Catholic holy pictures make me cringe

  • Thread starter Thread starter triumphguy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jilly4ski said:
I am not going to flame you, though I am a little confused about your sensibilities in this area and what exactly it is that you don’t like.

I personally dislike overly colored statues. I prefer my statues, one color, usually white, stone, or metal. Though a resin statue with minimal color can be ok.

So things like this I don’t like very much
http://www.leafletonline.com/images/22326_W.jpg

But things like this I like
http://www.leafletonline.com/images/17436_W.jpg

But my favorite are things like this
http://www.leafletonline.com/images/24956_W.jpg

Sorry about the size of the pictures. 😊
Click to expand...
I pretty much like them all, for I see different shapes of people liking it.
 
How about some icons? Not only are they good looking, but they’re also, if I understand correctly, literal “windows to Heaven”. When you look on the icon, you are looking right at Christ.

Take for example, the Ur Example: Christ Pantocrator. Done c. 500 AD IIRC

http://www.restoredtraditions.com/images/products/display/Icon_Pantocrator.jpg

This is one of His resurrection:

http://www.iconsexplained.com/iec/pics/046_resurrection.jpg

I don’t know if this is an icon, but it certainly is a compelling image:

 
Indian Icons
He is the Lord
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Jesus calming the waters. I like. My taste. Feminine? I dont know. For me, not.
http://www.cist.org.uk/pv/am/images/ar2121f1.jpg
Old Indian (maybe 500 years old) Christian Crucifix.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
smiling
http://gbgm-umc.org/images/photobank/f0205.jpg
the Lord


Indian from America Icons
So Real…
http://eborg2.com/Jesus/Jesus-Misc/Jesus-Indian.jpg
good
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

to be continued…
 
Pfaffenhoffen said:
I pretty much like them all, for I see different shapes of people liking it.
Click to expand...
I think it is the detail in the first picture, especially in the eyes that I dislike, which is created with the use of color. I prefer the more subtle pictures were the color of the wood, stone, or resin is used for the skin and features. And there is just a hint of color for the clothes. I like the mind to be able to fill in the blanks of holy pictures, I feel that it is better for my mind spiritually to have my mind engaged in that, then have all the details filled in. Sort of like with icons, they are not quite realistic, so they force the mind to work around that. 🤷 But of course I don’t begrudge people their love of pictures like the first.

To the OP, why don’t you try to get some crucifixes? They generally show a masculine (though suffering) Christ. I much prefer crucifixes to holy pictures, generally. Or if you want to go subtle, maybe try holy water fonts in rooms.
 
Jaypeeto4 said:
Talking about guys running around in wigs and looking ridiculously effeminate,
a couple of years ago I saw the wonderful movie AMAZING GRACE, about the efforts in England to END the slave trade. A beautiful, beautiful film indeed.
But the guys depicted in that film? All the parliamentarians?
What the heck were they doing wearing all those hideous, effeminate wigs???
Why did they need the stupid looking wigs?
And what was all that stuff in the bottle that they kept “seasoning” their wigs with??
It looked like bottles of oil, or oil mixed with powder or something.
Their heads must have stunk to high heaven from wearing all that junk!!!
Click to expand...
I think they shaved their heads because of lice and wore wigs. That is what I have been told. But I have no clue about the oil. Perhaps the wigs, being made of human hair, were subject to infestation also, and since lice nits can’t stick to oily hair, they oiled the wigs. this is all speculation of course.
 
nickybr38 said:
Way to confuse a girl… how can beauty be dependent objective morality?

A piece of music is not beautiful because it is moral… it is beautiful because the ear hearing it appreciates what it’s hearing.

A piece of art is not beautiful because it is moral… but because the eye seeing it appreciates it.

???
Click to expand...
There are “moral” pieces of art that would have any artist with sense covering their eyes (ie. these really, really tacky Depression-era murals of “Work” and “Justice” and “Liberty” and other “American virtues” in a local library: I respect them as a piece of history, but yeeks, they are ugly). There are “immoral” pieces of art that are pieces of fine art and appear in churches (ie. the Sistine Last Judgment, which recently had its overpainting that was ordered by an over-scrupulous Church leader removed to make it more Theology of the Body-compatible).
 
