Marian statue has no veil?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ocuinn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JReducation said:
The City of Los Angeles is named after her. I believe that the name has never been changed. It’s still City of The Angels, because it was founded by Franciscan friars and named in honor of OLA.
Click to expand...
La ciudad de nuestra señora, reina de los angeles, if memory serves.
 
domandcarols said:
You call that art?
Click to expand...
I like it much better than the mass produced painted plaster, or even plastic things, so common now.

How can a mass produced statue exactly like thousands of others picked from a catalog be called art?
 
We have to remember that art takes many forms. Some of the forms that we enjoy are of European roots. However, we may find representations of Mary and other saints in African Art, Native American Art, Asian Art, or even Middle Eastern Art that we find annoying, because we’re not used to it.

The statue at the Cathedral in LA is certainly art. It is not my favorite statue, but I would not deny that it’s art. Recently, I had a long discussion from someone from one of the countries of the Sub Continent who is very offended by the art in the Sistine Chapel, because of the nude figures. That person does not consider it art. They consider it vulgar. I have seen the Sistine Chapel almost every day for seven years and never thought of it as vulgar. After a while, I didn’t even look at the frescoes. I guess it’s the same with the statue at the LA Cathedral.

When the Franciscans introduced Our Lady of the Angels as the Immaculate Conception, because there was no statue of the Immaculate Conception, the whole dogma was under debate. However, St. Bonaventure decided that we would honor the Immaculate Conception. Twenty years before him, Francis had commanded that we celebrate the Assumption, which was also under heated debate. So the friars took the same statue, Our Lady of the Angels, and present her under all three titles.

No one had ever seen that statue before. She was unique to Assisi. Statues were not too common in the Middle Ages. People didn’t consider it art. Today, we think nothing of it. Whether we call her Our Lady of the Angels, The Immaculate Conception or the Assumption, she is beautiful.

If we really wanted to get technical, Our Lady of Lourdes should be called The Immaculate Conception, because it was the first time that Mary refers to herself as the event known as the Immaculate Conception. The Immaculate Conception was understood as an event in Salvation History, not as a person until Our Lady told Bernadette, “I am the Immaculate Conception.”.

By that time, the image of Our Lady of the Angels had become adopted as the Immaculate Conception, sometimes with less angels around her feet. 🤷

But that’s the way art works. Instead, we call the one image Our Lady of Lourdes, instead of the name by which she called herself.

People have different opinions about art and we use art in different ways.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
In the LA statue I find the Artemis imagery a little disturbing, i.e. the crescent moon.

The only possible saving thing about it, is the moon is at the feet of the statue, but if that is the symbolism they were going for, I would venture to guess it is lost on most, if not outright unintentional.

While Artemis was typically featured with the crescent moon shape on her head, there are renderings as in the LA statue. In this, I find much to be concerned about.

If this is not meant to represent Mary crushing false goddesses, how on earth did such a thing slip in when it has such historical associations?
 
jonbhorton said:
In the LA statue I find the Artemis imagery a little disturbing, i.e. the crescent moon.

The only possible saving thing about it, is the moon is at the feet of the statue, but if that is the symbolism they were going for, I would venture to guess it is lost on most, if not outright unintentional.

While Artemis was typically featured with the crescent moon shape on her head, there are renderings as in the LA statue. In this, I find much to be concerned about.

If this is not meant to represent Mary crushing false goddesses, how on earth did such a thing slip in when it has such historical associations?
Click to expand...
The crescent moon is actually part of the original Franciscan statue from 1209. It actually belongs there.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
jonbhorton said:
In the LA statue I find the Artemis imagery a little disturbing, i.e. the crescent moon.

The only possible saving thing about it, is the moon is at the feet of the statue, but if that is the symbolism they were going for, I would venture to guess it is lost on most, if not outright unintentional.

While Artemis was typically featured with the crescent moon shape on her head, there are renderings as in the LA statue. In this, I find much to be concerned about.

If this is not meant to represent Mary crushing false goddesses, how on earth did such a thing slip in when it has such historical associations?
Click to expand...
Revelation 12:1 And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars;
 
JReducation said:
The crescent moon is actually part of the original Franciscan statue from 1209. It actually belongs there.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
OK. Must be my Protestant roots trying to peek through.

Where I grew up, we expressed our displeasure with things by stickers of little johnny figures peeing on said object, not standing on it. Must be that culture thing you expressed in regards to Japanese, etc.?
 
jonbhorton said:
OK. Must be my Protestant roots trying to peek through.

Where I grew up, we expressed our displeasure with things by stickers of little johnny figures peeing on said object, not standing on it. Must be that culture thing you expressed in regards to Japanese, etc.?
Click to expand...
It usually is, my friend. 🙂

To me, as a Jew, the Blessed Mother standing on the crescent moon makes perfect sense. In Eastern cultures: Jewish, Islamic and others, the moon is a symbol of motherhood.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
To tell the truth, what I was thinking when I saw the title of the thread was the old custom of veiling statues and crucifixes during passion week and Holy Friday.
 
The LA statue is wonderful; I think she should be called Fiat!
Thanks for posting the link.
 
Absolutely no, no way [edited] can you defend that monstrosity in LA. I don’t care what anyone says, there are some objective truths about art. I don’t care if you want to dress Our Lady in a kimono, I don’t care if you want to paint Our Lady as a Sub-Saharan African. These are fine by me, it helps one relate to her, etc. That’s why I prefer Northern European depictions of her and Our Lord.

But lets be honest here… that statue in LA is absolutely horrible. And if we depict Our Lady in art as how we can best relate to her… what does that say about the man responsible for… for… that thing? It’s bland and completely lacking in femininity.

It looks like something out of a bad Sci-Fi.
 
Here are photos of the statue of the “veil-less” Immaculate Conception in a chapel in the Jesuit University I used to attend.

Pardon the quality, though. I only used a camera phone.

We usually hold recollections (day-long retreats) for students here.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
choliks said:
Here are photos of the statue of the “veil-less” Immaculate Conception in a chapel in the Jesuit University I used to attend.

Pardon the quality, though. I only used a camera phone.

We usually hold recollections (day-long retreats) for students here.

http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s247/choliks_a/mary_1.jpg
http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s247/choliks_a/mary_3.jpg
http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s247/choliks_a/mary_2.jpg
Click to expand...
I like the statue itself. It’s an interesting rendition of the original. The moon looks awful. It doesn’t match. In the original, the moon is not as obvious. This one calls too much attention to itself. Personally, I would have liked it better if it had been made of the same material as the statue and placed directly under her feet. Maybe it just looks disproportionate to me. I don’t know.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
I like the statue itself. It’s an interesting rendition of the original. The moon looks awful. It doesn’t match. In the original, the moon is not as obvious. This one calls too much attention to itself. Personally, I would have liked it better if it had been made of the same material as the statue and placed directly under her feet. Maybe it just looks disproportionate to me. I don’t know.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
I actually agree with you Brother. The material for the moon and the clouds (or whatever that is) is rather jarring. Maybe if it was also made of wood, it would be more pleasing. I think the Interior Designer was given too much freedom. 😃
 
This is in the Cathedral in my diocese. She is not wearing a veil, but rather a headband.

Many people in these parts are not happy with this rendition of Our Lady.
I love it! I think it captures the essence of who Mary really was, a young teen-ager.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top