Posted on 02/17/2005 7:41:15 PM PST by NYer
I appreciate the effort at a definition ... I still have few "issues" with it, but it will take a bit of time to express precisely.
Yep.
"There is almost no naked Christs in the world. It's a truth that you are bringing to it," he said.
No truth in his work as Christ was not naked!
The artist point seemed to be sensationalism to draw attention to himself.
Shame on this church!
It seems to me that, under all the verbiage, you might be saying that the Purpose Of Art is to illustrate the Good, the True, and the Beautiful ... even if the Truth, or Goodness is not necessarily identical with worldly ideas of beauty. Kitsch, then, is art which does not illustrate GTB, or does so in an inadequate or dishonest manner ... as for example illustrating a half-truth.
The excessive realism of later religious art, especially in the West, is spiritually dangerous not just because it's sentimental, but also because it supresses the vertical dimension, the element of mystery.
This claim contradicts your contention that eg the Crucifix should ideally show a totally naked Christ, because that's the way it was. That bit of realism, as you so eloquently demonstrated, conveys a profuound theological Truth ... which is somewhat hidden by a loinclouted Christ. By that logic, a modern photo-realistic naked Christ painting is less "kitschy" than a 1500 year old Icon showing a partially clad Christ.
Romulus can speak for himself, but allow me to interject.
Two things need to be borne in mind.
Truth, Goodness and Beauty are Platonic concepts. They have nothing to do with photo- or any other kind- realism. What our eye see is a shadow of truth. A realistic depiction of a shadow is no better than any other. In fact, it could be worse because it allows us to forget to look with the mental eye. The trick is to use visible shadows of art to inform us of the truths outside of the cave.
Second, art is a multifaceted and integral thing. When an artist makes one thing right, and 100 other things wrong, the one right thing does not work. So, for example, getting the clothing (or absence of clothing) right alone does not exhonerate bad art.
Naked Christ depicts the truth of Christ as bridegroom of his Church, one who removes the loincloth of Adam, symbolic of his sin, as well of course as the historical truth of the Roman practices of execution. But if the rest of the picture is wrong, the accuracy of that particular detail does nothing. As some on this thread correctly remarked, if the nudity injects an element of shock, or prurience, or the personality of the artist, then it fails even though it is iconographically correct in theory, or anatomically correct. Vice versa, Christ covered in a loincloth and anatomically distorted or drawn schematically reflects the truth if it opens up the Paschal mystery to the eye of the mind.
Not every bad art is kitsch. Sommers' work, for example, is not kitsch because, evidently, it stirs our mental energies, and evokes an image (of a dead Hobbit, as it is), that is not particularly comforting. To be kitsch a piece of art needs not only to be unwholesome with respect to the truth, but also deceptively sweet, easy to swallow, an event in the cave as opposed to a reflection of light ourtside the cave. Annoying photorealism of 19-century art is not all kitsch, but it is a fertile ground on which kitsch is easily produced, because it bypasses the mind and lets us forget that what we see physically is rarely the truth.
Good for him/her.
Have long wondered when someone would have the gonads to depict Christ as He actually was on that horrid yet Majestic day.
Good; you're on the right track. Now think some more. Why is nudity frowned upon? Because after the Fall it's inextricably mixed up with mankind's dis-integrated condition, especially with respect to sexuality. Nakedness in the fallen world thus becomes a condition uniquely appropriate to marriage -- not just because it's more or less necessary, but because it images the trust that should exist between spouses. The fact that nudity's proper context has become nuptial is precisely why it's not inappropriate in a crucifix, so long (as I observed in the stupidly-deleted post that kicked off this sorry display) as both laity and clergy have had a wholesome spiritual formation. As this lamentable thread shows, that formation is rare in the extreme.
The shame in nakedness is a response to human sinfulness and humanity's disintegrated state after the Fall, in which body and soul are no longer aligned, and the soul itself is at war with itself. None of this applies to Jesus, however. Jesus being perfectly sinless has no need of clothes. His use of clothes in his earthly life was part of his willing subjection of self in all ways -- to his Father, to his parents, to the Law, just as he made himself subject to hunger and fatigue and death. The Lord used clothes is a manifestation of his humility, which, as Cardinal Newman points out, is about as far from the worldly conceit of "modesty" as you can get. The call to clothe Jesus in the artificial and unscriptural way you propose is ultimately an acknowledgment and in some sense a surrender to our sinfulness. Nakedness is a problem only for sinful people, not for the sinless.
We do not like to see Jesus humiliated, but we cannot reject his decision to reveal himself this way without rejecting the event that's central to our redemption.
Before God, we are all naked, and always have been.
Go back to Genesis, where the Lord demands of Adam: "Who told you that you were naked?" The answer of course is the devil, who accuses us of our sinfulness and then tempts us to hide from God because of fear -- as if hiding from God were even possible. Recall that in Genesis it's God who even after the Fall goes looking for Man: "Where are you?" Finally, recall the message repeated at the Annunciation, the Nativity, and the Resurrection:
"Be not afraid."
,,, it's representative of the trash we're turning into here under a lesbian, Marxist government. This guy is one of a rare breed. He may be an artist, but he's certainly an opportunist. I've met a number of good artists and few of them have had a business head on their shoulders. This guy knows how to work the room though at $NZ3k a time. He's picked on the wrong person to do a rudie nudie on though. A pox on his house!
In other news, have you seen that our banking system will be regualted by Aussie?
For me, the naked and the nude
(By lexicographers construed
As synonyms that should express
The same deficiency of dress
Or shelter) stand as wide apart
As love from lies, or truth from art.Lovers without reproach will gaze
On bodies naked and ablaze;
The Hippocratic eye will see
In nakedness, anatomy;
And naked shines the Goddess when
She mounts her lion among men.The nude are bold, the nude are sly
To hold each treasonable eye.
While draping by a showman's trick
Their dishabille in rhetoric,
They grin a mock-religious grin
Of scorn at those of naked skin.The naked, therefore, who compete
Against the nude may know defeat;
Yet when they both together tread
The briary pastures of the dead,
By Gorgons with long whips pursued,
How naked go the sometimes nude!
LOL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.