Controversial crucifix creates rift at Warr Acres,OK church
#51
(04-21-2010, 04:20 AM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote: 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.

I had to quit when Yosemite Sam showed up  :o

But you are so right, Harlie.  You know, if you look at the story around the original, it was Satanic because the story is that Saint Francis thought he was supposed to build a physical church and it was not completely because he realized he had misunderstood the Lord's wishes, that it was not to be a physical building up of the church but a revival. And who is the "author of confusion"?  The confusion was mild in the first instance, but certainly expanded today!
Reply
#52
(04-21-2010, 04:51 AM)littlerose Wrote:
(04-21-2010, 04:20 AM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote: 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.

I had to quit when Yosemite Sam showed up   :o

But you are so right, Harlie.  You know, if you look at the story around the original, it was Satanic because the story is that Saint Francis thought he was supposed to build a physical church and it was not completely because he realized he had misunderstood the Lord's wishes, that it was not to be a physical building up of the church but a revival. And who is the "author of confusion"?  The confusion was mild in the first instance, but certainly expanded today!

but in fact St. Francis rebuilt the church building so it could be used again and went on to found a new religious order that was revivalist, though i hate to use that word as it makes me think of Elmer Gantry.

i don't think Satan spoke to Francis through the San Damiano cross nor do i think Satan gave him the stigmata.

Reply
#53
(04-21-2010, 12:36 AM)DarkKnight Wrote: 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.

excellent point!  Jesus was circumcised.  i do not believe the artist was trying to suggest a penis at all.  if she wanted to do so subversively, she could have suggested a penis under the loincloth.

you reminded me of something funny.  we used to take groups of college students to Italy for a crash course in art history, mostly of the Italian Renaissance and International Gothic periods.  we stayed in Florence and made day trips to Siena and other cities and an overnight trip to Rome.

the first year we did this, a Jewish South African student who had been traveling around Europe alone for a year was staying in our pensionato and often tagged along with our group, happy to be with people who spoke English. (it probably didn't hurt that most of the students were girls, either.) 

one day he went to the Accademia, where the David and many of Michelangelo's other sculptures are on exhibit.  when he got back, he came into the lobby area where a few of us were sitting and asked "Tell me, professor, wasn't David supposed to be Jewish?" 

there was a pause while we processed this information and then a couple of us burst out laughing.  Michelangelo's "David" is, of course, not circumcised but we had never thought about the contradiction with Judaism.  another year, a Jewish faculty couple went with the group and we told them the story, to which she said that was the first thing she noticed when she saw the statue.  of course, her sons were circumcised in a bris, which would stand out in your mind like a christening.

Reply
#54
The fact that David is uncircumcised is noted by many (it is a famous attribute of the work). Its small size is also famous.

However, when viewed at a proper angle, the entire sculpture is almost a perfect resemblence of a man in fear (hence, the shrinkage). Its proportions (when measured, it isn't really visible) being off are most likely intentional because it was probably intended to be very high, so people would look up at it, so its distortions were designed to make it look proper from that angle.

Its lack of circumcision was a common artistic license at that time.
Reply
#55
(04-20-2010, 04:00 PM)crusaderfortruth3372 Wrote: Also what was with thisHuh? Anyone know??
[Image: skull.jpg]

Is it supposed to refer to Golgotha, meaning "place of the skull"?  That would be my guess.  The ministers are wearing red vestments, so I'm guessing this is a Good Friday service. 
Huh?
Reply
#56
(04-21-2010, 10:14 AM)Herr_Mannelig Wrote: Its small size is also famous.

really?  I was kinda hoping that was a completely normal size.  Embarrassed
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)