There really needs to be a standard when it comes to Church artwork and architecture these days

  • Thread starter Thread starter AltarSoldier
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Saints seeing Jesus is private revelation. Catholics are not required to believe private revelation, even where the revelations are approved by the Church. And therefore, Catholics are not expected to always portray Christ looking just as he did in the Divine Mercy picture.

Let’s not forget that there are three Divine Mercy pictures commonly used and that St. Faustina didn’t even think the original one truly captured how Jesus looked. I also doubt that every saint who saw Jesus saw him looking the exact same way.
 
Last edited:
The image of Divine Mercy, shroud of Turin imo offer the best details and confirmation of how Jesus looks like. The only problem is human brushes fail to capture the beauty and majesty of Our Lord. Faustina complained of this too but she didn’t complain of him having long hair which can further help the thought and belief Jesus had long hair
 
AltarSoldier said:
That image is inconsistent to what many saints like St. Faustina saw and described as Jesus. Also the shroud of Turin is still regarded as the most vivid and Revere images of Our Lord. Depictions of Christ as we known him throughout history go back to the earliest centuries of the church, minor differences but share a consistent pattern. If Jesus looked in any way the picture the scientist proposed we probably would have had a saint describe him as such which would forever change how the Church sees the physical appearance of Christ. Every thought of that?
Click to expand...
AltarSoldier said:
Idk ask Faustina if she was making a most when Jesus gave her the image of Divine Mercy. You see it as juvenile but there are other people that care or see it as a bit off putting.
Click to expand...
Different saints had different visions of Jesus and Mary and they appeared differently in most. The Virgin Mary took the form of an Aztec woman in Guadelupe, a French woman in Lourdes, and a Japanese woman in Akita.

I don’t understand why you’re so keen on referencing Saint Faustina, as you are aware the Church does not require us to believe private revelations and anyhow the appearance of Jesus varies as stated above and Faustina’s vision of Him is far from normative.
 
Last edited:
AltarSoldier said:
The image of Divine Mercy, shroud of Turin imo offer the best details and confirmation of how Jesus looks like. The only problem is human brushes fail to capture the beauty and majesty of Our Lord. Faustina complained of this too but she didn’t complain of him having long hair which can further help the thought and belief Jesus had long hair
Click to expand...
They are different images though. The Holy Face of Manopello is meant to be a shroud also.
 
AltarSoldier said:
shroud of Turin
Click to expand...
It is a pious belief that the Shroud expresses how Jesus looked. Catholics are not required to believe that the Shroud is genuine, nor that Jesus actually looked that way.

In addition, you are missing the point that Catholic art is not expected or intended to be a 100 percent true depiction of how Jesus and Mary etc actually looked. Often the depiction of Jesus in art looks like the people in the region where the crucifix is to be used. That is showing Jesus in a manner that the congregation using the crucifix can relate to him. The more modern and featureless depictions of Jesus are supposed to express that Jesus came for all men.

You are completely ignoring these themes and intentions and insisting that we somehow have to find out how Jesus exactly looked and make every statue and crucifix look like that. Which is just silly and ignores the purpose of art.
 
Cecilia_Dympna said:
That passage is from Revelation. Are you suggesting that Jesus had “flames of fire” from his eyes when on earth 2000 years ago
Click to expand...
Just in case anyone thinks so I would like to point out that the Romans needed Judas’ help to recognize Jesus so He probably had nothing so distinctive. Just a typical Palestinian Jewish man.
 
Last edited:
There are standards. Each national Conference of Bishops determines these when approving the building and sacred furnishing of churches. They also liaise with builders, artists and liturgical scholars in determining what is suitably appropriate in respect to artistic merit, liturgical dignity and material costs.

I personally quite like the crucifix and the sculpture of the risen Christ. I’ve seen a lot of modern churches attempt to recreate a Baroque or Renaissance aesthetic, but it often (not always) appears as grossly kitschy.
 
Has it ever occurred to you that this is all this parish can afford to build? This is a plain church, yes, but there is nothing offensive about it.

I agree with others, your post is highly emotional.
 
