Is this Jesus painting pornographic? [MSNBC]

[vz71]

If that is what someone is seeing meditating on a crucifix, that person needs to quit meditating on a crucifix and go instead to seek the aid of a professional counselor. There’s a problem, alright, but its not with the crucifix.

Being among those that your blanket response paints in the worst possible light, I feel a need to respond.

Perhaps you should look at a San Damiano crucifixion painting and what this ‘artist’ has created.

The differences are noticeable, and difficult to ignore.

But over and beyond that, the object in question is a painting, not a crucifix.
Given you missed that, I have doubts that the articles in question were even scrutinized before making a blanket statement that argues the mental health of people that find offense.
Your post has all of the hallmarks of a knee-jerk response and none of the hallmarks of actual thought.

 

[Biggie]

Being among those that your blanket response paints in the worst possible light, I feel a need to respond.

Perhaps you should look at a San Damiano crucifixion painting and what this ‘artist’ has created.

The differences are noticeable, and difficult to ignore.

But over and beyond that, the object in question is a painting, not a crucifix.
Given you missed that, I have doubts that the articles in question were even scrutinized before making a blanket statement that argues the mental health of people that find offense.
Your post has all of the hallmarks of a knee-jerk response and none of the hallmarks of actual thought.

What’s your point? Is this a diabolical plot on the part of a demonic artist to arouse carnal thoughts in an otherwise devout mind? My actual thought on view of the painting of a crucifix lead me nowhere in the neighborhood your actual thought apparently did. I had to pull it up a second time in comparison to the comments that were being made here. So if for a thought to be actual it must come to the conclusion that your thought is correct, then right, my thought is not actual.

But as far as I’m concerned it’s a Rorschach Test. I either passed or failed depending on whether or not the evaluator works for MSNBC.

 

[tafan]

Being among those that your blanket response paints in the worst possible light, I feel a need to respond.

Perhaps you should look at a San Damiano crucifixion painting and what this ‘artist’ has created.

The differences are noticeable, and difficult to ignore.
.

Good point. And to be blunt, one has to call into question the motives behind some of the paiting’s defenders. I find it interesting, that a couple of them posted links of pictures of the original cruxifix in their defence and conviently left out a link to the picture under question. And then said we were all crazies, while referring to pictures which we did not object. When people take the low road in their argument tactics, either their case is weak or their motives are less than meets the eye.

 

[tafan]

"It certainly is not the intention of the artist or myself that the cross of Jesus Christ be a source of division or result in disrespectful statements,” the Rev. Philip Seeton wrote.

It is good that the Pastor is doing the right thing. One wonders why he didn’t take the initial complaints seriously and did not respond until well after the media became involved. Agree or disagree with what the picture looks like, it was obviously a cause for scandal and he should have taken this step earlier.

 

[Biggie]

Good point. And to be blunt, one has to call into question the motives behind some of the paiting’s defenders. I find it interesting, that a couple of them posted links of pictures of the original cruxifix in their defence and conviently left out a link to the picture under question. And then said we were all crazies, while referring to pictures which we did not object. When people take the low road in their argument tactics, either their case is weak or their motives are less than meets the eye.

I felt a glancing blow. Was it defensiveness? So what is the low road? Seeing a phallic symbol hidden in a religious painting or not seeing it there?

 

[grace_singh]

It should appear as phallic to all.

It’s about the worst possible drawing a person could ever make of an abdomen.

you know what? when i’m honest with myself, i would tend to agree. yes, it looks unnecesarily like a penis. i’ve Googled a few other San Damiano Crucifixes, and the abdomens on those look nothing like this one’s.

the abdomen could have an should have been painted differently. it is not appropriate for a church. or anywhere.

 

[vz71]

So what is the low road? Seeing a phallic symbol hidden in a religious painting or not seeing it there?

That there is validity at all to the question is enough to have it removed and replaced with something less problematic.

 

[Gia_B]

Yeah, I see it. It weirds me out a little, but I don’t think it’s porn, just some bad detailing that they should consider repainting.

