It's smut, not art, Loveland protesters say

  • Thread starter Thread starter estesbob
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

estesbob

Guest
extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site36/2010/1001/20101001__protest~p1.jpg On Friday about 40 people protested a work of art at the Loveland Museum . (THE DENVER POST | JOHN PRIETO)

LOVELAND — About 25 to 30 residents stood outside the Loveland Museum/Gallery this morning protesting a portion of an exhibit that appears to show Jesus Christ involved in a sex act.
“This is not art, it’s smut, pure and simple,” said Ronald Minto, who said he’s not against graphic art per se. But the color lithograph produced by Stanford University’s Enrique Chagoya is outright pornography, he said.
“This is a museum, not an X-rated book store,” said Minto.

Read more: It’s smut, not art, Loveland protesters say - The Denver Post denverpost.com/news/ci_16227167#comments#ixzz11KBrFYCK
We had a visiting Priest today who based his sermon on opposing this exhibit. I admire him for doing so
 
“It depicts clearly a picture of our Lord Jesus Christ engaging in an oral sex act with another person,” said Deacon Ed Armijo of St. John’s The Evangelist Catholic Church. On Thurs-day, Armijo and several residents visited the Museum/ Gallery to voice their opposition to the exhibit.
Click to expand...
“To my Catholic community, I am going to get the word out to come down here and protest this kind of display of pornography,” Armijo said.
Click to expand...
coloradoan.com/article/20101002/NEWS01/10020350/Protesters-object-to-Jesus-print
The pickets, and anyone else who has an opinion on the matter, is welcome to voice it at the Loveland City Council meeting Tuesday, according to a council member.
Click to expand...
“People can come and speak, and I hope they do,” said Councilor Donna Rice.
Click to expand...
Rice and Hugh McKean joined Daryle Klassen last Tuesday in an unsuccessful attempt to put the matter on this coming Tuesday’s council agenda.
Click to expand...
Klassen needed one more vote to make his request official.
Click to expand...
But even if the issue is not on the agenda, residents can speak at the meeting during citizen (name removed by moderator)ut time.
Click to expand...
reporterherald.com/news_story.asp?id=29662
 
Unethical artists attract people to their art through these actions.

I pray that his next exhibit is titled “The Misadventures of Muhammad” depicting him performing oral sex.
 
Whatever the image portrays, it cannot
Portray Jesus Christ, because no one
Knows except, a few saints and mystics,
What Jesus Christ looks like.
A saint or mystic would never create
A representation of Our Lord that you describe

If the artist intended to blaspheme God, we
Should pray that God would have mercy on his soul.
When we look up, the end of those who
do these things, I believe you will
Find they got what they deserve.

Let God be magnified and glorified by everything
That has breath. Amen…
 
these artists are such cowards. let them make a real political statement be portraying mohammed in some seedy situation. they won’t because they’re afraid. and they should be.

but offending christians is not risky in the slightest, but actually quite popular and fun among the elites on the left. it’s an easy and over-done way to get attention. i hope someone on the left is sophisticated enough to realize, at this point, it’s also so very cliche.

anyone know if this is being subsidized with gov. funds?
 
freerf said:
anyone know if this is being subsidized with gov. funds?
Click to expand...
I guess that depends how you define “being subsidized.”
Colorado.com article:
When Museum/Gallery staff contacted Shark about possible print-making activities, he freely offered the exhibit for display, said Maureen Corey, curator for the city’s Cultural Services Department.

The Museum/Gallery paid for installation costs and did not receive any grant money for the exhibit, she said. Corey views the exhibit as an opportunity to share “wonderful art.”
Click to expand...
Since the museum/gallery is funded primarily by city taxes (with additional amounts from private donations, and a small annual grant from the state), and since creation of the installation was paid for by the museum/gallery, then it could be said there is some government funds involved. On the other hand, the museum has received the artworks free of charge.
 
I can’t find any. I will reserve comment until I can see the actual art piece.
 
larkin31 said:
Let’s see an image. I will look and then comment.
Click to expand...
The first article I posted has a link to a website featuring the controversial artwork. Because the item is so large, it is hard to see in great detail. However, you can see that religious themes, as well as themes of a sexual nature, are involved. From what I could see (and my eyes aren’t as sharp as they once were) the artwork doesn’t show any genitalia. However, the piece is not family-friendly, so I will not post a direct link to the image.
 
