Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: married21; Berlin_Freeper
It’s the 20th century dreck surrounding it that got to me. It clashes with Mary.

My eye likes the background around Mary, but not the lower background to the Crucifix. However, I think I understand what the architect / artist was going for: The universe is peaceful and beautiful, but Christ's death on the cross for our sins was a radical, disruptive event.

397 posted on 02/11/2013 1:50:46 PM PST by Yossarian ("All the charm of Nixon. All the competency of Carter." - SF Chronicle comment post on Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies ]


To: Yossarian; Berlin_Freeper

It was especially that background behind the cross (jagged color blocks) that struck me as 20th C stuff clashing with the Mary portrait.

Back in elementary school, in the late 60s, we had a common drawing project where we made black loops and curves on the page and filled in the resulting spaces with colors, so as to look psychedelic. The curvy color blocks where the angels are, and the jagged ones behind the altar, remind me of that.

I’m just really over the 60’s. But don’t mind me. Obviously I have a bee in my bonnet over something much less momentous than the Pope’s news, and not worth bothering about in the long run.


403 posted on 02/11/2013 2:49:24 PM PST by married21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 397 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson