When Statues Look Annoyed

Status
Not open for further replies.
aroosi said:
I really was surprised at the Jesus expression at the National Basilica in DC. He looks so angry!
Click to expand...
Ah yes! I always get a good chuckle every time I see that!

The National Basilica is beautiful and there’s a lot of great artwork there, but that probably wasn’t the most well-done piece of art.
 
LOL! I don’t have an explanation. But I do frequently encounter That Annoyed Look in religious paintings and icons, as well. I like your idea to use them as motivation to pray for difficult people. It calls to minds Mother Theresa’s maxim that God puts some people into your life as blessings and others as lessons (to pray for).

By the way, irritated art subjects are fun to caption . . . and excellent fodder for our perpetual Catholic Memes thread.

(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.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
This is a Madonna and Child that I find really creepy. I think the hands of Mary are almost like claws.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
CTBcin said:
May God forgive me for saying this, but the depiction of Our Lady of Fatima has always creeped me out a little bit. It’s something to do with her facial expression, but I’ve never been able to p(name removed by moderator)oint it.
Click to expand...
I’m not even sure what the actual Our Lady of Fatima statue looks like. The “official” statue is apparently not allowed to be reproduced, so the ones we see in shops, other churches and maybe even on tour look different from the one at Fatima, which you really can’t see all that well unless you somehow get right on top of it because it’s small and under glass and usually surrounded by crowds.

Anyway, St. Jacinta and Sister Lucia said that the image that looked most like the Fatima apparition was actually Our Lady of Sameiro, a statue from the 19th century blessed by Pope Pius IX and installed at an 18th-century shrine in Portugal which was the country’s biggest Marian shrine till Fatima came along.

https://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/G011_Sameira.htm
 
Last edited:
That bald Mary is creepy looking to us now, but in her time that’s what beautiful women looked like. I think they may have even shaved their hairlines to get that look.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
I’m not even sure what the actual Our Lady of Fatima statue looks like. The “official” statue is apparently not allowed to be reproduced, so the ones we see in shops, other churches and maybe even on tour look different from the one at Fatima, which you really can’t see all that well unless you somehow get right on top of it because it’s small and under glass and usually surrounded by crowds.

Anyway, St. Jacinta and Sister Lucia said that the image that looked most like the Fatima apparition was actually Our Lady of Sameiro, a statue from the 19th century blessed by Pope Pius IX and installed at an 18th-century shrine in Portugal which was the country’s biggest Marian shrine till Fatima came along.
Click to expand...
Very interesting info! I really like the depiction of Our Lady of Sameiro.
 
QuillWriter said:
I don’t recall that I’ve ever seen any statues or artwork look annoyed, but I have seen some where it looked liked Jesus or the saints were strung out on drugs.
Click to expand...
How would a statue look like the person represented was strung out on drugs?
 
Looks like He is furrowing his brows while raising His left in question…
 
My dad has a statue of Jesus being crowned with thorns. Unfortunately, Jesus looks really disappointed instead of pained. My dad thought it was the funniest thing in the world to put it on my shelf, so it looked like he’s looking down at me with disappointment.

Wish I had a picture, lol
 
I used to enjoy joining groups where people would share these kinds of kitschy or just sort of “off” pieces of holy “art”.
Unfortunately, they all seem to attract a lot of haters and atheists and quickly cross the bridge into nasty memes and very obvious disrespect, and those who complain get mocked themselves and thrown out.
 
Last edited:
I attend mass and volunteer at the Shrine regularly.

The Director of Liturgy once referred to the mosaic as “Christ in Majesty”. Some laity have been known to refer to it as “Angry Jesus”.

The Shrine’s aesthetic appeal - and public perception of it - is rather interesting. Everyone talks about how beautiful it is, but not everyone feels that way. I’ve spent a lot of time trying to reckon the divide. i think, if you really look at it on the whole - the immense size of the Shrine and the fact that is built of solid stone seems to be what make it so impressive.

