Is it art or blasphemy? Artist Cosimo Cavallaro has created a life-size, anatomically correct, chocolate version of Jesus for display in mid-town Manhattan during the last week of Lent.
The sculpture, "My Sweet Lord" is made of 200 pounds of chocolate. Cavallaro's project was sponsored by LAB, an art studio. The sculpture is scheduled to move to the display window of mid-town hotel next week, but currently hotel staff are questioning their decision as many people have had adverse reactions to the sculpture.
The realm of art is open for interpretation, but many Christians believe the statue is derogatory. 1010 Wins has been reporting on the situation and quotes Cavallaro as describing his motivation to create the statue was not to offend. Rather, he wanted to be able to taste his devotion to religion.
This is not the first time Cavallaro has ventured into creating artwork with food. His most well-known medium is in sculpting cheese into and onto various objects such as chairs, coats, and even an entire bedroom. One of his works also includes ham. Cavallaro's artwork is to some pure genius and to others completely unartistic.
After visiting his website at www.cosimocavallaro.com, I found some of the photographs of his work somewhat offensive, especially one of mice being snapped in mouse-traps or the one of dead fish in toilet bowls.
However, I do beleive that artists have a right to express themselves. They have First Amendment rights like anyone else. Cavallaro's work is certainly different, but can it qualify as obscene? Obscenity is something that does not have clearly defined boundaries in American culture and is handled differently on a case by case basis. Should artwork like "My Sweet Lord" be censored?
The answer to that question should be "no," in my opinion. The chocolate sculpture of Jesus is art and it should be displayed on whatever stage chooses to host it. Not to mention, chocolate is something that is big around this time of year whether in the form of bunnies, chicks, and even crosses. Why can't Jesus be made of chocolate too?
I suppose the bigger issue in Cavallaro's sculpture is the fact that Jesus is sculpted to be anatomically correct. Traditionally, icons of Jesus do not portray him nude and this could be why Christians feel offended by the art. Cavallaro has stated that he wanted to portray Jesus as he truly was---not only a Savior, but a man.
Ultimately, the sculpture will mean something different to everyone. That is the beauty of art, it's meaning changes for each viewer because we each have our own unique perspective on life. Art comes from life and should be celebrated.
To see a picture of "My Sweet Lord" you can visit Cavallaro's website (the link is above). You will also find pictures of his other pieces as well as his biography.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Enough is Enough: Sanjaya on IDOL
Now he's part of the top nine? Sanjaya Malakar, 17, has succeeded to slip through the cracks and remain a finalist on the fifth season of American Idol. How has this happened? The latest season of American Idol is proving to be sub-standard to previous seasons. America votes off the half-decent contestants and leaves the ones who can't really sing?
From the beginning of the season, Sanjaya has proved to be a friendly, warm, and loveable person. Paula Abdul is correct when she says Sanjaya has a warm soul. It was heartwarming to see his joys and challenges since auditions when his sister did not make it into the top 20. Sanjaya does have a nice smile, he certainly knows how to do his hair, and he's easy to like. However, once he starts singing, all that charm, charisma, and couture goes right out the window.
Sanjaya seems to be the Idol contestant with one of the largest and most unusual fan bases. Fans have created websites dedicated to keeping the teen on the show. He even has some votes that are being rallied by Howard Stern at votefortheworst.com. The plant in last week's episode, Ashley Ferl, bordered on the edge of ridiculous. She swooned over Sanjaya and cried real tears to prove it, reminding viewers of the 1950s and the Elvis phenomenon. The difference: Elvis was a good singer and great performer. Sanjaya lacks power and stage presence, but makes up for it in popularity (even if it's because he's the worst on Idol).
Critics agree that Sanjaya's stay in the competition will be detrimental to American Idol on a larger scale. Click here for an AOL News story on this. There is superior talent on the show and it would be a travesty to see Sanjaya win. Critics do concur that Sanjaya could still be marketable and create a record with success.
Like any new pop culture icon, Sanjaya has his own web page at http://www.sanjayafans.com/ and even Wikipedia has created an article for him. How long will his fame last? Will he be the next American Idol?
I, for one, hope not. There are many other talented contestants including Melinda Doolittle, LaKisha Jones, Blake Lewis, and even Phil Stacey. I suppose that only time will tell as the latest season treks onward.
