Said the columnist Chapu Apaolaza, quoted in "'Homoerotic Christ' on posters for Holy Week divides Spain/Artist defends painting used for Easter celebrations in Seville" (London Times).
२ फेब्रुवारी, २०२४
"Holy Week constitutes precisely the expression of a Christ away from the codes of male power."
"The Christ we love, before whom we prostrate ourselves and who is our example, does not look like an All Blacks rugby forward."
Said the columnist Chapu Apaolaza, quoted in "'Homoerotic Christ' on posters for Holy Week divides Spain/Artist defends painting used for Easter celebrations in Seville" (London Times).
From the artist, Salustiano García: "Those who see something dirty in the painting are only projecting their own internal dirt on to the image.... [They display] a lack of culture, of not knowing anything, of never having been in a museum or a church, because I haven’t invented any element that appears in the painting."
Said the columnist Chapu Apaolaza, quoted in "'Homoerotic Christ' on posters for Holy Week divides Spain/Artist defends painting used for Easter celebrations in Seville" (London Times).
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
५१ टिप्पण्या:
Transgender... transsocial trends.
It's important to have this controversy once every five years lest modern art dies.
On your knees!
That doesn't look unlike the crucifix at the Church I attend. I'll side with the artist I guess. Not getting shameful boner vibes.
I'm shocked he's not depicted as trans, black, obese, etc.
He does look kind of wimpy though.
Roman Catholicism has only recently become wimpy itself.
It was historically a religion that was not afraid to be associated with kicking ass and taking names.
See: Crusades.
Now portray Christ as he really was. Olive complexion, short hair and maybe 5 1/2 feet in height. He blended-in with the people and culture of his time. He stood-out from people because of his parables and his works.
In college after a few drinks the Catholic girls plural confided when they were little during Mass they ‘appreciated’ Jesus on the sad cross. Inguinal crease strikes again…
Those who see something dirty in the painting are only projecting their own internal dirt on to the image
Oh bullshit. This "artist" is a blasphemer and a liar. He knows damn well what he's trying to project. This is clever? This is intellectual?
It about as impressive as a Humber Biden work of "art".
Looks AI-generated.
My guess is the real Jesus, if there actually was one, probably looked more like Moe Howard or Jackie Mason.
From and NBC article Garcia said:
“To see sexuality in my image of Christ, you must be sick,” he said, insisting there was “nothing” in his painting that “has not already been represented in artworks dating back hundreds of years.”
What a disingenuous lying asshole. He knows damn well his painting is sexualized. He used his son as a model, probably to help promote his son's career.
The Archbishop of Seville defended the painting.
You'd think by know Catholic leadership would've learned to stay away from anything homo-erotic. It's not like there was a massive scandal inside the church or anything. But, when Satan gets inside, he can do a lot of damage.
Blogger Robert Cook said...
My guess is the real Jesus, if there actually was one, probably looked more like Moe Howard or Jackie Mason
Blasphemer #2.
Hang that image in a fourth grade Catholic school classroom and tell me somebody isn't trying to groom the kiddies.
Gross.
"Roman Catholicism has only recently become wimpy itself.
"(Roman Catholicism) was historically a religion that was not afraid to be associated with kicking ass and taking names."
"Kicking ass" was not part of Jesus' teachings. I guess "taking names" arguably was, given his warning that few who claimed him at the time of judgement would be recognized. Put a more paranoid way, he would know who was not a true follower of his--er, "His."
But then, the hierarchical power structure, wealth, and bureaucracy of the Roman Catholic church--in addition to "kicking ass"--is contrary to Jesus' teachings. So, the entire church is heretical...and thus false.
AI-generated
Parameterized production, probably with a carbon-based homo sapien model. Is it a misogynistic expression of toxic masculinity?
Men in shorts with painted nails.
Will they dip transgender/social "Christ" in urine... feces for full provocative effect?
Russel Brand
I'm guessing Gusty Winds would be equally disturbed by and unhappy with El Greco's depictions of Jesus.
Robert Cook said...
"My guess is the real Jesus, if there actually was one, probably looked more like Moe Howard or Jackie Mason."
