I have been thinking about this question of excellence for sometime now. My interest is in clarifying some terms.

For example, often you hear about excellence in reference to what is deemed to be ‘the best.’ Sometimes you hear about excellence in reference to ‘mastering’ a particular task or craft. These terms, if not clear for a person, can create some tension that hurts our art.

Again, for example, if you think that excellence means ‘the best,’ then you get into a competition with others that probably will come to no good. Regrettably, I think that is what is happening when you submit art to a show. Someone ranks the art as to what is perceived to be the best—but is it really? We all know that it is the judge’s opinion.

So I wonder; do we have a way of speaking of excellence that draws out of the artist something good, something that speaks of their talent as it is reflected in their effort or context? Contrastingly, and perhaps on a broader scale, few people in today’s cultural milieu seem willing to say that there is a standard of excellence. Anything seems to go.

Where has that led us and where is it leading us to?

Just in time for Easter a gallery in NYC is displaying a sculpture by Cosimo Cavallaro which is a chocolate (and naked) representation of Jesus hanging on the cross. The sculpture is entitled, “My Sweet Lord.” Needless to say (or maybe surprisingly) there has been an ‘uproar’ among Christians, particularly by a few Catholics. You can read the MSNBC article here.

Understandably, the tradition of preserving the sacred nature of certain religious symbols is of great interest and value to much of the world, Christian or not. However, is there no room to comment upon those symbols by creating another symbol, in this case a chocolate Jesus?

This backlash seems characteristic of the conflict between religious preservationists and those who would care to open up new spaces for dialogue. It is true that late (post) modernity has deconstructed so much in-common meaning that it is often hard to find symbols in which everyone can meaningfully share.

When visual artists combine their efforts with pop culture they have an unusual power to deconstruct the meaning of shared symbols. Is there ethical artistic responsibility here? Or does the concept of ‘free speech’ mean that there is not anything beyond the commentary of the artist? Is anything too sacred?

On the other hand, can’t religious groups learn to dialogue about the meaning and messages of new symbols rather than simply write them off as offensive? Is there not a way to preserve the sacred while at the same time explore the possibilities that a chocolate Jesus, for example, may have to offer in the way of beneficial conversation?

*Read Update: Gallery show canceled because of ‘uproar,’ called “one of the worst assaults on Christian sensibilities ever.”