Open Thread: Are You Offended?
November 9, 2008 by iMonk
Here’s an issue that’s bound to have come up in some of your settings, especially if you’ve ever been in an art class or used Biblical art as illustration.
Look at this painting of Adam and Eve. (Titian, later Reubens.) It’s a very common illustration of the Adam and Eve story.
Are you offended? Why or why not?
Would you show this painting to your congregation (including children and young people) or Bible class as an illustration? Explain.
If someone said this was offensive to them as a illustration, what would you do?
Back to your original questions:
1) Does this offend me? Not in the slightest. I can’t even imagine who could be offended by it.
2) Would I show this in church? I wouldn’t hesitate. I can’t guarantee that it wouldn’t be offensive to someone in my church.
3) What about children? I wouldn’t hesitate to show it to my own children . . . not for a second. I may not show it to other people’s children, especially if they were Evangelicals, just to avoid offending someone else, or giving them cannon fodder—to come after me with pitch forks and torches. Actually I think this (this one was by Titian in 1550) is beautiful and does not use the idealized human form of the Greeks . . . or of Hollywood. I can say to my kids, “Hey, this is what NORMAL adult, nakedness looks like!
I see a great point here (and maybe this one part of Michael’s question) is that in no way is this painting sexual to me . . . even if their genitals were fully exposed (Ruben removed the leaves from Adam in his copy in 1628). We must find a way to separate the beauty of the human body, which God has made good . . . yet without the naivety of thinking I could look at sexually explicit material without stumbling. We must also be able to appreciate good art.
If someone said they were offend, I would try to understand why but explain my view. It seems to me that it would be an unhealthy view of Creator Vs Creation (from the Dualistic view) that physical or soma is inferior, or perhaps evil, when compared to the spiritual.
I like how normal Adam and Eve are depicted. Modern “art” is so much like that of the ancient Greeks, where statues of the gods were given a physical beauty which would be anatomically impossible for mere mortals. Marble chisels have since been replaced with air brushes. These figures are wrinkled and a little pudgey. No make-up; no plastic surgery. We can see ourselves in these images of Adam and Eve in more ways than we care to admit – not gods but fallen, broken creatures destine for ashes and dust.
But I’m not convinced realism benefits Christian art. Byzantine icons included only those details needed to convey meaning and a make divine connection, rather than merely conjure a sensual response. Michaelangelo’s realism may have been revolutionary for his time, but it may also have been a step back toward Greco-Roman standards, where the gods were created in man’s image.
But I don’t believe in placing rigid standards on art, like Hitler wanted.
I read about half of the entries and quik scanned the rest…
Does no one see that the crux of the question is developmental appropriateness…perhaps more clearly, Christian developmental appropriateness in a Christian setting…
could the art value be served with other art?
does the art offend the viewer? (read youngest of heart)
Does this approach “millstone around the neck” territory?
Do European sensibilities influence when there has been wholesale rejection of Christianity?
Do questions produce answers?
Are you a covenant school or an evangelistic school?
Does your Christ-centered community matter more than closing your door and teaching with your set of convictions, controversy or offense be dismissed to the cause of intellectual honesty?
Finally, the image may be offensive to a small minority but the conversation, which is needed in a porn-influenced culture, needs to happen and can more apppropriately happen without the insistent power of the image. Too many of us dismiss the power of the image, perhaps to the degree of running aground in cultural idolatry.
FWIW, I’m not actually offended that Titian painted Adam and Eve as white – although even then he must have been aware of physical differences between Europeans and Middle Easterners; if he had really wanted to be realistic, he could have at least given them dark hair and darker complexions. But obviously, there were motives other than realism at work.
OTOH, what I do think is offensive is the fact that Christians haven’t produced artwork which reflects a more accurate understanding of God’s creation that doesn’t privilege Europeans over everyone else. Given how intertwined racism and Christian thought has been at points in the not-too-distant past, continuing to use these sorts of paintings as standard Christian artwork is problematic, I think. Not that they shouldn’t be used at all or be appreciated as part of our cultural heritage. But the simple fact is that images are powerful and the uniform presentation of religious characters as European was not without effect. And that effect lingers to this day. Heck, even Mel Gibson, who didn’t shy away from extreme realism with his portrayal of the crucifixion, couldn’t manage to put some one who actually looked middle eastern into the role of Jesus.
