Why don't we have more artwork representing the Christian God (i.e. the Father)?

[Katzpur]

It's easy to find pictures of Jesus Christ. We see pictures of Him teaching the Sermon on the Mount, pictures of Him on the Sea of Galilee, pictures of Him walking on water, pictures of Him raising Lazarus from the dead, pictures of Him blessing the little children, pictures of Him healing the sick, pictures of Him dying on the cross, pictures of Him as a resurrected being on Easter morning.

So why don't we have more pictures, more sculpture, etc. of God the Father? Michelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel and God the Father is depicted there. I'm aware of another few pictures of Him. But why is He so "ignored" in Christian art in general?

 

[Skwim]

Why don't we have fewer pieces of artwork representing the Christian God (i.e. the Father)? After all, isn't one enough? What purpose do anymore serve?

 

[Bunyip]

This is an image of mine. Religious imagery, depictions of god and so on have always been popular themes in art.

 

[Katzpur]

Why don't we have fewer pieces of artwork representing the Christian God (i.e. the Father)? After all, isn't one enough? What purpose do anymore serve?

Religious art is big thing with believers, Skwim. For most of recorded history (at least following the establishment of Christianity) there was more religious art than any other kind of art. You may think that such art serves no purpose, which makes all the sense in the world if you don't believe in God at all. I guess I'm going to have to start putting every new thread I create in the Same-faiths Debate forum so that people who just cannot resist the urge to throw their two cents worth in will be prohibited from doing so. This thread is clearly asking a question of Christians. Your opinion is really of no consequence to any of us.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Religious art is big thing with believers, Skwim. For most of recorded history (at least following the establishment of Christianity) there was more religious art than any other kind of art. You may think that such art serves no purpose, which makes all the sense in the world if you don't believe in God at all. I guess I'm going to have to start putting every new thread I create in the Same-faiths Debate forum so that people who just cannot resist the urge to throw their two cents worth in will be prohibited from doing so. This thread is clearly asking a question of Christians. Your opinion is really of no consequence to any of us.

I hope it's not only of Christians. I'll have a crack at this, regardless.

The whole question of God in art has been fairly prickly theologically at times, and in particular during the formative years of the Church.
And even once issues of idolatry were dealt with, I suspect that there was a general acceptance of Jesus as a human form, even if many cultures drew him with reference to their own appearance.

When it comes to God...I mean...exactly what form would God take? The Sistine Chappel is an interesting example, since I suppose some of the 'sky daddy' references you hear (derogatively) are tied to this image.
As a believer, if someone paints a stunning sunset, is that not then (possibly) a representation of God, dependent on the intent of the painter?

 

[Katzpur]

When it comes to God...I mean...exactly what form would God take?

Well... How about the form He has?

 

[Bunyip]

I hope it's not only of Christians. I'll have a crack at this, regardless.

The whole question of God in art has been fairly prickly theologically at times, and in particular during the formative years of the Church.
And even once issues of idolatry were dealt with, I suspect that there was a general acceptance of Jesus as a human form, even if many cultures drew him with reference to their own appearance.

When it comes to God...I mean...exactly what form would God take? The Sistine Chappel is an interesting example, since I suppose some of the 'sky daddy' references you hear (derogatively) are tied to this image.
As a believer, if someone paints a stunning sunset, is that not then (possibly) a representation of God, dependent on the intent of the painter?

I googled images of god - sunsets and other natural themes were dominant, including it seems in Christian imagery. The form is that of some awe inspiring force of nature, as opposed to a person. Which is particularly striking in renaissance art. Images of Jesus tend to show him looking towards or haloed such a sunset, or other evocative natural vision. Even images of the cross are often graced with the corona of the sun.

 

[Katzpur]

I googled images of god - sunsets and other natural themes were dominant, including it seems in Christian imagery. The form is that of some awe inspiring force of nature, as opposed to a person. Which is particularly striking in renaissance art. Images of Jesus tend to show him looking towards or haloed such a sunset, or other evocative natural vision. Even images of the cross are often graced with the corona of the sun.