A few weeks ago, several (mostly Catholic) students from my college and I went to visit the Navajo reservation in Arizona. near where we were staying, there was a small building with an open room and a large wooden crucifix. Even though Christ was wearing a loincloth, you could still clearly see his . . . Jesushood. It bothered me made me uncomfortable, but at no point did I think that it was pornographic. It was still a nice craving as long as you looked at the crucifix as a whole.

 

[Biggie]

That there is validity at all to the question is enough to have it removed and replaced with something less problematic.

I cannot remember the last time I looked at the nether parts of a representation of the Lord. Or thought about them. For Pete’s sakes!

Even though Christ was wearing a loincloth, you could still clearly see his . . . Jesushood. It bothered me made me uncomfortable,

I rest my case. What needs to be reformed: the art or the mind?

 

[Benadam]

I rest my case. What needs to be reformed: the art or the mind?

I can’t agree that the problem lies in the viewer.
There is little question that the artist created an anatomical distortion. It doesn’t require a disordered imagination to construct an alternative, and in many ways, a more realistic pattern. The mind looks for familiar patterns, unfortunately this artist created a space that was not eneogh like what she intended for the mind not to seek something more familiar, which isn’t a problem unless it is too much like some other familiar shape. Especially an archtypical shape.

 

[vz71]

I cannot remember the last time I looked at the nether parts of a representation of the Lord. Or thought about them. For Pete’s sakes!

Which is exactly why this painting should be redone.

Religious art is supposed to raise us up, not cause scandal.

 

[tafan]

you know what? when i’m honest with myself, i would tend to agree. yes, it looks unnecesarily like a penis. i’ve Googled a few other San Damiano Crucifixes, and the abdomens on those look nothing like this one’s.

the abdomen could have an should have been painted differently. it is not appropriate for a church. or anywhere.

grace, I do not want this post to be argumentitive and I appreciate your honesty. But it would be enlightening to understand the difference between your last post on this thread and your first post

grace_singh:

dude, it’s his abdomen.

if you’re gazing at the image of Christ dying for us on the cross, and all you can think about is the detail of His abdomen which may appear phallic to some, you’re focusing on the wrong thing.

I ask this not to be argumentitive but to try to understand better those that are trying to defend the picture. You seem to have changed your mind so I would suspect your position may be a little bit more unbiased than others. As I have said before, it cannot be compared to the original cruxifix. I have a hard time believing it was done by accident by the artist. The idea that the time has simply faded the contrasts on the original painting is the only difference is laughable. The shape is distinclty different. So I don’t know why some of the arguments defending the picture are being made. It seems like a cut and dried case to me. Pehaps you could provide some enlightenment.

 

[Biggie]

Which is exactly why this painting should be redone.

Religious art is supposed to raise us up, not cause scandal.

If we are about the business of eradicating everything that arouses puerile thoughts in the human mind, we have much to do. Where to begin? Whitewash the Sistine Chapel? What about those Cherubs? Candles? Perhaps the Iconoclasts were right all along.

 

[tafan]

If we are about the business of eradicating everything that arouses puerile thoughts in the human mind, we have much to do. Where to begin? Whitewash the Sistine Chapel? What about those Cherubs? Candles? Perhaps the Iconoclasts were right all along.

Horrible comparisons. First of all, there is nothing in the nudity of the Sistine chapel that is done in as poor of taste (quite the opposite) as the painting in question. The portion of the painting in question is prominent and center and takes over the whole icon. Nothing on the sistine chapel does this. Secondly, dispite the title of this thread, it is not an issue if the painting is pornographic. It is an issue that it is vulgar, a cause of scandal, very poor taste, and does NOT fulfill the purpose of religious art. Art of this type, we are correct to eradicate from our churches. Obviousle, the sistine chapel does not fail on any of these points.

 

[Biggie]

Horrible comparisons. First of all, there is nothing in the nudity of the Sistine chapel that is done in as poor of taste (quite the opposite) as the painting in question. The portion of the painting in question is prominent and center and takes over the whole icon. Nothing on the sistine chapel does this. Secondly, dispite the title of this thread, it is not an issue if the painting is pornographic. It is an issue that it is vulgar, a cause of scandal, very poor taste, and does NOT fulfill the purpose of religious art. Art of this type, we are correct to eradicate from our churches. Obviousle, the sistine chapel does not fail on any of these points.

