Are our artistic interpretations of angels accurate?

  • Thread starter Thread starter marine13
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

marine13

Guest
I don’t know if it really matters much but I have to wonder why angels are so often depicted as fluffy winged, soft-featured humans, and even sometines cute babies, when every time (that I can remember) they appear to a human the first thing they say is “Be not afraid” or “Fear not.” The Biblical figures who are approached by angels are usually afraid of their appearence. To me this would suggest that when angels appear in physical form they are actually very intimidating (even terrifying) beings much like the ones described in the Book of Revelations.

Thoughts?
 
I’m not an expert in visual art but I can assume it may have involved the influence of Greek mythology such as the god Cupid (who was depicted as a humanoid with wings). After all, you also have the traditional image of the devil in medieval art somehow having closer resemblance to the satyr.

Personally though I’ve seen more ‘modern’ and ‘darker’ depictions of angels in popular media that are actually pretty cool, intimidating, and do not look as tame as the ones in classic artwork. IMO, I kinda like those more. 😛
 
Lost Wanderer,

I am no expert either, but I just can’t relate to the typical artistic representations of angels especially when they are supposed to be near perfect beings, who have received a beatic vision, have beheld the face of God, and are warriors against the fallen angels. To me that would suggest a much more powerful form then what is commonly pictured. I suppose no answer is completely right and only those who have seen the angels actually know.
 
Theologically, angels are bodiless; they have no visible form. So artists have considerable freedom in representing them artistically.

The cute-baby or childlike aspect emphasizes the innocence of Heaven; but doesn’t portray the fearsomeness of these beings. Sometimes a bodiless head on wings is drawn, to portray bodilessness.

Ultimately, it’s all just interpretation.

ICXC NIKA
 
if the traditional wings are in proportion to what they have to do, angels should be the size of hummingbirds.
 
steve53 said:
if the traditional wings are in proportion to what they have to do, angels should be the size of hummingbirds.
Click to expand...
Since bodiless beings have no weight and in fact do not really move, no wings at all are needed.
 
marine13 said:
I don’t know if it really matters much but I have to wonder why angels are so often depicted as fluffy winged, soft-featured humans, and even sometines cute babies, when every time (that I can remember) they appear to a human the first thing they say is “Be not afraid” or “Fear not.” The Biblical figures who are approached by angels are usually afraid of their appearence. To me this would suggest that when angels appear in physical form they are actually very intimidating (even terrifying) beings much like the ones described in the Book of Revelations.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
The cuddly looking cherubs depicted in some art has always been disturbing to me in that it didn’t really depict what angels are truly like. I know that angels are bodiless spirits, but that when they appear to man they can take on the appearance of a human body. I am aware that they are shown with wings because the wings represent the swiftness with which they obey God’s commands. The angels have a variety of God-given qualities that are so magnificent that if we could “see” them as they are we would be overwhelmed with the glory of God that they reflect.

I remember at a retreat the retreat master was teaching about angels. I had a question in that I wanted understanding of why, in a specific scripture, (maybe Isaiah? I don’t remember) it stated that a seraph had six wings. I wanted to know what that stood for, and the priest said that represented the six “mechanisms” that God gave that angel to work with for Him.
 
“Behind the lamb a large cross was placed erect or perpendicular on the altar. Around the
Lamb I saw angels hovering during the whole time, for the space of one hour and a half or
longer; I saw their wings fluttering, but I did not perceive their heads or faces, which were
not turned to me.” - part of a witness account of an apparition in 1879
 
You said:
“Behind the lamb a large cross was placed erect or perpendicular on the altar. Around the
Lamb I saw angels hovering during the whole time, for the space of one hour and a half or
longer; I saw their wings fluttering, but I did not perceive their heads or faces, which were
not turned to me.” - part of a witness account of an apparition in 1879
Click to expand...
Knock, Ireland?
 
No one can accurately depict angels as they are not corporal, but purely spiritual beings.
If ‘seen’ that is only a concession to human need to see something they can visibly interpret. Neither is the Holy Spirit a dove, but that is something the human mind can focus upon, just as upon angels with ‘corporal form’.
Anyone can be startled by the unexpected, and none of us expect to ‘see’ angels suddenly ‘appear’. Their arrival would certainly be awesome, but in a wonderful, not in a dreadful way.
 
Just goes to show why I prefer Christian iconography up to the late medieval period (and perhaps the early Renaissance). With a few exceptions, things started to become rather effeminate and foppish by the Renaissance and Baroque periods, and it shows. 😛
 
not fluffy:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Theoretically our artistic interpretations of angels are accurate if they used my wife as a model. 😃
 
Art in general uses conventions to indicate what’s going on–think of the “march of evolution”, with a line of creatures (blobs to fish to amphibian to mammal to primate to human), or the person stuck on a deserted island–usually about 15-20 feet in diameter, with a single cocoanut tree. These conventions help the viewer know what the artist is intending.

Angels, as spiritual beings, have no bodies as such, nor do those who have not seen one know what they appeared as–and so the conventions try to express: human, because humans are the other rational beings we know, wings for the speed of their movement, halos for holiness and standing in the light of God.

Of course, if they actually looked that way, I’d be astonished.
 
Hebrews 13:2
Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.

Hebrews 1:7
And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.

biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=wing+angel&qs_version=KJV

Exodus 25:20
And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be.

1 Kings 6:24
And five cubits was the one wing of the cherub, and five cubits the other wing of the cherub: from the uttermost part of the one wing unto the uttermost part of the other were ten cubits.

Ezekiel 1:11
Thus were their faces: and their wings were stretched upward; two wings of every one were joined one to another, and two covered their bodies.

Ezekiel 10:12
And their whole body, and their backs, and their hands, and their wings, and the wheels, were full of eyes round about, even the wheels that they four had.

Daniel 7:4
The first was like a lion, and had eagle’s wings: I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a man, and a man’s heart was given to it.

Revelation 4:8
And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, LORD God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.

Revelation 12:14
And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.
 
I believe that angels cannot be described because we don’t have the capability to represent them. I do not believe that the effeminate depictions we have now bear any resemblance to the beings God is surrounded by on His throne. If and when we get to Heaven and see them, I’ll bet our reaction will be something like, “Oh, of course they would look like THAT!”

The “cherubs” looking like roly-poly babies is the worst distortion of all! Cherubim and seraphim are the guardians of the Ark and are startling and fearsome in appearance!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top