Dale_M said:
The first article I posted has a link to a website featuring the controversial artwork. Because the item is so large, it is hard to see in great detail. However, you can see that religious themes, as well as themes of a sexual nature, are involved. From what I could see (and my eyes aren’t as sharp as they once were) the artwork doesn’t show any genitalia. However, the piece is not family-friendly, so I will not post a direct link to the image.
Click to expand...
thanks

I’ll take a look where you say
 
here:s the brochure description:
“The Misadventures of the Romantic Cannibals" is Chagoya’s fifth codex done at Shark’s and possibly his most irreverent. It is illustrated with comic book characters, religious iconography and imagery, appropriated engravings, Mexican pornography, ethnic stereotypes, Mayan symbols and figures, automobiles, airplanes, book excerpts and elements of US currency. With images that have been altered, combined and juxtaposed, Chagoya creates pages where cultural and religious icons are presented with humor and placed in contradictory, unexpected and sometimes controversial contexts. This print combines woodcut and color lithography on handmade Ivory Amate paper. It has been printed in thirteen colors from one woodblock and 7 aluminum plates in an edition of 30, plus proofs, by Master printer Bud Shark, assisted by Evan Colbert. The codex is presented as an accordion folded book. When closed it measures 7½ x 7½" and opens to a frieze 90" long. It is shown above in three sections. As with Pre-columbian codices it reads from right to left, starting at the top right.
Click to expand...
The entire thing is a pastiche graphic cartoon, with Jesus’ head placed on top of some other bawdy bodies. It is irreverent in the extreme. The image in question sexually has the traditional head of Jesus on top of a woman’s body, and a man’s head is suggestively in “her” lap. It is clearly full ironic camp, but it is irreverent indeed. Protesting is fine, but don’t get too worked up over this cartoonish stuff. Or you look silly like the Muhammadans over THAT cartoon (yes, they were far worse, but you see my point). This will pass with a little burp. The piece is 7 years old…
 
That work is art to a Satanist.

I would like to protest these mental messes. But, protests aid the artist and draw unwarranted attention to their vomit.
 
Dale_M said:
The first article I posted has a link to a website featuring the controversial artwork. Because the item is so large, it is hard to see in great detail. However, you can see that religious themes, as well as themes of a sexual nature, are involved. From what I could see (and my eyes aren’t as sharp as they once were) the artwork doesn’t show any genitalia. However, the piece is not family-friendly, so I will not post a direct link to the image.
Click to expand...
I saw it. :eek:

The artist has every right to exhibit this-----and these other folk have every right to protest it.

Vile art. Vile Message. 🤷

Christ isn’t that worried, though.

He’s too busy preparing Heaven and the World for his Triumphant Return someday. 👍
 
OrdinaryMelkite said:
He’s too busy preparing Heaven and the World for his Triumphant Return someday. 👍
Click to expand...
The “other place” is already prepared, as such artists will one day find out.

I went to the Bud Shark website and most of the stuff was not offensive. I guess that this one artist is an exception.
 
An woman from out of state has physically attacked the controversial print, destroying it.
A woman wielding a crowbar smashed a display case Wednesday at the Loveland Museum/Gallery, ripped out a piece of artwork that has been the center of growing controversy, and shredded it into small pieces.
Click to expand...
“She was saying, ‘How can you desecrate my Lord?’” said Mark Michels, the man who grabbed Folden. “She wanted to wreck the print, and that was it. After that, she was totally passive.”
Click to expand...
timescall.com/news_story.asp?ID=23754

Unfortunately, this attack will likely increase the popularity of the artwork. What she destroyed was only a print, one of 30 such prints. The original work is untouched.
 
Another related article from the Denver Post:

"Woman attacks disputed artwork

A woman armed with a crowbar entered the Loveland Museum/Gallery on Wednesday afternoon and destroyed a controversial exhibit that some said shows Jesus Christ engaged in a sex act."…

Entire article: denverpost.com/news/ci_16270946
 
Dale_M said:
An woman from out of state has physically attacked the controversial print, destroying it.

timescall.com/news_story.asp?ID=23754

Unfortunately, this attack will likely increase the popularity of the artwork. What she destroyed was only a print, one of 30 such prints. The original work is untouched.
Click to expand...
I know what she did is wrong and hurts the cause of those who want to point out how despicable this so-called art is. But to be brutally honest there is a part of me that is thinking “way to go lady”!
 
freerf said:
these artists are such cowards. let them make a real political statement be portraying mohammed in some seedy situation. they won’t because they’re afraid. and they should be.

but offending christians is not risky in the slightest, but actually quite popular and fun among the elites on the left. …
Click to expand...
This article incorrectly compares the destruction of the print with the behaviors of radical Muslims who threaten violence when someone depicts Muhammad in a way Muslims deem offnsive. That is not a fair comparison. Destroying an object, the print, because one is offended, is one thing. Calling for the murder of the artist, which happens in the Muslim world, is quite another.

"Poor judgment on display at Loveland art museum

The offensive nature of “The Misadventures of the Romantic Cannibals” doesn’t excuse its despicable destruction.

We happen to believe a Loveland museum and art gallery frequented by school children and families never should have agreed to display a piece of art that apparently depicts Jesus Christ involved in a sex act. However, that hardly excuses the despicable act of a woman who destroyed it this week.

Unfortunately, her actions remind us of the kind of scenes we’ve seen play out in the Muslim world when someone depicts the prophet Muhammad in an offensive manner."…

Entire article: denverpost.com/opinion/ci_16271415?source=pkg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top