Tomorrow morning at work I will be ranting with my friend about the Sanjaya phenomenon. Even though I don’t think Sanjaya should win the contest, I can’t help but enjoy the fact that he has continued to stay in the competition. Once the season is over and we know the results, it could make for an interesting case study on pop culture and interactive entertainment. Until then…I can only beg America…choose a real idol.
From the beginning of the season, Sanjaya has proved to be a friendly, warm, and loveable person. Paula Abdul is correct when she says Sanjaya has a warm soul. It was heartwarming to see his joys and challenges since auditions when his sister did not make it into the top 20. Sanjaya does have a nice smile, he certainly knows how to do his hair, and he's easy to like. However, once he starts singing, all that charm, charisma, and couture goes right out the window.
Sanjaya seems to be the Idol contestant with one of the largest and most unusual fan bases. Fans have created websites dedicated to keeping the teen on the show. He even has some votes that are being rallied by Howard Stern at votefortheworst.com. The plant in last week's episode, Ashley Ferl, bordered on the edge of ridiculous. She swooned over Sanjaya and cried real tears to prove it, reminding viewers of the 1950s and the Elvis phenomenon. The difference: Elvis was a good singer and great performer. Sanjaya lacks power and stage presence, but makes up for it in popularity (even if it's because he's the worst on Idol).
Critics agree that Sanjaya's stay in the competition will be detrimental to American Idol on a larger scale. Click here for an AOL News story on this. There is superior talent on the show and it would be a travesty to see Sanjaya win. Critics do concur that Sanjaya could still be marketable and create a record with success.
Like any new pop culture icon, Sanjaya has his own web page at http://www.sanjayafans.com/ and even Wikipedia has created an article for him. How long will his fame last? Will he be the next American Idol?
I, for one, hope not. There are many other talented contestants including Melinda Doolittle, LaKisha Jones, Blake Lewis, and even Phil Stacey. I suppose that only time will tell as the latest season treks onward.
Tomorrow morning at work I will be ranting with my friend about the Sanjaya phenomenon. Even though I don’t think Sanjaya should win the contest, I can’t help but enjoy the fact that he has continued to stay in the competition. Once the season is over and we know the results, it could make for an interesting case study on pop culture and interactive entertainment. Until then…I can only beg America…choose a real idol.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
The Penny Press Reporter and The Blogger
Now, more than ever, people have the ability to become a published writer with a viable audience. The medium that has made this possible is the Internet. Of course, prior to the World Wide Web, writers could publish their thoughts in books or magazines or newspapers or personal journals/diaries. However, the Internet rivals these traditional publications because its access and proximity to the public are immediate and widely available. The penny press revolution of the 1830s allowed citizens to publish their thoughts and have them read in letters to the editor. Today’s penny presses, so to speak, are the weblogs (blogs) on the Internet where one’s thoughts, opinions, and ideas can be accessed. Bloggers emulate what early penny press journalists did and therefore should enjoy the same legal protection as journalists.
In Discovering the News: A Social History of American Newspapers, Michael Schudson attempts to tell the shaky history of objectivity. Schudson argues that objectivity is traditionally a hallmark of good, factual journalism. However, over the course of history the notion of objectivity has decreased, if not vanished. The penny papers were prior to the true adoption of objectivity in journalism and many penny papers expressed political/partisan opinions. It was not until the 1920s when the notion of public opinion reemerged in journalism. Schudson discusses the theories of Walter Lippmann and writes, “So Lippmann tried to reserve a place in his analysis for public opinion; he tried to cut a pragmatic middle road between a democratic fantasy and a democratic despair,” (Schudson 124). The notion of objectivity was in question and the ideals of public opinion were once again becoming an important part of journalism in the mid 20th century. During this time in history, change was plentiful. Technology was changing the face of life in cities across the nation. To say the least, questioning objectivity came naturally in a time of drastic changes.
Lippmann’s argument was to bring forth public and individual opinion as he described the average citizen as feeling “‘…rather like a deaf spectator in the back row, who ought to keep his mind on the mystery off there, but cannot quite manage to keep awake’,” (Schudson 123). In other words, journalism was too dull and needed some color. During the age of the penny press and its evolution into traditional journalism, journalists enjoyed the limelight of the public eye. As long as reporters in the penny press system could write material that sold papers, their positions were protected. Penny press reporters had an indispensable right to express their opinions as do journalists today. The same protection should be afforded to bloggers on the Internet.
The profession of journalism, some might argue, is hardly a profession at all. One can attend journalism school and get a degree, but anyone can qualify to work for a newspaper or other publication. The Internet is one large publication for anyone and everyone. Nicholas Lehmann writes in his article, “Amateur Hour” in The New Yorker, that “Citizen journalists are supposedly inspired amateurs who find out what’s going on in the places where they live and work, and who bring us a fuller, richer picture of the world than we get from familiar news organizations, while sparing us pomposity and preening that journalists often display,” (Lemann 10). Bloggers take journalism back to its roots and describe the day to day in frank, forthright language. Blogs provide a different outlook on culture, news, entertainment, and even the day to day rhythm of life. Blogs provide news from a different perspective. Of course, there is a difference between The New York Times and a blog, such as this one. However, both pieces of literature examine a subject in an effort to provide the reader with new or advanced knowledge.
To say that a blogger is a full-fledged journalist would be unfair to professional journalists. As Lehmann points out, “…Internet journalism has to meet high standards both conceptually and practically: the medium has to be revolutionary, and the journalism has to be good.” Many newspapers, magazines, etc. are published both in print and online and the same standards of journalism apply to both media. Bloggers enjoy more independence and freedom in the realm of blogs because they are not surrounded by the rules of a particular publication. The New York Times standard of journalism does not apply to a blogger unless that person chooses to blog according to Times style guidelines.
In either the world of professional journalism or the world of blogging, both writers should enjoy legal protection for their work. The intellectual property of each individual deserves to be protected. One of the original notions of copyright protection of one’s work was to encourage more citizens to make their thoughts known. This protection should not be denied to anyone. The thoughts and intellectual property of individuals need to be protected whether professional journalist or citizen journalist.
Blogging may indeed be the beginning to a new form of journalism in the same way the penny presses evolved into many of the credible newspapers read today. Lehmann describes, “At least in part, Internet journalism will surely repeat the cycle, and will begin to differentiate itself tonally, by trying to sound responsible and trustworthy in the hope of building a larger, possibly paying audience,” (Lehmann 12). It would not be surprising to see that in a few years many bloggers with large audiences have become authorities in the world of journalism and public opinion. Until society and culture reach that point, however, the work whether professional or amateur deserves the same legal protection because both types of journalist afford the same right to freedom of expression.
In Discovering the News: A Social History of American Newspapers, Michael Schudson attempts to tell the shaky history of objectivity. Schudson argues that objectivity is traditionally a hallmark of good, factual journalism. However, over the course of history the notion of objectivity has decreased, if not vanished. The penny papers were prior to the true adoption of objectivity in journalism and many penny papers expressed political/partisan opinions. It was not until the 1920s when the notion of public opinion reemerged in journalism. Schudson discusses the theories of Walter Lippmann and writes, “So Lippmann tried to reserve a place in his analysis for public opinion; he tried to cut a pragmatic middle road between a democratic fantasy and a democratic despair,” (Schudson 124). The notion of objectivity was in question and the ideals of public opinion were once again becoming an important part of journalism in the mid 20th century. During this time in history, change was plentiful. Technology was changing the face of life in cities across the nation. To say the least, questioning objectivity came naturally in a time of drastic changes.
Lippmann’s argument was to bring forth public and individual opinion as he described the average citizen as feeling “‘…rather like a deaf spectator in the back row, who ought to keep his mind on the mystery off there, but cannot quite manage to keep awake’,” (Schudson 123). In other words, journalism was too dull and needed some color. During the age of the penny press and its evolution into traditional journalism, journalists enjoyed the limelight of the public eye. As long as reporters in the penny press system could write material that sold papers, their positions were protected. Penny press reporters had an indispensable right to express their opinions as do journalists today. The same protection should be afforded to bloggers on the Internet.
