Flat Earth Kyle
Well-Known Member
Is it just me or do the Latter-day Saints have the best artwork?
Last edited by a moderator:
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Roman Catholic or Orthodox. No question.
I prefer the LDS artwork for the return to a simple view of Christ, a presentation of what I believe He was like while he walked the Earth.
I don't think that really matters.Then why does all of the LDS artwork presented in this thread depict Jesus as a handsome, well-groomed white guy?
I don't think that really matters.
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?
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?
So that makes it okay?I wouldn't say racist- people throw out the race card too much nowadays. People have been showing Jesus like that for 2,000 years, it's nothing new.
And that's just as bad, too.We all know by now that Jesus didn't look like that. People tend to draw Jesus in ways that looks like themselves- like Michelangelo painted him and carved him to look Italian.
And lo, Simon did say unto Christ "rocking dreads, my lord!"I like the Rasta depiction.
And lo, Simon did say unto Christ "rocking dreads, my lord!"
I'm not sure "racist" is quite proper, although "egocentric" may be closer. The problem with depicting God (or Jesus) is that we tend to envision them in our own way. Alfred Burt's carol, Some Children See Him is apropos: "Some children see him lily white, the baby Jesus born this night...some children see him bronzed and brown, the Lord of heaven to earth come down," etc. I think that's why I cotton to the EO artwork the most; it's the least realist, so allows one to see through the work itself, to the idea behind the work. It becomes, not so much "this is what Jesus looks like," as it does, "this is who Jesus is."I wouldn't say racist- people throw out the race card too much nowadays. People have been showing Jesus like that for 2,000 years, it's nothing new. We all know by now that Jesus didn't look like that. People tend to draw Jesus in ways that looks like themselves- like Michelangelo painted him and carved him to look Italian.
I'm not sure "racist" is quite proper, although "egocentric" may be closer. The problem with depicting God (or Jesus) is that we tend to envision them in our own way. Alfred Burt's carol, Some Children See Him is apropos: "Some children see him lily white, the baby Jesus born this night...some children see him bronzed and brown, the Lord of heaven to earth come down," etc. I think that's why I cotton to the EO artwork the most; it's the least realist, so allows one to see through the work itself, to the idea behind the work. It becomes, not so much "this is what Jesus looks like," as it does, "this is who Jesus is."