Is it Just Me? Unusual Sculpture of St. Joseph?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BlueMantle
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BlueMantle

Guest
This is a sculpture of St. Joseph with the Christ Child. My question does not have to do with the skill of the artist, Nicolaas van der Veken. My question has to do with the form of St. Joseph. Rather than stating it I was wondering if I could have some feedback in the form of observation of the forum.

Does anyone else notice anything out of the ordinary?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
For one thing, I doubt St Joseph would have been wearing a jacket like that in first-century Palestine. He does bear a resemblance to many portrayals of Our Lord as a grown man, but then again some believe that God the Father allowed such a resemblance, so that Joseph’s paternity wouldn’t be questioned by the casual onlooker.

And I hesitate to say it, but St Joseph looks just a tad effeminate in his pose. This may have been an artistic convention of the time. And Our Lord looks a bit like the little Mannekin boy in Brussels.
 
Last edited:
You will find that artistry represents the mind of the artist as well as age and cultural customs in which the artist lived. I doubt that the universal Patron of the Church was dressed in second millennium European clothes.

If you are talking about the moobs, well, he was reputed to be an older man. On that basis, I am becoming rather saintly myself… 😲
 
He’s dressed in clothing appropriate for the time and place in which the artist lived. Nothing new there as I’ve been seeing Mary and Joseph portrayed as dressed in the fashion of every century and country since they walked the earth.
 
And how much do we actually know about 1st century Jewish dress?

ETA: after looking again, I suspect I know what the OP finds strange, but am a little hesitant to say.
 
Last edited:
I’m curious if it started out as another person and then changed to Joseph.
 
Look, it’s pretty obvious that the OP meant that Joseph looked effeminate and like he is wearing a skirt. Next time, OP, just say so and no need to act all coy about it.

The artist is a Flemish sculptor of the mid-late 1600s, trained in the High Baroque style. I don’t find the sculpt at all unusual or expressing anything other than Joseph probably being more noble than the average peasant as shown by his posture.

If somebody here is an expert on Flemish art of the late 1600s, perhaps they would like to weigh in, but otherwise having a bunch of 20th century people evaluating it by current day male dress and mannerism standards to claim Joseph looks like a woman (who would not be showing that much leg in her daily wear in those days, for one thing) just sounds like a bunch of high school freshmen to me.

Do you actually make any effort to understand what you look at when you tour the museum, or do you just point and say, “Well, Joseph looks pretty gay there to me!”
 
Last edited:
Here’s John the Baptist by the same artist.
Similar pose, younger more muscular guy (I suspect the artist was portraying Joseph as an older man as was customary for a long time), no hosiery or shoes because he was living out in the wilderness, wearing something that looks like a dress and if I wanted to, I could see a suggestion of a bust.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Here is what a rich, dandified gentleman in France would have worn in 1678.

Joseph’s outfit is much more simplified because he was noble but poor. I also think giving him a flowy cape was the sculptor going for a romantic/ drape look.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Tis_Bearself said:
Here is what a rich, dandified gentleman in France would have worn in 1678.

Joseph’s outfit is much more simplified because he was noble but poor. I also think giving him a flowy cape was the sculptor going for a romantic/ drape look.
Click to expand...
The thought just crossed my mind “did women of the age find this kind of man attractive?”.

No doubt he has handsome facial features, and is tall and thin. But the vibe I get, at least from modern women, is that they don’t mind a man being well-groomed and well-dressed, but they don’t want him to fuss about himself and pay a lot of attention to his appearance — in other words, don’t be a metrosexual.

He kind of reminds me of the wealthy, privileged citizens of The Capital in The Hunger Games.
 
Last edited:
Frankly, it was nice to see St. Joseph NOT carrying a lily, which I doubt the real Joseph did much of.
 
I agree with @Tis_Bearself, the sculpture is modeled after the dress and style of the era.

Also to add, depending on culture, Jesus, Mary and Joesph have been different skin complications and facial features.
 
Of course wealthy women found these men attractive; the men were rich and well born and many of them were kings or courtiers. The short skirts were showing off the man’s legs (which men had been doing, fashionwise, for centuries at that point) and his posture. The well-bred men took lessons on how to walk, move, dance, fence, etc. Think of the Three Musketeers.

Skirts of this type were not considered effeminate then. In fact, in many parts of the world skirts on men have never been considered effeminate.

I would note that in the early 80s, rock star Adam Ant, at his manager’s coaching, ran around dressed in this sort of thing for part of his early career. He was a very handsome young man, and the girls went nuts. I know many middle-aged women today who have very fond memories of the young handsome Adam Ant and still go to his shows even though now he is the verging-on-senior-citizen Adam Ant who sometimes wears all this stuff for old times’ sake but also has to wear a big pair of horn rimmed glasses with it.
 
Yes, if you cover the head with your finger, you would think that figure was a woman.
 
PIeta by the same artist.

Note that naked Jesus has a weird little breast and a curvy waist.

Artistic style.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Link to a Flickr where you can zoom on Jesus’ torso.
Click here to go to Flickr
 
Last edited:
That’s what my guess to what the OP was referring. Figured saying so would produce a garage of criticism, so didn’t feel like posting it at the time.
Just my guess about the OP’s issue, not necessarily agreeing with it myself
 
It was one of the first things I noticed after appreciating the face. That part is lovely but, I’m sorry, those do look like a woman’s breasts. Perhaps it’s the lighting and not as apparent in real life?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top