How?
I am not seeing it.
True the Holy Spirit is depicted as female, but I doubt that qualifies as blasphemy.
- Status
I am not seeing it.
True the Holy Spirit is depicted as female, but I doubt that qualifies as blasphemy.
F
F_Marturana
Guest
Is it that if an artist makes some objectionable art, all of it is objectionable?
http://archive.usccb.org/movies/vaticanfilms.shtml
The film, “The Gospel According to St. Matthew” is on the list. The “script” is the verbatim Gospel.
The filmmaker was Pierpaolo Pasolini. He was an atheist, communist, gay man.
http://archive.usccb.org/movies/vaticanfilms.shtml
The film, “The Gospel According to St. Matthew” is on the list. The “script” is the verbatim Gospel.
The filmmaker was Pierpaolo Pasolini. He was an atheist, communist, gay man.
K
KMC
Guest
No. However, if a priest, bishop, etc., is going to use art to prove a point, can we not request good judgment be used to select an artist who does not have a history of objectionable art?
Did you look at the rest of his paintings (there is a link in the OP)? Painting of “a Jesus” getting his rear end grabbed by an angel…really?
to me, especially given Fr. Martin’s continuing controversies, shows very bad judgment.
B
billsherman
Guest
Art is subjective. As such, clearly not everyone agrees these images degrade the image of God. I for one, and obviously others agree with me, do not see these images as degrading the image of God at all. They are just one artist’s take on various scenes in Jesus’ life. Other artists have their own takes. All subjective.
You can explain to me why the author’s own statement about what his artwork means is wrong on so many levels. I would be impressed that you can read his mind, and know more about what his work means than he does.
I don’t know what faith has to do with recognizing the subjectivity of art.
First off, there isn’t any disrespect to God intended in these paintings as far as I can tell. That disrespect is being read into them by viewers. Second, yeah, passed generations also made art that some thought was disrespectful.
K
KMC
Guest
What does it reveal? That some people see what they see? That the reality of the photo has an angel with its hand on the buttocks of rendition of Jesus? Good grief…the photos link to a page titled: “The Passion of Christ: A Gay Vision.” . . .KMC:
Considering that angels are sexless and genderless beings, it is obviously a non-sexual touch. That some people read sexual overtures into the image reveals a lot.
Last edited:
K
KMC
Guest
Hmmm…why include the word “homosexual?” Could it be because of the title of the art exhibit: “The Passion of Christ: A Gay Vision”???KMC:
Or it is just an Angel carrying Christ to heaven.
People keep talking about these paintings with words such as blasphemy and homosexual.
But NO ONE is coming forth with actual examples of said in these paintings.
Mark121359
Well-known member
Did you see the artist depictions of the Ascension and the Trinity??? If that’s not blasphemous, then please feel free to tell me why it’s not!
Mark121359
Well-known member
I have seen no painting labelled “Ascension”.
I already addressed the one concerning the Trinity.
Tell you what…
Instead of just naming a painting and saying it is bad, name it and tell me the specific issue.
Name a specific painting and the specific problem. I have found nothing stomach churning this far. Theologically incorrect, yes. Stomach churning, no.
Mark121359
Well-known member
Go to the OP’S link. Now scroll down towards the bottom until you find "The Ascension, by Douglas Blanchard, which is written right below the said painting. The angel has his hand placed on the figures behind. Then tell us all on here that this is not blasphemous. I flat out refuse to post that image because I don’t want to offend our Lord. If you can’t find it, then I can’t help you!
Last edited:
I addressed that earlier.
As I said, I want specific examples of stomach churning, blasphemous, homosexual content.
Thus far, it is lacking.
Mark121359
Well-known member
If that doesn’t bother you, I’m afraid I can’t help. Have a good day.
What bothers me is seeing people roundly condemn some artwork without actually being able to describe why.
To hear some of the posts, one would think you could click the links and see pictures of Mary with dung thrown on it or perhaps crucifixes in jars of urine.
Instead, I see paintings that are not overtly sexual, that are not explicit, that at worst are theologically unsound.
The worst thing about the painting series is the title itself, and I have the same issue there, they are aiming for some homosexual gesture and I see none.
The artist is probably going to get a lot of mileage from the title, but there is nothing there.
K
KMC
Guest
That says “homosexual?” None. That have homosexual overtones? I already did.KMC:
Fair enough. Now point out something in these paintings that actually says homosexual.
Give me one.
Mark121359
Well-known member
If you can’t see the blatant homosexual content of this artist’s so called artwork, then there are bigger issues to address here than mere paintings. Again, have a good day.
Last edited:
- Status