The profession of journalism, some might argue, is hardly a profession at all. One can attend journalism school and get a degree, but anyone can qualify to work for a newspaper or other publication. The Internet is one large publication for anyone and everyone. Nicholas Lehmann writes in his article, “Amateur Hour” in The New Yorker, that “Citizen journalists are supposedly inspired amateurs who find out what’s going on in the places where they live and work, and who bring us a fuller, richer picture of the world than we get from familiar news organizations, while sparing us pomposity and preening that journalists often display,” (Lemann 10). Bloggers take journalism back to its roots and describe the day to day in frank, forthright language. Blogs provide a different outlook on culture, news, entertainment, and even the day to day rhythm of life. Blogs provide news from a different perspective. Of course, there is a difference between The New York Times and a blog, such as this one. However, both pieces of literature examine a subject in an effort to provide the reader with new or advanced knowledge.
To say that a blogger is a full-fledged journalist would be unfair to professional journalists. As Lehmann points out, “…Internet journalism has to meet high standards both conceptually and practically: the medium has to be revolutionary, and the journalism has to be good.” Many newspapers, magazines, etc. are published both in print and online and the same standards of journalism apply to both media. Bloggers enjoy more independence and freedom in the realm of blogs because they are not surrounded by the rules of a particular publication. The New York Times standard of journalism does not apply to a blogger unless that person chooses to blog according to Times style guidelines.
In either the world of professional journalism or the world of blogging, both writers should enjoy legal protection for their work. The intellectual property of each individual deserves to be protected. One of the original notions of copyright protection of one’s work was to encourage more citizens to make their thoughts known. This protection should not be denied to anyone. The thoughts and intellectual property of individuals need to be protected whether professional journalist or citizen journalist.
Blogging may indeed be the beginning to a new form of journalism in the same way the penny presses evolved into many of the credible newspapers read today. Lehmann describes, “At least in part, Internet journalism will surely repeat the cycle, and will begin to differentiate itself tonally, by trying to sound responsible and trustworthy in the hope of building a larger, possibly paying audience,” (Lehmann 12). It would not be surprising to see that in a few years many bloggers with large audiences have become authorities in the world of journalism and public opinion. Until society and culture reach that point, however, the work whether professional or amateur deserves the same legal protection because both types of journalist afford the same right to freedom of expression.
Josh Wolf: Journalist or Activist?
The arrest and jailing of Josh Wolf may permanently change the face of journalism.
On February 7, 2007, Wolf became the longest journalist held in jail for contempt. The 24-year-old freelance journalist has continually refused to hand over a videotape of a violent demonstration in San Francisco to authorities.
The history of Wolf’s case dates back to July 8, 2005 during an anti-G8 (Group of Eight) demonstration. Protestors at the demonstrations wore masks. Wolf’s video recordings may illustrate police brutality against protestors as well as damage to public property.
Wolf sold an edited piece from his footage to a local broadcast station, KRON, a day after the protest. Wolf’s materials were then subpoenaed by the FBI. However, Wolf refused to comply with the demands of the federal government. On August 1, 2006, Wolf was arrested and jailed for his refusal to cooperate. Wolf is being held for contempt of court.
For a short period in September 2006, Wolf was released on bail. His bail was revoked on September 22, 2006 and he was returned to jail. He has remained there since. His case has not been accepted for appeal. Currently, a Grand Jury is looking into criminal charges.
The case against Wolf has raised many legal and ethical questions for journalists. Journalists are among the few professionals who are entitled to an expanded version of privacy. The Privacy Protection Act provides a small group of people with privacy so long as they can prove themselves as journalists or publishers.
Wolf, as a freelance journalist, should have been protected not only by the Privacy Protection Act, but also by California’s Shield Law which is supposed to protect the privacy of its journalists. Wolf has not been granted asylum as a journalist because federal authorities suspect that damage to federal property (a police car) has been recorded on Wolf’s tape.
Many critics have debated Wolf’s status as a journalist as he has no affiliation with any major or minor broadcast network or newspaper whether on or offline. Today’s bloggosphere successfully enables any person with access to the Internet, the ability to become a freelance journalist. After all, it is the responsibility of United States citizens to inform, be informed, and keep guard of their entitled civil liberties.