TarkanAttila said:
How about some icons? Not only are they good looking, but they’re also, if I understand correctly, literal “windows to Heaven”. When you look on the icon, you are looking right at Christ.

Take for example, the Ur Example: Christ Pantocrator. Done c. 500 AD IIRC

http://www.restoredtraditions.com/images/products/display/Icon_Pantocrator.jpg

This is one of His resurrection:

http://www.iconsexplained.com/iec/pics/046_resurrection.jpg

I don’t know if this is an icon, but it certainly is a compelling image:

http://douglawrence.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/massbkgdenh.jpg
Click to expand...
sighs with happy
 
This is the first time I’ve tried to post pictures on here, so forgive me if it doesn’t work!

I’ve chosen depictions of Doubting Thomas needing to see and touch Christ’s wounds. For balance I’ve included three types: one of these pictures I think is fantastic, one very very good, and one absolutely awful.

I admire the first contemporary one for how it really brings the subject to relate well to modern eyes. It’s based on the second (a Caravaggio) and brings a sense of realism that caught me by surprise the first time I saw it, which is the mark of a good piece of art, I think.

Not that I’m denying Caravaggio’s brilliance though - my all time favourite piece of religious art is Caravaggio’s ‘The Deposition’ - which was posted earlier on in this thread. When I visited the Vatican museums in 2005 (I was there for the Conclave - although not a participant!!) I had the opportunity to see it first hand. While the rest of the artworks pretty much washed over me, The Deposition quite literally stopped me in my tracks. I think I must have stood gazing at it for at least 20 minutes. It’s the only time a piece of artwork has moved me to tears.

The third picture I’ve linked for balance. I think it is hideous and is the absolute opposite of the first two!

http://nottoomuch.com/images/still_doubting.jpg

http://nottoomuch.com/images/thomas_carrav.jpg

 
See, I think the third picture is masterful. The one with the bright colors that looks perhaps to be a fresco.
 
DexUK said:
http://nottoomuch.com/images/still_doubting.jpg
Click to expand...
I actually did a double-take on this one and was indeed surprised at the modern people. Honestly, I have a stronger love for images like these compared to so-called ‘traditional’ or ‘classic’ artwork. On the other hand, I know at least one or two ‘traditionalists’ who would cringe at the sight of Jesus sitting next to someone in a leather jacket.

I gotta say though the latter folks seem to have a slightly higher tendency to elevate their art opinions to the level of doctrine. :rolleyes:
 
Matrix_Refugee said:
There are “moral” pieces of art that would have any artist with sense covering their eyes (ie. these really, really tacky Depression-era murals of “Work” and “Justice” and “Liberty” and other “American virtues” in a local library: I respect them as a piece of history, but yeeks, they are ugly). There are “immoral” pieces of art that are pieces of fine art and appear in churches (ie. the Sistine Last Judgment, which recently had its overpainting that was ordered by an over-scrupulous Church leader removed to make it more Theology of the Body-compatible).
Click to expand...
I hear ya. Jack Chick (and whoever poor artist he happens to recruit for his cause) are more fine examples of this. Awful art under the guise of ‘morality’.

It kinda reminds me of this old article, now that I think about it.

You know whenever the topic of ‘moral’ art comes up, I occasionally have the following skit in my head.
Me: Okaay… only one sample illustration each from two respective candidates for my personal illustrator. I hoped these people know what it means to draw a female fantasy thief. >.>
Click to expand...
Me: sees drawing from ‘Moral’ Artist What the-!? What’s with the large skirt? How’s she supposed to move around? Dodge? Dash? Where’s her knife? I asked for ‘adventuring thief’, not ‘Puritan village girl’. :mad: sees small note ‘Pants are immodest so I drew a skirt. God Bless…’ Whut? D8<
Click to expand...
Me: sees drawing from Normal Artist Lessee… shorts, tank-top, bandana… pretty nice knife design though… Generic overall but it’ll have to do. Better than the other one at least. -.-
Click to expand...
 
DexUK said:
http://nottoomuch.com/images/still_doubting.jpg
Click to expand...
I like the contemporary ones, too. 🙂

http://www.trinitybiblechurch.ca/mediafiles/jesus-holding-man-up.jpg

Like this one, for example. There’s also one of Christ holding a guy in a leather jacket… I forget exactly what it looks like, though, and I don’t know what it’s called. I thought it was a good one, though.



I also like this one. One of the few religious Salvador Dali paintings I like. This is the “Christ of St. John of the Cross”.
 
DexUK said:
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/_...2vs/s800/Thomas_doubting_SIGNORELLI, Luca.jpg
Click to expand...
This is one of the frescoes in the Sacristy of St John, Basilica of Santa Casa, Loreto. It’s just a small vignette in a series of the images Luca Signorelli painted for the sacristy.

Compared to his other work (some of which served as an inspiration for Michelangelo), this isn’t one of his strongest works… if it were to be judged on it’s own. Fortunately, it was not intended to be judged on it’s own. Signorelli was considered a pioneer in the rediscovery of the techniques of painting anatomy during the Renaissance era.

Here is more of his work:
wga.hu/html_m/s/signorel/index.html

For myself, I like the works of Bernini from the Baroque era.
 
jilly4ski said:
I think it is the detail in the first picture, especially in the eyes that I dislike, which is created with the use of color. I prefer the more subtle pictures were the color of the wood, stone, or resin is used for the skin and features. And there is just a hint of color for the clothes. I like the mind to be able to fill in the blanks of holy pictures, I feel that it is better for my mind spiritually to have my mind engaged in that, then have all the details filled in. Sort of like with icons, they are not quite realistic, so they force the mind to work around that. 🤷 But of course I don’t begrudge people their love of pictures like the first.

To the OP, why don’t you try to get some crucifixes? They generally show a masculine (though suffering) Christ. I much prefer crucifixes to holy pictures, generally. Or if you want to go subtle, maybe try holy water fonts in rooms.
Click to expand...
Yes, you are right.
Crucifix. Somebody told me to avoid a Christ without a cross and a cross without Christ.
 
DexUK said:
This is the first time I’ve tried to post pictures on here, so forgive me if it doesn’t work!

I’ve chosen depictions of Doubting Thomas needing to see and touch Christ’s wounds. For balance I’ve included three types: one of these pictures I think is fantastic, one very very good, and one absolutely awful.

I admire the first contemporary one for how it really brings the subject to relate well to modern eyes. It’s based on the second (a Caravaggio) and brings a sense of realism that caught me by surprise the first time I saw it, which is the mark of a good piece of art, I think.

Not that I’m denying Caravaggio’s brilliance though - my all time favourite piece of religious art is Caravaggio’s ‘The Deposition’ - which was posted earlier on in this thread. When I visited the Vatican museums in 2005 (I was there for the Conclave - although not a participant!!) I had the opportunity to see it first hand. While the rest of the artworks pretty much washed over me, The Deposition quite literally stopped me in my tracks. I think I must have stood gazing at it for at least 20 minutes. It’s the only time a piece of artwork has moved me to tears.

The third picture I’ve linked for balance. I think it is hideous and is the absolute opposite of the first two!

http://nottoomuch.com/images/still_doubting.jpg

http://nottoomuch.com/images/thomas_carrav.jpg

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/_...2vs/s800/Thomas_doubting_SIGNORELLI, Luca.jpg
Click to expand...
I like the last 2 and the first one tells me nothing.
Contemporary by itself does not mean good. The smiling and easy-going Jesus do not attract me.
 
I’ve found a couple of Marian images that I really like: they are in the “Hidden Gem,” St. Mary’s Manchester, The first Catholic Church built in England after the “reformation.”

hiddengem.catholicfaith.co.uk/home2.html

This is “Our Lady of Manchester”
http://hiddengem.catholicfaith.co.uk/album1/slides/Untitled 10.jpg

and

http://hiddengem.catholicfaith.co.uk/album1/slides/Untitled 15.jpg

It’s a beautiful Catholic Church, full of Art, right in the middle of the first industrial city in the world.

http://hiddengem.catholicfaith.co.uk/album1/slides/Untitled 3.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top