Ad
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
The Masters Login/Join
 
posted
Hopefully we can expand this sub-forum to include reviews of works of art:

A Christ for Conservatives?
He�ll challenge you, if you let him in.
By Carol Iannone

quote:
On a visit to Washington, D.C. a while ago, I dropped in on an exhibit of Rembrandt's late religious paintings at the National Gallery. In contrast to a painter such as El Greco, who rendered his religious subjects in an ethereal aspect � whitened, brightened, lengthened, already halfway to heaven � Rembrandt made his religious figures very real and down to earth. He made no attempt to sanctify the persons who stood or sat for his biblical portraits but treated them with the same kind of detailed naturalism that he gave to his other subjects. Ancient personages such as Paul and Bartholomew thus become recognizable human beings, tired eyes ringed with sagging flesh, such as one might have encountered in any shop or office in 17th-century Amsterdam. An interesting concept, perhaps, but overall I felt these portraits possessed no special spiritual spark. They seemed dour, dark, dreary, burdened, fashioned out of the brown earth from which they appear to take their predominant color.

But suddenly I found myself transfixed by a figure so utterly and intensely alive that I thought for a moment that it would speak. This turned out to be a painting after all, but one which really stood apart from the gloomy works surrounding it: the Portrait of Christ. As with the figures in the other works, Jesus is here painted from a live subject and posed not as for a holy card but as for a simple portrait. Because we are so much more familiar with various iconic images of Christ, however, what wasn't terribly compelling in the other paintings is quite arresting here: a Jesus fully at home in the secular world who stopped to have his portrait painted, but whose spiritual presence is such that the portrait slowly evolves into something higher in its engagement with the viewer.

We see at first an attractive young man, kind of cool and relaxed, as Christs go, laid back, as we might say today. (A friend even thought he resembled a rock star.) This Jesus possesses a diffident yet confident quality that bespeaks a fullness of personhood beneath � both strong and gentle, wise and innocent, having a humble aspect and yet an awareness of who he is. He is not gesturing toward us, as depicted in so many paintings of Jesus, but his eyes directly engage even as his hands remain crossed quietly on his breast. He is interested in us, yet reticent and pensive, it seems. Those steady, dark brown eyes fix the viewer, while his head tilts to the side, giving the impression that he is scrutinizing you, studying you.

There is no halo of course, no artificial glow, no effeminate aspect, no gushing compassion, no indiscriminate forgiveness pouring forth in unconditional love. This was not the Jesus who, as one Episcopal bishop insisted, accepts us even in our "fat slobby selves." This Jesus is rather more challenging than comforting. This is a Christ with standards, I thought half jokingly, a Christ for conservatives! A Christ who sized you up, maybe the way he sized up the chatty Samaritan woman at Jacob's well or the rich young man who thought so well of himself.
 
Posts: 5413 | Location: Washington State | Registered: 21 September 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
False advertising. I clicked on this link thinking there'd be a discussion of Tiger Woods. I missed it last weekend but the write up seemed to describe an incredible finale.

OK - a Jesus who comforts the afflicted ( for liberals) and afflicts the comfortable (for conservatives)? I can buy that ;-)

Come to think of it -- afflicted, poor folks are more often Democrats and comfortable, rich folks are more often Republicans. [No tomatoes, please!]
 
Posts: 2881 | Registered: 25 August 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Come to think of it -- afflicted, poor folks are more often Democrats and comfortable, rich folks are more often Republicans. [No tomatoes, please!]

No tomatoes, of course, but perhaps some persimmons. Here is a different spin on that: Afflicted poor folk instead tend to vote Democratic and thereby afflict themselves even more. Many, but by no means all, Democrats are very good at reinforcing the notion that the reason anyone isn�t rich like Donald Trump is because somebody else is cheating and holding them back. Democrats institutionalize victimization when what people really need is to think positively and to be shown the way to lift themselves up. Tearing down others, except in cases of clear injustice, is not going to help feed one poor mouth or put one DVD player in somebody�s living room.

Often the kindest thing you can do for someone is to see in them what they could be, even if they are not quite there yet. It�s to provide them opportunities, freedom and the healthy attitudes to make of themselves successes, however they wish to define that term.

Not all Republicans are so forward-looking friendly. But I believe most are�at least when compared to your typical Democrat.

What I loved about that article is the descriptive and soul-searching evaluation of the art by the writer. Sister Wendy does a marvelous job of this. And even if she isn�t right (and I would have no idea one way or the other), she is fascinating to listen to.

Yes, probably should have title the thread "The Old Masters" � - you know, that older time when the Republicans wouldn�t let woman play on the course. Big Grin
 
Posts: 5413 | Location: Washington State | Registered: 21 September 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
<w.c.>
posted
Ooops . . . thought I'd stumbled onto a thread about golf.
 
Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Okay, you guys have proved your point. If I could edit it I would change the title to "The Great Masters"...or "The Old Course at St. Andrews." One or the other. I haven't decided which.
 
Posts: 5413 | Location: Washington State | Registered: 21 September 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
When Danforth Quayle objected to Murphy Brown they threw potatoes. Wink
 
Posts: 2559 | Registered: 14 June 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Here is the PBS site, Sister Wendy's American Collection. I credit her with whatever interest I have in fine art. Frankly, I still trust my instincts. I think a good deal of it is nothing but pretentious crap, but my eye was always somewhat drawn to The Masters (particularly with those wide fairways with forgiving roughs).

Here is Sister Wendy's Story of Painting as well as her books 1000 Masterpieces and American Masterpieces.

As an aside, here's a BBC interview with Sister Wendy:

quote:
PAM: What is prayer?

SR WENDY: I think I'd say prayer is God's taking possession.

PAM: What is prayer? Why do we need it?

SR WENDY: Well there are 2 questions there, Pam. If I answered your 2nd point first - why do we need prayer? I think because everybody knows they're not complete. The longing for completion, for a meaning, for a sense that they're not just passing time is one of the deepest things in human beings. It's why we're moved by beauty, music, art. All wakes that desire for what we haven't got. Now prayer is all concerned with what we haven't got. Prayer is God's taking possession of us but that's prayer at its most ultimate, its most absolute. Prayer goes all the ways up until it comes to taking delight in the sunshine - which is a perfectly valid prayer . I don't think people even need to be thinking of God or even knowing God's name to be rejoicing in his gifts, and by rejoicing in his gift and accepting it, be in some state of prayer. Then, from that you see, you go all the way down until you get to the deepest prayer which is simple silently letting God take possession of you.
 
Posts: 5413 | Location: Washington State | Registered: 21 September 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata