Print This Post Print This Post

Apr

1

Jesus and his peeps


What if someone does this:


Well, obviously, someone did do that. But what if someone gave Jesus more than just a peep-head? What if someone mashed together enough peep-batter and molded a life-size nude Jesus out of yellow peep batter?

I interviewed an art professor who teaches at a nun-run university that allows nude male models and puts the resulting artwork on display in corridors for all the clergy and colleagues to see. Her take on “sweet Jesus” was, “What’s the question?”.

Again – I know I’m not similarly situated. But I do wonder.

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 1:53 pm April 1st, 2007 in Politics 

Comments

18 Responses to “Jesus and his peeps”

  1. 1 Paul on April 1st, 2007 3:15 pm

    I know the difference between a thoughtful and provacative piece of art like the “Sweet Jesus” and an object designed to ridicule like this “Peeps as Jesus” thing. The former makes me consider what I still need to learn. The latter makes me wonder what you (the artist) need to learn.

    We don’t advance the goal of peace and harmony through ridicule.

  2. 2 Jill on April 1st, 2007 3:28 pm

    Paul – I know that you do not post or comment lightly, so let me be specific here:

    My point in this post is: does it really matter which medium is used? Why would an all-chocolate Jesus be any different from an all-peep Jesus?

    I meant that, and I mean that, seriously. There was no ridicule intended whatsoever.

  3. 3 Village Green on April 1st, 2007 4:16 pm

    Would a chocolate Zeus offend anyone? I see that the United Nations is pushing a “do not insult anybody’s religion” measure, which is about as wrong-headed as you can get if you want to promote tolerance. One person’s insult is another’s reasoned critique. I know what real art is and so do millions of others with differing criteria. If only we could all admit there is nothing that is absolutely “real art” or “sacred” and just let each other believe what we want to believe or disbelieve — just keep it to yourself and things will be fine.

  4. 4 King on April 1st, 2007 5:25 pm

    I would have to strongly agree with Paul.

    Yes Jill, the material used does make a difference. As the tasteless feces stuff idiot artists made about Jesus. As important as the medium is the intent to depict Jesus.

    The chocolate thing was intriguing and thought provoking. Made me ask is Easter about candy or about how God sent his only Son to die for us.

    Easter should make a Christian think about the suffering & the path to the crucifixtion Jesus went through so we could be saved.

    Easter is a sign that he has risen and is now seated at the Right hand of the Lord.

    Easter is one of most important celebrations we have and I would consider the foundation of belief in Christianity.

    Nothing personal, but I do not take slights or the line this topic seems to be pushing, intended or not, about Christianity from Jewish people very well.

    Growing up on the eastside, I have many Jewish friends.

    But, I have heard one to many Goldstien nails joke from jewish people who thought I was jewish.

    Had a friend who worked at a Jewish mortgage company, she was FORCED to eat outside or triple bag her food if she put it in fridge.

    She ended up quitting because of constant anti-Catholic remarks and rules because of their orthodox jewish beliefs.

    Would you be offended if a German Chocolate Hannukah cake was made?

    Would you be offended if somebody made a Star of David out of candy canes?

    I have a funny feeling, maybe not you, but a whole ton of jewish people would be screaming.

    No doubt many, if not all Jewish groups would be screaming anti-semetism is this were done.

  5. 5 Jill on April 1st, 2007 5:29 pm

    King – thanks for the comment. I asked a sincere question, not one of ridicule. And it’s resulted in gathering views. I wouldn’t have thought the medium mattered – chocolate versus peeps. But, to at least those who’ve commented, it does. So I know more now.

    Now, Sir Mr. King – why did you delete your post about Blue Ohioan’s post? You know you cannot erase its existence both on Technorati or Google, right?

    King’s Right Site
    From Blue Ohioan: Jill Miller Zimon Out at Cleveland’s WCPN! Liberal blog Blue Ohioan sure doesn’t show any love to fellow democrat and blogger, Jill Miller …
    kingsrightsite.blogspot.com/ – Apr 1, 2007 – Similar pages

  6. 6 Jill on April 1st, 2007 5:31 pm

    I think along similar lines, Village. Thanks for leaving the comment.

  7. 7 Jill on April 1st, 2007 5:34 pm

    Oh – King – I have no idea what a Goldstein nail joke is??? And all the things you list, you are correct – me, they wouldn’t bother in the least – remember, I went to a Catholic university at which a priest lived seven doors away from me on my dorm floor and there was a cross in every classroom. I went to synagogue in a chapel where a sheet was draped over a cross and so on.

    But I also am someone who couldn’t believe that a friend of mine made me buy her a new pot because her babysitter poured my child’s chicken-based broth into one of her kosher pots and kashering it in a dishwasher wasn’t adequate for her. I thought that was ridiculous, but, I know, it’s how some folks are.

  8. 8 Paul on April 1st, 2007 7:52 pm

    Jill:

    When I wrote: “The latter makes me wonder what you (the artist) has to learn,” I was using an impersonal ‘you’ refering to whomever did this piece of art, not you. I didn’t convey this clearly, and am not sure how you took it. Apologies if you thought it was directed toward you.

