Since crucifixion is no longer very common, and the symbol has become one of our Faith, mockery of the symbol is mockery of our Faith.
That’s quite an active impulse you’ve got there. The intent was clearly not so high-minded, if she “regretted” it afterwards.
Laudatur Iesus Christus.
I agree: the Crucifix is associated with the Faith and any image containing a crucifixion, without more, references Christ and His death.*
However, I do not see “mockery of the symbol” in the photograph in question. Rather the reflection of the water on the sky-blue background, with the figure and cross floating, suggests heaven and reverence. The girl’s face is not mocking or indifferent, in fact, her expression seems serene and serious.
Given that I have no information about it, beyond this thread and the photograph itself, I see only four additional elements in the image:
- The girl rather than the Corpus of Christ appears on the cross: This does not seem mocking, given the call to everyone, including young women, to “take up [one’s] cross.” In this light, the image does not even seem contrary to the spirit of the Gospel.
- The girl’s hands are not fixed to the cross, but are being held in place by the girl herself. This reinforces the image of “taking up” and coupled with her facial expression suggests an image of sainthood.
- The bathing suit: This element is ambiguous. It is what suggested my original thought of an indictment of the prurient “lingerie industry” as a “crucifixion of feminine beauty.” However, it may be that this element is neutral and is merely an enhancement of the beauty of the saintly figure.
The fourth element seems to me to argue strongly for the saintly rather than a profane interpretation of the image.
- The shadow on the bottom of the pool: The image in the shadow is thickened; the right arm seems more masculine; the head is expanded and rounded, suggesting a halo. On further consideration, the shadow suggests Jesus crucified. This suggestion is strengthened by the emphasis of the shadow rather than the girl by the light surrounding the shadowy figure’s chest, and the radiating patters of light surrounding the shadow. This strongly reinforces the suggestion that the image is saintly and that the girl on the cross is an echo of Christ on the Cross.**
On this more careful examination, the image seems to me to be beautiful, an expression of the call to saintliness, which is directed even to young and beautiful women, whom the world might not think to include among those called to heaven.
This leaves me with my original question: What is the sin?
If the girl put herself in the picture, portraying herself as a saint, then one might condemn presumption. This is surely what one thinks when one hears of “Madonna” staging a crucifixion of herself; she is presuming to equate herself with the Savior. However, in the image under discussion, the girl does not seem to be representing herself, but serving as a model, appearing in the picture as a symbol and not as a self-representation.
If one viewed bikinis as inherently obscene, then the combination of the bikini-clad girl and the cross might be charged with profanity. However, it would be unwarranted to condemn bikinis in themselves, especially given the French and Mediterranean origin of the work. It hardly seems that the image was intended to be obscene, and thus the charge of profanity does not seem fair.
As for the model’s published expression of “regret,” that may easily have arisen from the circumstances surrounding the circulation of the image, rather from any perceived sin in her cooperation in making the work itself. Because of the trouble it has caused, she may, in retrospect, regret ever having helped to make the image, but that is not a confession of sin.
On balance, I cannot condemn the image. Given what I know from this thread and reviewing the image itself, I am disposed to entrust the care of the girl’s soul to her Bishop, whose judgment of both sin and art might be more enlightening than has so far been credited.
Spiritus Sapientiae nobiscum.
John Hiner
*This is not the only possibility. The image of slaves crucified along the road to Rome at the end of the film “Sparticus” is an example of crucifixion in an independent context.
**The alignment of the shadow’s head with the crossbar and the darkness and evenness of coloring of the shadow suggest that it may have been altered to more resemble a male figure than the girl. If so, the intensions of the photographer may have been “higher-minded” than one might otherwise suppose.
Nevertheless, my analysis is of the picture itself. Often artists make better art than they know and an artist’s intentions, unless clearly realized in the work, may not be particularly relevant to viewing the work itself.
