A rather cool portrayal of angels

[Retro_Ace]

this man on DeviantART(Christian or not I do not know) has made some very cool interpretations of Angels in what I am assuming in their “true forms”,

Gabriel- atmaflare.deviantart.com/art/Gabriel-430491337

Metatron- atmaflare.deviantart.com/art/Metatron-444155122

Haniel- atmaflare.deviantart.com/art/Haniel-436311416

Michael- atmaflare.deviantart.com/art/Michael-432306528

I just love them, its what to me shows what Alan Watts would call the “delightful nonsense of Heaven” as in they look strange and weird but in a Good way, what do you all think?

 

[glendab]

Hello Retro.

Being an artist myself, his stuff is open to interpretation and mine is that these aren’t good angels he is glorifying with his art. I prefer to glorify those things that are worthy of glorification. There is a price for such deviations. Some of his stuff looks like practice for tattoos and such. Wonder if he is associated with a parlor for inking. He appears to be talented and it is sad to see such waste. He could be glorifying God with his stuff very easily. Oh well. Another one bites the dust.

Glenda

 

[Retro_Ace]

Hello Retro.

Being an artist myself, his stuff is open to interpretation and mine is that these aren’t good angels he is glorifying with his art. I prefer to glorify those things that are worthy of glorification. There is a price for such deviations. Some of his stuff looks like practice for tattoos and such. Wonder if he is associated with a parlor for inking. He appears to be talented and it is sad to see such waste. He could be glorifying God with his stuff very easily. Oh well. Another one bites the dust.

Glenda

I can understand that, but I don’t think it was meant to be “glorifying”, just original, I never confirmed about the “true form” thing, I just like them because its a rather unique idea of an angel, being humanoid but not looking just like a human with oh-so-fluffy wings-which to me I consider sometimes an arrogant interpretation of an angel, if not just a form they take for us mortals to comprehend-and I think the glorification of God’s image is much more difficult because well…he really doesn’t have a true form doesn’t he? He’s not limited to such things, so using Angels can sometimes be the best way to comprehend God’s image, mind you its not the best way, but to me it certainly works when it comes getting the message across (though more subtle means like Rise of The Guardians’ “Man in the Moon” is a better metaphor in my opinion)

 

[isu]

They do look pretty cool. Thank you for the links.

Unfortunately, the art reminds me of Digimon…and I can’t get the song out of my head now. lol

 

[twf]

I agree that the art looks “cool”, but I would be very wary of such unconventional depictions of the real archangels. The Church venerates Sts. Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael - they are very real and we hold them in the highest regard. We just celebrated their feast in fact this past Monday (Sep 29).
Today is the memorial of the Guardian Angels . Say a prayer to your angel!

 

[glendab]

Hello Retro.

I can understand that, but I don’t think it was meant to be “glorifying”, just original, I never confirmed about the “true form” thing, I just like them because its a rather unique idea of an angel, being humanoid but not looking just like a human with oh-so-fluffy wings-which to me I consider sometimes an arrogant interpretation of an angel, if not just a form they take for us mortals to comprehend-and I think the glorification of God’s image is much more difficult because well…he really doesn’t have a true form doesn’t he? He’s not limited to such things, so using Angels can sometimes be the best way to comprehend God’s image, mind you its not the best way, but to me it certainly works when it comes getting the message across (though more subtle means like Rise of The Guardians’ “Man in the Moon” is a better metaphor in my opinion)

God does have a true form - He is true God and true Man. This is in the Creed and you agree that you believe it as a Catholic each and every Sunday at Mass.

Thinking outside the box to come up with new ways of depicting angels isn’t new either. Most folks know the difference between a depiction of an angel and that of a devil. The dude encourages demonic stuff. His angels are angelic, though he may have actually depicted angels that are identifiable as the good kind rather than the fallen variety. I have depicted devils in art, but I didn’t try to infer they were the good guys or acceptable or nice or loveable or neat or cool and desirable or in any other way something other then what they are - devils. Disguising a devil to pass it off as an angel to dupe the innocent or ignorant isn’t exactly a very Christian thing to do no matter what Christian does it. And adding your nonsense about using these depictions as a better way to get to know God or something about Him is dangerous. The devil desires to be worshipped like God because he is envious of men and God and that is very basic to the understanding one has of the devil. It is one of the purposes he has for gaining man’s attentions. He wants what is rightfully God’s and he cannot have it. If the purpose of the man’s art is to make people grow “closer” to God by admiring things that are clearly demonic then he is not only glorifying evil, he is duplicitous and co-operating with that same evil and has become it’s instrument. It gets worse. But I’ve said enough and I’m really no expert on anything but toast with peanut butter and Sumatran Starbucks this morning cause it is Friday and I cannot have bacon till tomorrow. So be careful what you do with your art - it has consequences.

Glenda