Erotic Jesus sparks art debate in Austria

[Ordr]

Source: Reuters

VIENNA (Reuters) - They knew it would be risky to exhibit a homoerotic version of Christ's Last Supper, but curators at museum of Vienna's Roman Catholic Cathedral weren't ready for a barrage of angry messages and calls to be shut down.

The source of the dispute, which Austrian media has dubbed Vienna's version of the Mohammad caricature row, is a retrospective honoring Austria's cherished artist Alfred Hrdlicka, who turned 80 earlier this year.

But not everyone has been wishing Hrdlicka a Happy Birthday. And the Cathedral Museum's director and Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, the archbishop of Vienna, have both come under fire from some museum visitors and Catholic websites.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL0157328520080407

---

Artists who try to be "provocative" are really annoying sometimes.
Lets see them try something similar with Mohammad just to see how brave they really are.

[SpiralHawk]

1. Plastic Jesus stirs debate on Spiral Hawk Dashboard

Details to follow...

[Ordr]

2. I'm more of a fan of Buddy Christ, personally.

[Seabiscuit]

11. I don't care if it rains or freezes, 'long as I got my plastic Jesus

sittin' on the dashboard of my car.

(Cool Hand Luke version).

[Harry Monroe]

118. I don't care if it rains or freezes, long as I've got my plastic Jesus...

...ridin' on the dashboard of my car.

70-80 miles an hour, long as I know I've got that power
ridin' on the dashboard of my car.

[Dhalgren]

3. "Jesus just left Chicago

And he's bound for New Orleans..."

[conspirator]

4. Are they talking about this Jesus?

[NoodleyAppendage]

5. Yet another spawn from the seed of Duchamp.

Vienna has long been the seat of in-your-face "message" art since the dawn of Dada. Good for them. Nothing is sacred...or should be.

J

[FightTheRight89]

6. Art that's made just to piss people off...

Is not art. It's just being a dick.

[Ordr]

7. I couldn't have said it better myself.

:)

[harmonicon]

21. what evidence do you have it it was made to piss people off?

If you mean that the painter knew it would piss people off, and then shouldn't have made the painting that he wanted because of that, we're in some serious trouble. Artists should be free to make whatever work they'd like. It's the same as freedom of speech. Should people not write things that they know will piss people off?

[Ordr]

30. I'm not saying he shouldn't do anything.

They should absolutely be free to portray whoever they want, however they want (as long as it isn't libelous, of course ;)).

[harmonicon]

but you suggest that the art was made to piss people off

If this guy was making art to piss people off, I doubt he'd be good enough or well known enough to have a major retrospective of his work.

[Ordr]

35. Not necessarily.

Look how much Warhol's art pissed people off.
Whether that was his intention or not is immaterial...many artists' popularity grew through dissension.

[harmonicon]

39. but he didn't make art to piss people off

I don't think Warhol's art pissed many people off anyway - he and his works have become popular icons. Coming from a sort-of-artists's perspective, I doubt that most artists ever really consider a public able of being offended. If they make work with any audience in mind at all, it's for an audience of their peers. If artists didn't do that, they could never get the exposure that would allow anyone to see their work and be bothered by it. There are probably 14,000 mixed media collages of Jesus, Mohammed and the Virgin Mary having a three way, dressed up as furries, in the closets of art school drop-outs across the world. No one is upset by those, because they probably suck, and no one will ever see them.

[Ordr]

45. I think you've got me there.

[Dorian Gray]

49. The

furries imagery is too much! Good Lord!

[harmonicon]

78. I know

That's why those works aren't popular.

[LanternWaste]

62. If art is created with the intent to instill...

If art is created with the intent to instill in the patron one or more particular emotions, then it seems this piece falls well within that frame work.

Although I routinely enjoy art more if my emotions are positive as a result of the viewing, I still find myself drawn to art designed to instill a negative emotion occasionally-- much like we all go to see movies that can profoundly disturb us.

