Is this an alien or a horror movie monster? WHAT!? THIS is suppose to be Jesus!?

[NewUlm1976_2000]

Was Christ actually a naked women? I would think perhaps the first requirement for stations of the Cross would be that they are recognizable. If a person didn’t know they were stations would they have any idea whatsoever what they depict. ?

I will admit, however, that to a Goth these might be quite beautiful and I say that with no criticism at all.

I see a greyed out naked person, not woman. We see what we want to see, such is abstract art.

 

[Wolseley]

I wonder what Hermann Rorschach would have made of those.

“And what do you see in this picture?”

 

[Hijikata]

Those are beautiful.

Do you all expect the depiction of the condemnation, torture, death, and entombment of a man to be all rainbows and fluffy clouds and bunnies? Was the blood spilt on the road to Calvary actually fruit punch? Crucifixion is nightmare fuel for a damn good reason, and the expressionist style serves admirably to drive that point home. It should disturb you, who believe we killed God! What could be more horrifying to a believer?

Bowdlerize your religion, and you’ll be left worshiping nothing.

IT DOES NOT NEED TO LOOK LIKE AN ALIEN FROM A STAR WARS MOVIE THOUGH! Now, I have taken Art History classes for my undergraduate and have came to appreciate all types of art styles but this does not belong in a Church. Espically a Catholic Church, and espically for Stations of the Cross.

 

[estesbob]

I see a greyed out naked person, not woman. We see what we want to see, such is abstract art.

So you think a church should have abstract art that one person thinks of as a picture of Jesus and many others see as a naked women?

 

[Michael_Welter]

When it comes to art, all art, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. These images were, without a doubt, created to honor God. Therefore, whether I like them or not, I would never call them disgusting or inappropriate. Some of them are quite powerful, and stirred up in me the same feelings I got when I saw Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. It looks awful, thanks to my sins. Dear Lord, forgive me.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

ET phone home…

 

[GemmaRose]

I’ve read all the posts subsequent to my prior post, and maintain my original assessment: HIDEOUS!

However, I decided to look at all of them, and see if any of them “moved” me. Here is my decision:

1. Alien
2. Alien with an antenna
3. Wide-eyed alien
4. Alien with a bleeding eye
5. 2 aliens with the mother ship hovering over them
6. Sad wide-eyed alien
7. Okay, the Cross is clear, but there’s still an alien in the background
8. Dark-skinned wide-eyed alien
9. Torso of female alien ?
10. Naked young boy (at least it’s a human)
11. Alien from the mother ship looking down on Calvary
12. There’s our alien friend
13. A study in arms (alien? human?)
14. Naked female, probably alien

Originally posted by NewUlm1976_2000

This is a presentation of the Stations in a more abstract, non-traditional way, but still meaningful and how the artist imagines it. It is unusual but the more you look at it it becomes just as spiritual as the other artistic styles we are used to.

Please, I don’t mean to be disrespectful to you, and it’s a free country to believe whatever you want, but for these monstrosities to be “meaningful” and “just as spiritual as other artistic styles we are used to”, I would need to be smoking a VERY “funny” cigarette, and I don’t do that anymore!

*“I wish that my heart could beat, that I could live and breathe only for Jesus, I wish that my tongue could utter no other name than that of Jesus; that my eye could see only Jesus; that my pen could write only about Jesus, and that my thoughts could soar to nothing but Jesus. I have often wondered where on earth there might be something on which I could center my love. But neither on earth nor in heaven do I find any such thing but only my beloved Jesus… I am the fruit of your passion, Jesus, born of your wounds. O Jesus, seek me in love; I no longer possess anything; you have stolen my heart…” * - St. Gemma Galgani

 

[estesbob]

When it comes to art, all art, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. These images were, without a doubt, created to honor God. Therefore, whether I like them or not, I would never call them disgusting or inappropriate. Some of them are quite powerful, and stirred up in me the same feelings I got when I saw Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. It looks awful, thanks to my sins. Dear Lord, forgive me.

Beauty is indeed in the eye of beholder. So why would you put up stations, which are supposed to help with focusing on the passion of Christ, that most people haven’t a clue as to what they represent?

 

[childofmary1143]

When it comes to art, all art, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. These images were, without a doubt, created to honor God.

How can you say that? You didn’t create them, so how do you know what the artists intentions were? Just as I couldn’t say that the artists intentions were evil because I can’t read their heart neither can you say what his/her intentions were.

Therefore, whether I like them or not, I would never call them disgusting or inappropriate. Some of them are quite powerful, and stirred up in me the same feelings I got when I saw Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. It looks awful, thanks to my sins. Dear Lord, forgive me.

The Passion of the Christ never dehumanized Jesus nor his sacrifice. These “pictures” do.

 

[estesbob]

How can you say that? You didn’t create them, so how do you know what the artists intentions were? Just as I couldn’t say that the artists intentions were evil because I can’t read their heart neither can you say what his/her intentions were.

The Passion of the Christ never dehumanized Jesus nor his sacrifice. These “pictures” do.

What is really ironic about all this is a French bishops don’t want to use the Latin mass as the people wnt understand it. Maybe if we just passed off the Latin mass off as abstract art they’d jump at it.

 

[water]

First time I see a set of the Station of Cross without our Blessed Mother Mary.

 

[Michael_Welter]

Beauty is indeed in the eye of beholder. So why would you put up stations, which are supposed to help with focusing on the passion of Christ, that most people haven’t a clue as to what they represent?

I doubt that you, or anyone else in this thread, has interviewed the people of that cathedral to determine if they have a clue or not.