Apt comparisons. You are mixing matters of taste with matters of morals. David is generally all right there. Is he pornographic? Is he the cause of scandal?

 

[tafan]

Apt comparisons. You are mixing matters of taste with matters of morals. David is generally all right there. Is he pornographic? Is he the cause of scandal?

I am not. It is morally wrong to cause undo scandal. It is morraly wrong to show disrespect to Christ. The painting is wrong.
None of this would apply to the sistine chapel. They are bogus comparisons. If we take your argument to its logical conclusion, there are no limits as to what can be displayed in church, because it is all a matter of taste. I say BS. There is such a thing as objective beauty in art. Likewise, there is objective bad art.
Modern day critics like to talk about such things as being “challenged by art” or “the statement made by art being so important”. Hogwash. Religious art placed in churches should be objectively beautiful, inspiring to prayer, uplifting, contectually correct. This fails on most of these counts.

 

[Biggie]

I am not. It is morally wrong to cause undo scandal. It is morraly wrong to show disrespect to Christ. The painting is wrong.
None of this would apply to the sistine chapel. They are bogus comparisons. If we take your argument to its logical conclusion, there are no limits as to what can be displayed in church, because it is all a matter of taste. I say BS. There is such a thing as objective beauty in art. Likewise, there is objective bad art.
Modern day critics like to talk about such things as being “challenged by art” or “the statement made by art being so important”. Hogwash. Religious art placed in churches should be objectively beautiful, inspiring to prayer, uplifting, contectually correct. This fails on most of these counts.

Nothing in my posts would indicate that I believe there are no limits to what can be displayed in church nor that I reject the concept of objective beauty in art. In fact, the Sistine Chapel contains displays of nudity. In fact, David is nude. And in fact, Christ crucified in this portrait is not nude.

My opinion? The exact problem is that Christ is not nude in this portrait, but that the “nudity” exists in the opinion of some in the form of a code. When some look at the portrait and decipher the code, they realize that unless others also crack the code the fact that the person himself did says more about him than it does about the portrait. Others must see the hidden nudity and it must be an objective fact else the shameful thought came subjectively from the person himself. When another person points out that Christ is objectively covered in the portrait and that the nude parts perceived are not objectively nude parts, it is tantamount to accusing the person who originally saw the hidden phallus of having unthinkable dirty thoughts.

The phallus simply must be in the portrait because if it is not it is in the mind of the observer.

 

[vz71]

If we are about the business of eradicating everything that arouses puerile thoughts in the human mind, we have much to do.

‘Arousal of puerile thoughts…’

Sorry, but your description is simply wrong.

The painting is a vulgar depiction of our Lord.
It inspires nothing.

 

[Biggie]

‘Arousal of puerile thoughts…’

Sorry, but your description is simply wrong.

The painting is a vulgar depiction of our Lord.
It inspires nothing.

I too am sorry, but this is all subjective. Vulgarity comprises a moral judgement. Inspiration is a matter of taste. In the above, the two are confused, one to justify the other. It would simply be enough to say, “I don’t like the portrait.” That is not sufficient in this case because when asked, “Why?” one has to give an answer that reveals what exists in one’s subjective thoughts and in this case one cannot own the thoughts.

 

[vz71]

Nothing in my posts would indicate that I believe there are no limits to what can be displayed in church nor that I reject the concept of objective beauty in art. In fact, the Sistine Chapel contains displays of nudity. In fact, David is nude. And in fact, Christ crucified in this portrait is not nude.

I could be convinced of this were it not for the defense of the indefensibly vulgar painting.

My opinion? The exact problem is that Christ is not nude in this portrait, but that the “nudity” exists in the opinion of some in the form of a code.

Cute.
So people object to it because it brings up some impure thought in their own head.
What an ideal way to defend the painting…it isn’t the painting that is vulgar, it is the thoughts of those that look upon it.

The phallus simply must be in the portrait because if it is not it is in the mind of the observer.

I have a better idea…the phallus was drawn into the painting as a disrespect towards God, his church, and all of those that attend that church.