All journalists and U.S. citizens are supposedly afforded Freedom of Speech under the First Amendment. If Wolf is not a considered a journalist by profession, shouldn’t he be entitled to free speech? There is no shield law to free speech, but it needs to exist for the sake of information. The purpose of Wolf’s tape is to inform the public about the demonstration that occurred on July 8, 2005.
The protestors at the anti-G8 demonstration are also entitled to freedom of speech. Wolf’s action in refusing to turn over his tape is an effort to protect the civil liberties of the protestors. Peaceful protests are protected by the First Amendment. The G8 protest turned violent when a San Francisco police officer, Peter Shields suffered a fractured skull after a protestor hit him in the head with a blunt object. This, according to some critics, is the reason why the federal government has continued to hold Wolf in jail.
Why won’t Wolf release the tape? Is it a question of personal ethics? Wolf has stated to the press the reason he refuses to hand the tape over to authorities is because he wishes to protect the confidentiality of protestors. As an activist and anarchist, Wolf seeks not only to inform but to spark change. So far, his refusal to turn over his materials about the G8 demonstration has not changed anything.
Wolf has been praised for his chivalrous actions and defense of the First Amendment. He was named Journalist of the Year by the Society of Professional Journalists in 2006 for upholding the First Amendment.
To this day, Wolf remains uncharged with a crime. Why is this? Perhaps, the answer to that question is simple: he did not commit a crime. Rather, the protestors in the tape are considered the criminals. Wolf is the middle-man.
“Professional” journalists (i.e. network news reporters or major newspaper reporters) are unsettled by the Wolf case because it hits so close to home. Judith Miller, a former New York Times reporter understands this completely as she was jailed for 85 days for refusing to identify a source in the Valerie Plame case.
The notion of protection of source confidentiality is a major one for journalists. Journalists follow a code of ethics in reporting. Each publication or network may have their own ethics code. However, there is a general Code of Ethics published by the Society for Professional Journalists (the same organization that awarded Wolf as Journalist of the Year).
Part of the Code of Ethics as published by the SPJ is to minimize harm. This section advises journalists to be judicious about naming criminal suspects prior to formal charges. In Wolf’s case, his reason for repudiating the request of the FBI was to possibly protect those committing a crime.
On the other hand, Wolf’s actions are in conflict with the Code of Ethics because although he is a freelance journalist and blogger, he was associated with the protestors as a fellow activist. The Code states that journalists should avoid associating with organizations that may damage credibility. Wolf’s involvement with Indybay Independent Media also supports Wolf’s stance as an activist which most likely influences the footage he shoots and events he covers.
This case has caused many to debate and discuss the difference between journalism and activism. Wolf openly stated after the G8 incident he is an activist, anarchist, and archivist. Is his refusal to release his materials to the government a shining example of journalism or one of activism?
I think the answer to that question is both. At first, Wolf’s case seemed to be a cut-and-dried example of the federal government impeding on a citizen’s right to privacy and freedom of speech. Now, over 200 days after his imprisonment, Wolf might just be trying to make a point.
I believe the real tell-all answer to whether Wolf’s case is one that will change the face of journalism has yet to be told. This may happen when the Grand Jury delegating over Wolf’s case reaches a decision, which is slated to be made in July 2007. Until then, journalists and citizens alike will need to decide for themselves on why Wolf remains in jail: to make a valiant stance for Free Speech or to prove a point as an activist?
On February 7, 2007, Wolf became the longest journalist held in jail for contempt. The 24-year-old freelance journalist has continually refused to hand over a videotape of a violent demonstration in San Francisco to authorities.
The history of Wolf’s case dates back to July 8, 2005 during an anti-G8 (Group of Eight) demonstration. Protestors at the demonstrations wore masks. Wolf’s video recordings may illustrate police brutality against protestors as well as damage to public property.
Wolf sold an edited piece from his footage to a local broadcast station, KRON, a day after the protest. Wolf’s materials were then subpoenaed by the FBI. However, Wolf refused to comply with the demands of the federal government. On August 1, 2006, Wolf was arrested and jailed for his refusal to cooperate. Wolf is being held for contempt of court.
For a short period in September 2006, Wolf was released on bail. His bail was revoked on September 22, 2006 and he was returned to jail. He has remained there since. His case has not been accepted for appeal. Currently, a Grand Jury is looking into criminal charges.
