Which Church has the best artwork?

[Flat Earth Kyle]

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.

That all depends on the story the artist is trying to depict. Like I said, I feel Del Parson and Greg Olsen did great jobs at depicting the artwork they wanted to depict.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I really just think Catholics

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

I really just think Catholics

Please go into detail and explain why you feel it has the best artwork?

 

[Shiranui117]

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.

JSYK, that is not a Catholic icon (Roman Catholics haven't had icons for hundreds of years). Rather, that is an Eastern Orthodox icon. :yes:

As you said you liked the flat characters of Christ because they depict Christ as inhuman, we believe Christ is a divine human.

You misunderstand Orthodox teaching--and that's totally my fault for not having explained it clearly enough; the Orthodox teach, as I said, that Christ has two natures, Divine AND human; the red represents His true humanity. Jesus Christ is fully God AND fully human; He is not inhuman, but rather He is the epitome of what it means to be truly human.

Also, I like the surrealism of the icon, because it doesn't attempt to show physical likenesses. Icons aren't about being naturalistic portaits; they point us to the spiritual reality, the Divine Energies/Grace of God shining through all creation, showing a redeemed and renewed creation. This physical world is not all there is; the spiritual state of the world also needs to be kept in mind.

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."

Thank you for teaching me something new about the beliefs of your church. :yes:

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 can see the influence from Orthodox iconography.

[/quote]

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.[/quote]
Perhaps that's the impression you get from the icon. I, however, see in the icon a calm and authoritative teacher offering me both blessing and teaching (though I will admit that Christ looks a little "grumpier" in that particular icon than in others of the same type I've seen It varies depending on who the exact iconographer is)

Here's another one where Jesus is depicted with a "softer" facial expression.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

"Here's another one where Jesus is depicted with a "softer" facial expression."

Yes, that one does not look any where near as creepy. I agree that the message I see in it is the calm authoritative teacher offering both a blessing and a teaching. It is crazy how much contrast the feel between those two paintings have.

-So do you believe the best Bible movies should be cartoonized like your two paintings, or do you believe it is fine to do live action?

-Second, Is not the Eastern Orthodox church a Catholic Church, just with a different pope?

- Third I do agree that there are Catholic artistic influences in LDS artwork.
You can see some of these influences in the architecture of the Salt Lake Temple. However there is a very different feel here than can be seen any any of the Catholic Cathedrals.

 

[Shiranui117]

Yes, that one does not look any where near as creepy. I agree that the message I see in it is the calm authoritative teacher offering both a blessing and a teaching. It is crazy how much contrast the feel between those two paintings have.

Yeah. There can very easily be diversity within uniformity. Heck, while I was looking for other examples of the "Christ Pantocrator/Christ the Savior of the World" type of icons, I even found a Russian one where Christ appeared to be sad.

-So do you believe the best Bible movies should be cartoonized like your two paintings, or do you believe it is fine to do live action?

Well, the point of a Bible movie is to show physical, historical events, so live action for a Bible movie is just fine (though I did quite enjoy Disney's animated version of the Exodus story), while the purpose of an icon is to show a spiritual reality. The two have different functions.

-Second, Is not the Eastern Orthodox church a Catholic Church, just with a different pope?

Not exactly. Eastern Orthodox Church - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We ARE the "Orthodox Catholic Church," but on the other hand, we deny that the Roman Catholic Church is really Catholic in the truest sense of the word (don't get caught up in the semantics too much; at this stage in the game, it might make your head hurt ) For convenience's sake, just keep in mind that the Orthodox Church is totally separate from the Roman Catholic Church.

The reason that the Roman Catholics split off from the Orthodox Church was because the Roman Popes thought they were the supreme rulers of the entire Church, an idea which completely flew in the face of 1000 years of history. By elevating the Pope to the head of the Church, and then dogmatizing that idea in the 1870's. I could be mistaken about the exact Catholic understanding of the supremacy of the Pope, but suffice it to say that the supremacy of one bishop over every other bishop was a completely foreign idea to the Church for over a thousand years, and still is foreign to both Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox ears. There were other theological differences between East and West, but the biggest bone of contention was the role of the Pope. The Romans claimed more power for the Pope than what he had a right to, and they separated themselves from the Church in doing so.

(Despite what Wikipedia might say, I and many others, both Eastern and Oriental Orthodox alike, consider our two churches to be one big Orthodox Church, but we're unfortunately and temporarily divided due to some silly misunderstandings and a lot of historical awkwardness. We are working on official reunion though!)

