How much is too much?

[ChiRho]

Artistic freedom.

When do we draw the line and say "whooa" you have gone a bit too far? Does anyone else think that Jesus is wearing thong underwear? :eek: I hope that this is not just me...really I do. :scratch: :confused:

http://www.fishersofmen.org/Visinfo/img6.jpg

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

[Phoebe]

That sculpture looks silly. Fig leaves would have been much better. (or the traditional loin cloth)
Yeah, I think that's going a bit far.

[ChiRho]

I know what you mean! Every once in a while the young girl who works at night in my gym, will leave her Victoria Secret magazines on the desk. As I was surfin the net this morning, checkin out LCMS churches near ZeroTx, reading what they believed and I stumbled upon this picture...on a LCMS site!! I was awestruck for a second, as I realized that Jesus and the cover model from Victoria Secret evidentally have similiar preference in thong underwear!!! :eek: :eek: ^_^

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

[Rechtgläubig]

Haha Chirho!

[Rechtgläubig]

On our synod's web page someone posted this...

http://www.wels.net/s3/site/images/faith.jpg
I AM SAVED


http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?faith/faith
Someone emailed them a complaint because of the Harley symbol LOL. The point was that Christ accepts all sinners. Unfortunatly, they may fold under pressure and revert to their original picture...



http://hometown.aol.com/chrift/images/churchlady.jpg
Well, isn't that special




(j/k about the last part :D )

[Flipper]

I took an art appreciation course taught at Concordia University-Wisconsin (St. Louis satellite center), and was basically taught that if it invokes any kind of emotion, even negative, it's art. The question should not be whether or not it is art, but whether it is appropriate for the setting it is being showed in. That's where it is controversial because there is such a huge gray area in deciding what is appropriate or not.

I like the "I am saved" picture.

[ChiRho]

I took an art appreciation course taught at Concordia University-Wisconsin (St. Louis satellite center), and was basically taught that if it invokes any kind of emotion, even negative, it's art. The question should not be whether or not it is art, but whether it is appropriate for the setting it is being showed in. That's where it is controversial because there is such a huge gray area in deciding what is appropriate or not.

I like the "I am saved" picture.

Well, I guess I should have been more clear with my question. I wasnt asking whether it is art or not, but if it was appropriate. That is what I meant by "Artistic Freedom" and when I asked if the liberty had been taken too far, considering the subject. I think that a cross-dressing Jesus on a cross, crosses the line of inappropriate. There, plainly stated with all my "i's" dotted and my "t's" crossed! I am weird....(I know, what is the point of speaking that which is obvious in silence!)

Time to stop writing for a while.

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

[nyj]

The Crucifixion was a central focus in several paintings by Salvador Dali. The one you have shown (in part, that is not the entire painting) is "Crucifixion (Corpus Hypercubus)". Also, as you can see, I don't think Jesus is wearing a thong, it's a loin-cloth.

http://www.epdlp.com/fotos/dali2.jpg

However, I am more drawn to Dali's other, more famous, rendering of the Crucifixion entitled "Christ of St. John of the Cross".

http://www.revilo-oliver.com/Kevin-Strom-personal/Art/Dali_ChristofStJohnoftheCross1951.JPG

[ChiRho]

The Crucifixion was a central focus in several paintings by Salvador Dali. The one you have shown (in part, that is not the entire painting) is "Crucifixion (Corpus Hypercubus)". Also, as you can see, I don't think Jesus is wearing a thong, it's a loin-cloth.

http://www.epdlp.com/fotos/dali2.jpg

However, I am more drawn to Dali's other, more famous, rendering of the Crucifixion entitled "Christ of St. John of the Cross".

http://www.revilo-oliver.com/Kevin-Strom-personal/Art/Dali_ChristofStJohnoftheCross1951.JPG


Ah! Nyj to save the day! Thanks for the info. I checked out the paintings, and must admit very strange, but very well done. Dali is the painter of the melting clocks...I think. Anyway, I still think that Jesus, in what appears to be a thong, is bad taste. The second one I like very much more, but still appears strange. Maybe you could explain some of the symbolism.

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

[JMRE5150]

deleted my thread...I had to mod myself. My responses were not appropriate.

[KennySe]

No nails, no crown of thorns, and blocks of wood in his body.

Not my kind of art. Sorry, Dali fans.

[ChiRho]

deleted my thread...I had to mod myself. My responses were not appropriate.

Wow. That was the fastest retraction I have ever seen! You pulled a Melanchthon! Just kiddin' bro!

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

[nyj]

The meaning of Salvador Dali's "Corpus Hypercubus" is interesting, and quite appropriate. If you notice, the cross is drawn in what is called a "4D polytope" (attempting to convey 4 dimensions). You have Jesus crucified on the "central plane", and the cross extends outwards (towards Mary) and inwards (towards another land). It is meant to convey that Jesus died not only for what was His time, but for those who came before Him, and those who came after Him. The Crucifix is a door, one side of which is shown to Mary, and Jesus blocks/is that door. Those who wish to pass through to the afterlife must go through Him.

[nyj]

Kenny, the fact that no nails are present (in either of the two paintings shown) is meant to signify that Jesus voluntarily went to the cross and stayed there of His own will, to die for our salvation.

[ChiRho]

The Crucifix is a door, one side of which is shown to Mary, and Jesus blocks/is that door.

Got everything but this.

I still hate the thong, and I am not sure that all of that jumps off the page and is easily understood by those viewing the painting. Did you understand all of that from just observing, or did you read it?

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

[ChiRho]

Kenny, the fact that no nails are present (in either of the two paintings shown) is meant to signify that Jesus voluntarily went to the cross and stayed there of His own will, to die for our salvation.

Does attempt to this rewrite the reality that was? Because Christ was nailed, does that mean that it wasnt His choice?

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

[nyj]

I still hate the thong, and I am not sure that all of that jumps off the page and is easily understood by those viewing the painting. Did you understand all of that from just observing, or did you read it?
No, I took an art history course in college, and I happen to particularly like Salvador Dali. At least, with Dali, he stays relatively consistent with his images so once you learn what he means to represent, you can see it in his other paintings as well. It's sort of like iconographers in Orthodoxy, though I hate to make that comparison. Each particular color, symbol, stance has its own meaning, and once you see it and understand it's meaning, it'll have that same meaning in every other icon you ever see. The trick is finding out what it means in the first place.

[nyj]

Does attempt to this rewrite the reality that was? Because Christ was nailed, does that mean that it wasnt His choice?

No, it's merely symbolism. The Gospel accounts are a written record covering extended periods of time, Dali's canvas however can really only reflect one moment. However, through the use of symbolism, Dali can convey multiple aspects of the Gospel. Jesus did go to the cross freely, and I think that is what Dali is trying to convey here.

[Flipper]

Sorry, posted without thinking - re-read the OP.

I've seen much worse, awful, disparaging, displays of the crucifixion than this one.