My Sweet Lord....

AOG, Madrid

I have just read about the predictable hullabaloo around a work of art surrounding a religious theme. The New York Times has included this article which deals with the recent controversy around a figure of Christ made of chocolate.

As is to be expected, the Christian community is up in arms. I can't see what the big deal is. Is it that the model is nude? I thought we were past being offended by nudity, even that of Christ. It must be then that the sculpture is made of chocolate? If so, then they are offended by a material not considered noble enough...but noble enough for what? Wood is nobler than chocolate? Is that what this month's edition of The Noble Materials Gazette says?

For once I side with the Muslim tenet about idolatry and depicting images of God so as to not promote it. I then began to think that perhaps they don't like the idea of an image of Christ which can be eaten. Has anyone heard about "this is my blood, drink from it, this is my body..."? I find it hard to understand what the controversy is about. If something offends you, avert your gaze. Or as they say, "if you don't like the idea of an abortion, don't have one!"

I have found a link to the artist's page, Cosimo Cavallero, and I find nothing offensive there. At least not offensive to me, and I am very easy to offend. Just like anyone else. I am, however, not very religious. Perhaps the only image on his website which I might find offensive is that of a room which has been covered in cheese spray. I think it is offensive because I feel for the poor woman who might have to clean the room one day, or for the poor curator who will have to look after the piece.

Nonetheless, it would appear like the Christian faith is quite bored and has little else to do than to be offended every other day because of one thing or another.

I'm sorry, have we run out of poor people to feed or sick people to bring succour to? I think some of these Christians have too much time on their hands if all they can do is set up campaigns to inform the world about how offended they are by things.

Personally, I find the sculpture to be quite beautiful. Even more so precisely because of the medium used. It is a new approach to an old theme. Beautiful in many ways. If I ever see it in person, I'm sure I'll add other adjectives to the work of art.

A few days ago, in Spain, there blew up a controversy regarding a few images which were deemed sacrilegious by the Catholic community. They depicted images of naked saints, nuns, and erect images of Christ. Part of the controversy is that public money was used to finance the project. Many religious people saw them as lewd. I leave to each viewer the responsibility of making up his/her own mind. I think it is another form of artistic expression and that public money is usually put to worse use. For example to line the pockets of local officials now and then (if you have been following the news about corruption in Spain, you know about local officials being bribed by construction companies to allow the turning of protected forests and beaches into construction sites, amongst other petty- though major- crimes).

As I see them, they merely depict the physical and human side of these figures. I understand that to see an image of Christ with an erection must be hard to bear at first. And yet, I can also see how it would help to humanize him by making Christ into a normal man. I suppose that his humanization is what the flock cannot take; I suppose they would prefer their God to remain something not of this earth. And yet, if you are a Christian, you are taught that Jesus was a man of flesh and blood.
This is the link to the images. You have to click on Sanctorum. They were made in 2003. Bear in mind that if you are religious, they may offend you.

The "Presidentiables"

AOG, London

I am saddened by the current state of affairs within the Democratic party and the upcoming presidential election in the US.
A couple of weeks ago I was semi-content with the idea that the next president of the US could have been a woman-Mrs. Clinton, or Mr. Obama. Yet, as the pre-presidential pageant runs, a few bits and pieces have begun to surface that make me think that, unfortunately, the next president of the US will be a Republican, if not, in fact, Senator MaCain.

I remember life in the US back in 1988, and the presidential election that year. The Democratic party, boldly endorsed the nomination of a certain, unheard of, Mr. Michael Dukakis. For a while, I believed he could be electable, though I remember thinking at the time that I preferred Reagan. I even remember a bumpersticker that read: "Let Dukakis become President, lets make Reagan King!" Ha ha ha... but I do think it represented the popular feeling at the time. Mr. Reagan had been a good president. At least I thought so at the time. So did many others.

I also remember that the media were very much against Mr. Bush Sr. at the time. I remember the quips about Bush Sr being boring, about not having served much in war, about being weak and a bit of a coward.

All looked good for Mr. Dukakis.

And then I saw it. I saw the one thing which made me understand immediatly that Mr. Dukakis would not win. There was a skit on Saturday Night Live on NBC, which parodied the presidential election. To this day I remember its slogan "Vote for Bush, he is more white!"

And then I knew it. Somebody somewhere had stumbled upon the one thing which would turn the election in favor of the weak, cowardly, tiger tatoo on his buttcheek Mr. Bush: his whiteness, or rather, his "more whiteness".

Sure enough, as my family flew out of the US on election day 1988 headed for a new life in Europe, voters in the US elected Mr. Bush.

I think this week it happened again. Whilst both camps intermittently boo and cheer their candidates, someone somewhere has stumbled upon the one thing which will turn the election away from Mr. Obama: his religion. As ridiculous as this may sound to most people, the mud has been flung about Mr. Obama being a Muslim -the bit about his middle name being Hussein has also taken its toll, but, it being just a name, and the infamous Saddam being dead, it is a bit of a "so?" issue- and it has begun to stick.

Fox news constantly decries that he has attended a muslim school in Indonesia, that he has tried to hide his past. That...well, lets face, that Mr. Obama "...just ain't a Christian!" And guess what? I don't think the US is about to elect a non-Christian into the White House. Mr. Obama has already decided not to favor Fox news any further during his campaign. Although this says a lot about the current state of affairs in America's partisan media, it also shows Mr. Obama may have noticed that Fox has struck upon something which may hurt his campaign no end.






As for Mrs. Clinton, the current climate looks less rosy with each passing day. The latest pecadillo by the "presidentiables" (Spanish word neologised into english to mean "those who are eligible of being elected to president") is the running spat between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama. is this a good thing? It is if you are a Republican.

So far, the only thing the Democrats have against them is that their candidates are seen as a) a woman, and b) a Muslim. So far, the only electable candidates the Democrats have are a) a woman and b) a Christian who used to be a Muslim.

Are these things important? Well, in any other country on earth, probably not. But in the USA, perhaps both these things are seen as much too important. If you take a look at the american press, it soon becomes obvious that no one is talking about major issues yet, and most everyone is talking about how each candidate is running their campaign- not what their campaign is about.

Is this democratic? Oh, of course it is. Democracy is the rule of the people. And if the people elect politicians on looks, religion, gender and...what else is there? I forget...