FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Controversial crucifix creates rift at Warr Acres,OK church
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
(04-20-2010, 08:16 PM)Miquelot Wrote: [ -> ]I saw a link on this forum to an article about a documentary, The Rape of the Soul (about satanic imagery found in da Vinci, Dürer, El Greco, etc.), that had me scratching my head:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49435

A mostly worthless "documentary" in which someone with a few legitimate gripes about modern art goes nutso over some difficulty with an Archdioscesan chancery. If it were free, watch it, perhaps. Otherwise, don't waste a dime of your money.

The few good points:
  • [o] Beginning in early Renaissance art, there is an increased number of "artists" who are following the "Art for Art's sake" approach. This means art focus less on the religious aspect and more on the "interpreter's point of view".
    [o] An increasing number of artists were taking commissions and while Catholic in name, were workings against the Church in their art.
    [o] There is an increasing sexualization in art, with various figures depicted in sexual acts within religious art. Some seem so obvious that they must be intentional.
    [o] Leonardo was a known homosexual and probably a pedophile. His feminine depictions of some younger characters like St. John in the "Last Supper" or St. John the Baptist come from his fascination with adolescent boys. The portrait of St. John the Baptist is a painting based on an erotic sketch of a naked adolescent boy who was very happy to see the artist, apparently.
    [o] There are increased mockeries of religious events, where figures are show looking away from the crucifixion, or quietly mocking the saint in question.
    [o] In more modern art there seem to be embedded text or images, often references of a sexual nature with some fold in cloth spelling a word or depicting some subtle image. Other times there are diabolical references. This is mostly is the art one started seeing in the 1950s and 1960s prayer books, but particularly often in the `70s, `80s and `90s Missalettes.
    [o] In architecture, the deliberate bookmatching of marble seems both out of place and intentionally done to create demonic-looking faces.

All of these are reasonable points for consideration, but the documentary makes huge stretches in trying to demonstrate these points and waists a great deal of time on some personal conflict the moviemaker had with the Archdioceses (of Toronto, if I'm not mistaken).
(04-20-2010, 11:06 PM)littlerose Wrote: [ -> ]Well, i.p.i.
all I have to say is that every artist learns in basic Painting 101 that you ALWAYS look at your painting from as long a distance as possible each time you work on it.  You are even supposed to use mirrors to make sure there are no unintended images. 

That she painted from four feet away is not a credible excuse for someone of her caliber. 

IMHO.

but not many artists can get 30 feet away from a painting in their studio, or hang a ten foot tall painting as high on their wall as it will be in the church where it's to go, with the same lighting the church has.  

the painter didn't make the excuse, either, her friend did, possibly without her knowledge or permission.  she has refused to talk to the media.  her husband says she is very upset about the controversy.

and i still can't see it as being more phallic than the original San Damiano crucifix or numerous similar icons.  so maybe the artist and the priest don't see anything wrong with it, either.  they're being forced to pacify a few whiners, i think.

p.s. if she painted from four feet away, she sure has long-handled brushes!   ;D
(her friend said she painted from about a foot away.)

(04-20-2010, 11:28 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-20-2010, 08:16 PM)Miquelot Wrote: [ -> ]I saw a link on this forum to an article about a documentary, The Rape of the Soul (about satanic imagery found in da Vinci, Dürer, El Greco, etc.), that had me scratching my head:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49435

A mostly worthless "documentary" in which someone with a few legitimate gripes about modern art goes nutso over some difficulty with an Archdioscesan chancery. If it were free, watch it, perhaps. Otherwise, don't waste a dime of your money.

The few good points:
  • [o] Beginning in early Renaissance art, there is an increased number of "artists" who are following the "Art for Art's sake" approach. This means art focus less on the religious aspect and more on the "interpreter's point of view".
    [o] An increasing number of artists were taking commissions and while Catholic in name, were workings against the Church in their art.
    [o] There is an increasing sexualization in art, with various figures depicted in sexual acts within religious art. Some seem so obvious that they must be intentional.
    [o] Leonardo was a known homosexual and probably a pedophile. His feminine depictions of some younger characters like St. John in the "Last Supper" or St. John the Baptist come from his fascination with adolescent boys. The portrait of St. John the Baptist is a painting based on an erotic sketch of a naked adolescent boy who was very happy to see the artist, apparently.
    [o] There are increased mockeries of religious events, where figures are show looking away from the crucifixion, or quietly mocking the saint in question.
    [o] In more modern art there seem to be embedded text or images, often references of a sexual nature with some fold in cloth spelling a word or depicting some subtle image. Other times there are diabolical references. This is mostly is the art one started seeing in the 1950s and 1960s prayer books, but particularly often in the `70s, `80s and `90s Missalettes.
    [o] In architecture, the deliberate bookmatching of marble seems both out of place and intentionally done to create demonic-looking faces.

All of these are reasonable points for consideration, but the documentary makes huge stretches in trying to demonstrate these points and waists a great deal of time on some personal conflict the moviemaker had with the Archdioceses (of Toronto, if I'm not mistaken).

You write, "An increasing number of artists were taking commissions and while Catholic in name, were workings against the Church in their art."  Can you recommend a better source than Rape of the Soul, a more sober-minded book perhaps?  I do not mean to be quarrelsome, but I find even some of what you write to be a stretch, with all due respect.  (Da Vinci a pedophile, for instance, among other things.)  But if you point me to some other sources, I would be interested in investigating.  

i don't think there's any concrete evidence that Leonardo was homosexual, although the "all great men were gay" crowd has always tried to claim him.  if he was homosexual and he preferred adolescents, it was ephebophilia, not pedophilia, which is sexual preference for prepubescent children.  but Leonardo drew all sorts of people, including beautiful women, the very old, the dead, a fetus in utero, dissected bodies, etc.
Funny how people can see Jesus on a cement wall and see a penis on an icon of Jesus.

I do however believe the artist needs to add some more horizonal lines onto the ab area, this would help people to unsee the penis.

Once you see it you can't stop seeing it. I wouldn't be able to attend mass there until it is changed. It would be too distracting.

I doubt it was intentional, but it was sloppy work, and should be fixed. I wonder if the Priest likes it? I saw his picture on the web and he doesn't look too tradition friendly, so my guess is he won't have the artist change it.

One should remember that phallic worship is an ancient vice and so I would hate to have it subconsciously promoted in a Catholic Church.
(04-20-2010, 11:39 PM)i.p.i. Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-20-2010, 11:06 PM)littlerose Wrote: [ -> ]Well, i.p.i.
all I have to say is that every artist learns in basic Painting 101 that you ALWAYS look at your painting from as long a distance as possible each time you work on it.  You are even supposed to use mirrors to make sure there are no unintended images. 

That she painted from four feet away is not a credible excuse for someone of her caliber. 

IMHO.

but not many artists can get 30 feet away from a painting in their studio, or hang a ten foot tall painting as high on their wall as it will be in the church where it's to go, with the same lighting the church has.  

the painter didn't make the excuse, either, her friend did, possibly without her knowledge or permission.  she has refused to talk to the media.  her husband says she is very upset about the controversy.

and i still can't see it as being more phallic than the original San Damiano crucifix or numerous similar icons.  so maybe the artist and the priest don't see anything wrong with it, either.  they're being forced to pacify a few whiners, i think.

p.s. if she painted from four feet away, she sure has long-handled brushes!   ;D
(her friend said she painted from about a foot away.)

Unless she is a midget, her arm is at least two feet long and a painting that size should include long-handled brushes.  An artist normally  stands or uses a stool and periodically gets up and steps back from the canvas. It is physically impossible to lay out the lines of a painting that big and not stand at some distance from it from time to time. The eyes cannot see the entire field unless you step back and the rest of the proportions would be ridivculously distorted if she never stood back from it. That is why I said "four feet" even though I was misquoting, i was conflating my own knowledge with the quote.  A foot away is  impossible for anything  bigger than a very small sketch..
Get your minds out of the gutter, people! If that was our Lord's penis, it would be circumcised! It's not, so it can't be.
(04-20-2010, 11:54 PM)i.p.i. Wrote: [ -> ]i don't think there's any concrete evidence that Leonardo was homosexual, although the "all great men were gay" crowd has always tried to claim him.  if he was homosexual and he preferred adolescents, it was ephebophilia, not pedophilia, which is sexual preference for prepubescent children.  but Leonardo drew all sorts of people, including beautiful women, the very old, the dead, a fetus in utero, dissected bodies, etc.