So, I guess that my issue is simply that when I look at these very Euro-centric images, I know that for most of the world they are the only portrayals of religious figures that exist. And I find the effect of that reality noxious. It is really that effect which I consider offensive rather than the painting itself.
dumb ox, I think you nailed a serious, serious problem with this socio-moral thing we’re trying to live off of that we call “Christian faith”. You said:
“But I’m not convinced realism benefits Christian art.”
In any creative context, I’m not convinced that realism benefits Christianity. In fact, the more exactingly we depict one thing or another, the more at odds it is with one convention of exegesis or another.
What is it about reality that seems so decisively Un-Christian to most of us?
I was with a person the other day that was offended by the statue ‘David”, which I found offensive. (Not David, but that it somehow offended) You guys are deep and that is great. Viewing and having a meaningful conversation of Art is all but lost these days it seems. While there are many discrepancies in traditional art, and the blending of religion and secular types in most classical art, there is still a profound message in most of them. Let art be art, enjoy it for what it is.
“The female form- drawn, photographed, encountered, remembered, seen in a Sears catalog or in a choir robe- has erotic possibilities for any heterosexual male. GOD wired us with the sexual chemistry to be attracted to one another. The existence of the feminine or masculine body is GOD’S idea. The eyes to see it, and the mind to consider it are his idea. The biochemical response is his idea. … The lustful, sinful possibilities are our idea. We can’t put the world under a Burka. Be renewed by the transforming of your mind and all that. … If ever the law was powerless to stop a thing, it’s lust. I never read the NT telling us that lust is a matter of staying away from the feminine form.” – iMonk
These were very helpful thoughts. Humorously witty.
It seems the discussion will have to revolve around two things to be productive: 1) the definition lust (biblically), and 2) subjective judgments of discernment about the propriety of certain artistic depictions (i.e. distinguishing between porn and art).
These are not easy questions … but the category of “lust” is definitely too broad in most people’s minds, yet definitions seem inadequate to comprehend all notions of porneia (the biblical term for sexual immorality). Desiring sexual relations with another woman is natural and God-given impulse. … So … Lust = coveting someone who is not and could not be lawfully yours? Desiring sexual relations to occur outside the context of marriage? … ? … ? … ? Does this definition easily account for the moral unacceptability of a penthouse magazine?
Q: If God created us naked, and there is nothing wrong with our bodies uncovered in art, why would nakedness in general be wrong or improper? (of course … I have an answer to this question, but I’m curious how you might answer it)
Bradley
You know, in Western art, virtue and innocence are usually represented by nude figures, while Vice is almost always fully clothed…
Late to this discussion, but the only ‘offence’ I could possibly imagine feeling was that nailed by Christina in the first comment.
I’m wondering what the discussion was that inspired this entry (had a quick look at themasterstable, which, incidentally, I can’t help but read as ‘the master stable’)?
The painting at http://themasterstable.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/adam-and-eve.jpg is beautiful—yet deadly chilling. ‘Offence’ doesn’t come into it, and if anyone said they were offended I’d ask them what *their* problem is.
Just the fact that anyone might be offended by that picture shows how out of whack our values and sensibilities are in America. We can watch someone’s head explode on prime time tv on any given night, but don’t show a boob or a butt! Give me a break!
All of us are influenced by our cultural upbringing in ways that are difficult to notice. Culture is like the fish in water who is not aware of the water. We are not aware of the culture in which we live, but we live under an ocean of culture.
Our current culture is less offended by portrayals of nudity in certain types of art than in some previous decades. Middle Eastern & some of the Indian cultures are currently more offended than us by portrayals of nudity. Some of the European cultures and Japanese culture are much less offended by portrayals of nudity.
I wish I could tell you with surety where God’s line is. I can only answer with St. Paul’s comment that whatever is not of faith is not of God.
With regard to human relationships, I can also say that I will try to not offend my weaker brother. If I live in a culture that is more likely to take offense, I would try not to give offense. If I live in a culture that takes less offense, I would be more likely to use such illustrations.
