Which Church has the best artwork?

[ChristineES]

So that makes it okay?


And that's just as bad, too.

I'm sorry, but this is an aspect of Christian iconography I've always had a massive issue with. Do you honestly see nothing wrong whatsoever with the Churches propagation of the image of their chosen savior as a clean-cut white guy when we know, for a fact, he was not? Do you not see any hint of racism in the act of white-washing a religious figure?

If I airbrushed a picture of Chuck Berry and started telling people he was a white guy, I'd expect to be immediately chastised. And yet it's okay for the Church to continue presenting an image of Jesus that doesn't remotely fit with reality? Again, I ask, why did the change occur in the first place? Is there any reason other than racism to depict Jesus as being white in popular imagery?


And lo, Simon did say unto Christ "rocking dreads, my lord!"

I am asking what difference does it make. And isn't necessarily racist if they draw him that way. I like to see Jesus drawn as a middle Eastern man as that is what He was, but I am not going to lose any sleep over people drawing him as, as my mother said, "Jesus of Kansas". (my mother hated drawings of Jesus as white, too, even when she was an atheist, so I've heard the argument many times).

 

[sojourner]

I'm sorry, but this is an aspect of Christian iconography I've always had a massive issue with. Do you honestly see nothing wrong whatsoever with the Churches propagation of the image of their chosen savior as a clean-cut white guy when we know, for a fact, he was not? Do you not see any hint of racism in the act of white-washing a religious figure?

I understand your outrage, but I feel it's a little misdirected. The problem I have with this type of realist art is that it makes a broad assumption about Jesus that not all people share. It sets a limit on Jesus, and upon all who view the piece. It assumes that the depiction is a correct, or accurate depiction. It assumes an egocentrism with regard to Jesus being "just like us." It assumes that the organization producing, propagating, displaying, advocating the piece sets the standard for what/who Jesus looks like/is. Therefore, the piece is very limited, both in its appeal and in its effectiveness, universally, as artwork. Art is universal -- not particular. So is Christianity. We run into trouble when we insist that Jesus is "just like me," and that Christians are "just like me." It promotes a divisiveness that has no place in Christianity.

 

[Secret Chief]

Is it just me or do the Latter-day Saints have the best artwork?

It's just you.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

If I go by the artwork and I count people like Michelangelo and Leonardo, I would say the Catholic Church has some astounding artwork.

I do too, and as I said before there is just a different feeling and atmosphere about his work than the work of Greg Olsen and Del Parson.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

It doesn't make you at all uncomfortable that any Christian institution would routinely depict Jesus - a poor carpenter born in Judea two-thousand years ago - as looking like a contemporary, attractive and extraordinarily white guy? I get that "it's the message that counts", but if that's true, why the change in the first place? We know Jesus wasn't white, so why is it acceptable to depict him as such? If people don't care, why not depict him as looking like he most likely did? And why would they choose, instead, to depict him as white?

Am I the only person who still finds this weird, and kind of racist?

There are actually quite a few very white Jews and Arabs living in Jerusalem. To say Jesus was a brown Iraqi would be a mistake.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

I agree. It's in virtually every culture Jesus has been altered to reflect those values to some extent.

Think of Germanic Christianity and how much Jesus almost looks more like a Viking God.

Heliand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I honestly think it is the artists. People have a comfort zone in making artwork and it is extreamly easy to get in a rut. Did most people in olden day Germany know what kind of clothes Christ wore during his time? If all I did was paint Vikings all day and then try and paint the savior I am sure I would probably wind up making him look like a Viking as well.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

One of the things I really like about LDS artwork is there is nothing creepy about it. It feels warm and loving in a way that I have not seen rivaled as of yet.

 

[Shiranui117]

They are difficult to do, no question about it, Michalangelo on his back painting the Sistine Chapel and all, but they have a different feel to them. Which do I enjoy looking at more?

You see this icon right here? Lemme break some of the stuff down for you.

-First, note Jesus' right hand, extended in blessing. Three fingers come together at one point; this points us to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit being one God. And see the two fingers crossing each other? That represents Christ's two natures, human and Divine, united without separation, confusion, absorption or division.

Next, note Jesus' red outer garment; this shows us both His Passion and His humanity. His blue robe shows us His Divinity and the mystery surrounding it.

Surrounding His head is a halo, which is a symbol of the Divine Light emanating from Him. Within the Halo is the form of a cross, and within each arm of the Cross are the Greek letters that make up the Greek equivalent to the Hebrew YHWH; Jesus is truly "I AM WHO AM."

Finally, the golden background shows God's grace penetrating all of creation, and reveals His hidden glory for all to see.

As a side note, Jesus' facial expression itself is silent, calling to mind the words of Psalm 45:10, "Be still, and know that I am God." One also sees reflected in His face how He is reacting to us; if we have sinned, His gaze rebukes us. If we are sorrowing or in despair, He comforts us. If we are at peace, He is at peace with us. If we are wavering in our faith, He encourages us to remain steadfast.

or

A nice picture, but does it teach us as much as the icon?

 

[Yep!]

Then why does all of the LDS artwork presented in this thread depict Jesus as a handsome, well-groomed white guy?

I was speaking to the personality presented, not the physical appearance.

 

[ChristineES]

Here's a couple of pieces of art I really like. The sculpture is Michelangelo's Pieta and the other is Vincent Van Gogh, the Bible (I am not really sure if the latter is really considered religious, though).

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

I understand your outrage, but I feel it's a little misdirected. The problem I have with this type of realist art is that it makes a broad assumption about Jesus that not all people share. It sets a limit on Jesus, and upon all who view the piece. It assumes that the depiction is a correct, or accurate depiction. It assumes an egocentrism with regard to Jesus being "just like us." It assumes that the organization producing, propagating, displaying, advocating the piece sets the standard for what/who Jesus looks like/is. Therefore, the piece is very limited, both in its appeal and in its effectiveness, universally, as artwork. Art is universal -- not particular. So is Christianity. We run into trouble when we insist that Jesus is "just like me," and that Christians are "just like me." It promotes a divisiveness that has no place in Christianity.

Sounds like a classic middle aged Catholic reply. In my art history class it was explained to us that the Catholics depicted all of their religious figures as cartoony flat characters for the very reasons you are stating. They wanted that kind of unreal effect so people would know for certain that it was not an accurate depiction. Then as the renaissance came along with Michelangelo, Donatello, and all the other Ninja Turtles and as times became more and more modern that type of art style started to fade and realism became okay again.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

You see this icon right here? Lemme break some of the stuff down for you.

-First, note Jesus' right hand, extended in blessing. Three fingers come together at one point; this points us to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit being one God. And see the two fingers crossing each other? That represents Christ's two natures, human and Divine, united without separation, confusion, absorption or division.

Next, note Jesus' red outer garment; this shows us both His Passion and His humanity. His blue robe shows us His Divinity and the mystery surrounding it.

Surrounding His head is a halo, which is a symbol of the Divine Light emanating from Him. Within the Halo is the form of a cross, and within each arm of the Cross are the Greek letters that make up the Greek equivalent to the Hebrew YHWH; Jesus is truly "I AM WHO AM."

Finally, the golden background shows God's grace penetrating all of creation, and reveals His hidden glory for all to see.

As a side note, Jesus' facial expression itself is silent, calling to mind the words of Psalm 45:10, "Be still, and know that I am God." One also sees reflected in His face how He is reacting to us; if we have sinned, His gaze rebukes us. If we are sorrowing or in despair, He comforts us. If we are at peace, He is at peace with us. If we are wavering in our faith, He encourages us to remain steadfast.

or
A nice picture, but does it teach us as much as the icon?

Nice explanation. I do enjoy the many levels in Catholic artwork.

As for Del Parson's painting, Latter-day Saints believe very differently than Catholics do. As you said you liked the flat characters of Christ because they depict Christ as inhuman, we believe Christ is a divine human. We believe we are all spiritual Children of our Heavenly Father and Christ set for us the perfect example for us in our lives. Before he was born he existed as a spirit, before we were born we believe we existed as spirits, Christ came to earth took up a mortal body and was tested, likewise we also came down to earth took up a mortal body and are tested, when Christ died his spirit went into the spirit world, we believe likewise when we die our spirits will enter into the spirit world, after 3 days Christ was resurrected, we believe that everyone who has ever been born to this earth will someday also be resurrected and Christ has shown us what our full potential is. "As man now is, God once was, and as God now is man may become."
I believe Del Parson's painting of Christ says all of this and more.
This picture is inviting and says "Come unto me and let me gather you as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings."
It also portrays understanding and a loving plea to forsake our sins and repent. Also note that there is a slight halo around his head as well depicting he is holy and the fact that he is the light of the world. He is also wearing a red robe symbolizing his atonement with a white garment symbolizing purity.
It is amazing what a single painting teaches.

I suppose a great part of the different feel between the two paintings is the different message that it is portraying, one I love you, put your sins behind you and come follow me, while the other painting says be afraid of me.

 

[Breathe]

Am I the only person who still finds this weird, and kind of racist?

Not weird or racist. Don't be silly.

People make Jesus into their own ethnic group so as to identify with him further. Historically, people wouldn't have had access to other ethnic groups.

You see white Jesus because you live in the West.

Others see Jesus like this:

Chinese

Thai

Ethiopian

White Jesus images are more common because there are more Christians in the West, in terms of numbers, than anywhere else. This may change in time as Christianity either grows abroad or white adherence or population shrinks.

But still, we all know where Jesus is believed to have been born, grew, lived, and died; it's in the Gospels anyway.

 

[Breathe]

And as to the OP, I like Catholic, then Mormon art.

 

[Gaura Priya]

Orthodox, Catholic and Mormon art are lovely. I also enjoy Islamic calligraphy, and Buddhist mandalas.

Outside Western expressions of art, I feel that the Hare Krishna tradition is very artistic. Gaudiya Vaishnavism and the rest of Hinduism see art as inherently sacred and sacramental. Thus all divine artistic expressions are duly venerated and revered as keys to a deeper and more inward devotion hidden in the heart.

One of my favourites: Radharani (the Feminine Divine Principle of God)

I love the brush strokes of this one: Lord Shiva is captivated by the beauty of Mohini (a female incarnation of God)

Yamuna river personified praying to Balarama (the Lord's Strength personified)

Sri Chaitanya, a saint and incarnation of God, who sang Krishna's names as the best form of worshipping God:

Krishna and Balarama in their earthly forms go to the city of Mathura:

 

[Gaura Priya]

Krishna's many forms and manifestations:

Krishna's earthly form with His cowherd friends:

Krishna teasing His other wife, Rukmini:

God's incarnation as Majesty and Wealth, (Rama and Sita)

The cycle of birth and death (samsara):

Narada Muni teaches divine truth:

And of course, Krishna belongs to everyone, and He rewards us all accordingly:

 

[ChristineES]

I am liking all this artwork.

 

[outhouse]

The best art work I have seen anywhere, has been in Peru, in the many catholic churches.

As a strong an atheist can be, I would walk in these 40' -50' doors and my jaw would drop.

You were in awe at the beauty surrounding you.

Start off with alters over 40' high and 30' wide and it was nothing but intricately carved wood covered in gold leaf! the room would shine in dim light from the gold.

The hand carved wood mezmorizes you, not just in its beauty but the sheer amount of man hours involved. Its exactly like stepping back in time 300 years.


It is a experience everyone should witness.

 

[xkatz]

The Puritans had the best artwork. Ever.

 

[sojourner]

Sounds like a classic middle aged Catholic reply. In my art history class it was explained to us that the Catholics depicted all of their religious figures as cartoony flat characters for the very reasons you are stating. They wanted that kind of unreal effect so people would know for certain that it was not an accurate depiction. Then as the renaissance came along with Michelangelo, Donatello, and all the other Ninja Turtles and as times became more and more modern that type of art style started to fade and realism became okay again.

Notice, though, that at the time of the Renaissance, the church was at the height of its political power. Realist art was OK, because the church was able to foist a white Jesus upon the colonials. When religious art becomes realist, it becomes subjective and cataphatic. And then it only tells part of the story it's designed to tell.