    However, I am curious why you would follow up your “Sweet Jesus” piece with this one. Was it to get a better handle on what I or other Christians think is blastphemy, or just what we are willing to tolerate before becoming offended?

    I guess it’s all about intention. If the artist’s intention is draw me into introspection, then I am appreciative. If the intent is to make fun of my faith, then I’m offended.

    I love Jewish humor. Favorite joke of all time: “If the Jews are God’s Chosen people, why did he let them wander around in the desert for 40 years and settle in the only place without any oil?” — Jackie Mason. It’s also a good question, worthy of some study by Jews and Christians alike. It’s Mason’s version of the “Sweet Jesus.” Another great Jackie Mason joke: “Why did God create the Gentiles? Someone has to pay retail!”

    It all about intention — what’s in the person’s heart. Let’s laugh together — it’s one of God’s greatest blessings. But let’s not laugh AT each other.

    PL

  9. 9 Liz on April 1st, 2007 7:54 pm

    I like your peep-head Jesus. But I have a warped sense of humor sometimes.

  10. 10 Jill on April 1st, 2007 7:57 pm

    Thanks, Paul – I appreciate the latitude. I did mean it as an, “okay, if chocolate is okay, what about.., and if that’s okay, then what about” since I don’t quite know where the sensitivity would be too much. I can tell you that when there was some exhibit not too long ago with urine and feces involved with Jesus or the Madonna or something, I thought that was just ridiculous but I know I simply wouldn’t patronize anyone who would do such a thing – I don’t know that I would ban it.

    As a Jew, I have to live with a lot of things that I might otherwise say shouldn’t be allowed, but that’s just how it is. When something goes beyond my comfort zone, I say something. Sometimes it sticks, sometimes not.

    But I do have a question about the intent: why does the artist’s intent matter so much? I mean, why isn’t it dependent on how it makes you feel? That confuses me – can you say more about that?

  11. 11 Jill on April 1st, 2007 8:02 pm

    Liz – Thanks for reading and commenting! I really like your Library Tavern blog and am adding it to the blogroll on the left. There’s another Ohioan who is a librarian, Christine of Really Bad Cleveland Accent. She’s got a good blog too.

    Thanks re: the Peeps. It is truly scary what some people do to those things.

  12. 12 fahrender on April 2nd, 2007 2:03 am

    people who freak out over controversial art, ridicule of their religious beliefs or humor about same are either insecure in their faith or disingenuous in their protestations. jesus was pretty clear about his feeling toward hypocrites and people who made a show of their religion. it would be really interesting to know how he would react to a bill donohue or a mel gibson. anybody can hijack a religion for their own purposes.
    if bill donohue had wanted to raise the profile of callivaro’s art he couldn’t have done a better job. more people have seen his work in the past week than have ever seen it before.

    fahrender

  13. 13 Tim Ferris on April 2nd, 2007 8:03 am

    The “art” makes its point in a jejune juxtaposition that jams together disparate elements having to do with a particular theme, neither of which has a lot to do with the other, and therefore there’s some humor, and some irreverence, some “aha” value, some glee in the attempt “d’epater la bourgeoisie”. It’s almost like a formula used by college students to make people squeal. The interpretations are usually along the lines of contrasting the commercial with the spiritual, the sacred with the profane, the elevated with the mundane. Ain’t nothing new, ain’t no big thing.

  14. 14 Jill on April 2nd, 2007 9:28 am

    Excellent point, Fahrender. Couldn’t say it better.

  15. 15 Cee Jay on April 2nd, 2007 5:08 pm

    For me it wasn’t that the artist created Jesus crucified in chocolate, the irreverence was showing him totally naked. That is the part to me that seems designed to anger instead of provoke thought. I guess that is why the peeps Jesus seems ok to me, but the “sweet Jesus” makes me a bit uncomfortable. I’m really not a prude about naked art objects, but I’d rather see people whose lives I esteem shown with some clothing. Though I guess Michelangelo did show David without his clothing and
    God creating the naked Adam. Hummm, I don’t have the same reaction to these. I don’t think I would be happy to see someone depict a naked
    Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr. either.
    Actually, I find the whole crucifix image distasteful. I’d rather focus on the life of Jesus, not his death. That is another reason the Jesus and his peeps doesn’t bother me, but the other one does.
    Thanks for encouraging me to ponder my reaction to this.

  16. 16 Jill on April 3rd, 2007 6:24 pm

    Yes, I can kind of see that, although if I saw a naked Moses, it wouldn’t bother me, I don’t think. But a naked Gandhi or MLK, yeah – that could be disturbing. Interesting what affects our sensitivities.

    Thanks for the comment and reading.

    Oh, and, well, with me-I confess – anything having to do with peeps is bound to make me smile – they are just so curious to me! lol

  17. 17 derek on April 10th, 2007 5:44 pm

    It’s nothing more than a witty play on words. It’s as innocuous as a fingerpainting of Jeuss.

    Anyone taking umbrage should relax…and have a Peep.

  18. 18 Jill on April 14th, 2007 11:16 pm

    Thank you Derek! Someone who gets my turn of phrases. Sigh of relief – there’s one of you. :)

Leave a Reply




"));