kujo Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 [quote name='dominicansoul' post='1871799' date='May 20 2009, 01:46 PM']just as long as you never dress him in that retro-80's outfit... (i still can't get that image out of my mind...) [/quote] It was quite intoxicating, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngelofJesus Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 In a Catholic church it seems very uncharacteristic. Seem very sacrilegious. It would've made more sense if they dressed Him like a modern day carpenter with a toolbelt and a hard hat and none of that wind blown effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kujo Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 [quote name='AngelofJesus' post='1871805' date='May 20 2009, 01:58 PM']In a Catholic church it seems very uncharacteristic. Seem very sacrilegious. It would've made more sense if they dressed Him like a modern day carpenter with a toolbelt and a hard hat and none of that wind blown effect.[/quote] I'll concede that the statue should be in a church. For sure. But at a museum, in a parish office, a Youth Center...heck in my APARTMENT...definitely. Bring it on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dominicansoul Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 [quote name='kujo' post='1871806' date='May 20 2009, 11:59 AM']I'll concede that the statue should be in a church. For sure. But at a museum, in a parish office, a Youth Center...heck in my APARTMENT...definitely. Bring it on.[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 (edited) [quote name='kujo' post='1871747' date='May 20 2009, 10:03 AM']Right but what difference does it make if Jesus is wearing jeans? I mean, I saw the preview and I just don't understand what the big deal is. It seems, to me, that Jesus' divinity and sanctity is not affected one bit by wearing jeans and having a friendly look on His face. I just don't get it.[/quote] I give up. Let the Western Church do what it wants with images. I am glad to be out of the Roman Rite. Had you read even a portion of the link I posted you would at least have come to understand (whether you would have agreed with it or not) the tradition of the Church as it has been passed down from the Fathers through the councils. The image of "Jesus in jeans" is offensive to me as a Christian. Edited May 20, 2009 by Apotheoun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StColette Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 [quote name='Apotheoun' post='1871872' date='May 20 2009, 02:31 PM']I give up. Let the Western Church do what it wants with images. I am glad to be out of the Roman Rite.[/quote] One person doesn't make up the Roman Rite. I belong to the Roman Rite and can't stand the sight of that statue. Its taking something sacred and making it profane. I also don't care for Churches that don't give you a sense of the sacred but look merely like plain buildings with pews. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 (edited) [quote name='StColette' post='1871881' date='May 20 2009, 12:45 PM']One person doesn't make up the Roman Rite.[/quote] True, but his comments are symptomatic of the collapse of tradition among many in the Roman Rite. [quote name='StColette' post='1871881' date='May 20 2009, 12:45 PM']I belong to the Roman Rite and can't stand the sight of that statue.[/quote] It is rather ugly, but that is only secondary to the dogmatic failure of the statue, which has no connection to traditional iconographic motifs. The statue is dogmatically vapid. [quote name='StColette' post='1871881' date='May 20 2009, 12:45 PM']Its taking something sacred and making it profane.[/quote] I agree. [quote name='StColette' post='1871881' date='May 20 2009, 12:45 PM']I also don't care for Churches that don't give you a sense of the sacred but look merely like plain buildings with pews.[/quote] Or Churches -- as in the case of many of the Roman Catholic buildings in the East Bay area -- that look like a gymnasium. I will continue to pray for my Roman Catholic friends, that the iconographical non-sense that they have had to endure for nearly 40 years may finally come to an end. Edited May 20, 2009 by Apotheoun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dominicansoul Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 [quote name='Apotheoun' post='1871909' date='May 20 2009, 02:15 PM']The statue is dogmatically vapid.[/quote] this is the perfect description for it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StColette Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 [quote name='Apotheoun' post='1871909' date='May 20 2009, 03:15 PM']It is rather ugly, but that is only secondary to the dogmatic failure of the statue, which has no connection to traditional iconographic motifs. The statue is dogmatically vapid.[/quote] Not to get off topic, which I don't think this does but lol, I think one of my favorite books I read while at Franciscan dealt with the foundations of iconography, "God's Human Face: The Christ Icon" by Schonborn. It definitely taught me a lot about iconography and it's foundation and importance. I would recommend to those that are familiar with iconography and it's foundation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YMNolan Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 That's not Jesus. Dude's name is Brodie, and he owes me a new surfboard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thy Geekdom Come Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 [quote name='StColette' post='1871881' date='May 20 2009, 02:45 PM']One person doesn't make up the Roman Rite. I belong to the Roman Rite and can't stand the sight of that statue. Its taking something sacred and making it profane. I also don't care for Churches that don't give you a sense of the sacred but look merely like plain buildings with pews.[/quote] Or plain buildings with chairs and a priest who prays to his "cosmic daddy"... Oh, wait...that was in North Carolina... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StColette Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 [quote name='Raphael' post='1871926' date='May 20 2009, 03:34 PM']Or plain buildings with chairs and a priest who prays to his "cosmic daddy"... Oh, wait...that was in North Carolina...[/quote] That was absolutely horrible! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thy Geekdom Come Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 [quote name='StColette' post='1871927' date='May 20 2009, 03:36 PM']That was absolutely horrible![/quote] I was SO close to shouting, "this Mass isn't licit!" at the top of my lungs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dominicansoul Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 [quote name='Raphael' post='1871930' date='May 20 2009, 02:38 PM']I was SO close to shouting, "this Mass isn't licit!" at the top of my lungs...[/quote] you should have, i've often pondered doing this... ...wonder what would happen if you did...i'm sure the ushers would be on you in seconds... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MithLuin Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 In the Middle Ages, it was common for painters to use current forms of dress when depicting Biblical scenes. An attempt to recreate the garb of ancient Palestine was seldom made. However, these paintings still had a respectful and reverent air to them, and included the attributes of the saints depicted, etc. In other words, modern dress does not (by itself) contradict iconography, but it does introduce an element of confusion, so that, if other traditional symbols are not present, the ability to distinguish who is who diminishes. Also, the 'modern dress' was more often applied to the viewers, rather than the subject. In [url="http://media.photobucket.com/image/rembrandt%20christ%20presented%20to%20people/Nathanael_Greene/fine%20art%20selection%20rev%2010%203%202006%20b%20c/Rembrandt/rembrandt_Christ_Presented_to_the_P.jpg"]Rembrandt's Ecce Homo[/url], Christ is pretty clearly Christ, while the onlookers have the appearance of men of Rembrandt's time. I am not sure how anyone is supposed to figure out who this is: [url="http://klp.pl/admin-malarstwo/images/grafiki/1441.jpg"]Madonna reading[/url], whereas in [url="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/Da_Vinci_The_Annunciation.jpg"]Davinci's Annunciation[/url] it's fairly obvious. Mary may be dressed out of time and place (as is the angel), but the colors used and composition of the scene make it clear what he was depicting. So, not only do the jeans not look like jeans (rather, baggy pajama pants), but Jesus doesn't look like Jesus, either. That is a problem! I agree with [b]Apo[/b] that this statue is incoherent, and thus not helpful as religious artwork. It does not direct the mind towards any particular truth. Even one of those resurrection crucifixes that people dislike at least proclaims that Jesus is risen! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now