Who ate the chocolate Jesus?

Before you all start getting uppity about my choice of title, I can assure you it is very pertinent. I am of course referring to the un-clad and anatomically correct sculpture of a life-sized Cadbury Christ that was created for display at the swank Lab Gallery in Manhattan earlier this year.

This very controversially unique and culturally brave piece of confectious Choco L'Art entitled ‘My Sweet Lord’ by artist Cosimo Cavallaro, depicted an au naturel representation of Jesus Christ likeness complete with arms outstretched as if cruelly fastened to a visually impalpable crucifix.

Reaction to this sweetest of heavenly creations by America’s fanatical-right religious sector was nothing short of utter horror. The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights spokesman Bill Donohue said, "They wouldn't show a depiction of Martin Luther King with his genitals exposed on Martin Luther King Day, and they wouldn't show the Prophet Muhammad depicted this way during Ramadan.”

However, some people like Manhattan’s Reverend Jonathon Edwards aren't as bothered, he just would have preferred that the Mars bar messiah not be nude so as the artistic celebrations could have been shared at many different social levels.

“As a pastor, what I find far more offensive than a chocolate Jesus with an impressive 400gm bonus block is the fact that a few self-righteous Christians are intolerant enough to get upset about it.”

Although unintentional, the artist had unwittingly sculptured a somewhat ironic critique of mainstream Christianity that could only have been better delivered if it were wrapped in colourful tinfoil and placed in a giant Easter basket.

So what defines art and what are (if any) the limits to good taste?

Wikipedia states that “Art is a product of human activity, made with the intention of stimulating the human senses as well as the human mind; thus art is an action, an object, or a collection of actions and objects created with the intention of transmitting emotions and or ideas.”

As a young musician, I grew up believing that taste is personal preference. Different people have different likes and dislikes and no one personal preference is any more relevant than anyone else's. Now I am a little older and wiser I believe otherwise.

The problem with the claim that there is no such thing as good taste is that it also implies that there is no such thing as good art. If you remove personal taste from the equation, you would have to discard the idea of art being good and artists being good at making it.
The idea that you can make a piece of art great is not just an egotistical manifestation, it is truth. If an artist believes there is such a thing as good art then he or she will be free to try and create it.

In the past, vulgar art was never such a problem. Some of the great works of western culture were filled with slapstick humor, violence and sex. Homer, Chaucer and Shakespeare are riddled with vulgarity. Chaucer, for instance, loved a fart joke even more than your average aussie male if that’s possible.

When artist Robert Fawcett decided to abandon culturally acceptable ‘fine art’ for illustration his peers claimed that illustration is a tasteless endeavour, to which Fawcett responded; “Good taste is often the enemy of creativity.”I believe that there is such a thing as good art, good art creates the benchmark that becomes good taste. If an artist strives to create good art, people with good taste will notice.

That leaves us with just one unanswered question, if the luscious Choco-lord was never displayed, what became of him and who in fact got to eat the bonus 400 grams?