sábado, 1 de mayo de 2010

Controversial Artwork


INTENTION OF THE ARTIST
The intention of the artist with this artwork was to portray a replicate of jesus christ's body in the cross but without the cross and using chocolate. Just because he likes jesus and chocolate. The artist's intention was never the intention people perceived by the sculpture, people took it the "wrong way". People jumped into conclusions completely contrary to the ones intended: a planned holy exhibition of a good piece that was related to the holy weekend on Easter 2007. Evoking an aesthetic response was all the artist wanted since he had a aesthetic intention.
QUALITY OF THE WORK
The quality of the work is good. The intrinsic quality of the piece was outstanding because the material itself was very well done and well structured. The sculpture was a replicate therefore it was very similar to the image people have of Jesus Christ in the cross. The materials used to create this piece were very creative also. Nevertheless, this artwork includes a perfect marriage of form and content because the content of the work depicts a clear image of what it is; the form of the work is neat and good because of the way it is put together. The balance, order proportion and others are found in this work of art, therefore, the quality reflects the great skill of the creator. Eventhough the structure is a good piece, a work of art requires an appreciative spectator in order to be complete.
RESPONSE OF THE AUDIENCE
The response of the audience to the nude anatmically correct chocolate sculpture was catastrophe especially from the catholic population. This infuriated catholics including Cardinal Edward Egan. In a Manhattan hotel, officials shut down the art exhibition. Then, the hotel and the gallery started receiving angry phone calls, e-mails and other complaints because of the exhibit. These calls included death threats. It was said that it was: "one of the worst assaults on Christian sensibilities ever." But, eventhough the artwork is rejected by the catholic community, it can also be accepted by another audience. So, the decision of calling this artwork something like a sickening display wouldnt be a general comment but a biased judgement.
-ART AND KNOWLEDGE CRITERIA
imitiation:
This theory of imitation is present in the work of art, "My Sweet Lord", since it is copying something from reality; the work is a replicate. What is seen in this piece is a creative reinterpretation of reality. Concluding, the artist achieved likeness.
communication:
The artist or creator of the artwork is obvioulsy trying to communicate a message to the various spectators. It is necessary to understand the grammar and vocabulary of art in order to comprehend what the artist wants to portray and communicate. Therefore, the communication is indeed present in this art representation. Then, spectators have to know if what is being communicated is worthwhile or not. In this case, most of the audience rejected what was perceived from the sculpture, but the artist clearly stated that people misjudged what he intended to communicate through his work: a symbolic and good piece for the holy weekend of Easter but the message turned out being intense and unexpected by the creator.
education:
Art challenges us to question our assumptions by giving us a different perspective on things. In education, the conncection between arts and ethics needs to be considered because artworks must provoke emotions that may sometimes influence our behavior. In this matter, the artwork applies the nature of art theory, art as education. So, the moral provocation of the art piece was distorted because people were offended by it especially the catholic community and defined it as unethical, meaning the education perceived from the work was rejected and damaging for those that felt insulted by the work's message.