theists.
Please don't presume to tell us what is an affront to common decency.
You regularly demonstrate that you are clueless about decency.
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/04/outrage-art-exhibit-depicting-jesus-sex-act-boosts-gallery-visits/
>
<snip silly rant>
Conan the bacterium
> No matter what one's personal religious beliefs may be, this exhibit is an
> affront to common decency and an insult to the American public. This art
> gallery should end this travesty immediately
>
>
Eh?
Given that God is supposed to have knocked up
Mary, I don't see why the concept of the Deity
engaging in something sexual could offend anyone?
conan
Ghod Dhammit
news:024e0b8b-920e-4d46...@26g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
: On Oct 5, 12:27 pm, Don Martin <drdonmar...@comcast.net> wrote:
: > On Oct 5, 11:59 am, "J" <jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
: >
: > > The lithograph, on display since Sept. 11 at the tax-funded Loveland
Museum
: > > Gallery in Loveland, Colo., is part of an 82-print exhibit by 10
artists who
: > > have worked with Colorado printer Bud Shark. It includes several
images of
: > > Jesus, including one in which he appears to be receiving oral sex from
a man
: > > as the word "orgasm" appears beside Jesus' head.
: >
: > There since September 11? The "outrage" that was "sparked" is a
: > pretty sluggish one, wasn't it? Perhaps Jesus needs a bit of Viagra
: > to get his creative juices flowing.
:
: Creating such rubbish is only asking for controversy.
You're not an artist, you're barely human, and art is often _intended_ to
stir controversy...you lose.
: I am appalled
I'm appalled that you're here. Go away.
: that this was allowed to be on display. Whether you believe in Jesus
: or not it is very rude to create something that will only invoke anger
: in the Christians.
Xianity angers any thinking person. That it doesn't anger you demonstrates
your inability to think.
: I seem to remember recently that a newspaper created a comedic
: parody of Muhammad which in turn sparked such a controversy it
: was promptly removed and apologies were delivered.
You lie a lot, did you know that? Jyllands-Posten published the cartoons
originally in 2005, and then, when an attempt was made on Kurt Westergaard's
life, they reprinted them. Fact: They didn't back down, or admit to any
wrongdoing. They didn't apologize for publishing them, they apologized for
offending the idiots. Not quite what you're claiming, cretin.
"(.) Serious misunderstandings in respect of some drawings of the Prophet
Mohammed have led to much anger (.) Please allow me to correct these
misunderstandings. On 30 September last year, Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten
published 12 different cartoonists' idea of what the Prophet Mohammed might
have looked like. (.) In our opinion, the 12 drawings were sober. They were
not intended to be offensive, nor were they at variance with Danish law, but
they have indisputably offended many Muslims for which we apologize."
: Perhaps it is the Muslims willingness to explode bombs that made
: the difference?
Perhaps you should find a brain somewhere...whatever it is that you're using
instead of a brain is not doing you any good.
Dead Ted
> "Dead Ted" <dead_...@live.com> wrote in message
>
> news:024e0b8b-920e-4d46...@26g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
> : On Oct 5, 12:27 pm, Don Martin <drdonmar...@comcast.net> wrote:
> : > On Oct 5, 11:59 am, "J" <jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> : >
> : > > The lithograph, on display since Sept. 11 at the tax-funded Loveland
> Museum
> : > > Gallery in Loveland, Colo., is part of an 82-print exhibit by 10
> artists who
> : > > have worked with Colorado printer Bud Shark. It includes several
> images of
> : > > Jesus, including one in which he appears to be receiving oral sex from
> a man
> : > > as the word "orgasm" appears beside Jesus' head.
> : >
> : > There since September 11? The "outrage" that was "sparked" is a
> : > pretty sluggish one, wasn't it? Perhaps Jesus needs a bit of Viagra
> : > to get his creative juices flowing.
> :
> : Creating such rubbish is only asking for controversy.
>
> You're not an artist, you're barely human,
Sir, you don't even know me.
> art is often _intended_ to
> stir controversy...you lose.
If ^that^ is the concept of fine art i suppose submitting a picture
of you with a turd in your mouth with a crucifix stuck in it would
suffice? You could call it "Ghod Dhammit" thus stirring up more
hate towards you for being rude, crude and socially unacceptable.
> : I am appalled
>
> I'm appalled that you're here. Go away.
I think not.
> : that this was allowed to be on display. Whether you believe in Jesus
> : or not it is very rude to create something that will only invoke anger
> : in the Christians.
>
> Xianity angers any thinking person. That it doesn't anger you demonstrates
> your inability to think.
I see. The concept of educated, loving individuals with love in their
hearts
angers you. You know, they still love you regardless of your rudeness
and
lack of social skills because Jesus loves you.
