Actually, no… Even if Jesus’s genitailia are “exposed”, it wouldn’t be the first time such a crusifix was created. The idea behind it is to show the poverty of Christ, his humility in his final days here on earth.
Can’t tell from the first video because of the blank out, but the second video shows clearly that this is a standard-issue San Damiano Cross, just like the one I have here on my wall at home and on my desk at work except clearer.
Eric Gill sculpted the Stations of the Cross in London’s Westminster Cathedral somewhere in the early 1900’s. In the 12th station the crucified Jesus is naked and his private parts exposed. Circumcised, too, IAW the Law. I believe that recently some old biddies, male and female, wanted it changed.
It should appear as phallic to all.
I have no background in art, so you lost me with some of your post.The perspective applied to the abdomen to create a distended appearance is foreign to the rest of the figure. That means the middle and upper torso is straighter than the abdominal muscles attached to it. It’s also too narrow compared to the upper torso.
Often, student artist miss the negative spaces in their work. To their embarassement sometimes if the psychological concepts attached to Rorschach tests are part of a critque.
As an artist myself I would have noticed the negative space created by these errors of perspective and proportion.
I think so too. She may want to practice some right brain thinking exercises expecially created for artists.I have no background in art, so you lost me with some of your post.
All I know for sure is that in looking at the work now, I cannot help but see what offended some. Now that it has been pointed out, I cannot not see it, though I don’t know for sure if I would have noticed it before. Maybe I would have, though. Anyway, part of the problem is the bulbous-looking area right above the loincloth that I suppose is meant to be the abdomen. The area above it seems reasonable as a ribcage and breastbone. That which is meant to be the abdomen just doesn’t work, though.
I think it is a good idea that the artist is going to make changes to her work. That should take care of the controversy.
I think so too. She may want to practice some right brain thinking exercises expecially created for artists.
i think it is pretty discusting and bad taste. please dont tell me that the person who did this, did not know what he was doing. to me it is awfull and should be removed. it is just another scandal in the Church.Here;s an article with a picture of the painting in question…
newsok.com/controversial-crucifix-creates-rift-at-warr-acres-church/article/3453833?custom_click=masthead_topten
It’s…um…kind of funny, I guess. Maybe poorly painted, but I don’t know if it was painted this way on purpose or on accident.
Offensive to some? I can see that. Pornogrpahic? I vote no.
I have a San Damiano crucifix, and never noticed the abdomen looking like genitalia at all. I looked at the 1st two links, then went to my bedroom and looked at my crucifix. None look like the crucifix in question. If you look awhile, yeah, you can kinda see how His abdomen might look like a penis, especially if you’ve got a “dirty mind”. But the minute the picture of the controversial crucifix popped up, I was like “Whoa!”
), but I do think some modification is in order.The painting will be removed to allow the artist to modify her work and then it will likely be returned to the Church.