Nevertheless, there are Pharisees who will quickly take offense and attempt to use their offense as the club to beat you into submission to their rules. Those Pharisees are best ignored. The problem is that it is a judgment call as to who is being a Pharisee and who is the weaker brother.
Ami Offended by this? No, not really.
Would I show it in church? No..I don’t think it would be worth the fight. Showing it would force a confrontation and argument that would accomplish little but create hard feelings. It’s a periphial topic, not something I’m willing to divide the church over.
“But we can’t blame art- and ban art- because of what’s going on in my head and body.”
This sums up my feeling on all those “anti-rock evangelists” out there. The people that think a type of music, not the lyrics the actual notes being played, can be evil make me shake my head…especially when some old hymns are drinking songs with new words.
Remember when the Bible says “Be not easily offended”? Ever notice that the American church goes out of it’s way to FIND offense?
DD
aliasmoi,
Someone may want to contest this point, but I think that one could watch a head explode every night on primetime TV and never be seriously tempted to explode someone’s head. Nudity and/or sexual images tend to have a different effect.
I would say that where we are screwed up as a society is that we only see nudity in a sexual context. Whenever we see a naked person, we think “sex.” In movies and TV (which is undeniably the focus of contemporary aesthetics, however terrifying that may seem) people only get naked to take a bath or to get it on. And if it’s some Victorian-era movie where some dashing young rougue may indulge in some non-sexual nude activity like a private skinny-dip, there’s always a virtuous young hieress hidden in the trees taking a peek and presumably getting aroused.
I think the real problem is that sex is just gruesomely overrated in our society. I think C.S. Lewis once made that point over 50 years ago. I wonder what he’d think now.
Beth,
That picture wasn’t ‘taken’, it is a painting.
I think poor Professor Lewis’ head might just spin around and pop off.
Offended isn’t the right word for me. But I consider the rendering in poor taste…even inappropriate due to scripture relating to Noah and his son who looked on his father’s naked body then whispered to his brothers about it. But the picture is confusing. As lonelypilgrim said..leaves are covering them. Leaves came after the encounter at the Tree of Knowledge (which I truly believe happened by Divine purpose)….after they became aware of evil (lust) and were ashamed….and after God clothed them with the bloody coat of (what surely must have been a lamb) skin to cover their shame….and before they were cast out of the garden. I do believe the temptation by the serpent (if the child in the tree is a manifestation of the serpent) was as innocent and non-threatening as a conversation with a small child would have been. Eve knew only good at that point…with NO awareness of evil…the same with Adam (Behold, now they are as we …knowing BOTH good and evil…showing that before the episode…they knew only GOOD. They would not have had the full fellowship of God, daily, in person, if they “knew” evil.
Also, according to scripture, Adam did not attempt to stop Eve. Scripture says that Adam was not deceived but Eve was in the transgression. In their innocence of ‘knowing’ (knowledge conceived) only GOOD..they trusted everything in the Garden.It was paradise…so to speak. But Adam did inately “know” he was to leave father (God) and mother (garden earthly birthplace) and cleave to his wife and they would be one flesh. Adam ‘knew’ the eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge had changed things and Eve was now separated from him. He HAD to go with her (all I believe strongly through scripture to have been Divine will…’lamb slain before the foundation of the world….’not yet a man to till the soil’ (before he made man)….but especially the verse declaring…Behold, now man has become as we..knowing both GOOD and EVIL.
Just the fact that anyone might be offended by that picture shows how out of whack our values and sensibilities are in America. We can watch someone’s head explode on prime time tv on any given night, but don’t show a boob or a butt! — Alasmoi
If you pick your target right, “showing boob or butt” CAN make someone’s head explode!
“My purpose in life is to find those with Holy Hand Grenades stuffed up their butts and pull the pins.”
– Some eccentric Christian interview on YouTube
FR. ERNESTO…points beautifully stated…enjoyed it. God bless.
Carolyn, and other people who find this painting to be in “poor taste”:
is that a sin?