 

[Michael_Welter]

How can you say that? You didn’t create them, so how do you know what the artists intentions were? Just as I couldn’t say that the artists intentions were evil because I can’t read their heart neither can you say what his/her intentions were.

I doubt that the church had them made to dishonor God. I trust our Church.

The Passion of the Christ never dehumanized Jesus nor his sacrifice. These “pictures” do.

I disagree. I think they portray the struggle between good and evil that took place on Calvary.

 

[THurifer2]

This is a presentation of the Stations in a more abstract, non-traditional way, but still meaningful and how the artist imagines it. It is unusual but the more you look at it it becomes just as spiritual as the other artistic styles we are used to.

I am having a problem discerning whether or not you are trying to be pretentious.

Either way thanks for not letting us down.

You are kidding…right?

 

[stbruno]

I looked at all the stations of the cross, and I would have to say that they are very distracting. I don’t think they would help me reflect on the stations as I walked the stations of the cross in that church.
I can imagine also that the children of this parish in Canada would have an even harder time if they are all over the walls of the church because it evokes nightmares .

Well, some one’s art is another one’s garbage. If they asked me, I would say, definitely not!

 

[Steeltemplar]

I do not see how images such as these can genuinely portray Christ or His suffering.

As for the idea of “Bowdlerizing” the faith, it is a fallacy to say that rejecting these bizaare images necessarily means rejecting depictions of pain and suffering. Indeed, far from removing us from the suffering of Christ, older works of Catholic art make it quite plain.

For instance, Grunewald’s Issenheim Altarpiece. This work shows us the cross in a powerful and meaningful way, not fearing to portray blood and anguish. Looking closely, one can observe the nails clearly driven through Christ’s hands and feet as well as the marks and abrasions all over his body:

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Mathis_Gothart_Gr%C3%BCnewald_019.jpg

This was created between 1512 and 1516. It is an incredible work of art.

This image of the crucifixion which was painted by Mantegna also makes clear what was done to Our Lord:
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/Andrea_Mantegna_029.jpg

These are but two examples of truly artistic tributes to Christ’s sacrifice.

 

[Sarabande]

Ok… I appreciate many forms of art and I have artists in my family - one of which does both realistic and abstract art and solely makes a living painting and teaching. I’m not a great admirer of abstract art, but I can appreciate it, especially when I know that the artist has the training and technique and can do realism just as easily. Although I will admit that it is always one of the last sections of an art museum that I view - sometimes never.

I can perhaps stretch my ideas to see this as a piece of artwork in a museum depicting the stations. That would be interesting seeing this artist’s interpretation in a modern museum of art or the Modern art gallery section of the museum. But to see it in a church… well, let’s just say if I were a child again and saw these paintings, I wouldn’t think of Jesus. I’d be truly frightened of the inhuman forms (which look both alien and ghostly). I know that wouldn’t want to go to mass there as a kid. I know that I would have nightmares - and it wouldn’t be about our Lord’s crucifixion and the pain and suffering He endured for us. It would be more about being invaded or haunted. Not a great way for a kid to correlate her faith and religious upbringing.

And for the record - I prefer the artwork that truly depicts the crucifixion with the blood, darkness, pain, etc. It hits me harder and reminds me of what He did for us, especially when He looks like a human and shown in suffering. Perhaps there may be people out there who will get the same thing out of these Alien/Ghost depictions, but it isn’t me.

 

[lak611]

ET phone home…

My sentiments, too, upon seeing this “art”.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Looks to me like Station V is an abstract attempt at “American Gothic”, sans pitchfork, but that’s just me.

The best explanation of “modern art” I have ever read is Tom Wolfe’s “The Painted Word”, and I find it persuasive. Modern art is a “language”, it makes no pretense to be aesthetically pleasing. The artists consider that they are communicating all sorts of messages about art, about life, about society and so on, and that only the truly “illuminated” minds can grasp such intellectual subtleties. In short, it’s just one big snob conversation, and the “ordinary” beholder can just put up with it.

I make no pretense to understanding the subtle, elitist messages in these stations. But I make one observation. Certain things resonate with us in a pleasing manner; the “golden mean” for example. Certain things are disturbing, just naturally. Portraying adrongynous or distorted figures are, no doubt, intended to disturb. Likely the androgyny is a poke at the “patriarchalism” of the Church and distinctness of gender. It’s “Sister/brother Jesus”, rather like the “Mother God” of the Womanchurch folk.

But more disturbingly, anyone who has ever seen any decaying creature, cannot help but see many of these figures as such. That’s why so many movie monsters are so disturbing; they are frequently in some stage of putrefaction. It’s death personified, at the most primitive level of the brain. We recoil, as even a baby recoils from a huge, dark, unfamiliar figure. So, why is it important for the artist to show our most sacred images in states of putrefaction? Perhaps that’s how he/she/it sees the Church? Sees Christianity? Sees religion? Kind of hard for a phillistine like me to see it any other way.

 

[Mirdath]

Was Christ actually a naked women? I would think perhaps the first requirement for stations of the Cross would be that they are recognizable. If a person didn’t know they were stations would they have any idea whatsoever what they depict. ?

That’s the idea behind expressionism: instead of portraying physical reality, it is more concerned with getting emotion across. Seeing the responses this version of the Stations is getting, it’s doing that quite well. The nudity and androgyny is more about Jesus’ vulnerability, being a lamb led to the slaughter, than it is about anything else.

Most Catholics in the thread are shocked and horrified. Good. That’s what they should be feeling every single time they see a crucifix. It’s a reminder: we killed God.

I will admit, however, that to a Goth these might be quite beautiful and I say that with no criticism at all.