I was going for a taller, better groomed Yasser Arafat but you go ahead.
Personally. I think the images are a distraction from the lessons and the acts.
The image will remind people of Christ assaulted, exploited, tortured by secular sects of government and empathetic interests.
Throw another baby... fetus on the barbie, it's an exercise of liberal license in the service of progress. They have well and truly jumped the ass. Let us bray.
Robert Cook said...
“ ‘Kicking ass’ was not part of Jesus' teachings.”
You missed the part where he used a whip to drive the moneylenders out of the temple.
Or the part where he tells his followers if they lack a sword to sell their cloak and buy one.
Christ did hang out inordinately with a bunch of guys. Just sayin'...
This subject is not the least bit important and I couldn't care less but we could cut the predictable, hidebound reactions and concede that this artist's impression of him is as accurate as anyone else's.
The artist has a point. The museums of the world are filled with religious art in which the body of Christ is painted with attention to anatomic detail that must have entailed many days of gazing upon young, athletic, handsome, nude or nearly nude male models. Not all of the impetus for that lovingly realistic art came from contemplation of the Eternal.
'He stood-out from people because of his parables and his works.'
That, and the Son of God thing...
"Kicking ass" was not part of Jesus' teachings.
Maybe, maybe not. "Whipping ass" certainly was, as the moneychangers in the Temple might attest. Then there's the belligerent Christ of Matthew 10:34 and Luke 22:36.
He was a 30 year old carpenter. He may not have looked like a rugby player, but he certainly didn't look like a caftan sales clerk.
Gusty Winds said...
"Oh bullshit. This "artist" is a blasphemer and a liar. He knows damn well what he's trying to project. This is clever? This is intellectual?"
Exactly.
If you look at his full portfolio, he also seems to enjoy painting naked or scantily clad prepubescent children. Not exactly pornographic, but...no doubt he will shout "I'm not dirty, but you are!" if you detect something other than childhood innocence in his work.
This does look a little like Russell Brand, notorious libertine cock hound in his earlier life. I'm not getting any weird or subversive vibes from it, and the only thing I'm absolutely sure of is, I have absolutely no idea what Christ really looked like: The Mediterranean Middle East had all kinds of DNA running around then, too. Looks OK to me!
Cook: "My guess is the real Jesus, if there actually was one ...." Another of Cook's uneducated guesses.
This is just another of the myriad of depictions of Jesus. If some like this effeminate rendering it won't matter to Him.
Sheridan said...
“Now portray Christ as he really was. Olive complexion, short hair and maybe 5 1/2 feet in height.”
Great. Now I’m imagining my grandpa from his wedding photo (age 29) hanging on every crucifix in every church around the world.
Doesn't look any worse than a lot of trad kitsch I've seen over the years, and better than some.
Just as "important" as Richard Jackson's 'Bad Dog' statue peeing on the Orange County Museum of Art?
Or of an 'altar boi' in an aging pastor's late night imagination?
So every male with a swimmer’s bod is homoerotic? Not that Jesus had a swimmwer’s bod. He was a carpenter and in his 30’s
Thick beard, no body hair?
Did he just undergo a crucifixion or body waxing?
Too funny. Today is the Feast of the Presentation of the Lord.
I never liked Handsome Hippie Jesus tbh. Reminds me too much of that lame lost generation that came of age in the Sixties.
Obligatory All Black Forward photo. That's Liam Messam, who retired from the All Blacks after 2015.
I can find uglier ones! :)
Trans/homoerotic Christ and transphobic political congruence ("=") is a sign of bigotry... now dip him in urine to be diverse, equivocal, and inclusive.
I like this Spanish Jesus.
Funny how it's always the low hanging fruit.
So, Salustiano García, now do Muhammad.
Why always dour? I never thought of him as a pansied California dood.
I've always liked this depiction best.
