10/12/10

Blow Jobs for Jesus


As bloggers in the Army of Freedom, it is our bounden duty to put the Streisand Effect to work by plastering this piece all over the internet. [minor quibble: why can't controversial artists have some actual talent? When you plaster, you don't want it to hurt your eyes to look at the finished job.]
Click to embiggen, if you really must.

Why? For the same reason we drew pictures of Mohammed: We're Spartacus, yo. Some nutjob drove 700 miles to the art gallery to tear up this picture. Not the whole thing, for being so bad, which would be understandable, but only that last panel. 

Why? Who knows? When she did it she said "How can you desecrate my Lord?" I dunno, lady, since he doesn't exist, but zero in on that last panel. That's supposed to be Jesus getting a blowjob, from a (Gasp!) man.  It looks to me like the problem is not that these guys don't understand art, it's that they don't understand blow jobs.

I couldn't find a better image, but Jesus looks like about a 38DD.  WTF?  Blow it up and you see Jesus's head on a woman's body, with a guy licking her thigh. If it's a woman's body, is he still gay?  I've licked a few thighs in my time, and I'm here to tell you it takes more than that for a blow job. Although, this could definitely be a sex act (Yum). Sooo,  is Jesus 'desecrated' by being a woman, by being a lickee, or what?  Is it adultery to lick a thigh outside of matrimony?  I give up.


IRONY NOTICE  
Every. single. critic. mynah-birds what these nincompoops say:
"As Don Surber said, “Try it with Mohammed.” If you save your most clever cuts for targets that won’t hit back, you’re just a weanie. Professor Chagoya has just been awarded the Weanie Chair in the school of art.
Try it with Mohammed, weanie, or apologize to your family for being the worst kind of coward."
Aside from not being able to spell 'weenie', the panel just to the left of the one Ms. Nutjob tore up is a picture of Mohammed. In a sex act. With pigs.  Can you spell 'moran', moron?

At least one blogger had enough education to recognize holy Mo when he saw him. Must be one of them book-readin' heathens. She provides the best pix I've found.


Even with the zoom, what's going on in either of those panels is a mystery to me. I like sci-fi, but 'what if Jesus was a woman, and a guy licking his thigh made him come?'is not a plotline I'd pursue.

Don't despair. That destroyed exhibit wasn't the original (duh!) and you can still buy this lithograph, for, brace yourself, $3400.   Or slip me a couple grand and I can have the two year old whip out something way better.

It's disturbing that the fundies are going to make are making this obsessed, crazy, vandal into a hero.  Still, there's humor in it. The museum normally has about 75 visitors: Saturday they had 647.
Quasar, over at Forever in Hell, nailed it.  
I can see the humour. It's not the happy-clapper humour the gigglers at the other link are going on about, though. It's the fact that some hick read about a piece of art, freaked out, drove 690 miles (that's more than 11 hours, paying for fuel along the way!) just to madly charge into an art gallery and smash it up.
Aftermath: she gets charged, the picture gets spammed all over the internet, and the artist and gallery get loads of free publicity. Now that's funny.

2 comments:

Margarita del Norte said...

"If you save your most clever cuts for targets that won’t hit back, you’re just a weanie."

So, um, the target that won't hit back is Jesus, and the target that will is Mohammed? Or, um, the target that won't hit back is gay fellators and the target that will is pig prostitutes? Or the target that won't hit back is crazy Christian lady truck drivers with crowbars... no, that can't be right.

I'm confused!

Also a little surprised that the writer thinks the art is a "clever cut." Maybe that's a misspelling, too.

uzza said...

You're not as confused as they are, lemme tell ya.

"Clever cuts", lol. Good catch.