Stylistically, it seems to help if you understand a few things. The Shrine was constructed in stages over a long period of time, and it was technically only completed about two years ago, when they finished the central dome, which is really beautiful. But the problem seems to have been- during all this time the church was in a state of flux; and, yet, the mission of the Basilica, which is intended to facilitate a universal audience, uses a “Neo-Byzantine-Romanesque” style to host a wide array of international and provincial chapels.

The modern aesthetic solution to supporting such a wide variety of cultural styles would have been to establish a neutral, even minimalist, environment, which would not aesthetically “compete” with such a diverse set of cultures. You can see this, for instance, if you go to buy jewelry, which is best set against a light gray background to make it stand out. I’m not sure how “Neo-Byzantine-Romanesque” (which sounds and looks like an oxymoron) was chosen, but the main theme of the church is our “universal call to holiness”, so I imagine it probably had something to do with reconciling a divide between eastern and western cultures, preserving original iconic styles, and so on. Also, it might help to bear in mind, the Shrine was built over the course of the 20th century, when a lot of art was very much in a state of flux - the “strict” TLM was changing to the “lovely” Novus Ordo style of liturgy, technologies were changing, and as a construction project the Shrine was a huge, long, costly feat.

As laity, there is virtually nothing we could do to change the way it looks; and, even if we could, there’s always going to be someone who wouldn’t want to change it because they think it shouldn’t be changed. So - whatever the case - we can’t judge by appearances in this instance, and our posture must be one of acceptance.

There are some parts of the Shrine I really love, but - that said - I can understand your point of view.
 
Last edited:
I frankly find the Jesus in that shrine to look not only disgruntled, but also overly Nordic and like he has been lifting at the bodybuilder’s gym for 20 years. However, as you noted there are so many styles of religious art and so many statues, Marys etc represented in that shrine that it’s easy to find things you like as well as things that make you go hmmm.

It’s a different take on Jesus, that’s for sure. A very manly Jesus.
 
Last edited:
Part of it probably has to do with DC, too.

If you go to the Shrine, which is on the South side of DC, the people are more conservative - and a bit grumpier… although they have a great follow through on commitments…

If you go over to Georgetown , which is on the North side of DC, the chapel there is very beautiful and very welcoming - and the people are kind of friendlier… but they are all hard to reach and kind of into their own thing…

I think, when they were designing “Angry Jeeus”, or “Christ In Majesty” - or however one perceives it… There might have been a conservative tendency toward old traditions, while the “universal call to holiness” was a prominent Vatican 2 theme, which seems more on the liberal side…

Personally, yeah, I think Jesus was probably a very consoling and lively guy… not sure he cared much about working out… but - anyway…

When I saw the title to your thread, I laughed… my first thought was, “when statues look annoyed… maybe it’s time to find a better sculptor…”

Depends on how bad he needs the work, I guess… 🙂
 
Last edited:
Wm777 said:
If you go to the Shrine, which is on the South side of DC, the people are more conservative - and a bit grumpier… although they have a great follow through on commitments…
Click to expand...
While the people who go to the National Shrine are fairly conservative, it’s not on the South side of DC. It’s in NE, the Northeast quadrant. Georgetown is in the NW quadrant, which currently is the wealthy and mostly white area of DC (wasn’t always the case, but is now).
 
Last edited:
Some combination of how it was carved and painted, I guess. Don’t ask me. I’m 99.9% positive that the artist was going for sorrow, but it looked less sorrowful and more drugged to me.
 
My own dad never did this (at least not with anything religious - he sure enjoyed making fun of every rock singer or TV actor I had a crush on though), but my father-in-law was the KING of it. His sons were doing the same humor even before they had kids. In fact, my husband never had kids and still engaged in “Dad humor” constantly.
One misses it a bit after they are gone. While it’s going on, not so much.
 
Last edited:
Actually, you’re right about the location… The Shrine is in NE… Dunno why I got it messed up… I go to both places (Georgetown and the Shrine) regularly, so I should know better… :roll_eyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top