[Arugula Latte]

70. I love art that pisses people off.

I think that's just one of art's many functions.

[Lautremont]

8. If you don't think art is meant to be provocative, what do you reckon its purpose to be?

To fill up space on a wall?

[Ordr]

12. Art does different things for different people. I, personally, find this piece to be annoying.

It might be the Mona Lisa for someone else, though.
To each his own.

[FightTheRight89]

14. There's provocative...

And then there's purposeless abrasiveness.

[TheWraith]

65. You're describing a "shock jock" mentality of the art world.

People who choose to create art that offends some people not because of other values it has, or to make people think, but to get attention and stimulate controversy. I don't know whether that's the case with this painting, but there's a lot of people in art these days who subscribe to that sort of outrage exploitation to try and make a name for themselves among the easily impressed "art" set who think that if it offends somebody, it must be good.

[last1standing]

9. Do you support censoring the painting?

Would you join forces with the groups trying to get this exhibit pulled or do you just find it annoying but believe the museum has the right to show it? While I agree that some "art" can be extremely annoying, I would never suggest censoring it.

[Ordr]

10. Of course I don't support it being censored. Ever.

[last1standing]

15. Cool. That's the only problem I would have.

I'm not even a Christian but I found the cross in urine exhibit to be offensive. On the other hand, that was the artist's desire so he succeeded. I would still never want it banned or censored as I think that one function of art is to provoke negative emotions so that we can ask ourselves why we react the way we do.

A homoerotic Last Supper would definitely fall into the catagory of provocative. The first thing I thought was "What if Jesus was gay?" And then I thought that it was quite likely that Jesus was gay. It could explain his attitude toward sex (not gay negative but abstinent).

To me, that painting qualifies as art merely on the grounds that it made me think. It provoked emotions and thought. Good stuff.

[FightTheRight89]

13. Yeah, don't censor it but...

Seriously, whoever made this piece is a douche. What possible point could there be to make something like this?

[last1standing]

16. Can I ask why it's so offensive to show Jesus as gay?

Or is it the "erotic" thing that has you upset?

[FightTheRight89]

17. For me, it's the erotic thing.

For some other Christians it's offensive. I don't speak for them.

Plus, he wasn't gay.

[last1standing]

22. How do you know Jesus wasn't gay?

What biblical proof or historical evidence can you provide? Since you state your belief with such conviction, I have to assume you have something to back it up.

I really do find it strange that you say the idea of Jesus being gay doesn't bother you but then you assert the opposite so strongly.

[FightTheRight89]

32. I'm going to assume he was not gay until I have evidence that points towards the contrary.

For the time being, I'm going to go with the assertion that sexual relations were not something that the Son of God needed, gay or straight.

[last1standing]

38. Interesting perspective.

Jesus needed food and water, did he not? He felt pain from my interpretation. He even knew temptation so why do you think that he didn't feel sexual urges like everyone else? I'm sorry, but you're showing the same bias as those who get upset when told that Jesus was black, or at least had a dark complexion.

Just for the record, he wasn't white and their's a good possibility he was gay.

[FightTheRight89]

43. Very interesting.

It does make sense, but sexuality seems to be in a different category than sustenance and pain reactions.

And I still don't know why you think he was gay.

[last1standing]

54. Historically, many Hebrews (and later Christians) would turn celebate...

Rather than be identified with homosexuality. This is why there are so many homosexual priests even now - although as homosexuality is less taboo the number of priests coincedentally drops.

I'm not saying that Jesus was gay, I'm saying there's a distinct possibility based on empirical evidence.

And my point was that if Jesus had all the other needs of man, even if he was the son of God, why wouldn't he have sexual urges? What else would have tempted him, Snickerdoodles?

[Orsino]

104. Heh. "Evidence."

:rofl:

[YDogg]

51. heh

:popcorn:

[harmonicon]

23. where in the bible does it say that he was straight?

