‘Haute Sphere’ Nativity artwork debuts at Cathedral Dec. 7

[Lost_Wanderer]

… or try this:
Suppose I see you on Wednesday.
Suppose I draw a picture based on how you looked on Wednesday.
Suppose I present this drawing to a class of students, as an example of how ‘familiar symbols are just as far-removed as abstract symbols’–is this a good example?
I say: No, because this is not a symbol or visual metonym representing you, it is you, to the best of the painter’s ability.

Ridiculous. You obviously can’t tell the difference between using an event as inspiration for a symbol and just simply taking a picture, whilst showing it to other people.

Religious does the former, not the latter. The representation is symbolic. Period.

You want a real example?

Suppose I see you wearing a spotted tie on Tuesday.
Suppose I draw the tie to represent my encounter with you on Tuesday.
Suppose I present the drawing to class of students, as an example of how ‘familiar symbols are just as far-removed as abstract symbols’–is this a good example? (Answer: Yes. The tie could represent anything from their perspective.)

… So you see our choice as being between the Medieval Papacy and You putting limits on the Church? Or are you simply trying, again, to confuse the issue at hand to your own advantage. See below.***

And nevermind that the local religious orders who brought the Philippines up to speed with the modern world are a COMPLETELY different animal than the Medieval Papacy. What do they teach children today in history lessons???

That Spain was a monster who didn’t want us progressing any more beyond that of competent slaves. Up to speed with the modern world? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! Apparently, our national hero died for nothing if that was what the clergy was doing for 300 years. Don’t try to lecture me on my own country’s history.

No, it doesn’t. However, it can seek to understand, and assess the theological implications of scientific findings. This has next to nothing to do with the subject/

You’re missing the point. The fact is the Church is stepping down as an authority when it speaks on subjects outside its field. The Church should stick to its formless concepts. Leave the actual drawing, painting, sculpting, and critiquing of all three to those in the art field. The Church is not an art authority. Period.

But at the same time, its not just that… its form, and the geometric relationships are just that, but we are NOT reducible to our form and geometric relationships.

Which… does not eliminate its insignificance as a symbol. At all. Our faith is not reducible. The symbol however IS. Your point?

So, you’d advocate stripping our churches of crosses, and relegate all hagiography to the children’s section of bookstores? Interesting opinion. What about Holy Water and the Eucharist? Tell us your opinions on those, too…

How did we get to this? My point was that the cross as a symbol doesn’t inherently have any magic powers. Drawing on it on a wall doesn’t make the wall any more holy. Honestly, I’m being comically reminded by that scene in the The Mummy when a bumbling character tries to ward off the mummy with a crucifix… followed by charms and other symbols from other religions. HA! XD

Oddly enough, I also try to make sense and maintain logical consistency, ya know… Something worth attempting.

Says the guy who can’t even organize his quotations. Somebody was in quite a rage-rush.

On a battlefield, you would be blown to chunks or murdered by your fellow combatants for being annoying. If utilitarian ‘values’ held in this case, you’d prefer the lily field where you wouldn’t be in any danger.

Obviously you can’t tell the difference between reality and fantasy. Here’s a hint, art tends to actually give the figurative finger to the former. The truth is you actually play by the rules of reality with your example. However, any artist is at liberty to portray himself more majestically, surrounded by his/her dead foes and wielding power that defy science (and to an extent, the reality which you base your silly example on).

Further, since art primarily treats inherent FORM, over SECONDARY VALUES (ex: monetary value), a better question might be to ask whether the young urchins which object they feel more deserving of worth: a filthy banknote or a shiny gold dollar coin.

Well since the form of the filthy bank note is the only one they recognize, they’d still go for the bank note. For them, your shiny gold dollar would just look like a measly five peso.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

There is power in the cross and power in the symbol of the cross. (The most awesome is during exorcisms.) Whatever it used to be before the time of Jesus, it has forever changed. I think we’re getting into the issue of sacramentals. This is not magic, it is the power of God. Magic is the condemned angels’ imitation of the power of God. It’s very attractive, but only leads to misery.

Actually any cross has to be blessed meaning the material in of itself has no power. My point is, just simply marking something with two perpendicular lines doesn’t make that object holy.

Yeah, I think our compadre was in over his head on that one. To remove the Cross and still retain the substance of Christianity might be an impossible feat… in any case, my imagination is too limited to fathom this.

Apparently you’ve never seen a lot of gothic-lolita artwork.

In my opinion, its one of the more beautiful pieces of modern art. Better than most things we have nowadays. However, it’s not a depiction of the Nativity. The purpose of Christmas - and the story of Nativity, along with its artwork - is to show God becoming MAN. Haute Sphere doesn’t depict that, but depicts God becoming some abstract disc.

It’s nice, but it’s not a Nativity scene.The Nativity scene shows how God became a tangible, concrete, full man, not some abstract symbolic concept.