You might find this bit on Orthodox ecclesiology from the above Wiki article useful in answering your question:

The Orthodox Church considers Jesus Christ to be the head of the Church and the Church to be His body. Thus, despite widely held popular belief outside the Orthodox cultures, there is not one bishop at the head of the Orthodox Church; references to the Patriarch of Constantinople as a leader equivalent or comparable to a pope in the Roman Catholic Church are mistaken.
​

- Third I do agree that there are Catholic artistic influences in LDS artwork.
You can see some of these influences in the architecture of the Salt Lake Temple. However there is a very different feel here than can be seen any any of the Catholic Cathedrals.

Gothic style cathedral, but a lot more white. I can see what you mean. Very impressive!

Though, I would still insist that Del Parson's depiction of Christ draws heavily from Orthodox iconography (which both the Western/Roman Church and the Eastern Churches held in common for a thousand years before we unfortunately parted ways).

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Yeah. There can very easily be diversity within uniformity. Heck, while I was looking for other examples of the "Christ Pantocrator/Christ the Savior of the World" type of icons, I even found a Russian one where Christ appeared to be sad.

Well, the point of a Bible movie is to show physical, historical events, so live action for a Bible movie is just fine (though I did quite enjoy Disney's animated version of the Exodus story), while the purpose of an icon is to show a spiritual reality. The two have different functions.

Not exactly. Eastern Orthodox Church - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We ARE the "Orthodox Catholic Church," but on the other hand, we deny that the Roman Catholic Church is really Catholic in the truest sense of the word (don't get caught up in the semantics too much; at this stage in the game, it might make your head hurt ) For convenience's sake, just keep in mind that the Orthodox Church is totally separate from the Roman Catholic Church.

The reason that the Roman Catholics split off from the Orthodox Church was because the Roman Popes thought they were the supreme rulers of the entire Church, an idea which completely flew in the face of 1000 years of history. By elevating the Pope to the head of the Church, and then dogmatizing that idea in the 1870's. I could be mistaken about the exact Catholic understanding of the supremacy of the Pope, but suffice it to say that the supremacy of one bishop over every other bishop was a completely foreign idea to the Church for over a thousand years, and still is foreign to both Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox ears. There were other theological differences between East and West, but the biggest bone of contention was the role of the Pope. The Romans claimed more power for the Pope than what he had a right to, and they separated themselves from the Church in doing so.

(Despite what Wikipedia might say, I and many others, both Eastern and Oriental Orthodox alike, consider our two churches to be one big Orthodox Church, but we're unfortunately and temporarily divided due to some silly misunderstandings and a lot of historical awkwardness. We are working on official reunion though!)

You might find this bit on Orthodox ecclesiology from the above Wiki article useful in answering your question:

The Orthodox Church considers Jesus Christ to be the head of the Church and the Church to be His body. Thus, despite widely held popular belief outside the Orthodox cultures, there is not one bishop at the head of the Orthodox Church; references to the Patriarch of Constantinople as a leader equivalent or comparable to a pope in the Roman Catholic Church are mistaken.
​

Gothic style cathedral, but a lot more white. I can see what you mean. Very impressive!

Though, I would still insist that Del Parson's depiction of Christ draws heavily from Orthodox iconography (which both the Western/Roman Church and the Eastern Churches held in common for a thousand years before we unfortunately parted ways).

Well, I don't really see anyway he could possibly paint Christ without being accused of being influenced by another piece of Catholic artwork. That is unless he were to maybe paint Christ bald, or with a moe-hawk wearing a business suit. Even the Catholic artwork was influenced heavily from the Greek and the Egyptian artwork before them.

Just look at God the Father here and tell me he does not look like Zeus.

 

[Shiranui117]

Well, I don't really see anyway he could possibly paint Christ without being accused of being influenced by another piece of Catholic artwork. That is unless he were to maybe paint Christ bald, or with a moe-hawk wearing a business suit. Even the Catholic artwork was influenced heavily from the Greek and the Egyptian artwork before them.

Just look at God the Father here and tell me he does not look like Zeus.

Yeah, it's actually forbidden to depict God the Father in Orthodox iconography, since we don't actually know what He looks like. A fun fact. But you know them Roman Catholics and their Renaissance art with pagan influences.

 

[johnhanks]

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?

or

I make no pretence to knowledge of Orthodox iconography, but would suggest that your top image was not created for believers to "enjoy looking at it" in the sense of experiencing the nice cosy reassurance LDS adherents might get from the second one.

The Orthodox icon is full of symbolism, sending the believer a set of very precise messsages. Look at the fingers: they spell out “IC XC”, a widely used four letter abbreviation of the Greek for Jesus (IHCOYC) Christ (XPICTOC). The contemporary orthodox believer, contemplating this artwork, would have been "reading" it for messages about her/his faith, not immersing her/himself in saccharine feel-good sentiment.*

Your LDS image, by contrast, is a trite and sentimental representation of a generic non-threatening good guy - everyone's wish-fulfillment uncle. That faraway look in his eye is presumably meant to convey other-worldly wisdom and infinite vision; though sadly it could as well suggest he's suffering acid reflux and is wishing someone would pass him a Peptobismol.

* I started by saying I don't pretend any expertise on Orthodoxy; if I've got this all wrong, I'm sure a poster with such expertise will put me right.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Yeah, it's actually forbidden to depict God the Father in Orthodox iconography, since we don't actually know what He looks like. A fun fact. But you know them Roman Catholics and their Renaissance art with pagan influences.

So how do you know what the son looks like, to the point of it being acceptable to draw/paint him?

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

I make no pretence to knowledge of Orthodox iconography, but would suggest that your top image was not created for believers to "enjoy looking at it" in the sense of experiencing the nice cosy reassurance LDS adherents might get from the second one.

The Orthodox icon is full of symbolism, sending the believer a set of very precise messsages. Look at the fingers: they spell out “IC XC”, a widely used four letter abbreviation of the Greek for Jesus (IHCOYC) Christ (XPICTOC). The contemporary orthodox believer, contemplating this artwork, would have been "reading" it for messages about her/his faith, not immersing her/himself in saccharine feel-good sentiment.*

Your LDS image, by contrast, is a trite and sentimental representation of a generic non-threatening good guy - everyone's wish-fulfillment uncle. That faraway look in his eye is presumably meant to convey other-worldly wisdom and infinite vision; though sadly it could as well suggest he's suffering acid reflux and is wishing someone would pass him a Peptobismol.

* I started by saying I don't pretend any expertise on Orthodoxy; if I've got this all wrong, I'm sure a poster with such expertise will put me right.

I think you missed my statement concerning the message of the Del Parson painting of Christ.

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.

 

[johnhanks]

I think you missed my statement concerning the message of the Del Parson painting of Christ.

No, I didn't miss your statement. You say

This picture is inviting and says "Come unto me and let me gather you as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings."

I phrase it differently.

This picture is a trite and sentimental representation of a generic non-threatening good guy.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

The Salt Lake City Temple architecture was influenced by many Gothic cathedrals, but it isn't at all a cathedral, or a church/ synagog. Latter-day Saint Temples are set up like the ancient Temples in Biblical days. In that they have layers, a holy place and a holy of holies. We don't offer up animal sacrifices in them, but we believe that the the Tabernacle in the Wilderness and the Temple of Solomon were both used for more than just a place to offer up animal sacrifices.

 

[Shiranui117]

So how do you know what the son looks like, to the point of it being acceptable to draw/paint him?

Because He appeared on earth in the flesh. In fact, half the point of having icons of Jesus in the first place is to emphasise the truth of His incarnation; He truly is God in the flesh, and the visible image of the invisible God. This is the reason that Jesus is always shown with bare feet, or bare feet with sandals, to emphasize that He walked on the earth with us, and thus was truly one of us.

 

[Shiranui117]

I make no pretence to knowledge of Orthodox iconography, but would suggest that your top image was not created for believers to "enjoy looking at it" in the sense of experiencing the nice cosy reassurance LDS adherents might get from the second one.

The Orthodox icon is full of symbolism, sending the believer a set of very precise messsages. Look at the fingers: they spell out “IC XC”, a widely used four letter abbreviation of the Greek for Jesus (IHCOYC) Christ (XPICTOC). The contemporary orthodox believer, contemplating this artwork, would have been "reading" it for messages about her/his faith, not immersing her/himself in saccharine feel-good sentiment.*

* I started by saying I don't pretend any expertise on Orthodoxy; if I've got this all wrong, I'm sure a poster with such expertise will put me right.

As a potential convert to Orthodoxy with quite a bit of knowledge on the subject, I can tell you that every single one of your facts are right here. And thank you VERY much for that link; it's the first time I've been able to see how His fingers spell out IC XC Though, I will note that, in addition to spelling out IC XC, His fingers are also arranged in such a way as to point to the Trinity; three Persons in one God (thumb, ring finger and pinky coming to a point) as well as His two natures, human and Divine, united in one Person (middle and pointer finger)

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

I really like this painting.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

This is the San Diego Temple

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

And this one is the Washington D.C. Temple

 

[johnhanks]

I really like this painting.

I'm very pleased for you. You will no doubt be equally tolerant of others finding it clichéd, sentimental and exploitative.

 

[Breathe]

I'm very pleased for you. You will no doubt be equally tolerant of others finding it clichéd, sentimental and exploitative.

How on earth is it "exploitative"?