Not that it really matters... our present ideas of sexuality didn't really exist back then anyway. It wasn't abnormal at that time for men to have male and female sex partners without much social stigma.

[last1standing]

25. Unless I'm mistaken, the Hebrews were the most homophobic people in the area.

At least they were at the time of Jesus. That could explain why he was abstinent.

[FightTheRight89]

33. And you get this from...?

[last1standing]

40. Reading. It's a wonderful thing.

In the Roman Empire, homosexuality was sometimes frowned upon but rarely codified as a crime. The Hebrews, however, did consider it a crime and had suppressed homosexuality soon after moving from a polytheistic belief structure to a monotheistic one. Believe it or not as you like, but before that time sexuality played a major role in some Hebrew rituals, gay and straight.

[FightTheRight89]

42. Interesting.

Though I'm pretty sure that the Hebrews had been monotheistic (primarily) since way before the Roman Empire.

[last1standing]

46. For some time yes, but not all that long, really.

The Hebrews were polytheists at the time of being exiled from Babylon. At that time they wandered through the mountains of modern day Iran coming into contact with the Zoroastrians who influenced them greatly - one of those influences being a dualistic religion with a God of Good and a God of Dark, Yahweh and Lucifer. It was just after that the Hebrews were allowed to settle in Judea. A few hundred years later, the Romans annexed Persia and the Hebrews with it. As the reigning religion of Persia, Zoroastrianism was also rather homophobic, which is probably where the Hebrews got their views from. Earlier records actually show them as being gay friendly.

[juno jones]

27. I think an eroticized Jesus is what's offensive to some

(not me, I'm, among other things, gnostic).

It says more about the protesting viewer's hang-ups than the artists's. Perhaps that was the intended reaction.

[harmonicon]

37. I can understand that

.... still, those who protest such a thing just come off looking like idiots and bring more attention to the thing they supposedly wish people weren't paying attention to.

I was just responding to the poster above who said basically, "Jesus was not gay". Because we all know that if he had been, that would mean that he had The AIDS, and we all know that AIDS blood shouldn't ever be used for washing anything, especially the sins of man.

[YDogg]

53. I LOLd

:rofl:

[FightTheRight89]

41. If sexuality is such an immutable, unchanging state of being...

And that one cannot be "cured" from being homosexual, doesn't it then follow that changing "ideas of sexuality" from time to time are totally null and void? If you're inherently gay or straight, shouldn't social patterns not change what sexuality you are? And should't the prevalence of homosexuality never change and the dichotomous distinction between "gay" and "straight" not

I'm just saying this because a lot of conservatives think that sexuality is to a large part determined by "sinful" societal norms, and your assertion seems to contradict the idea of a fixed sexual preference, replacing with an idea that social norms do have bearing on who you're attracted to.

Mind you, "curing" someone of homosexuality is not something I think too highly of, but it's a contradiction. Not trying to be abrasive here, I'm just curious as to your thoughts.

[harmonicon]

47. complex questions!!

I don't have any answers, I'm afraid. I like women (I'm a man) and I'm not attracted to men. Maybe if I'd been encouraged to have relationships with men from a young age, it would be different. It's well known that cultures like the Spartans encouraged male soldiers to have romantic relationships, but they also were married to women. It's been suggested that Alexander the Great had a "best friend" who was more than what we would now consider to be a "friend". Why people do the things that they do is a mystery to me.

[last1standing]

52. Bagoas

Bagoas was the lover of Alexander the Great and before him Darius III of Persia. Interestingly, he was also a eunich.

[last1standing]

50. A large part of sexuality IS determined by societal norms.

The Spartans of ancient Greece mentored their soldiers by taking young boys and pairing them up with older soldiers who slept with them as payment for their tutelage. In fact, most of the societies of the ancient world accepted that sexual relations between men and boys were the norm. It was the influence of Christianity that made homosexuality the "sin" it has been for the last 1800 years.