Is this painting, and others like it, the product of some Satanic influence, in your opinion? It seems like you have to make the value judgment: do paintings like these lead people to Hell or direct their yearning for Heaven?
Or are all those possible assumptions uncomfortable because taste itself is so difficult to reflect upon?
It obviously wasn’t considered poor taste at the time. This pretty much WAS as good as taste could get in the early Renaissance.
Are there any professional artists who want to weigh in here?
Among all this discussion, everyone seems to be talking about being or not being offended as if that were something we as Christians have a right to.
I’m not sure that “being offended” or “taking offense” is even Biblical for me as a Christian anymore (I Cor 13:5 for example). If there is really a difference between being righteously angry and just being offended – then merely taking offense is probably something we simply shouldn’t do. Why Biblically should bad language, nudity, loud music, or just rude behavior ever “offend” a Christian?
I have lots of Christian friends & family who are constantly being offended by things – whether something sinful or something innocent (like this painting) – and the fact that the people around me get so easily offended by their surrounding culture bothers me (not that I’ve mastered this myself yet – I think I’ve actually been trained by the church to be offended).
at least one person mentioned being offended that they are white in the picture. this would have bothered me too at one point, but now i’ve seen that every culture depicts biblical characters in their own ethnicity. i’ve seen nativity scenes from africa, where lions and elephants are outside the manger and the family is black, from korea, where asian animals have gathered to look at an asian Jesus and family, etc. etc.
what i’m saying is this: it’s not fair to reprimand a european for depicting biblical characters as white unless we reprimand all cultures for contextualizing the biblical stories and making all the characters look like themselves. i’m not ready to do that, i think it’s just what people(s) do.
just some thoughts
I see nothing offensive about this painting.
The depiction is obvious, and in fact the artist has done enough to take the attention away from the nudity of the characters, whilst still making us incredibly aware that their great shame is just around the corner.
At this resolution Adam’s right hand does appear to have extra fingers though . .
IMonk:
I am sorry I did not explain myself very well the first time. The connection between the art and modern day mores or lack of of mores is strictly on a personal level. I am tired of seeing it. So, I am imagining myself going off to church and having a sermon accompanied by the art. All of my children are grown and gone now, but if they were still little, I can imagine having to deal with their questions or perhaps dealing with their questions while at church. I’m being rather selfish in my thinking. I really cherish those days when I do not have to deal with any of it because those days, for me, are so few.
In regards to your other comments, I work in public schools. Therefore, !) their parents support the behavior, 2) school dress codes are not enforced, (in fact, I think the principal likes it) and 3) conscience? propriety? They follow what they know and are accustomed to.
DaveD, or anyone else,
Where does scripture say “Be not easily offended”? I’m not asking because I want to argue with you. I just want to look it up. Thanks.
Katie – try I Cor 13:5 for one
I agree with J.P.
Psalm 119:165 says, “Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them.” The original Hebrew says, “they shall have no stumbling block.”
Also, I might add Matthew 5:29, “If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.”
So, no, Michael, I am not offended.
Offended? Heck yeah, I’m offended! Am I the only person who noticed that they both have NAVELS? How did that happen, when neither one was carried in a womb somewhere? Explain that!
Oh, also, I don’t think Adam is trying to restrain her. I think he’s just trying to grope her one…
I haven’t seen anyone substantively address why the serpent is depicted as a baby in this painting (no, not the baby Jesus!). If I were to hazard a guess, I’d say that the artist is trying to depict the deceptiveness of the serpent’s approach. The serpent in this painting is trying to appear innocent and fruitful (babies being the “fruit” of human fruitfulness) – notice that the serpent looks like a baby in front of the tree, but behind the tree slinks the tail of the snake – while being in reality harmful and destructive of the seed of Adam and Eve down the line.
Just for the record, this is all the reasons we’ve come up with to be DEEPLY SHOCKED AND OFFENDED by this painting and everything it stands for:
Adam and Eve have navels!
The baby Jesus is depicted as Satan, the Father of Lies.
Adam and Eve are depicted as white Europeans, instead of Jewish myths. Or black.
This image incites lust.
This image is ambivalent to Puritan sensibilities.
This picture defies some of our personal revelations.
