Angels

[starrs0]

Where did this notion of depicting Angels as feminine come from? It seems like in art if an Angel isn’t St. Michael, Raphael, or Gabriel they are shown having long flowing hair with dresses on.

 

[beobab]

I think that it isn’t too unreasonable to depict them like that, on the following grounds:

1. Angels are asexual beings. Neither male nor female. Because we have to portray them in some manner we are at least vaguely familiar with, we plump for “could be either sex”.
2. They don’t get their hair cut, so they have long hair. Men can have long hair too (although it’s not the fashion these days).
3. They wear robes because it suits our modesty that they do so, and robes don’t necessarily mean female. Scotsmen sometimes wear kilts, and that doesn’t make them any more feminine.
4. Angels are beautiful to look at, so naturally they will tend to get portrayed as female because women are so much nicer to look at than men (I’m talking as a man here - perhaps if more church artists were women, it’d be different, I don’t know).
5. I read an article a while ago (sorry, I can’t remember the source), in which hundreds of faces were merged, and the face that emerged was of a young, beautiful female looking individual.

Don’t know if my ideas helped in any way, shape or form, but I hope they did, and that my humble opinions are corrected or expanded and some truth emerges.

Beobab
Sometimes you hide from the truth, but it always knows where you are.

 

[puzzleannie]

starrs0:

Where did this notion of depicting Angels as feminine come from? It seems like in art if an Angel isn’t St. Michael, Raphael, or Gabriel they are shown having long flowing hair with dresses on.

because many artists who depict angels are not drawing inspiration from scriptural or theologically sound accounts of angels, but from their own imagination and misconceptions about angels.