Most people likely fall into the vast category of bisexual, they may have a leaning one way or the other but at least have erotic thoughts about the sex they do not identify with. It is not possible to cure someone of this, but it is possible to force them to suppress it.

[hedgehog]

66. Here's what I wonder about: today, we view the pairing of young boys

with older men as exploiting the boys. Is it possible that the early Christian scriptures inveighed against exploitative relationships, older man/teenager or owner/slave rather than a relationship between equals?

I was thinking about this topic during Holy Week. There is a specific reference to the (male) disciple whom Jesus loved. I was always taught that this was St. John. I went on to consider Jesus's excellent relationship with women of all classes. Isn't it a modern stereotype that gay men get along well with women?

[last1standing]

71. Good question, but I doubt it.

While homosexuality was strongly repressed through Christianity, sex between minors and adults was not. It is only in the last 100 years or less that age of consent and stigmatizing those who break that rule has come into being. As a personal example, my grandmother was married and had her first child at the age of 14 - to a man 15 years her senior. This was in the early 20th century when these rules had not taken the hold on society they now have.

As for Jesus' relationship with women it is possible that he felt more comfortable with his feminine side, but that would be pure conjecture.

[hedgehog]

67. Here's what I wonder about: today, we view the pairing of young boys

with older men as exploiting the boys. Is it possible that the early Christian scriptures inveighed against exploitative relationships, older man/teenager or owner/slave rather than a relationship between equals?

I was thinking about this topic during Holy Week. There is a specific reference to the (male) disciple whom Jesus loved. I was always taught that this was St. John. I went on to consider Jesus's excellent relationship with women of all classes. Isn't it a modern stereotype that gay men get along well with women?

[Ordr]

18. I just find it irritating because the intent seems only to be shocking and outrageous.

I think if the artist had any balls he would have done the piece about Mohammad.

[last1standing]

24. Do you know that he hasn't done one on Mohammad?

Did you check into that?

Also, it's much more ballsy to question the accepted norms within your own society than someone else's so I disagree with you there.

[Ordr]

26. Point conceded.

And no, I have not checked into his other work.

[Lex Talionis]

95. Has he done one on Ol Mo. I'd like to see it if he has.

Of course I'd think if he had we'd have heard about it by now. It doesn't take balls to make fun of Jesus, but it would to make fun of Mohammad and place it outside a mosque, now that would take some balls. Don't you think? Theo found out the hard way, should have stuck with making fun of Christianity.

[satireV]

55. Well imagine this.

A piece of art depicting the Virgin Mary in stirrups getting the Jesus fetus aborted.

It's all perspective on a myth.

[Ordr]

57. I understand that.

[FightTheRight89]

61. "Myth."

Now I have my answer as to why pieces like this are celebrated.

[last1standing]

77. What's wrong with "Myth"?

To a non-Christian, Christianity is a myth, just like Animism is to a Christian. Contrary to some people's beliefs, a myth does does not have to be stories from a dead religion, just stories from a religion in general. The Bible is a book of Myths just as the Koran is.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/myth

[FightTheRight89]

87. Myth implies it never happened.

[last1standing]

90. And to a non-Christian, it didn't.

To me, Christianity is a myth, a group a stories. Does that offend you? Do you not support my right to believe this?

[FightTheRight89]

97. Doesn't offend me at all.

And of course I support your right to think whatever you want. Who wouldn't?

[alfredo]

105. All we know is that he lived and was executed. The rest was written by

partisans well after his death.

[FightTheRight89]

108. Frame it using whatever words you want.

Doesn't matter to me.

[alfredo]

112. All it means is we know very little about him, just what was said by others.

[Taverner]

19. Excellent question!

I think what bothers most of the folks is that they depict a gay Jesus...homophobia lurks underneath

[Ordr]

20. I don't necessarily think that's the case with the people replying to the thread.

But in Austria, you may be right.

