Artwork in Catholic Extension Society 2007 Calendar

[Crumpy]

Art appreciation is very subjective.

I am bothered about the artwork The Annunciation by Henry O. Tanner used in the Catholic Extension Society’s 2007 Calendar for the month of March.

Here is a link to an online image of the painting:

explorepahistory.com/displayimage.php?imgId=1328

The painting really contains no traditional religious element in it, such as a halo or depiction of an angel. The placement of the female figure (Mary) on a bed really translates the “annunciation of the Lord” into a vulgar and secular representation of “the impregnation” or, you might say, “the insemination” of Mary. This depiction speaks to skepticism about the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, and it offers the alterative that Mary’s impregnation was an ordinary event that took place in her bed. Also, the representation of the angel as a disembodied light further suggests disbelief and/or skepticism about the biblical account.

Likewise, the artwork for May is supposedly a representation of “the visitation” of Elizabeth by Mary (by Hans Rottenhammer). But, what we see is two women about to kiss each other on the lips. In today’s culture, such a depiction strongly suggests a lesbian overtone. Further, I don’t understand the purpose of the third (and oddly dressed) woman in the painting. The composition and treatment of the theme is well beyond the biblical account.

It’s commendable for the Catholic Extension Society to offer Catholics a religious calendar for their inspiration throughout the year. But, I think it should make sense and agree with the Bible and Catholic teaching.

Perhaps someone who has one of these calendars can enlighten me.

I put this thread in the scripture forum, because these art works purport to represent the biblical accounts. I don’t think these are the most wholesome ways to represent the scripture.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Art appreciation is very subjective.

I am bothered about the artwork The Annunciation by Henry O. Tanner used in the Catholic Extension Society’s 2007 Calendar for the month of March.

Here is a link to an online image of the painting:

explorepahistory.com/displayimage.php?imgId=1328

The painting really contains no traditional religious element in it, such as a halo or depiction of an angel. The placement of the female figure (Mary) on a bed really translates the “annunciation of the Lord” into a vulgar and secular representation of “the impregnation” or, you might say, “the insemination” of Mary. This depiction speaks to skepticism about the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, and it offers the alterative that Mary’s impregnation was an ordinary event that took place in her bed. Also, the representation of the angel as a disembodied light further suggests disbelief and/or skepticism about the biblical account. I think it’s beautiful. We don’t know where Mary was when Gabriel appeared to her. It could well have been her bedroom, or in the kitchen, or out in the fields. So that’s pretty much up to an artist’s imagination. We also are not told by Holy Writ what Gabriel looked like, so that is also left to artistic interpretation. I also don’t think it’s even slightly vulgar nor do I think it is a questioning of the Virgin Birth (the Immaculate Conception refers not to Jesus’ conception in the womb of the Blessed Mother, but of HER conception in the womb of St. Anna or St. Hannah).

Likewise, the artwork for May is supposedly a representation of “the visitation” of Elizabeth by Mary (by Hans Rottenhammer). But, what we see is two women about to kiss each other on the lips. In today’s culture, such a depiction strongly suggests a lesbian overtone. Further, I don’t understand the purpose of the third (and oddly dressed) woman in the painting. The composition and treatment of the theme is well beyond the biblical account.** O my goodness! It wasn’t PAINTED in today’s culture! And how do we know others weren’t about. Women tend to hang out together. Anna was the wife of a priest, she may well have had servants. **

It’s commendable for the Catholic Extension Society to offer Catholics a religious calendar for their inspiration throughout the year. But, I think it should make sense and agree with the Bible and Catholic teaching.** I don’t find, in anything you’ve said, any reason to believe that the paintings do NOT agree with the Bible or Catholic teaching. **

Perhaps someone who has one of these calendars can enlighten me.

I put this thread in the scripture forum, because these art works purport to represent the biblical accounts. I don’t think these are the most wholesome ways to represent the scripture.

Wait till you get a load of the pagan sybils/muses and nude figures on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I went and looked at my calendar.

There is no clear indication that the Blessed Mother and Saint Elizabeth are about to kiss on the lips.

I don’t know who the woman dress in regal attire is, certainly not a servant, but perhaps the patroness who paid for the picture. That wasn’t uncommon.

 

[Mintaka]

Most pictures of the Visitation show Mary and Elizabeth embracing and staring into each other’s eyes and talking/being delighted.

This is what women do.

As for the Annunciation picture, depicting Mary in her bedroom is fairly common, although I think this particular painter probably was influenced by Rossetti’s Annunciation from earlier in the century. (He’s kinda got that Pre-Raphaelite imitation thing going on.)

I would imagine that Gabriel is either coming or going, since he’s not bothering with looking like a young man just then. It seems obvious that the painter is trying to emphasize the strange and supernatural nature of an angel, and hence of the whole Annunciation, particularly in contrast with the realistic portrayal of Mary and her room. The early Pre-Raphaelites would have been proud of him.

 

[puzzleannie]

we used this as our parish calendar, the pastor reviewed the artwork and sees nothing problematic, I think it is a beautiful calendar. It is anachronistic to apply current cultural standards to art created centuries ago in another culture. It is also a mistake to read our own reaction or interpretation of various images into the artist’s meaning or intention.

 

[Dormouse]

Regarding the “Annunciation” by Tanner… I think it is breathtaking, and not a bit vulgar. This picture of Mary just breathes of her humanity and her humility. I love it.

Regarding the Rottenhammer painting… I was not a bit bothered by the tender embrace, but the lady in the background did throw me. I have a hypothesis that she is Queen Elizabeth I… which would be about right from a timing perspective. I think the comment on this thread that the person who commissioned the painting is shown… could be on the money. I guess you could also stretch and say that both QEI and Mary were “virgin queens”… I must say though that Queen Elizabeth I is an odd choice for a Catholic calendar…

 

[dacoobob]

I would imagine that Gabriel is either coming or going, since he’s not bothering with looking like a young man just then. It seems obvious that the painter is trying to emphasize the strange and supernatural nature of an angel, and hence of the whole Annunciation, particularly in contrast with the realistic portrayal of Mary and her room. The early Pre-Raphaelites would have been proud of him.

Another thing to remember about angels: some of the first words out of their mouths in most cases are “Don’t be afraid!” This would seem to suggest that mortals tend to find angels rather terrifying (at least at first), as opposed to the “effeminate blonde guy” image they have in many people’s minds. But I like the idea that the angel in the painting is just on the point of either appearing or disappearing.

 

[rwoehmke]

The problem is that one tends to read into a painting of almost any kind or type at least some of the scripts present in their own mind which are usually quite far afield from what may have been in the mind of the artist. That is a verbose way of saying we all bring our own baggage to interpretation. The painting in my estimation was beautifully rendered.

 

[Cranch]

The painting really contains no traditional religious element in it, such as a halo or depiction of an angel. The placement of the female figure (Mary) on a bed really translates the “annunciation of the Lord” into a vulgar and secular representation of “the impregnation” or, you might say, “the insemination” of Mary. This depiction speaks to skepticism about the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, and it offers the alterative that Mary’s impregnation was an ordinary event that took place in her bed.

JKirkLVNV has already addressed the proper concept of the Immaculate Conception. I wanted to mention that the annunciation and Mary’s becoming pregnant are not coincident events. Gabriel speaks of a future event:And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man? And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost **shall **come upon thee, and the power of the most High **shall **overshadow thee.
We don’t know when this occurred but it was sometime after Gabriel’s message to Mary. Therefore the setting of this painting has no real bearing on how Mary’s pregnancy was accomplished.