It's an interesting theological question. Jesus was put on this earth to suffer and die for our sins. Wouldn't his suffering be more complete and praiseworthy if He were as ugly as a toad. Extremely good looking people have a much easier time in life than the gnarly. On the other hand, good looking people probably suffer more when they're crucified. For the really ugly, crucifixion is just another rotten day in their rotten life, and they don't take it personally....I guess the Son of God wasn't too hung up on personal appearance, but it was a choice that He had to make. I think He'd probably go for a more ordinary appearance. Nothing too off putting, but He probably didn't want people following him because of his good looks. I'm pretty sure He wasn't buff. There's nothing in the Bible about him working out.
I'm going by the Shroud of Turin. It seems authentic, and the picture of the crucified man they've been able to faithfully recreate from the marks on the shroud show a man about 5'11", tall for that era, with long hair and a full, forked beard (the style of Jewish men at the time). His features were striking, Semitic.
Jesus was a carpenter, which included general building and construction work. He would not have been soft and white.
How I wish that I had bought one of the porcelain sets offered in an insert ad in TV Guide. Must have been 40 years ago. A couple of lads and a little girl, playing football (what else, in Amurca?) with Jesus, hair flying and robes flowing.
No joke.
Same guy:
https://www.oceansbridge.com/shop/artists/g/gu-gui/guercino/the-resurrected-christ-appears-to-the-virgin-1629
"Kicking ass" was not part of Jesus' teachings.
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."
Yes, Russell Brand.
Narr: the Christian Scientists probably still have some sets socked away in a warehouse.
At least we still have freedom of kitch.
"You missed the part where he used a whip to drive the moneylenders out of the temple.
"Or the part where he tells his followers if they lack a sword to sell their cloak and buy one."
You're ignoring the Sermon on the Mount, which pretty much encapsulates Jesus' teaching as a whole.
Jesus' casting out of the money changers from the temple is a repudiation of what the Catholic Church became--as well as the many "prosperity preachers" currently infesting our television screens. It was a rejection of the opportunistic entry of worldly motives and behaviors into God's house(accumulating pomp, power and wealth):
"Matthew 21:12-13 King James Version (KJV)
"And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, and said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves."
It's a shame so many Christians today have been deceived and celebrate such "moneychangers" in God's house.
Jesus' advice regarding buying swords has a more elusive meaning, but it does not seem to mean that he advocates his followers taking up arms. Rather, it seems specifically related to ensuring a prior prophecy be fulfilled.
"Everything leading up to verses 35-38 was about Jesus’ coming arrest. It would be very out of place for Jesus to be talking at this point about things they would need for the Great Commission, which wouldn’t happen for months. It seems more fitting that when Jesus told them they would need a moneybag, knapsack, and sword, He was saying they would need those things that very night. They would need those things because of what was about to happen. Below is a section from the link preceeding:
"Why They Needed Swords
"Most importantly, verse 37 tells us why the apostles needed swords that particular night. Jesus said, 'For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me…' That first word, 'for' is incredibly important. It is the Greek word 'gar.' It ties verses 36 and 37 together and it assigns purpose.
"The reason Jesus wanted His apostles to have swords that night was so that a particular Scripture would be fulfilled. The Scripture the swords would fulfill was Isaiah 53:12, 'And he was numbered with the transgressors.'
"After Jesus explained the purpose for the swords, the apostles said, 'Look, Lord, here are two swords.' And Jesus said, 'It is enough.' We might ask, 'enough' for what? Enough for eleven men to protect themselves on separate missionary journeys? That doesn’t make any sense.
"Two swords was not enough for later self-defense, but they were enough to serve the purpose He just explained, 'That this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: "And he was numbered with the transgressors."'Jesus did NOT say they needed swords to protect themselves. He said they needed swords because He was about to be treated like a criminal."
"'Kicking ass' was not part of Jesus' teachings.'
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."
Jesus is not speaking of actual violence, clashing with swords and clubs, the shedding of blood. He is speaking of the violence that rends the world when a new idea or a new paradigm appears, after which the world that existed before is permanently changed.
From Matthew 10:
"[34] Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
[35] For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
[36] And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
[37] He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
[38] And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
[39] He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.
[40] He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.
[41] He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous shall receive a righteous man's reward.
[42] And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.
I should clarify: philosophical or intellectual violence, (not the violence of actual wars that often follow the initial "violence" of a new idea alighting the world).
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा