Archbishop Commissions Homoerotic Mural For Cathedral
#11
Frankly I would much rather have him paint actual copulation, at least that's not always inherently sinful though obviously not something to paint a mural of. Once more this bishop completely missed the point, favoring writhing, homoerotic, orgy balls sans actual sex to the God given marital union. This is a perfect example of what is wrong with our cultures view of sex.
Reply
#12
(03-04-2017, 09:57 PM)Cyriacus Wrote: How significantly does this mural depart from historical norms in Catholic religious art? The consternation over the fact that a local androgynous-looking hairdresser was chosen to model the face of Christ strikes me as especially petty, considering that even great Renaissance artists routinely used prostitutes and others from the dregs of society as art models.

Ya, I see your point, but in our 'enlightened' society and in this seemingly 'modern' era, we have so many options at our fingertips. Surly they could have used a less vulgar, and obviously and perhaps even intentionally so, subject matter for the artist's models? After all, there is the issue of where it is to be displayed and in that venue. One would think we could certainly do better than this, we of the 'enlightened minds', er, so to speak.
Reply
#13
(03-05-2017, 04:09 PM)Zedta Wrote:
(03-04-2017, 09:57 PM)Cyriacus Wrote: How significantly does this mural depart from historical norms in Catholic religious art? The consternation over the fact that a local androgynous-looking hairdresser was chosen to model the face of Christ strikes me as especially petty, considering that even great Renaissance artists routinely used prostitutes and others from the dregs of society as art models.

Ya, I see your point, but in our 'enlightened' society and in this seemingly 'modern' era, we have so many options at our fingertips. Surly they could have used a less vulgar, and obviously and perhaps even intentionally so, subject matter for the artist's models? After all, there is the issue of where it is to be displayed and in that venue. One would think we could certainly do better than this, we of the 'enlightened minds', er, so to speak.

I'm not bothered by the fact that the model was a homosexual hairdresser; I'm bothered by the fact that the artist intentionally portrayed Christ as feminine. If the model had been a masculine and attractive (even if homosexual and/or a hairdresser), then fine; but the artist purposefully chose a model for his feminine appearance.

I remember some people getting bent out of shape because Mel Gibson used Monica Bellucci in the role of St. Mary Magdalene. They were bothered because she'd (apparently, I don't know) been in immoral movies before. To me, that sort of worry is silly. Art stands on its own. But if she'd portrayed the Magdalen as an unrepentant hussy, I'd have a problem with it. A big one. And it's that sort of thing that was done here. It's not the model/actor that's the problem; it's what they do with their roles that's the issue. Bellucci did a brilliant job; the hairdresser -- wrong choice to begin with.
 
Reply
#14
(03-04-2017, 09:57 PM)Cyriacus Wrote: How significantly does this mural depart from historical norms in Catholic religious art? The consternation over the fact that a local androgynous-looking hairdresser was chosen to model the face of Christ strikes me as especially petty, considering that even great Renaissance artists routinely used prostitutes and others from the dregs of society as art models.

The problem isn't who the purported artist is using to portray the "mural," but the body language and message that is being displayed by those painted figures.
Reply
#15
It looks as if what is at work here is a two step process, straight out of the old Soviet Union communist handbook of how to demoralise and weaken a people and their culture. It's deliberate and orchestrated. Get a high ranking prelate to do something outrageous, just enough to upset and annoy and confuse the people, in this case the Catholic faithful. But not too much mind, it's got to retain plausible deniability. Then after the offence, elevate this selfsame prelate to an office that, given its role, seems totally inappropriate considering the nature of the initial offence. Thereby confusing the people who begin to doubt their judgement. It is a very effective strategy as it allows the perpetrators to insult the people, upset and annoy them, confuse them and demoralise them.

Read George Orwell's "Animal Farm " to see the process.
Reply
#16
Is it just me or do some of the people in the nets appear to be trying to escape?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)