Does this Church artwork seem odd to anyone else and well not very Catholic
#11
Is it me or does the first picture look like Our Lady is doing yoga?
Reply
#12
(03-01-2017, 08:12 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: KWIM?
I had to look that up to find out what that meant.

(03-01-2017, 09:56 PM)Dominicus Wrote: I also am not a big fan of the modernish church, its nice for what its been given but it just looks very protestant in my opinion and I come from a protestant background.

It does in part it is because it is so empty other than what is in the picture is 2 votive candle sets, a bigger divine mercy image the small one was replaced, a statue,  two flags (Vatican city and American), and stations of the cross spread out maybe 15 feet from each other. It is a vast room with 30(?) foot high ceilings without anything just space until the very top where there is stained glass. The building it's self is huge and can easily fit 400 people (there was somewhere near 350 today and with many empty seats) without adding an extra row of seating or filling the cry room/church hall (an extra 50+.) They are also planning to have concerts there but that will be after I leave.
 
(03-01-2017, 08:12 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: I don't see anything wrong with the painting at all in terms of theology and Mariology and what not. It's perfectly in line with other depictions of the Assumption.

Have you been able to find any like this one? I couldn't find one like this of the Assumption they all seem to have clouds and her standing, The only ones of this position was the goddess Luna and of fairies, but apparently atheists call God a "sky fairy" which I did not know about.
Reply
#13
Other than being a little amateurish, I think what throws it off is that it mixes a few traditional points of imagery in an unusual way.  For example, the 12 stars go around the border of the image--like on the back of the miraculous medal (with the cross and M)--rather than around Mary's head like a crown like you usually see when her image is there.  You also have an Assumption style pose with a more Queen of the Universe style background. 
Reply
#14
(03-01-2017, 08:12 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: I don't see anything wrong with the painting at all in terms of theology and Mariology and what not. It's perfectly in line with other depictions of the Assumption. It's not to my taste, though (which, of course, doesn't make it "wrong").

A Google search for "painting assumption" shows a lot of paintings - and almost all of them have Mary being taken up to heaven by angels. I think that's what looks so weird about the one in this thread and makes it look more like a pagan goddess. Jesus ascended into heaven, under his own power, as He is God. Mary, who isn't God, was assumed. True, God didn't have to use angels to do so, but since it's a painting, it's a good way to depict God's power, showing angels or a cloud.
Reply
#15
That is very disrespectful of Our Lady.  It makes her look like a witch on a broomstick  :(
Reply
#16
(03-02-2017, 10:43 AM)Paul Wrote: A Google search for "painting assumption" shows a lot of paintings - and almost all of them have Mary being taken up to heaven by angels. I think that's what looks so weird about the one in this thread and makes it look more like a pagan goddess. Jesus ascended into heaven, under his own power, as He is God. Mary, who isn't God, was assumed. True, God didn't have to use angels to do so, but since it's a painting, it's a good way to depict God's power, showing angels or a cloud.

I've found lots of paintings of the Assumption without angels, and some without clouds. The painting in the original post shows Our Lady with a light around her; I think that that is what's supposed to be depicting the power of God.

Like I said earlier, that painting isn't my style at all, but I think people are being a tad harsh about it.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)