Well now that’s a more reasonable critique. Then again, it still boils down to how people view it.

 

[Warrenton]

Fr. Daniel Ponsard, curé of the Church of the Madeleine in Paris, commissioned the work. It was displayed in his church last year. He had this to say about it:

And I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale…cheap.

 

[LiveCatholic]

Ridiculous. … people.

The chasuble depicting a dove that Incense referred to was not a holistic event… it was the dove as representation/replication of God’s image. If I’m wrong, its up to the person who crafted the chasuble to tell us what his inspiration was rather than for us to guess–however, this still doesn’t change the fact that anyone who has read the relevant passages in the Bible would, contrary to Incense’s assertion, see dove-on-chasuble and God-as-dove as 1:1 identity… no symbolism required.

 

[LiveCatholic]

Apparently you’ve never seen a lot of gothic-lolita artwork.

If your point is to lecture about your own tastes in manga and bloodshed, why don’t you just make your own thread somewhere about it and stop pretending like it has any relevance to the subject at hand?

 

[LiveCatholic]

Actually any cross has to be blessed meaning the material in of itself has no power.

This isn’t necessarily true.

 

[incense]

Actually any cross has to be blessed meaning the material in of itself has no power. My point is, just simply marking something with two perpendicular lines doesn’t make that object holy.

Before Jesus, we had no picture of God. But we do now. Everything about Jesus is holy. Saying His name is Holy, without my lips being blessed. Because His name is holy, He made it so, not anything a human has done. If someone makes two lines without ever intending it to represent the cross, but it looks like a cross, I still believe there is holiness there. Jesus made the cross holy, and we can’t undo it. It’s what God chose, not us.

A priest’s blessing is just extra grace.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Its comparable to the numerous pictures/ikons/paintings of Jesus we have–they’re not SYMBOLS of Jesus, despite the fact that the Transfiguration tells us that the ‘real’ face of Lord Jesus Christ isn’t the imaginings we have of him as a human. Its a representation, or more accurately a replication, of one known face of God.

Uh yes they are. Unless you have nothing less than an un-doctored photograph, a representation of anything is easily interpreted as symbolic.

Are you suggesting there is no literal dimension to the Bible, whatsoever?

And this has to do with the Church NOT being an art authority… how?

Wait, were we talking about Spain or the various Catholic religious orders operating in the Philippines? Can you please re-read what you wrote and what I responded to, so we can both be on the same page? Thanks.

Hard to say when you can’t even organize your responses well in the first place. I don’t want you’re trying to accomplish but if anyone’s lacking clarity, it’s you. Fix your quotations for crying out loud.

Anyway, if you think that a nation, or a group of religious orders, or a single religious order FOR THAT MATTER have a single, unified will … well, please spend time in a history classroom and then get back to me. The statement is asinine, as well as the idea that only a person of the nationality in question can make any pronouncements on a national history.

It doesn’t matter if you try to separate the actions of even a single person of the clergy from the rest of the Church. Historical truth will remain truth.

The fact remains that plenty of Spanish clergy abused their Church authority to further the ends of their nation. That in turn also confirms the dangers of clergy stepping out of their theological boundaries and acting they still are in another.

To give you the charity/respect of dealing with your argument, that’s not the case here. That’s not the ‘feather’ of the God-as-dove, as a symbol for the encounter of humanity with God-as-dove. Its THE dove.

Asserting that my argument is dubious is not an argument. Nothing in what you say has proven how a certain event can end up turning into something symbolic. Here’s another example for you to chew on. During the consecration, the Eucharist is the literal body of Christ. However, if I were to take the image of that event and then try to put it on a stained glass window, guess what? That image can easily be interpreted as symbolic because it’s now on a piece of artwork. It’s the same with the dove.

In the Bible, your argument is that God IS the dove. Regardless of that, any IMAGE that tries to recall that event is subject to artistic interpretation INCLUDING symbolic.

… What is this BASED on?

Medieval and Renaissance history nicely depict horrors of what happens when clergy (and even the Pope) wielded political power.

There is right and wrong in Catholic theology. When art–as this art does–attempts to express realities described by Catholic theology, the Church can pronounce on whether the IDEAS (ex: the Nativity) have been maintained intact or have been perverted/obscured. An ART CRITIC, on the other hand, could pronounce on the delivery of the ideas or the form they take.

If you were to follow your suggestion to its logical conclusion, the Church would be gagged and unable–layperson or cleric–to pronounce on anything.

Really? Is there anything in what I said that restricted the Church to the point that it can’t comment on philosophy, morality, or spirituality? No. Thank you for bloating my statements out of proportion. It’s bad enough you can’t even quote nothing but bits and pieces.

uh, YOUR point? You said that the Cross is SIMPLY one line bisecting another line. I said that it cannot be reduced to this geometric reality.

