« Friday Random 10 | Main | Get real, governor »

Sunday, 01 April 2007



NO! He really said that the artist should.... have the "grace of a happy death"???? He didn't!!!! I'm not even surprised, really. Disgusted, yes. Surprised, no.


Technically, at least according to the transcript at Crooks and Liars, he only said that the artist should be glad he wasn't with the Taliban "...because you would lose more than your head..." which is bad enough. But do read the transcript. It gets really surreal (and quite funny) toward the end.


The problem is the melting point for both the mold and for exhibition that makes milk chocolate a better choice for the project.

Last year it was chocolate roods that had everyone in a snit.

I hope DonoWho never arrives in Mexico to observe the local Catholics on Dia De Los Muertos. There are things I guarantee most people would be shocked to see rendered in various forms of candy.

Chocolate is recyclable and I haven't heard of any plans to allow patrons to nibble. It's better than those tacky plastic jobs attached to the dashboard with a suction cup. Would it have passed muster with a marzipan loin cloth?


Oh, I dunno. Dark chocolate holds up just as well as milk chocolate in my experience. And they could always use binders or something.

At least according to the C&L transcript, there was, apparently, some expectation that the figure would be eaten. Though there also I can't really see getting my knickers knotted. If it's OK to go to Mass and take Communion, why should it be sacrilegious to eat the body of the Lord under another form? Absolutely no question of it's being the actual Body of Christ, given that (a) it wasn't composed of wheat products, which is a canonical requirement, and (b) no one sacramentally ordained and with valid faculties consecrated it.

I wouldn't mind if it melted away, either. Tibetan Buddhists make sculptures in butter for great festivals, precisely so that they will melt away in the sun, the better to remind those seeing it happen of the transience of this world. Seems to me I remember hearing Jesus talk about that once or twice somewhere, too...


It's almost certain that the artist intended to provoke a response--what artist wants to labor in obscurity? Part of the purpose of art is to be part of a conversation--art is, at its heart I believe, an act of communication between the artist and the viewer, and the artwork is the place where that conversation takes place.

But Donahue doesn't want conversation. (Maybe the artist doesn't either--I can't speak for him.) Donahue wants outrage, because outrage gets money in his coffers, and keeps him from flipping burgers, which is about the only other job he'd be suited for.

The comments to this entry are closed.

E-mail me

  • musing85 {at} hotmail {dot} com
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 05/2005