>
> : I seem to remember recently that a newspaper created a comedic
> : parody of Muhammad which in turn sparked such a controversy it
> : was promptly removed and apologies were delivered.
>
> You lie a lot, did you know that? Jyllands-Posten published the cartoons
> originally in 2005, and then, when an attempt was made on Kurt Westergaard's
> life, they reprinted them. Fact: They didn't back down, or admit to any
> wrongdoing. They didn't apologize for publishing them, they apologized for
> offending the idiots. Not quite what you're claiming, cretin.
>
> "(.) Serious misunderstandings in respect of some drawings of the Prophet
> Mohammed have led to much anger (.) Please allow me to correct these
> misunderstandings. On 30 September last year, Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten
> published 12 different cartoonists' idea of what the Prophet Mohammed might
> have looked like. (.) In our opinion, the 12 drawings were sober. They were
> not intended to be offensive, nor were they at variance with Danish law, but
> they have indisputably offended many Muslims for which we apologize."
If an apology for offending the Muslims is appropriate. An apology
for offending the Christians is just as appropriate.
> : Perhaps it is the Muslims willingness to explode bombs that made
> : the difference?
>
> Perhaps you should find a brain somewhere...whatever it is that you're using
> instead of a brain is not doing you any good.
You have loads of pent up anger. You should take a Valium
and consider seeing a counselor.
Tedward
Velociraptor
wrote:
So obviously Fox likes it, they choose to publicize it (though they
pretend not to like it, of course!)
--
velociraptor_nice_reptile @NO_SPAM yahoo.co.uk
Diddles
You are all missing the point!
If God made man in His own image does God have titts?
If not why lumber men with a pair of breast with a titt on each one?
Diddles
The Chief Instigator
>
> No matter what one's personal religious beliefs may be, this exhibit is an
> affront to common decency and an insult to the American public. This art
> gallery should end this travesty immediately
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/04/outrage-art-exhibit-depicting-jesus-sex-act-boosts-gallery-visits/
>
>
>
> Art Exhibit Depicting Jesus in a Sex Act Sparks Outrage in Colorado
How many times have you visited it, Junkie? More than I have, since I've
driven through Chicago, twice...both of them in the later days of the 20th
Century, on our way to/from my Dakotan in-laws.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, TX
www.prismnet.com/~patrick (TCI's 2009-10 Houston Aeros) AA#2237
LAST GAME: San Antonio 3, Houston 2 (April 11)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 9 at Oklahoma City, 7:05
Spartakus
> J wrote:
> > An exhibit at a Colorado art gallery is stirring up outrage from critics who
> > say it depicts Jesus Christ in a sexual act.
> That's why they call it "art", Junkman.
> Art is intended to provide thought and emotions, at least among those
> capable of thought.
>
> As for those offended...boo hoo!
I'll go farther than that, Bill. I would say that art is intended to
*provoke* thought and emotions.
Please indulge me while I spin a personal anecdote. I recently rented
a movie called "Eroica" and had a crazy good time watching it multiple
times. It portrays the very first performance of Beethoven's Third
Symphony, subtitled "Eroica". This symphony is the single most
revolutionary piece of music in the symphonic literature. It launched
Beethoven's mature heroic style, and it was his favorite symphony to
the end of his life. Although the film is saddled with historical
inaccuracies and musical implausibilities (what orchestra plays
through a difficult score perfectly at first sight?), it is a metaphor
for the social and political ferment in Europe that resulted from the
French Revolution.
The point I'm trying to make here is that the response of the viewer
is just as important as the art work itself. To illustrate, there was
a particularly telling moment in the film - a long shot of the face of
a nobleman of conservative musical taste during the Funeral March - he
was simultaneously moved almost to tears and repelled by what he
heard. The music offended his political loyalties but it was just
right for the spirit of the times, and he knew it. Between movements,
he sniped at Beethoven (and got in return as good as he gave!), but he
could not prevail against the torrent of change that the symphony
prophesied.
Has anyone actually seen the art work under discussion here? Subject
matter aside, is it any good?
Ray Fischer
>No matter what one's personal religious beliefs may be, this exhibit is an
>affront to common decency and an insult to the American public.
You immoral nazi turds do not represent the American public.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
JohnN
> No matter what one's personal religious beliefs may be, this exhibit is an
> affront to common decency and an insult to the American public. This art
> gallery should end this travesty immediately
>
>
> Art Exhibit Depicting Jesus in a Sex Act Sparks Outrage in Colorado
>
> By Diane Macedo
>
> An exhibit at a Colorado art gallery is stirring up outrage from critics who
> say it depicts Jesus Christ in a sexual act.
>
> Enrique Chagoya's "The Misadventures of the Romantic Cannibals,"created in
> 2003, is a multipanel piece in which "cultural and religious icons are
> presented with humor and placed in contradictory, unexpected and sometimes
> controversial contexts," the artist's publisher, Shark's Ink, said on its
> website.
>
> The lithograph, on display since Sept. 11 at the tax-funded Loveland Museum
> Gallery in Loveland, Colo., is part of an 82-print exhibit by 10 artists who
> have worked with Colorado printer Bud Shark. It includes several images of
> Jesus, including one in which he appears to be receiving oral sex from a man
> as the word "orgasm" appears beside Jesus' head.
>
> --
> J Young
I don't see Jesus or your god doing anything about it. Why is that?
JohnN
Buddythunder
I've always thought it was part of art's remit to poke and provoke.
Got us talking, didn't it? Look, if it's that offensive, don't go and
see it. Pretend like it never happened.
thomas p.
news:024e0b8b-920e-4d46...@26g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 5, 12:27 pm, Don Martin <drdonmar...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Oct 5, 11:59 am, "J" <jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > The lithograph, on display since Sept. 11 at the tax-funded Loveland
> > Museum
> > Gallery in Loveland, Colo., is part of an 82-print exhibit by 10 artists
> > who
> > have worked with Colorado printer Bud Shark. It includes several images
> > of
> > Jesus, including one in which he appears to be receiving oral sex from a
> > man
> > as the word "orgasm" appears beside Jesus' head.
>
> There since September 11? The "outrage" that was "sparked" is a
> pretty sluggish one, wasn't it? Perhaps Jesus needs a bit of Viagra
> to get his creative juices flowing.
Creating such rubbish is only asking for controversy. I am appalled
that this was allowed to be on display.
thomas p wrote:
"Allowed"? Ever hear of the US Constitution. You seem easily appalled but
not, apparently, by recommendations of censorship.
"Dead Ted"
Whether you believe in Jesus
or not it is very rude to create something that will only invoke anger
in the Christians.
thomas p wrote:
Christians have no special protection against being offended. Freedom of
expression is not limited to matters not offensive to anyone; that would
rather defeat the whole purpose.
"Dead Ted" wrote:
I seem to remember recently that a newspaper created a comedic
parody of Muhammad which in turn sparked such a controversy it
was promptly removed and apologies were delivered.
Perhaps it is the Muslims willingness to explode bombs that made
the difference?
thomas p wrote:
Perhaps it was. Are you suggesting that as a model of future behavior?
thomas p.
His concept of art or yours is not the point. It was the artist's concept,
and he has every right to express it; even if we all dislike it.
snip
Don Martin
> On Oct 5, 12:27 pm, Don Martin <drdonmar...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 5, 11:59 am, "J" <jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > > The lithograph, on display since Sept. 11 at the tax-funded Loveland Museum
> > > Gallery in Loveland, Colo., is part of an 82-print exhibit by 10 artists who
> > > have worked with Colorado printer Bud Shark. It includes several images of
> > > Jesus, including one in which he appears to be receiving oral sex from a man
> > > as the word "orgasm" appears beside Jesus' head.
>
> > There since September 11? The "outrage" that was "sparked" is a
> > pretty sluggish one, wasn't it? Perhaps Jesus needs a bit of Viagra
> > to get his creative juices flowing.
>
> Creating such rubbish is only asking for controversy. I am appalled
> that this was allowed to be on display. Whether you believe in Jesus
> or not it is very rude to create something that will only invoke anger
> in the Christians.
Fuck 'em all as a bunch of pains in the arse.
Don Martin
Obviously.
Bill Allen
> Bill Allen <wp...@live.com> wrote:
>> J wrote:
>
>>> An exhibit at a Colorado art gallery is stirring up outrage from critics who
>>> say it depicts Jesus Christ in a sexual act.
>
>> That's why they call it "art", Junkman.
>> Art is intended to provide thought and emotions, at least among those
>> capable of thought.
>>
>> As for those offended...boo hoo!
>
> I'll go farther than that, Bill. I would say that art is intended to
> *provoke* thought and emotions.
Oops!
You're right, I thought I had written "provoke".
Betrayed by a complete lack of proofreading.
>
> Please indulge me while I spin a personal anecdote. I recently rented
> a movie called "Eroica" and had a crazy good time watching it multiple
> times. It portrays the very first performance of Beethoven's Third
> Symphony, subtitled "Eroica". This symphony is the single most
> revolutionary piece of music in the symphonic literature. It launched
> Beethoven's mature heroic style, and it was his favorite symphony to
> the end of his life. Although the film is saddled with historical
> inaccuracies and musical implausibilities (what orchestra plays
> through a difficult score perfectly at first sight?), it is a metaphor
> for the social and political ferment in Europe that resulted from the
> French Revolution.