[Taverner]

28. Austria, yes, on this thread - prob not. Very incindiary headline.

[Ordr]

29. Just stole it from Reuters, as per the instructions in LBN.

I'm not a huge fan of the headline either.

[Taverner]

34. I know :)

I'm too tired to reflect that kind of nuance in my post :)

[Lex Talionis]

98. Why is it offensive to point out Mohammad liked young girls under

the age of 12?

[happyslug]

114. Muhammad did NOT like women under age 12, it was a formal marriage.

Muhammad married his first wife when he was quite young, still in his 20s, and remained married to her, and only to her till her death after 25 years of marriage. She had first meet him and hired him to run her caravans for her. He did this successfully and, in some traditions, she proposed to him. He was so in love with her he did NOT take another wife while she was alive. She was his first covert and remain at his side during the difficult first years of his movement. She was the only one of his wives to have any children (or at least children that reached adulthood).

Now at her death in 619, he was offered Aisha, the daughter of Abu Baker, one of his followers, and the person who would become head of Mohammad's movement at his death. Aisha became his favorite, he married her at age 6 but she did NOT move in with him till she turned 9. At that point the marriage was "consummated" both participates said it happened, that was that was needed under traditional Arab law, but that she continue to play with her toys afterward AND NEVER HAD ANY CHILDREN BY MOHAMMAD, calls that into question.

The rest of Mohammad's wives seem to be either political marriages, like Aisha (to strengthen his ties with his chief followers and their tribes) OR widows of followers he married to take care of in their old age.

My point is there is NO EVIDENCE he liked his women young, in fact, if anything, he seems to like older women. The marriage to a woman less than 12 was clearly Political not sexual (Through sex was assumed be had occurred, and was both is and his wife's right, i.e. if SHE DEMANDED he had to put out).

Aisha is a point of contention between the Shiitte and Sunni branches of Islam. The Shiite and literally the "Party of Ali". Ali being the son-in-law of Mohammad (Ali had married Mohammad's and Khuwaylid's daughter and was the closest thing to a male relative he had for only his daughters had children). The Shiite maintain that Mohammad wanted Ali to succeed him, but on Mohammad's death Aisha's father was elected the first Caliph. On top of this when Alisha was 14 she had missed a movement of the camp, and was picked up by a man who took her to Mohammad. Under then existing traditional Arab law, that was enough for a conviction of adultery. When Mohammad consulted Ali, Ali repeated the law, a law ALL KNEW and said Mohammad should follow the law. Mohammad thought about it, and decided the law needed changed and said for a woman to be convicted of Adultery, they had to be four wittinesses, since they was only one, Aisha could NOT be convicted of Adultery. Ali accepted this, but Aisha seems to have held it against Ali.

Anyway, on her father's election, Ali held back and supported Aisha's father. Ali then backed the next two Caliphs, elected by the male followers of Islam. On the death of the Third Caliph, Ali was elected Caliph (Becoming the Fourth Caliph and last Caliph accepted by Shiites). Aisha lived under Ali for some years, but revolted against him and was defeated by Ali. Ali then forgave her and put her back into her home. In their later years they seem to come to see eye to eye, for her absence is notable when Ali in finally killed by what would become the Sunni branch of Islam.

Just some background on Mohammad and his pre-teen wife.

For more on Muhammad:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad

For more on his first wife:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khadijah_bint_Khuwaylid

For more on his Favorite wife, Aisha:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha

[Lex Talionis]

117. Ok, so she was under 10 than

when the marriage was consummated? Hell, the way I see it, is if you can have a homo Jesus you can have a pedophile Mohammad. Doesn't answer the question which one is safer to make fun of, though. I'd like to see a piss Mohammad and the resulting chaos just to make my unbiased opinion up.

[noamnety]

31. "Artists who try to be provocative ...

are really annoying sometimes."

Artists should just paint pretty decorative pictures, and quit trying to use art to critique our culture. Their job is to uphold the establishment, not confront it.

