Photographer uses chocolate sauce to show impact of oil spill

While I understand the premise and applaud this local artist’s concern and efforts to act, I’m not sure I agree that this avenue is effective. First of all, I think everyone who can be aware is now aware of the oil spill, so these photos cannot raise awareness. Second of all, how does this really get people involved? We know the oil is making animals miserable and killing them, fouling their food sources, that it is very difficult to clean them up as well and their habitats, etc. Except in the way it looks, chocolate sauce does not compare and spending a few hours covered in it and having photographic proof of that seems ineffective to say the least. Who would buy photos of people/pets covered in chocolate sauce? Wouldn’t it make more sense to make a direct donation or just take action to clean up the actual oil?

This whole idea is just out there to me, but I am not an artsy type, so maybe I’m just missing something.

"Photographer uses chocolate sauce to show impact of oil spill

KSDK – Images of oil-slicked birds in the Gulf have inspired one local artist to action. Substituting chocolate sauce for oil, she’s creating her own photographs. The goal is to give people a way to get involved. "…

Entire article:

Covering things in chocolate sauce … gets me very … excited.

This is devastating to more than just animals, fishing is the industry for this part of the state. Several parishes* that were wiped off the map by Katrina and are just getting back together through much blood,sweat and tears, are losing their livelyhoods. And what will become of the isleños? They moved here mere decades after my people** this may force them to disperse after almost two and a half centuries which may completely destroy them as a racial and ethnic entity, a bloodless genocide. If you feel their is anything you can do to raise awareness of the human cost of the spill please do.

*equivalent to counties around here.

**The Acadian Exiles, often refered to as Cajuns and misrepresented as rednecks and hicks who live in the swamps.

Far worse then that has been used in “art”. I think he gets his point across though.

bsfhpfhwauah aha aha hahaa…your crazy for that one…lmbo…

Its like you cant even comment after reading something like that…totally derails train of thought…lol…


ANYways…I thought the pictures were pretty deep. Yes, yes, ok we KNOW its chocolate. But if you look at it, like, as the artist intends…its pretty disturbing…makes you think about how it would really be like to live covered in sludge. I mean, could you imagine how moving a picture of an infant covered in it would be??? That cause some major outrage…a baby covered in it…trying to breathe or something…my heart hurts just thinking about it.

Yeah I think we all KNOW about it, so for promoting ‘awareness’ thats pretty much pointless, but I think its more promoting ‘outrage’…You know?? Getting people to CARE if they dont already…a lot of people seem to be detached from nature, others, animals, etc…

1.) A ridiculous waste of perfectly good chocolate
2.) I can’t BELIEVE she would be so careless as to feed chocolate to dogs - that can be fatal.
3.) Otherwise, the photos are very well composed and shot.

I just don’t think it is really necessary or will do anything to change the situation. But everyone has their way of artistic expression I suppose.




Didn’t intend to get everyone all “choked up”.


Anyway, there is art and then there is art.

Sometimes the message is off / inaccurate.

There have been LOTS of oil spills, many of them much bigger than this Gulf of Mexico spill.

[yes, yes, yes, this one is not over yet]

The 1979 Gulf of Mexico spill was HUGE and no one even remembers it.

[Ixtoc-1 140 million gallons, more or less.]

The average annual amount of oil spilled from rigs and tankers is 250 million gallons.

And that is all cleaned up by nature.

Some spills were ignored and self cleaned.

Some were so isolated, folks couldn’t even get to them.

THE PROBLEM is that dredging up all kinds of data is B-O-R-I-N-G and also waters down the drama queen effect.

Anyway, I will try to find a list that exists somewhere else on CAF. It’s a long list.

The Exxon Valdez spill is touted all the time for comparison, but was not even in the top ten list. It was like 35th down the list. And these spills get cleaned up by nature, even though the drama queens and “Artistes” don’t want to deal with facts.

The problem with consciousness raising, is that sometimes the wrong consciousness is raised.

Here’s a question: name the top ten biggest oil spills in world history.

What is the ranking of the Exxon Valdez oil spill?
Exxon Valdez is not in the top ten.

Exxon Valdez is not in the top twenty.

Exxon Valdez is not in the top thirty.

The Gulf of Mexico oil spill on June 3, 1979 was probably the largest in our region.

But, apparently, no one remembers it.

Ixtoc 1

Bay of Compeche, Cuidad del Camina, Mexico

Leaked for a year; 140 million gallons.

Also 1979: During a tropical storm off the coast of Trinidad and Tobago, a Greek oil tanker collided with another ship and lost its entire cargo: 90 million gallons. [sounds worse than 2 million barrels]

Of the top ten worse list, the Exxon Valdez was probably not on the list because it was so small by comparison. Might be down around #34.

Apparently, also [underwater?] pipelines leaked for decades and no one noticed. I found one for the Guadalupe oil field; San Luis Obispo County, California. Estimates are that between 10 million and 20 million gallons leaked. No one knows. The substance that leaked was diluent apparently used in oil extraction.

Greenpoint oil spill. 1950’s. 17 million to 30 million gallons. Brooklyn, NY

Galveston, Texas. November 1, 1979. 10 million gallons Burmah Agate

These are local to the Gulf of Mexico.

The biggest of all was when Saddam Hussein ordered a large release which was 500 million gallons to 1,000 million gallons; 1991; into the Arabian Gulf off Kuwait.

84 million gallons; Russia; 1994; unnoticed for eight months.

80 million gallons; Persian Gulf; 1983; seven months; tanker collided with drill platform.

79 million gallons; South Africa; 1983; tanker caught fire and sank; 25 off Saldanha Bay.

69 million gallons; France; 1978; tanker Amaco Cadiz went aground in a storm; English Channel.

50+ million gallons; Angola; 1991; tanker exploded.

45 million gallons; Italy; 1991; tanker sank; still leaking

40 million gallons; Atlantic Ocean; 1988; Odyssey oil spill; 700 miles off Nova Scotia.

The Exxon Valdez oil spill [10 million gallons] was a disaster, but there were at least 33 oil spills that were larger

Got timed out.

Here is a better link; go here and scroll down:

The alfin site is really interesting, though.

You know the photographer is trying to use “art” to make a point.

But what if an artist uses art to make a point that is not politically correct.

Suppose, the artist is pro-choice. [pro-abortion]

And suppose the artist works with new mediums … all experimental.

And then stumbles over using movies made with ultrasound … and sees babies in the womb desperately trying to avoid being killed by an abortionist.

Is that still art?

What will the artist do?

Same thing applies to oil spills.

What if the artist comes up with movies in a glass tank showing all the natural forces that destroy oil spills. And shows how quickly it can be done.

And then adds in the man-made sucker ships [which Obama is refusing to allow being brought in by refusing to waive the Jones Act] … and the oil spills are shown to be cleaned up rapidly.

Then where is the artist?

List of nasty oil spills. Redux.

I think my cell phone could have snapped better shots. Horrible setup.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit