sl87m@cc.usu.edu (The Barking Pumpkin Digital Gratification Ensemble) (04/23/91)
In article <Apr.18.03.23.32.1991.7320@athos.rutgers.edu>, tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) writes: > My pastor this last Sunday brought one of her favorite paintings for use > in the sermon. It shows Jesus walking on the road to Emmaus with two > disciples. As she pointed out, the painting isn't historically > accurate, it shows Jesus and the disciples walking down a shady lane in > a forest of maple trees. The key, is that the painting communicates to > an audiance who can identify with a shady forest lane. It communicates > the peace and calm the disciples may have felt walking with Jesus. I'm not trying to stick my finger into the hot pot of iconophiles and iconoclasts by giving my opinion, but I've an observation during my studies of the Middle Ages: If anybody's done any study of Mediaeval manuscripts, one find sthat in all of them, the figures are all dressed according to the period the ms. (manuscript) was written. The scenes depicted are drawn from the milieau. This is true in all that I've seen, from early 2nd c. through the Renaissance; and from Iberia to India (I've not done much study of Oriental mss., though from what I've seen, this rule still holds true). I've seen many modern attempts to be accurate to Christ's time, but the majority of modern religious pictures employ imagry of our time period. Funny how some things don't change, isn't it? TZMattareyay
tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (04/25/91)
In article <Apr.23.03.14.16.1991.2526@athos.rutgers.edu> sl87m@cc.usu.edu (The Barking Pumpkin Digital Gratification Ensemble) writes: >If anybody's done any study of Mediaeval manuscripts, one find sthat in all >of them, the figures are all dressed according to the period the ms. >(manuscript) was written. The scenes depicted are drawn from the milieau. >This is true in all that I've seen, from early 2nd c. through the Renaissance; >and from Iberia to India (I've not done much study of Oriental mss., though >from what I've seen, this rule still holds true). I've seen many modern >attempts to be accurate to Christ's time, but the majority of modern religious >pictures employ imagry of our time period. Similarly, few popular paintings of Jesus portray him as looking like a Hebrew. Few manger scenes portray Jesus being born in a cave. Without divine inspiration, no portrait of Jesus will be accurate, since we don't have any good photographs of him. Any religious symbol will not accurately portray reality, the artist can only hope to communicate an understanding. In order to communicate to a society, an artist must give them something they can identify with. So, religious symbols are biased toward the society for which they were produced. Experiments by Nazis suggest that a man cannot be hung on a cross by putting nails through the palms of his hands, (the flesh will rip). Instead, the nails must be driven through the wrists. This doesn't really stand in conflict with the Bible, since as I understand it the word which we translate hand referred to the hand as well as the wrist. Archeological evidence backs up this conclusion, and the much disputed shroud depicts a man who had nails driven through his wrists. And yet, most of the crucifixes I have seen portray Jesus with nails in his palms. As I've said before, the position of the nails are not important. What is important is the reason for the crucifixion, and our response to it. Similarly, in a portrait of Jesus, his actual physical features, or his clothes are not important. What is important is the portrayal of Jesus by the artist, and the interpretation of the viewer. Does the viewer look at the portrait and see that Jesus was a kind man? Does the portrait bring the viewer closer to Jesus? On the altar table in my church we have a brass cross with the letters "IHS" on it. Jesus was not nailed to a brass cross, but that cross helps us to remember the crucifixion. Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton
jb104@prism.gatech.edu (Jamie Tarasidis) (04/29/91)
In article <Apr.24.22.51.54.1991.10548@athos.rutgers.edu> tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) writes: >Without divine inspiration, no portrait of Jesus will be accurate, since >we don't have any good photographs of him. Any religious symbol will >not accurately portray reality, the artist can only hope to communicate >an understanding. It is interesting that you said this, because this is really the point of iconography. If you have ever visited an Orthodox church and looked at the icons, you will notice that the people portayed have some very exaggerated features -- they do not look lifelike at all. That is because an icon is not meant to be a picture of a person's physical body, as most pictures are. The icon portays the spiritual person; the iconographer tries to convey a spiritual message. By the way, hello everyone. This is my first time to post to this group. I am an Orthodox Christian. Jamie -- TARASIDIS, JAMIE B Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!jb104 Internet: jb104@prism.gatech.edu
jhpb@garage.att.com (Joseph H Buehler) (05/03/91)
In article <Apr.28.18.12.19.1991.20031@athos.rutgers.edu> jb104@prism.gatech.edu (Jamie Tarasidis) writes:
By the way, hello everyone. This is my first time to post to this group.
I am an Orthodox Christian.
Jamie, what kind of Orthodox are you? Greek? I am mainly curious about
your Sunday Liturgy. What language is it in, etc.?