Eggs Benedict

The Times wouldn't print the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, or even the less offensive "Draw Muhammad" winning cartoon, but they have no problem publishing a picture of "Eggs Benedict", a portrait of Pope Benedict XVI made from 17,000 stretched-out condoms in a variety of colors.

Now, this useless piece of art isn't even on display yet, but the Times still sees it worthy of coverage.

And, unlike the coverage of the "Draw Muhammad" event, this work is treated purely as a piece of art, though even the director of the museum where it is slated to eventually go on display clearly states that "controversy" is a goal of the work:

“Our hope is that the piece will bring not only controversy, but room for conversation about the underlying discussion the artist intended as well as regarding the role of art in public discussion,” Dan Keegan, the museum’s director, said in a statement.

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2...plaints-in-milwaukee/?src=twr&smid=tw-nytimes

Is there not a single pius Catholic family in Queens that the Times is worried about offending?

 

17,000 fewer cases of seeds going unspilled.

 

Make art, not love.

 

Something irrelevant about "bigots." #cranberry

 

That's actually pretty well done given what it's made from.

 

The responses to this should be interesting, given that the people who are adamant about the separation of church and state are giddy about the new pope wading into the political realm.

 

I condom his actions. It just rubbers me the wrong way.

 

In the spectrum of insulting pictures of Benedict, this comes in about No. 3000. You should see the Hitler Youth and Emperor Palpatine ones.

 

If you don't wear condoms you run the risk of getting Eggs Chesapeake.

 

Are any of those scheduled to be shown in a prestigious art museum?

Has the New York Times published a photo of any of them?

 

Time will tell.