I think you’re demonstrating how your recent responses are lacking anything resembling a structural line of thought. Reread your posts for crying out loud. I can barely make heads or tails with the way you’re chopping up my statements.

You proceeded to provocatively denigrate the Cross, and so I’m curious to know what you think of the miraculous powers of the Holy Eucharist?

Without consecration, a wafer stays a wafer. Apparently though, your defense of the cross as a symbol blinds you to the theological fact that there is a distinction.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Perhaps you meant your comic books, &c.? But that’s hardly art.

Aaaand the truth comes out.
Yes, just because it’s from a comic book or of a more contemporary style, it’s less of an art.

Riiiight.

I’d hate to see you on deviantArt… (that or meet my art professor).

Anyway, its ironic that you call my example ‘silly’ because both of them (the urchin’s choice and the meadows vs. battlefield) are yours. Likewise, you ‘play by the rules of reality’ with your rebuttal to Unafraid by using the ‘urchin’s preference for the filthy bill.’

You were talking about form. Therefore, since form is what matters then the form of something an urchin recognizes vs what he/she doesn’t is what disproves your argument.

On the other hand, you confuse that when it was your counter-example against my battle-field response that I found silly. Learn to separate the two. Better yet, learn how to post on an internet forum.

Again: if you polled your fellow urchins about whether the shiny gold should assume the value of the high-value or the low-value, by their choice, its clear to everyone who reads this sentence of mine (except perhaps you) which your fellow urchins will choose.

Also, most people would find it difficult to believe that the urchins are so conditioned and unthinking that they’ll always prefer the filthy bill to any other sight–should you happen to argue that, let’s save ourselves some time.

Let’s see. Not only do you haughtily pretend to know better than my country’s history. You’re also a self-proclaimed expert on my nation’s currency and economic conditions.

(Even though I’m the one who actually lives here, walks its streets, and never lives a day without actually encountering these kids, forcibly at that).

If your point is to lecture about your own tastes in manga and bloodshed, why don’t you just make your own thread somewhere about it and stop pretending like it has any relevance to the subject at hand?

Manga is art. Deal with it.

This isn’t necessarily true.

Do I have to quote my country’s own leading exorcist authority too?

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Saying His name is Holy, without my lips being blessed.

Until it’s used as a swear word.

I think we all know where that discussion is going to go.

 

[LiveCatholic]

blah blah blah you’re wrong, I’m right, only Filippino national heros like myself know history, art is relative, here’s an example why:

I think I’ve put my finger on our disagreement here.

This is from the New American OED on my Kindle.

symbol- n. a thing that represents or stands for something else, esp. a material object representing something abstract: the limousine was another symbol of his wealth and authority.

So you are right, insofar as your assertions comply with the literal definition.

You’re wrong, though, if you think this prevents my original disagreement with Incense from being valid.

This is the original statement, as I explained it to you. The bulleted points are the points in question. You’ve been disagreeing with it ever since, but I don’t think you quite understand what I meant:

Therefore, I’ll again reduce my point to the following THREE claims:

1. 
   *]Art can convey theological ideas.
   *]Theological ideas retain their original true/false value, even in artistic depiction.
   *]Symbolism in art is not infinitely elastic in its ability to convey ideas–that is, symbolism is not given a ‘free pass’ in its ability to clearly represent ideas.
   
   There is a spectrum on which a symbol moves from being a literal depiction to being totally unrecognizable. At a certain point, then (2) becomes important, because the theological idea depicted might reach the point where the original truth is either perverted to appear false or obscured to appear irrelevant or overshadowed.
   
   So, therefore, you MIGHT be right as to whether ‘all art and its value is a matter of taste’–but this ONLY concerns the form. Once you consider how the form and the original ideas interact, definite judgments can be made, especially when the original ideas are absolute ideas.
   
   These are two separate questions, and your fanatic insistence that ‘goodness in art is a matter of taste’ has only obscured this point. However, my interest in this argument only needs the latter–that the efficacy of form in conveying ideas can be positively judged.
   
   Conclusion: The example cited by Incense is AS CLOSE a literal depiction of God, aside from a depiction of the face of Jesus Christ, that we can receive for a symbol. Therefore, its appropriateness as a symbol is indisputable, especially when compared with a ‘magical artifact’ like the ‘Haute Sphere’–which loses several theologically significant pieces of the Nativity.

 

[LiveCatholic]

Until it’s used as a swear word.

I think we all know where that discussion is going to go.

Its still powerful, as its being blasphemed.

If it was lowly and unholy/profane, there would be no grounds for blasphemy to occur.

 

[LiveCatholic]

Uh yes they are. Unless you have nothing less than an un-doctored photograph, a representation of anything is easily interpreted as symbolic.

The question isn’t symbolic / not symbolic. The question is the extent to which a symbol is removed from the original context, and how that affects the theological idea. Addressed above.

It seems the LostWanderer is lost, wandering through the tangents that he creates. So, wait, how did you get us here?

Asserting that my argument is dubious is not an argument.

So wait, where did I say that? Oh yeah, I didn’t, you imagined it, and ignored my argument.

If you’re curious to find out where your dubious arguments are, click on the link above that says 'Welcome, LostWanderer

. Last visit:’ then go read everything in the ‘Posts’ category.

Nothing in what you say has proven how a certain event can end up turning into something symbolic.

Oy vey…

Here’s another example for you to chew on.

No, sorry.

In the Bible, your argument is that God IS the dove. Regardless of that, any IMAGE that tries to recall that event is subject to artistic interpretation INCLUDING symbolic.

Its been addressed, see post above.

Medieval and Renaissance history nicely depict horrors of what happens when clergy (and even the Pope) wielded political power.

Try this reasoning:

Philippines history nicely depicts the horrors of when Filipinos get their hands on weapons or unexploded ordinance: Filipinos get their hands on weapons or unexploded ordinance

.

Really? Is there anything in what I said that restricted the Church to the point that it can’t comment on philosophy, morality, or spirituality? No. Thank you for bloating* my statements out of proportion. It’s bad enough you can’t even quote nothing but bits and pieces.

Yes, really. Because all of these three depend on intersections with daily life, EXAMPLE: ART. Without these, they have neither relevance nor force.

*Blowing. For an HTML-nazi, you’re not too consistent yourself… The difference with logic is that if you lose it, your conclusions are meaningless. Again, look into it.

I think you’re demonstrating how your recent responses are lacking anything resembling a structural line of thought. Reread your posts for crying out loud. I can barely make heads or tails with the way you’re chopping up my statements.

Go back to your OP and re-read it, then. I’m not going to do all the work for you.

Without consecration, a wafer stays a wafer. Apparently though, your defense of the cross as a symbol blinds you to the theological fact that there is a distinction.

But crosses aren’t consecrated.

[/QUOTE]

 

[LiveCatholic]

Aaaand the truth comes out.
Yes, just because it’s from a comic book or of a more contemporary style, it’s less of an art.

Likewise, when I go to MoMA I don’t see too many battle scenes, either. In fact, I saw ZERO. Only meadows there, sorry. So, you’re SOL on the battlefields in ‘contemporary/modern style’ thing, too.

LW:

I prefer battlefields to lily fields.

In the former, you did not specify that it was an artistically depicted battlefield–especially given your use of real objects in the urchin example–and I think you’re opportunistically changing the tune now that logical consistency has been imposed.

Let’s see. Not only do you haughtily pretend to know better than my country’s history. You’re also a self-proclaimed expert on my nation’s currency and economic conditions.

Wait, so where did I ‘proclaim’ to be an ‘expert’ on the Philippine currency/economy? Oh, wait, I didn’t… another imaginary statement you think I made.

This is about the urchins’ human inclination towards beauty, in their aesthetic judgments, and has nothing to do with nationality.

Anywho, for all you know, I might actually be a Filipino-American myself, an expatriate, or perhaps in a Filipino expatriate in a Philippines Studies program… or one of the many American men who take Filipino wives/girlfriends? Or simply a strapping, well-educated American guy. Who knows?–but if I have an internet connection and a knack for research, why do you think you should try to deny me the right to say anything about the Philippines?

(Even though I’m the one who actually lives here, walks its streets, and never lives a day without actually encountering these kids, forcibly at that).

I know plenty of Americans who have no right to expound on the currency, economics, and history of America. Nationality does not equal competency.

Manga is art. Deal with it.

LW:

Asserting that my argument is dubious is not an argument.

–might be time to follow your own advice. Doodling isn’t art.

Do I have to quote my country’s own leading exorcist authority too?

Just out of curiosity/whimsy, is that you?

[/QUOTE]

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I think I’ve put my finger on our disagreement here.

This is from the New American OED on my Kindle.

symbol- n. a thing that represents or stands for something else, esp. a material object representing something abstract: the limousine was another symbol of his wealth and authority.

So you are right, insofar as your assertions comply with the literal definition.

You know what? Because of the sheer disrespect you show with the immature way you misquote me (a level that even I don’t stoop too). I’m not sure I’m in the mood to discuss this with you anymore. It’s obvious from how juvenile your reactions are becoming.

 

[The_Scott]

Well this thread has turned awkward…

 

[LiveCatholic]

Well this thread has turned awkward…

Perhaps LW could draw us a manga for the last post–

…himself more majestically, surrounded by his/her dead foes [N.B. me] and wielding power that defy science (and to an extent, the reality which you base your silly example on).

…and we could put a lock on it?