:patriot:

[Ordr]

36. Silly.

[Arugula Latte]

73. Here ya go, Ordr

[noamnety]

82. LMAO

That's too funny.

[devilgrrl]

83. This one is way better...

[FightTheRight89]

89. Hell yeah!

[Lex Talionis]

100. LOL! Where did you get that? I need one for my bar. n/t

[devilgrrl]

102. I'm not sure who did that but it is hilarious isn't it?

eom

[Lex Talionis]

106. Hell yea its funny. Is it making fun of an actual painting or artist?

I'm not the artsy type, so admit my ignorance up front. Where do you think I could get a print?

[devilgrrl]

107. I'm sure the artist and his work is being made fun of - and with good reason!

Unfortunately, I'm not sure where you'd get one of these. :-(

[Lex Talionis]

109. His name then or the name of the print. Google is my friend. n/t

[devilgrrl]

110. I googled Thomas Kincaid parody

that's how I found that one

[Lex Talionis]

111. Thanks devilgrrl.

Respects, to you. Here you get a rare smiley face from me. :evilgrin:

[FightTheRight89]

44. Bingo!

Unless there's something really wrong with the establishment, in any case something that I don't think painting Jesus in a homoerotic nature does anything to correct.

[last1standing]

56. The point isn't to correct, it's to create questions.

To make people think. That is a major purpose of art.

[FightTheRight89]

64. Well, what question is this supposed to raise?

[last1standing]

68. The questions I raised earlier with you for a start.

It also questions Christian society's belief that homosexuality is wrong even though Jesus never made any such claims. There are many questions it can raise depending on the person who views it and how they wish to interpret it. If you interpret homosexuality or even sex as inherently wrong or sinful then you may take offense. If you see it as a part of life and nature, possibly even part of God's Will, then you will not likely be as offended.

[noamnety]

81. Oh, don't yell Bingo when I'm being sarcastic!

geez.

[FightTheRight89]

88. You may have been sarcastic.

But I was being serious.

[last1standing]

91. If you were being serious does that mean you agree with a society that views gay as sinful?

Do you believe that homosexuality is inherently wrong or that there is something sinful about sex? I believe that the artist IS pointing out something that is wrong with our society. Do you?

[FightTheRight89]

96. Homosexuality is not sinful.

But I don't think it's normal. Promiscuous sex is...probably just not a good idea.

[Dorian Gray]

48. Am I reading this article correctly?

The artwork was exhibited at a Catholic Cathedral's museum?

That definitely wouldn't happen with any negative Mohammad caricatures.

I'm Catholic, this type of art doesn't bother me, though I am quite surprised that it was displayed at a religious museum.

[mikelgb]

58. Video LINK, and PICTURE

never post about a picture without obliging:

http://www.gloria.tv/?video=yhy4ltzhyg58w8jahiew

[hedgehog]

72. I would have to disagree with the notion of naked men celebrating

a Passover dinner together. That said, A painting showing all the Apostles getting drunk, or sitting down to a ham dinner etc would also be inaccurate. I suspect a more realistic picture of the Last Supper would be this:




Clearly, the artist was trying to evoke a shocked reaction rather than attempting to produce an historical truth. If I wanted to show a gay Jesus, I'd show a more tender lover. This Last Supper is rather violent. The other images from the exhibition, hinting that Jesus was subjected to sexual abuse by his torturers, may well be accurate. The loin cloth depicted on crucifixes is probably inaccurate since the goal of crucifixion was to achieve maximum pain and shame. Abu Garaib, anyone?

[happyslug]

116. The artist seems to object to NO WOMEN being in Leonardo's painting

See my thread 115 below for cites that point this out. The Artist seems to have attacked Leonardo's painting of the Last Supper, NOT the last supper itself.

[sutz12]

59. Some of the commentary on this thread amuses me...

Since most of what Christians believe about sexuality is based on the teachings of Paul, not Jesus, how do we really know?