The argument is more an academic one, and really not too important in the grand scheme, but it seem undeniable that there are at least fairly concrete facts suggesting Leonardo was homosexual, or as Lord Clark said, a passive homosexual (not publicly flamboyant). It should be enough to say that Leonardo was arrested and imprisoned for sodomy (though charges were dropped due to lack of witnesses), and was known to have many male liasons and few females.

The two pictures I was thinking of are St. John the Baptist (which is an oil painting with a fairly feminine-looking figure in a animal hide with long curly brown hair, an odd smile and a finger pointing upward. Nearly the exact same portrait exists in Leonardo's sketchbooks in charcoal, called "The Incarnate Angel." The figure is clearly the same (or at least the model for each was the same), except the latter has his hand on the opposite side, pointing upward and is sans tunic showing a massive erection, and not a stylized "maybe it's just a poorly drawn abdomen that could use a few more horizontal lines" image ... no ... it's manifestly clear what it actually is.

Terminology aside, it's pretty clear that Leonardo was most certainly no painting and directing his artwork to the glory of God, but to the glory of man, and himself in particular. Perhaps it is that, but I think also in looking at his art, I wonder why he is such a name, because honestly I don't find his artwork at all impressive or really as noteworthy as so many make it out to be.

To be honest, it really doesn't matter whether he was a pervert or not. His art really doesn't represent good Christian art.
(04-21-2010, 02:39 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-20-2010, 11:54 PM)i.p.i. Wrote: [ -> ]i don't think there's any concrete evidence that Leonardo was homosexual, although the "all great men were gay" crowd has always tried to claim him.  if he was homosexual and he preferred adolescents, it was ephebophilia, not pedophilia, which is sexual preference for prepubescent children.  but Leonardo drew all sorts of people, including beautiful women, the very old, the dead, a fetus in utero, dissected bodies, etc.

The argument is more an academic one, and really not too important in the grand scheme, but it seem undeniable that there are at least fairly concrete facts suggesting Leonardo was homosexual, or as Lord Clark said, a passive homosexual (not publicly flamboyant). It should be enough to say that Leonardo was arrested and imprisoned for sodomy (though charges were dropped due to lack of witnesses), and was known to have many male liasons and few females.

The two pictures I was thinking of are St. John the Baptist (which is an oil painting with a fairly feminine-looking figure in a animal hide with long curly brown hair, an odd smile and a finger pointing upward. Nearly the exact same portrait exists in Leonardo's sketchbooks in charcoal, called "The Incarnate Angel." The figure is clearly the same (or at least the model for each was the same), except the latter has his hand on the opposite side, pointing upward and is sans tunic showing a massive erection, and not a stylized "maybe it's just a poorly drawn abdomen that could use a few more horizontal lines" image ... no ... it's manifestly clear what it actually is.

Terminology aside, it's pretty clear that Leonardo was most certainly no painting and directing his artwork to the glory of God, but to the glory of man, and himself in particular. Perhaps it is that, but I think also in looking at his art, I wonder why he is such a name, because honestly I don't find his artwork at all impressive or really as noteworthy as so many make it out to be.

To be honest, it really doesn't matter whether he was a pervert or not. His art really doesn't represent good Christian art.

DaVinci was painting just about when the intellectual world was first moving off  the Catholic foundation and onto the humanist one, and he was definitely one of the adventurers who went in that direction. I don't take the homosexual accusations too seriously because  he angered people but his skill kept him  in favor, and also art is a world in which men and women are more open to friendships and associations that can scandalize  even without there being any actual sexual contact.  Artists' models are always suspect but artists often sublimate so much of their sexual energy in their work that they are not nearly as active as people think.

Which does not excuse Leonardo but his occasional perversion was likely as part of that world and  he was not looking at the carnage of  centuries of humanism that we are looking at today . So he might  have still made it into a back door of Purgatory, at least.
AAAAAAAAH. Take it away!

If I were the pastor in question, I'd fire the artist and hire someone else to make an entirely new crucifix. Even if the original image was "corrected", I'd still see the penis there somehow, and I would really rather not.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6