This picture portrays apples in an unambiguously negative light.
This picture is clearly sexist / misogynist in it’s portrayal of Eve as:
a) sexually tantalizing
b) inherently corrupt
This picture is clearly sexist / misogynist in it’s portrayal of Adam as:
a) morally steadfast
b) hungry for apples?
This picture encourages nudity, which we should be ashamed of.
This picture is a millstone around the neck of people who like being naked.
Lets all pray for the souls of everybody in Hell because of this image.
Remember when the Bible says “Be not easily offended”? Ever notice that the American church goes out of it’s way to FIND offense?
It’s called “Professional Weaker Brethren”, for whom “More Easily Offended Than Thou” has become a power trip. Just like “Tyranny of the Offended, except CHRISTIAN! (TM)”
You see, if you’re the Most Easily Offended, you get your own way 24/7 while everybody else tiptoes on eggs so they don’t Offend You And Cause You To Stumble. A great racket any three-year-old can understand — he who throws the longest and loudest temper tantrum wins.
Tee hee. He is touching her boobie.
Nope, I’m not offended. I am an artist and frequently see nude art. I do not feel that there is anything wrong with nude art or the nude form. I probably would not show this to the congregation I belong to knowing how Christians can be.
I heard on a lecture one time (not sure if this is urban legend or real, honest truth) that when the Pope questioned Michaelangelo about why he painted people in the nude, Michaelangelo responded because it is how God sees us. The Pope responded with “Remember, you are not God.”
Not offended, but curious why nudity is the ‘ultimate’ art? I don’t need it to appreciate good artists or their works, but not offended by it either.
Well what can I say?? I see those advertisements on TBN for THE HOLYLAND EXPERIENCE and personally I cringe.
And its funny because TBN has now bought the HOLYLAND EXPERIENCE park.
Superficiality breeds superficiality…
Is nothing sacred anymore??
This is just the kind of amunition the ENEMY loves.
Reducing the whole message of salvation and the Son Of God to a theme park ride.
In Bill Mahers movie Religulous he goes to the park sits down and has a talk with the guy who walks around all day pretending to be “JESUS”.
Kind of like when you go disneyland you can shake hands with Mickey Mouse.
Nothing like having a beer with the Son of God after a hard day of dying for your sins.
If our faith is to be reduced to a superficial theme park mentality or a ride at disneyland than our faith is in very very deep trouble.
Mark, I heard that same legend, only substituting the parish pastor for the Pope. Besides, there are nudes in the Sistine Chapel…
I think that’s just another Church Lady’s legendary attempt to infuse Protestant primness into every historical culture she can find, no matter how ridiculous the attempt.
To me, it tends to be all in the intentions of the artist, I (personally) do not think this painting was made to be a sexual stimulation to man (or woman), so I do not find this offensive and I wouldn’t mind showing this to my own kids, regardless of their ages. I do think however, that there are people who create art for sexual stimulation, which I (once again, personally) do not allow in my home. Because the intentions are there to sexually stimulate, and that is not benefiting to my marriage or my family. Nudity can be tastefully done, and I think, in this instance, it is.
It seems to me that the more we expose (no pun intended) young minds to artistic depictions of the naked human body, the less likely they will be to find beauty in pornographic depictions. We owe it to young people to educate them in art and art history. There will be both intellectual and spiritual benefits in doing so.
I almost skipped over the post until I saw there were 85 comments. I was guessing that the issue is that the painting does not accurately tell the story that we find in the Bible, so one might be offended (?) and would not want to show it in church.
But most comments zeroed in on nudity and sexuality issues, while others of us don’t see those issues with this painting. I think American Christians’ take on much of this is cultural, rather than Biblical. As one who reads old and obscure books, on a number of occasions I have run across descriptions of baptisms in the early church, which if I remember correctly, were usually done nude.
A couple of interesting things that were told to me by non-Christian acquaintances:
1) A man who was formerly involved in the pornography industry told me that industry often financially backs anti-nudity ordinances and so on because they believe that cultural acceptance of nudity in the public arena, even in art, is bad for their business. As he said “Why would people pay to see something if they can routinely see it for free elsewhere?”
2) A masseuse told me that his clients are often overweight, and confide in him that they would be embarrassed to have anyone see them nude because of their fat. He thinks that part of the reason Americans are very uncomfortable with nudity, even in art, is because there are so many fat Americans. As you might guess, he immigrated here from another country.
My mother, who was extremely conservative, saw Michaelangelo’s David when she was in Italy and even bought prints. When I redo my back yard in a year or two, part of the plan is to include a life size David.
It’s a great piece of artwork. What can be offensive about it? It’s one guy (who some 450 years ago) wanted to ‘preach’ the Gospel to a mainly illiterate ‘audience’. Now, that’s cool!
What may be offensive, today, is billboards with scantily-clad men/women on them just to sell underwear or the latet motor oil. LOL Or that we spend billions on peripheral things when many die of treatable diseases etc. Now, that’s worrying.
I think those who find it offensive are ‘inventing’ a standard which doesn’t exist, isn’t demanded in God’s word, but it sure makes a lot or noise and gets them noticed for all the wrong reasons. I’ve witnessed that ploy, that plays to the crowd for the wrong reason, and doens’t advance the cause. Now, thats just plain sad because it makes Christians look like small-minded bigots instead of declaring that nature, art etc can/does testify to the love of God.
I wanted clarify my earlier comment by saying that I don’t hold a utilitarian view of art or that it only serves as a media to preach (e.g. allegory, Chick Tracts, or 80’s Contemporary Christian Music). Actually, I think pragmatism and rationalism drive Christians to add details to art that are either superfluous or indefensible. Using art to preach leads to needless detail in order to avoid vagueness in the message (especially if the goal is to extract a specific response, decision, or sinner’s prayer.) Just as Christian apologists can’t bring themselves to say, “I don’t know”, I think Christian artist can’t seem to let mystery speak for itself. I think this is partly why Christians still don’t understand how to communicate in parables like Jesus did, whether in words or images.
But again, I have no interest in hard, fast rules. This artist could have completely hid the details of Adam and Eve’s nakedness behind foliage, but the power of the piece would have been lost. Seeing ones own nakedness in this painting is a profound thought. The artist really seems to have used it for a deeper meaning – to make the observer think – rather than just using a religious theme as an excuse to practice painting nudes. But I also tend to be over-analytical.
Brother Tadhg: my apologies, I wasn’t commenting against your post. I agree that art can preach in ways that words cannot.
Does this verse have application to a discussion of sexuality, or is sexuality a totally separate realm?
Colossians 2:20-23
20 If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— 21 “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” 22 (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? 23 These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.
I think that we still have some Victoria hang-ups about sexuality. I stumbled into this when I needed to educate my children about raunchy bus stop ads and modesty. My first inclination was to tell them that it was disgusting and rude. Thankfully before a friend encouraged me to acknowledge that the images are beautiful but just not for a public sphere. The woman in the pictures are giving to other people what is meant for her husband alone.
I’ve also thought about how private N.A. Christians are about their sex lives. It’s very taboo to try discussing problems with close friends. Also, our children are almost entirely sheltered from our sexuality at all ages. How can we ever teach our children that sex is healthy within the context of marriage if we pretend to never partake in it? My non-Christian parents often told us as teens that they were having a private evening, went upstairs, put on some music and went about their business. I think this was a much better example then what most evangelical parents portray to their children.
I think that the reaction to these paintings is just a symptom of our evangelical desire to avoid acknowledging all types of sexuality.
I’m going to show my kids the picture tomorrow morning.
Feel free to correct if wrong…the Christian principle seems to be two-fold…don’t seek to take offense (nonimposing) and don’t make offense…Central Pres of St. Louis recently had an art exhbit…not one piece of nudity in any of the art…(also very little classical/heroic art) pragmatically suggesting there is an observed ethic, perhaps just contextual but maybe universal.
Most of us have missed the “shame” aspect of the biblical story of Adam & Eve…was it forced on them after disobedience? or was that inded the new natural state of humanity to wrestled with in a blog? (navel gazers unite) Someone saw parallel to Noah’s indiscretion and other’s subsequent shame for him…that seems to be a minor theme in scripture and perhaps having its practical existence reflected in this blog. Some in Noah’s family enjoyed the indiscretion while others sought to end the offense.