The case against Wolf has raised many legal and ethical questions for journalists. Journalists are among the few professionals who are entitled to an expanded version of privacy. The Privacy Protection Act provides a small group of people with privacy so long as they can prove themselves as journalists or publishers.
Wolf, as a freelance journalist, should have been protected not only by the Privacy Protection Act, but also by California’s Shield Law which is supposed to protect the privacy of its journalists. Wolf has not been granted asylum as a journalist because federal authorities suspect that damage to federal property (a police car) has been recorded on Wolf’s tape.
Many critics have debated Wolf’s status as a journalist as he has no affiliation with any major or minor broadcast network or newspaper whether on or offline. Today’s bloggosphere successfully enables any person with access to the Internet, the ability to become a freelance journalist. After all, it is the responsibility of United States citizens to inform, be informed, and keep guard of their entitled civil liberties.
All journalists and U.S. citizens are supposedly afforded Freedom of Speech under the First Amendment. If Wolf is not a considered a journalist by profession, shouldn’t he be entitled to free speech? There is no shield law to free speech, but it needs to exist for the sake of information. The purpose of Wolf’s tape is to inform the public about the demonstration that occurred on July 8, 2005.
The protestors at the anti-G8 demonstration are also entitled to freedom of speech. Wolf’s action in refusing to turn over his tape is an effort to protect the civil liberties of the protestors. Peaceful protests are protected by the First Amendment. The G8 protest turned violent when a San Francisco police officer, Peter Shields suffered a fractured skull after a protestor hit him in the head with a blunt object. This, according to some critics, is the reason why the federal government has continued to hold Wolf in jail.
Why won’t Wolf release the tape? Is it a question of personal ethics? Wolf has stated to the press the reason he refuses to hand the tape over to authorities is because he wishes to protect the confidentiality of protestors. As an activist and anarchist, Wolf seeks not only to inform but to spark change. So far, his refusal to turn over his materials about the G8 demonstration has not changed anything.
Wolf has been praised for his chivalrous actions and defense of the First Amendment. He was named Journalist of the Year by the Society of Professional Journalists in 2006 for upholding the First Amendment.
To this day, Wolf remains uncharged with a crime. Why is this? Perhaps, the answer to that question is simple: he did not commit a crime. Rather, the protestors in the tape are considered the criminals. Wolf is the middle-man.
“Professional” journalists (i.e. network news reporters or major newspaper reporters) are unsettled by the Wolf case because it hits so close to home. Judith Miller, a former New York Times reporter understands this completely as she was jailed for 85 days for refusing to identify a source in the Valerie Plame case.
The notion of protection of source confidentiality is a major one for journalists. Journalists follow a code of ethics in reporting. Each publication or network may have their own ethics code. However, there is a general Code of Ethics published by the Society for Professional Journalists (the same organization that awarded Wolf as Journalist of the Year).
Part of the Code of Ethics as published by the SPJ is to minimize harm. This section advises journalists to be judicious about naming criminal suspects prior to formal charges. In Wolf’s case, his reason for repudiating the request of the FBI was to possibly protect those committing a crime.
On the other hand, Wolf’s actions are in conflict with the Code of Ethics because although he is a freelance journalist and blogger, he was associated with the protestors as a fellow activist. The Code states that journalists should avoid associating with organizations that may damage credibility. Wolf’s involvement with Indybay Independent Media also supports Wolf’s stance as an activist which most likely influences the footage he shoots and events he covers.
This case has caused many to debate and discuss the difference between journalism and activism. Wolf openly stated after the G8 incident he is an activist, anarchist, and archivist. Is his refusal to release his materials to the government a shining example of journalism or one of activism?
I think the answer to that question is both. At first, Wolf’s case seemed to be a cut-and-dried example of the federal government impeding on a citizen’s right to privacy and freedom of speech. Now, over 200 days after his imprisonment, Wolf might just be trying to make a point.
I believe the real tell-all answer to whether Wolf’s case is one that will change the face of journalism has yet to be told. This may happen when the Grand Jury delegating over Wolf’s case reaches a decision, which is slated to be made in July 2007. Until then, journalists and citizens alike will need to decide for themselves on why Wolf remains in jail: to make a valiant stance for Free Speech or to prove a point as an activist?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
