The Shroud picture looks closer to church art than it does to what we would expect of a realistic human. Perhaps it never was God’s idea to leave behind a realistic picture, only a piece of obvious artwork.
On the contrary, it has been examined by experts in human anatomy. . . as well as experts in art. It is not a work of art. It is quite realistic and in fact is a 3D terrain map of a human being. It is perfect in every detail. There is nothing artistic about it. It is not even a photograph as some have called it. It shows no light artifacting at all. This is only the most researched object in science and artistic scholarship in the last 117 years.
It’s been proven NOT to be ‘art work”, no pigment of any kind. - but was on a human being - and it’s human blood.
As to your “looks closer to church art than it does to what we would expect of a realistic human...”
I am a portrait artist.
I have researched and studied the Shroud image from an art angle.
The early ‘church art’ paintings are iconographic - thousands were painted to provide churches with a ‘painting’ of Jesus. There were no printing presses no cameras.
The early ‘church paintings’ were actually done by an artist or artists who had access to the Shroud. Then other artists copied those renditions. Some of the paintings depict 3 small strands of hair on his forehead - as they mistook the blood flow on the Shroud to be hair.
There are paintings of the Shroud being ceremoniously shown to the public long before the erroneous ‘carbon dating’ claim.
The Shroud came BEFORE any paintings.
the Pantocrator is one of, perhaps THE earliest ‘Jesus’ portraits. It is my favorite. I believe the artist was looking at the Shroud - the image of which would have been much darker and more discernible at the time.
http://www.touregypt.net/images/touregypt/cart05.jpg