Personally, I'm all for poking pins in the eyes of the overly self righteous. :)

[Unvanguard]

60. What's annoying about this?

Come on.

[Chovexani]

63. Yeah, god damn artists being all creative and stuff

Who do those uppity bastards think they are, trying to get people to think and shit.

Everybody knows the only REAL artist is Thomas Kinkade, anyways.

[last1standing]

76. NOOO!!! Don't pull out the Kinkade!

Anything but that! PLEAAAASSSEEE!!!!

:evilgrin:

[devilgrrl]

84. here...

[last1standing]

85. Aaaahhhhh!

Much better. Thanks. :)

[devilgrrl]

86. Check out the meth lab in the woods

[Chovexani]

119. Oh my god that wins.

:rofl:

[spoony]

120. Creative? No.

There's simply nothing creative about aiming at the biggest symbol in western civilisation, particularly in such a predictable manner.

[Orsino]

69. Funny how the story covers the controversy without showing the work.

And there will be no shortage of opinions from people even less well informed than I am.

[hedgehog]

74. There is a link upthread with some of the images. Let's just say

that this isn't the kind of drawing you'd hang over your couch! I'm not sure where it would go; it's not a very attractive image.

On edit - there are a bunch of drawing by the artist that you can link to through Wiki -
Here's one called Mozart's Dream

http://www.hilger.at/547_DE?modul=tabelle&form=img&action=show&table=hilger/custom/489&field=bild_gross_m400breit&head=jpeg&pos=459927



I don't know- maybe it's something in the water! I don't think this guy likes people very much.

[Orsino]

79. Yeah, I found linkage.

I'm just decrying "journalism" that stirs up controversy without informing. Or informing very selectively.

[mikelgb]

75. see my reply 58 above for pic and link

[devilgrrl]

80. HA Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[devilgrrl]

92. Hey OP! How's that granite cookie taste?

:hi:

Pillock!

[GoneOffShore]

94. Damn - I was wondering when that was going to happen.

:bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce:

[devilgrrl]

99. I was wondering why it took so long!!!

:crazy:

Did you check out that idiot's sig line?

:wtf:

Hello!!!!

[Orsino]

103. Artists who try to be "provocative" can be annoying sometimes...

...but they're not usually as clumsy as the trolls who try it. :7

[GoneOffShore]

93. Oh goodie - The concern trolls all come out when something like this is reported

All members of the Church of Our Lady of Perpetual Outrage.

They are so much fun to watch.

:popcorn: :beer:

[devilgrrl]

101. Unfortunately, one of them is still here

:grr:

It's only a matter of time, I'm sure.

[Divine Discontent]

113. this kind of underground art is so weird and intentionally confrontational to the people who respect

the people the artist is trying to represent, that it amazes me any museum would give such crap a 'home', when they just want some attention, and they feel doing recreations of well known people or events, into lewd drawings is somehow worthy of praise - bah.

[happyslug]

115. In a CATHOLIC Museum of a Communist Artist.

The Artist is known for his provocative pictures, but even he said his "Leonardo's Last Supper" was NOT intended to be anti-Religious.

The Cardinal and Bishops of Vienna is "Condemned" for leaving this in a Catholic Museum:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=557779&in_page_id=1770&ito=1490

Article that says the painting was an attack at "Leonardo's Last Supper" for having NO WOMEN IN IT:
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_2301384,00.html

This is from a from Right wing Catholic Site:
http://de.gloria.tv/?video=yhy4ltzhyg58w8jahiew

The Cardinal subsequently ordered "Leonardo's Last Supper" removed do to all the controversy over it, but did NOT condemn the Museum for its presentation of the art. In fact the other "Controversy" art, one of a Roman solder holding Christ's scrotum in his hands as Christ is on the cross remains. Some people can NOT handle anything controversial, and I do NOT mean the Cardinal in this case (He had to respond to all the hate e-mail and other responses).