When Statues Look Annoyed

Status
Not open for further replies.
My perception of DC for many of the years I lived there (at least until NE got a little safer in recent years and SE built the new baseball stadium) was basically a place was either in NW, or it was outside NW which meant it was in a dangerous neighborhood. I think the Shrine was one of the only places I ever went back then that wasn’t in NW.
 
Last edited:
On the other hand, the little town in the middle of nowhere made so much money off tourists coming to see that hot mess that they were able to fund a new retirement home for all the local elderly people.

God works in mysterious ways.

I do however like the original painting of that, pre-“restoration attempt”, and am hoping to get a poster of it at some point

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
I have a maybe silly question…

When I look at religious art that shows baby Jesus or babies in general all throughout the early and Middle Ages, even into the late Middle Ages, why are the babies heads too small? Were they never around babies to notice how their heads are unusually large for their bodies? It’s like they try to make them look like little men instead of babies! Anyone else bothered by it?

Check it out!
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
Actually, I just looked it up! It seems that artists purposely depicted babies as an homunculus…which means a miniaturized version of, in this case, man. I guess it was all the rage! Since most babies depicted WERE Jesus, they visualized him as a miniature man from birth and this didn’t change until the renaissance, even a bit after for some artists. Some even gave baby Jesus a receding hairline! Oh my! They often made his face to look like an old man. What were they thinking! Kids those days! 😂
 
I know this wasn’t intentional and may be due to the wear on the painting, or the lighting, but I’m more concerned about Mary appearing to have a five o’clock shadow than about her disproportionate child.
 
Last edited:
Your right! I hadn’t noticed that. I think it may just be staining…at least I sure hope so. I read nothing about the artists back then masculinity Mary or any females. Usually they depict Her as quite lovely for the time.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
I know this wasn’t intentional and may be due to the wear on the painting, or the lighting, but I’m more concerned about Mary appearing to have a five o’clock shadow than about her disproportionate child.
Click to expand...
And here I was having an opposite art appreciation. Like @aroosi I have long got the creeps from the scary Jesus at the National Shrine, but it wasn’t until viewing the image posted above (maybe it’s not as scary as the giant mosaic?) that I noticed:

Is He clean shaven? Or just a stubbly circle beard? What up with that?

❔❓❔ 🧔
 
The Infant of Prague is (in my opinion anyway) far more beautiful without the added vestments. The simplicity really is striking.
 
It is a different one (that I don’t know if its got a name) but Salvatore Mundi also fits the category of "“not very good art that I don’t want to have in my home or in my parish” to be polite.
 
We’ll have to agree to disagree then. I find “Salvatore Mundi” to be fascinating, and the technique of the bubble is awesome. I can see someone not liking it, but one can’t call it “Not very good art”. It’s masterful.

“Not very good art” is what I call things like disproportionate or kitschy statues, and a lot of the “modern” art that looks like it was created by preschoolers.
 
I use this painting of St. Paul for my avatar. I appreciate his slight smirk as I imagine him listening to some nonsense objection from some Thessalonian before he utterly demolishes it as he reasons with them about the Scriptures.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top