There is literally nothing wrong with this church that I can see. If you think those depictions are off, you should have seen the stuff hung up in a rather wealthy parish where I grew up. The crucifix looked like a depressing cartoon and the stations of the cross were made of twisted iron, which I’m sure was meant to represent Christ’s suffering, but made the images unrecognizable. For years, the Crucifix was replaced next to this bizarre copper sculpture of the tree of Jesse, which is still there, and completely overshadows the current Crucifix, which is made of wood and has the world’s tiniest corpus. (We call him “stick figure Jesus”) In addition, whoever designed the aesthetic of the rest of the room was obviously going for “as plain and ugly as humanely possible” with cheap ratty carpet and red brick walls. This sanctuary is pleasant by comparison. I think the figure on the right is probably the risen Christ. He looks like he’s wearing burial cloths.(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
Except it was created as a mockery toward Christians.

Images based on the Shroud of Turin show what Jesus more likely looked like and they’re not close to this one.
 
I couldn’t get a second photo to post to my last one, but here’s the outside of the "Stick Figure Jesus church. Apparently the architect wasn’t feeling up to being a “light for the world” that day either. It’s kind of embarrassing, because I know we’re not in a competition or anything, the Protestant church next door is really pretty, at least on the outside, and the Methodist Church down the road is a huge monument to suburbia and can be seen from practically every angle in town. (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Allegra said:
If you think those depictions are off, you should have seen the stuff hung up in a rather wealthy parish where I grew up. The crucifix looked like a depressing cartoon and the stations of the cross were made of twisted iron, which I’m sure was meant to represent Christ’s suffering, but made the images unrecognizable.
Click to expand...
It’s often wealthy parishes that promote very plain interiors and exteriors, and very “modernistic” art work inside. In my experience, wealthy Catholics from at least the 1960s through the 1990s - I don’t know if it’s changed now - were going for some kind of a monastic, Franciscan aesthetic because they did not want the church to look wealthy or like a lot of money was being spent on the church building and decor when there were hungry children in the world, etc. Many such people in the past were also into modern art that was simple, clean lines, “universal” so they didn’t have to worry about Jesus looking “too white” or other social justice type concerns. They associated the more decorated and old fashioned art in churches with kitsch or with an appearance of wealth, not with giving glory to God. Some people also associated the old-fashioned church look with the pre-Vatican II church that people in the 60s, 70s and 80s were looking to move away from.

You see this over and over. I’m aware of an inner city church of the old, decorated sort that a bunch of wealthy suburbanites kind of took over, and they stripped everything out and made it very plain. It doesn’t look bad, as the plainness accentuates the architectural beauty of the interior, and it’s definitely less of a maintenance nightmare now, but it’s very plain. Last week I went to a Catholic church in a wealthy suburb and it was one of the plainest churches I’ve ever seen, inside and out; they did drop some dollars on very nice stained glass windows - which I strongly suspect were probably repurposed from an old church in the city that was torn down - but the rest of the church looked like a big box store.

By contrast, I can point to umpteen churches in poor areas that are just bursting with decoration. There is even a fairly plain “modern” church in poor area that I just noticed has been recently gussied up with two huge old-timey-paintings of the Crucifixion and of Mary appearing to a saint, which do not fit at all with the rest of the decor of the church, but the parish is poor and heavily Hispanic and I’m guessing the parishioners did not like the sanctuary looking so very plain.
 
Last edited:
Seeing this post makes me laugh a bit because in my parish, we have two massive paintings on the walls of the sanctuary. One is of Jesus rising with outstretched arms. The other is of Mary. Both are gigantic, in cheap looking, anorexic frames with text printed on each image, and are prints. They look really cheap. I noticed a smaller print of the same Jesus image in adoration chapel.

I just have to let it go but if all three were removed, it would be an improvement. We have a beautiful crucifix, and lovely statues of Joseph holding Jesus as a baby…an image I really love…another lovely statue of Mary, one of the name saint of the parish, another of St. Michael and so on which would be greater focal points if the paintings were removed. In their place we could install seasonal banners., Which we presently have no room for.

