Last week, artist Daniel Edwards made national news when it was revealed that he had created a rendering of Tom Cruise, measuring approximately 14 feet by 3 feet, which features the actor holding a biblical cross that points down to his notably large testicles and penis. Called the “Shroud of Scientology,” it is meant to celebrate Cruise’s 25-year commitment to the church. Edwards plans to exhibit the work, in conjunction with Cory Allen Contemporary Art, at a pop-up gallery near the church’s headquarters in Clearwater, Florida, beginning on August 8.

Edwards is no stranger to controversy — he once made a sculpture of Britney Spears giving birth on all fours, a bust of presidential hopeful Hilary Clinton topless. But gently mocking pop stars and politicians is different than poking fun at the famously litigious Church of Scientology. ARTINFO reached out to Edwards via email to ask him a few questions about his latest eye-opener.

You’ve said this was a commission, but what interested you about Tom Cruise and the Church of Scientology?

I think Tom Cruise’s success has always been an interest for me. I used to think the Church of Scientology was behind a certain amount of his success, which was intriguing to me, but I don’t think that is the case. I think he is a huge success despite his connection to the church. It is all a mystery to me, really, and I have even less of an opinion about it now, than I did before.

Did you have much knowledge of the Church of Scientology before making this work?

I don’t think I’ve ever been too knowledgeable about the Church of Scientology. I see what the media reports, I’ve seen South Park’s depictions and commentaries, which are brilliant. I have not seen the HBO documentary.

How do you feel about the focus that has been placed on “well-endowed” aspect of the sculpture?

I’m happy about that! I spent a lot of time sculpting that part of the sculpture — almost as much time as I spent sculpting his portrait. It was inspired by Michelangelo’s David, which is always criticized for being so small. I offered to teach a course in sculpting genitalia at the New York Academy of Art (they turned it down). And I’m happy that a work of art is talked about for its objectification of the male nude, instead of the female nude, for a change.

How would you respond to people who claim this is merely a publicity stunt?

Well, it would depend on who said it, I suppose. The church of Scientology said it was a publicity stunt, and they are the masters of publicity. But if a random Internet viewer said it, I might dismiss the comment. This piece has its relevance — maybe I haven’t spoken about what that is, and maybe I’ve even applied some misdirection in regard, but I would say that it is more than a publicity stunt.

Are you nervous the Church or Cruise himself might respond with some kind of legal action?

I’m not so nervous about that. I think my work is friendly — it may have an edge, but it is mostly respectful.

Do you hope that Tom Cruise will be able to see the work?

I do hope he will see the work. I know he’ll never have a better relief portrait sculpted of him, so he should be paying attention to that aspect.