Holy Hard On

Good insightful pod. I don't personally like this artist's work but it is his freedom of expression and the people who choose to visit this particular exhibition in question should be open-minded and conscious of that fact. No person should oblige another to a way of thinking or expressing themselves.

It seems to be rich trend within art world.
I am Christian. I am not offended. I only wonder: what else apart from the provocation?

RG

it's offensive period .

As one of the interviewees rightly said, it's a very fine balance between protecting one's values and allow free speech. A few years ago, a famous wax work museum in London portrayed a navity scene with two of the countries most loved/hated celebrities as Mary and Joseph, and one offended member of the public destroyed the display. Unsurprisingly, the stunt has never been repeated.

Wow, he sold his gold-plated for quite a bit. A lot of his art looks cool, but i think maybe the phallic Jesus was taking it kind of far

this is just like The Simpsons episode "Itchy and Scratchy and Marge". If you don't remember it the town gets upset over an exhibit displaying the statue of David.

Speaking of tools, this artist is something of a tool himself.

I would love to meet whomever purchased his gold-plated piece of poo. I would take said gold-plated piece of poo and smack him upside the head with it until he admitted his art is nothing more than painful shit.

Ha.

Of course Jesus had a penis, but it's how he used it that counts. ;)

The precept of art should be between the artist and viewer. I've seen plenty of art that I considered trash. This does not mean that the creator was not trying to convey something of an idea or image. Public display is another matter. Art that contains a more mature subject should probably be shielded from younger ones. We don't want a mother having to explain why Jesus' member is almost as big as he is. A little common sense would be in order in this case.

If Jesus was a real man, he was sure to have had a penis. It comes with the territory. ;)

In Ps3's Little Big Planet there was a song in the background that included a line from the Koran. One complaint was sent in. Sony held the release of the game a week to completely redo their release disks. They knew people would die over the perceived insult to Islam. The artist who wrote the track in question was a practicing Muslim who's opinion did not enter in to Sony's decision to remove the track.

This guy want to do something original, try anything using Muhammad otherwise he is a cheap plastic whore instead of an artist. Don't sue, he's not worth the attention.

Free expression is limitless. But prepare for endless criticism and backlash. The artist benefits from it even more. That is the role of art. To provoke a response. Great vid.

Serrano's Piss Christ was so much better.

On the topic, however, the response of trying to force this piece out of the public is EXACTLY what the piece expresses. The Christian world, having baked their myths into idols, want to use testosterone fueled hammers of culture and law to smash any opinion which doesn't fit into their fantastic narrative.

Forget "Why does god allow evil?" Ask yourself, "Why did god put such a large appendage on 'his' image via this artist's hands?"

Does he know that Christians wouldn't get the subtle meaning if it was Jesus in a high-end sports car?

I don't see any problem with this piece of art, and agree with the courts in this case. Freedom of expression is just that. Not to mention that, despite how divine Jesus was, he was still human.

This is certainly not the first time an artist has played off of the sensitivity surrounding religious figures. The Chocolate Jesus exhibit last year comes to mind.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11669242/
Also, even more memorably, Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ" photos from 1987.

He's making a statement. Likely, stirring up a controversy is exactly what he was going for. He should not be sued for it though. Art sometimes is meant to take you out of your comfort zone and make you look at the world in a different way.

This man's "art" is too tacky to take seriously enough to sue. Seriously if she didn't view the art I don't know how it could offend her.

Agree, msmaverick. They lost me at the "gold plated poop" exhibit.

He actually seems to be a very unspectacular person selling just one more version of "schtick" as something new, fresh and avant guard.

In other words. he seems to have no more or less talent for attracting attention than say a Super Dave Osborne or an Artist Formerly Known As Prince.

It's kinda like The Carpenters never wanting to have the "The" in front of "Carpenters". I should be tacky and politically incorrect and wonder aloud if dropping the "The" had anything to do with lowering their caloric footprint.

Some day I'd like to start a sign company that did nothing but repair "faddish" signs at businesses by changing "Shopping Centre" to "Shopping Center" or "Ice Cream Shoppe" to "Ice Cream Shop" and vice versa.

I am so bad.

The problem here, to me, is more that I dont understand what the artist was trying to say by representing Jesus with a huge erect penis, although fully robed. It's confusing and it just seems exploitative. Regardless if this artist is a hype-master he still should be able to say whatever he wants, no one has to listen. I didn't particularly think his work that was shown was in any way moving or even significant. The lady that sued should just ignore him too, now she has given him more attention than he deserves.

It's not really legal to sue for this... especially if it's in a gallery. We have a choice to see it or not.... besides Jesus wouldn't mind.

Make one of Muhammad then I won't take you for a coward ass-wipe opportunist. Until then you are beneath my contempt level. Fail.

Well as you said this artist is gross and I don't think I would ever go to see his work.

golly, I didn't know you could sue for 'outraging public decency'...

The statue was a little obscene to me in the sense that it wasn't anatomically correct. It was just a slab of clay representing a penis.
But that's besides the point. When you enter a gallery, It's the artist's views you have gone to see and experience and you should be open minded. If you are incapable of quietly observing, you should just bugger off!

What Jesus can't have a penis now? He was a guy right? And since he was a guy he got an erection. And since he got an erection be probably masterbated. And since he masterbated he probably had an orgasm. And since he had an orgasm he probably shot miracles all over the place.

this reminds me of something my friends in highschool would have drawn on a desk

Please. If this womans faith was really that strong she probably wouldn't take offence...

Funny how people apply so much to so little...well big in some areas, but little over all.

where there are balls there will be a hard on.... im sure Jesu popped wood- DEAL WITH IT PEOPLE

a most prodigious member

OK,,..?? I'm offended by the propoganda campaign of Coal. The outright lies of my president and the immoral way the average american citizen is treated by the Fox media empire, does this mean I can sue them? Or how about the hipocracy of the christian broadcast networks outright lies about homosexuality is a choice, I'm offended by the "pray the gay away " campaign. I'm offended by the soaring number of homeless and starving children in the US.
I'm offended by the self rightious religious right wing who dismiss facts in favor of beliefs.
I'm offended by the creationist museum in KY that has a dinosaur with a saddle onit proclaiming man and dinosaurs coexisted. Did I file a lawsuit? NO I demanded my money back and would suggest noone give money to the museum of fairytales. If it offends you ,,,, LEAVE. because by what christian religion teaches God gave man freewill,, you are free to LEAVE not dictate what is or is not acceptable for everyone else.

This is ridiculous.
I dont believe in "religion".
I think Jesus was a great enlightened man trying to teach us truth and consciousness. Then people came and distorted the truth that he taught and manipulated it to work for them, for control. So I see nothing wrong with this. If anything, I think Mr. Yoshua ben Yosef would find this rather amusing. Not just because of the artwork, but because people are getting worked up about it.