I know if I shared my unsolicited opinion that the giant paintings look weirdly cultish and tacky, I would be perceived as condemning the Lord and Blessed Mother and not the presentation. Tricky ground, criticising religious art.

I keep hoping a committee will decide to remove them. Nevertheless, have to reject the notion of set standards for art and architecture…slippery slope there.
 
Last edited:
Art is subjective. You are free to make art or to commission art. If your parish is planning a new facility or renovation, volunteer to be on the committee and express your personal opinions.
Tis_Bearself said:
you are worrying because Jesus appears to be bald ?
How do you know he wasn’t bald in real life?
Click to expand...
Good point, we know that his beard was torn out during the torture, if Christ had hair, it too could have been shorn as part of the humiliation. Or, it could simply be an artists perspective, nothing wrong with that.

Question to the OP:

From which blog or website did you get these photos? It is expected that people give heed to copyrighted images and that we attribute photographs and images to their source.
 
Bithynian said:
Each national Conference of Bishops determines these when approving the building and sacred furnishing of churches. They also liaise with builders, artists and liturgical scholars in determining what is suitably appropriate in respect to artistic merit, liturgical dignity and material costs.
Click to expand...
Have you ever been involved with parish construction or renovation? These things are local decisions of the parish and Bishop. The USCCB or like does not comment on whether you have a modern or gothic architecture.

Each Diocese has procedures, but, they are some version of this.

A parish pastor approves a blueprint for a new building. It, along with the cost estimates, go to an office at the Diocese who then gives approval for the plan to move further. The approval is more for the cost, how it will be paid for, etc.

The Dioceses do not have to approve the color of the wall paint, the design styles, etc.

Your parish can replace the statue of Mary with another statue of Mary or hang an icon or re–do the floors without the USCCB weighing in.
 
I see your point OP… That’s how IFBs and many other Protestants insist Christ looked: shaved head and cleaned shaven. The fact that many in this thread are demanding to see a Bible verse stating where Christ had a long hair and beard, completely discarding tradition as it has been passed down over the centuries, is also disturbing.

As for the figure on the right, I’m not sure what that is. It almost looks like another modern depiction of Christ, but for all we know that could be St. Paul or St. Nicholas with the IFB-approved look as well.
 
I understand the mentality behind the monastic look, and simple spaces can be very beautiful if done well and can actually allow the important things to be accentuated. (I would argue the Crucifix and tabernacle ought to be two of those things, not weird, random artwork.) The problem with this parish isn’t just simplicity. It’s straight-up ugliness. There is nothing practical, sanitary, pleasant, or peaceful about brick walls. That intentionally-ugly rock of an altar is made of expensive marble and a simple, but traditional altar would have been cheaper and more practical. The twisted iron stations of the Cross were commissioned by an artist and weren’t cheap either. Whoever designed this parish was making a statement and it wasn’t “T’is a gift to be simple…” or “save the money to help the poor”. I’m suspecting something more like “True Christianity is about suffering” or “We live in a cruel, fallen world…the end.”
 
Usually, if you are going to criticize liturgical art, you have to have the skill to make something or the money in hand to replace it with something better.
 
There is an error in equating simplicity and minimalism with humility. Many modern trains of thought lead folks to express their reverence of God through the use of minimalist, banal, and even childlike art and architecture. This way of thinking is man-centered, implicitly stating that they don’t “need” ornate, beautiful, and yes - expensive artwork to draw them closer to God. But their effort is misplaced, as the true humility likes in the detailed crafting and alms giving necessary to give the proper glory to the Lord. One need only read the chapters from the book of Exodus, where God commands the creation of beautiful and ornate surroundings for proper worship.

One fools himself by thinking that symbols and discipline in a ritual space or practice “don’t matter,” as long as the “intent” is there.

Imagine the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier inscribed in Comic Sans font, and the ceremonial guard outfitted in jeans and a hoodie, carelessly pacing back and forth holding a nerf gun. Would we truly say that we were respecting the fallen man buried below?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top