It seems wierd to still be trying to “decontruct” the culture with the tired tools of “puritanism,” “victorianism” and “evangelical narrow mindedness.” A careful look would require far more tools such as the influence of enlightenment, pornography, technological revolution, science for science revolutionary thinking which dismisses consequences associated with creation, growing levels of sexual deviance and crime, the fact that the art has been seen representationally here by far more people than would have seen it during the artisit’s life, (media saturation)…too many tools to take any confident stand.
Wierd is the way St. Paul uses the circumstance of the fall to outline masculine and feminine roles within the church… Visit John Stott somewhere on line blogging about Sarah Palin for a bracer about m/f roles.
I don’t find anything offensive about that painting.
I would show that picture to my young children without a qualm, even though yes, it has some historical inaccuracies. Probably the artist painted in the wrong flora, too, but accuracy of detail isn’t the artist’s point.
But I’ll tell you what I *do* find offensive: the majority of modern Christian art aimed at children. Illustrations in books, the illustrations on worksheets for Sunday School, and children’s coloring pages depict Biblical characters and themes are most often vapid, cartoonish, and just downright goofy-looking.
As an educator, frivolous art depicting holy things merely annoyed me at first, but the more I see of it, the more it alarms me. Which would you find more offensive? The painting Mr. Monk posted above or the parade of insipid angels who are as awe-inspiring as My Little Pony?
Just what are we trying to convey to our young?
Artists like Titian and Michelangelo conveyed wonder, awe, and the sense that the subject matter was *important.* Too many Biblical coloring sheets convey the idea that The Adventures of Jesus and his Twelve Buddies is just one more children’s show, of no more or less importance than Thomas the Tank Engine.
I will forgive a thousand historical inaccuracies and naked breasts before I will stomach one more grinning cartoon Jesus.
Thank God in heaven, Titian would not have cared in the slightest degree about the thoughts of uneducated peasants.
As an educator, frivolous art depicting holy things merely annoyed me at first, but the more I see of it, the more it alarms me. Which would you find more offensive? The painting Mr. Monk posted above or the parade of insipid angels who are as awe-inspiring as My Little Pony? — Urban Otter
I take it you’re not a Precious Moments fan? With all their pukey-cute baby angels big-eyed in Fluffy Cloud Heaven?
I’ll take My Little Pony over Precious Moments Baby Angels any day. At least MLP doesn’t claim Holy things; they are what they are — cute cartoon mares. If they existed IRL, I’d keep a currycomb ready. And fresh apples.
I will forgive a thousand historical inaccuracies and naked breasts before I will stomach one more grinning cartoon Jesus. — Urban Otter
Then if you value your sanity, stay far, far away from The Precious Moments Chapel. Your head will explode.
PATRICK: You’re right concerning the ART The question from IMONK was for personal opinion concerning using the picture in a Bible class, youth group, or the like.
Nothing offends me. I’ve had Art Appreciation in college. I’ve done a few paintings that are floating around. As art, its value is substantial. But that wasn’t the question. I considered its value for teaching or enlightening a study class, and so forth, in a church setting. For that purpose, I find it lacking because of the inaccuracies I see when the depiction is compared to scriptures. But I do indeed consider modesty a virtue.
THE PRECIOUS MOMENTS CHAPEL!!!!!
That was awesome. The photo of all the little kids hugging the maudlin angel-boy was hysterical. Oh man.
I have this friend that I torment with stuff like this. She pretty much hates Christianity because she thinks of it as a really lame social life (she’s right, of course), but deep down, I know that every time I send her something completely and utterly stupid that Christianity has produced, it wears her down just a little bit more.
THANKS FOR THIS SHE’S GOING TO CRY!!
Jesus is going to be her boyfriend again in no time.
Also, pure gold in the article:
“The effect of the work (including a Michelangelo-like painted ceiling) on the assembled crowd is haunting. No babies cry (”They never do,” says our guide.) Adults looking at the cartoons are stock still.”