>
> The point I'm trying to make here is that the response of the viewer
> is just as important as the art work itself. To illustrate, there was
> a particularly telling moment in the film - a long shot of the face of
> a nobleman of conservative musical taste during the Funeral March - he
> was simultaneously moved almost to tears and repelled by what he
> heard. The music offended his political loyalties but it was just
> right for the spirit of the times, and he knew it. Between movements,
> he sniped at Beethoven (and got in return as good as he gave!), but he
> could not prevail against the torrent of change that the symphony
> prophesied.
Informative and interesting anecdote.
Sadly, way over Iben's head as
>
> Has anyone actually seen the art work under discussion here? Subject
> matter aside, is it any good?
Bet your last dollar that J-Auric Hellman hasn't.
Nyarlat Hotep
> No matter what one's personal religious beliefs may be, this exhibit is an
> affront to common decency and an insult to the American public.
Not true. I would like to see statues of Jesus having sex with a goat.
Patrick
"Nyarlat Hotep" <cthulhupht...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:51815e5be108fcb5...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
That is why we don't consider you "American public."
chibiabos
> No matter what one's personal religious beliefs may be, this exhibit is an
> affront to common decency and an insult to the American public. This art
> gallery should end this travesty immediately
Get over it. Contrary to popular belief, people DID fuck in the 1st
Century. Moreover, if I was Son-O-God with magical super powers, I'd be
doing a lot more fucking than preaching.
But then, you're J, and everything you know about fucking can be
written on a Post-It note:
"She has 8 holes
but only 3 of them are usable."
-chib
--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
Bill M
"Patrick" <bark...@erinot.com> wrote in message
news:sLGdnRKlqN0CKDDR...@posted.localnet...
If Jesus was a God that created this vast Universe he could and would easily
destroy
any craven images of him!
Because he only exists in peoples imaginations he can't destroy anything.
W.T.S.
bark...@erinot.com says...
Pope, the Bible, and everything they stand for spat upon.
Church, bad. Atheism, pure and beautiful!
--
http://folding.stanford.edu
Save lives, visit today!
thomas p.
news:9ha0b65itkh2rdhbd...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 07:41:23 +0200, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> in
> alt.abortion with message-id
> <4cac0bfd$0$36587$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk> wrote:
>
>>His concept of art or yours is not the point. It was the artist's
>>concept,
>>and he has every right to express it; even if we all dislike it.
>
If I did not say I did not like it, why do you think I don't?
Nyarlat Hotep
I am legion. Now, back to Jesus blowing the goat...
Brian E. Clark
Ca...@swampville.use says...
> Just goes to show you that there IS no low that juvenile
> adults can't reach.
Few things are less characteristically juvenile than a fear
of sex, but that's what is driving all the outrage. Who is
offended by depictions of adults enjoying intimacy? People
warped by religious prudery, that's who.
Regarding sexuality, many Christians are imprisoned in a
perpetual childhood, and they equate sexual purity with
spiritual superiority, and thus they react with terror and
anger when their savior is shown behaving like a grown man.
Do these sexually stunted people imagine that Jesus had no
penis, or never had cause to touch it?
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
Nyarlat Hotep
> Regarding sexuality, many Christians are imprisoned in a
> perpetual childhood, and they equate sexual purity with
> spiritual superiority, and thus they react with terror and
> anger when their savior is shown behaving like a grown man.
> Do these sexually stunted people imagine that Jesus had no
> penis, or never had cause to touch it?
>
Very, very true. In fact, if Jesus existed he would have woke up with a
hard-on like the rest of us, and jacked off his holy spunk, and stuck
his holy cock into whatever hole would have it. Actually, he was
probably quite the stud-muffin. Perhaps he was gay on the other hand. I
wonder if his jizz had miraculous powers? Or santorum from his anus on
Peter' peter after Jebus got his holy ass pumped full by the apostles?
Questions, questions... I bet the priests could tell us!
� R. L. Measures.
Nyarlat Hotep <cthulhupht...@aol.com> wrote:
>Brian E. Clark wrote:
>
>> Regarding sexuality, many Christians are imprisoned in a
>> perpetual childhood, and they equate sexual purity with
>> spiritual superiority, and thus they react with terror and
>> anger when their savior is shown behaving like a grown man.
>> Do these sexually stunted people imagine that Jesus had no
>> penis, or never had cause to touch it?
>>
>
>Very, very true. In fact, if Jesus existed he would have woke up with a
>hard-on like the rest of us, and jacked off his holy spunk, and stuck
>his holy cock into whatever hole would have it. ... ...
� Straight to Hell! . . chortle
"The sex drive itself gave organized religion an opportunity to amass what
was indisputably the greatest power ever lodged in human hands."
-- Rabbi Abraham L. Feinberg - 1945-1986
--
Richard L. Measures. AG6K, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org