So are you saying that when Christians want to represent God, the best they can do is to use a picture of something He created?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Well... How about the form He has?

You think God has a form? Interesting.
Okay, so if I assume the form you think he has is something akin to that depicted in the Sistine Chappel (ie. man was created in his image) then I would suggest that your view of God's form is not universal, and this may be indicative of why there are less depictions of God than Jesus.

(ie. the commonality of agreement on the one hand, and the lack thereof on the other)

 

[Katzpur]

You think God has a form? Interesting.

I do.

Okay, so if I assume the form you think he has is something akin to that depicted in the Sistine Chappel (ie. man was created in his image) then I would suggest that your view of God's form is not universal, and this may be indicative of why there are less depictions of God than Jesus.

Pass this information on to Skwim, will you? If a fellow-atheist tells him my view of God's form is not the most common one among Christians, maybe he'll believe you. He certainly doesn't believe me.

 

[Bunyip]

So are you saying that when Christians want to represent God, the best they can do is to use a picture of something He created?

No, I made no such value judgement. What I was saying is that in Christian imagery it is traditional to represent god in terms of natural imagery.I think it is an elegant and rather artistically pleasing approach. Images of god as a person simply struck me as less common.

 

[Katzpur]

No, I made no such value judgement.

Sorry, I guess I misunderstood.

What I was saying is that in Christian imagery it is traditional to represent god in terms of natural imagery.I think it is an elegant and rather artistically pleasing approach. Images of god as a person simply struck me as less common.

But why? Why is Jesus depicted as the individual Christians believe Him to be, but God the Father is depicted in the abstract?

 

[Bunyip]

Sorry, I guess I misunderstood.

But why? Why is Jesus depicted as the individual Christians believe Him to be, but God the Father is depicted in the abstract?

Perhaps that is what Jesus was - the abstract incarnate. The force of nature made man? Isn't that at least in some way what Jesus represents?

 

[Katzpur]

Perhaps that is what Jesus was - the abstract incarnate. The force of nature made man? Isn't that at least in some way what Jesus represents?

Clearly, Jesus acted as God the Father's representative on earth. He states that on multiple occasions. I don't see Him as "the abstract incarnate" though, because I don't see God the Father as an abstract concept.

 

[Bunyip]

Clearly, Jesus acted as God the Father's representative on earth. He states that on multiple occasions. I don't see Him as "the abstract incarnate" though, because I don't see God the Father as an abstract concept.

Sure, I understand that. But remember that most Christians follow theologies that tend to see it more as I suggested. God the phenomenon - the unknowable force of nature incarnate as a human man in the form of Jesus. That is essentially the Catholic, Anglican and protestant perspective.

 

[Katzpur]

Sure, I understand that. But remember that most Christians follow theologies that tend to see it more as I suggested. God the phenomenon - the unknowable force of nature incarnate as a human man in the form of Jesus. That is essentially the Catholic, Anglican and protestant perspective.

As I just got through saying to lewisnotmiller, "Pass this information on to Skwim, will you? If a fellow-atheist tells him my view of God's form is not the most common one among Christians, maybe he'll believe you. He certainly doesn't believe me."

 

[Bunyip]

As I just got through saying to lewisnotmiller, "Pass this information on to Skwim, will you? If a fellow-atheist tells him my view of God's form is not the most common one among Christians, maybe he'll believe you. He certainly doesn't believe me."

Well there is a connection - he did make man in his image. Whether or not that refered to his form, and what that means is a complicated theological topic.

 

[Katzpur]

Well there is a connection - he did make man in his image. Whether or not that refered to his form, and what that means is a complicated theological topic.

People make it a lot more complicated than it needs to be.

 

[Bunyip]

People make it a lot more complicated than it needs to be.

Well I think that is pretty much the nature of theology. Its a minefield. Have you read Franciscan theology? The Dominicans speak of some great authority rather more akin to your view - whilst the Franciscans speak of a more abstract unknowable elemental force. Nice talking to you.

 

[psychoslice]

No one knows how Jesus looked, the pictures are just a creation of how whoever painted him wanted him to look like.