www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Unclothed Christ

Unclothed Christ draws protest [stuff.co.nz]

This story is circulating in Catholic forums and chatrooms. My question is this: Are we ready for an unclothed Icon of Christ? It appears we already have icons like this:
Lord of the Dance [bridgebuilding.com] and Pax Christi [bridgebuilding.com]

Any thoughts?

BTW, is Bridge Building a part of Monastery Icons? [monasteryicons.com]

Ray, I'm sorry---but I'm not uplifted by this type of news...I don't think it's appropriate for Lent. I could have done without you sharing this...from "other chatrooms"...since I don't go to chatrooms, I'd personally prefer you don't bring them here. That's my own opinion of course...I could be all wet...I often am. It still makes me very sad.

+Fr. Gregory

Dear Father Gregory,

I agree with you that it's not uplifting, but in Ray's defense, I got the impression that this is precisely why he posted the story - to inform us about these disrespectful images of Our Lord. More of a "cautionary tale" or "can you believe someone would do this terrible thing" type of story.

I didn't mean to offend!

This story really bothers me and I think we should know what is going on out there in the "real world."

Since the East (Bridge Building) has been infected with a similiar images I think this is appropriate topic for this fourm.

I wanted to bring to attention Bridge Building to inform people not to support them.

One more thing, if we don't talk about this stuff then places like Bridge Building will stay in business polluting the Christian market of icons.

Posted by Ray...


My question is this: Are we ready for an unclothed Icon of Christ? It appears we already have icons like this:
Lord of the Dance and Pax Christi
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

My response is "No" we are not ready for an unclothed Icon of Christ nor do I think we ever should or will be.

I can see where Fr. Gregory would find the website article and subject inappropriate for Lenten sharing, but...

I know your intentions were good and you didn't mean to offend. I have appreciated your other topics about icons-- one in particular which opened some good discussions. Such a nice picture on your profile too. The boy must be your son, Nicholas.


May you and your family have a fruitful Lenten season.

A sister in Christ,

Mary Jo...

I am not offended, but these are even worse than the "Christ the Diver" risen Christ crucifixes that used to be in many churches. I think there must have been an edict of some kind against them, since they disappeared in this part of the country and were replaced by traditional crucifixes. I hate to say this, but I do know that in music there are often long periods of time in which nothing of lasting value is produced. I think perhaps that is happening in the other arts at this time. We just seem to live in an age of uninspiring mediocrity.

We must think this out a bit more, and not have a puritanic knee-jerk reaction. Nude images of Jesus (and the Saints) are not uncommon in history. It's well known there were nude images on the Sistene Chapel, for example, until later generations became offended and painted clothes on the images.

There are all the nude statues in Florence -- like David. Was it pornographic?

But more importantly, we are talking about Christ and the stations of the Cross. Would you be offended to know Christ hung naked on the cross? He was stripped of all of his clothes. There have been times when this was shown, other times it is not. But is it pornographic to represent history?

The Byzantine tradition is directly connected to faith and Christianity. EVERYTHING has a symbol and a meaning.
The Icons are Holy Symbols, not evry "artist" can write and Icon (a true icon is written not painted).
An Icon, among other things, is meant to pass the story to people who cannot read or who are visual in nature or just intrested (evry small thing in an Icon is a symbole; the colors, the shapes, objects ...).

The sites you have presented have pictures, ugly and evil ones by their symbols, are called many things, what they CANNOT be called is Icons (you have many pagan symbols there and some of satanic).
When an Icon writer writes an Icon he prays special prayers; what do you think an artist pray when he paints a picture of a nude christ?

"Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven."

God lighten our ways,
a sheep

A Roman Catholic I may be but I am a Theologian too and a fan of Oriental iconography also. Thus, my question is: How can those two images be called icons? To my understanding of the term iconography is pictured Theology. Yet these two images seem to convey relatively little, particularly the one of the...demonic being with antlers (please do not take offence anybody, but I cannot restrain my tongue. That is what it looks like).

This is a point I concede. Jesus was indeed led out through the streets completely naked in utter humilation and shame, and it wrenches at my heart to know we did this to Him and that for our salvation He was willing to allow us to do it.

Henry, you asked if 'David' was pornographic, I'd say no and I'd even say, having looked at the news article that the stations of the cross arent pornographic either. They're simply cheap. This is an example of what Sancrosanctum Concilium called repugnant art in our churches. If the sculptures were even close to anything Michaelangelo or the renaissance masters produced, if when I looked at them I saw the contorted expressions of Christ and felt the full weight of my guilt for having stripped him, whipped him and crucified him, if I could look at Jesus in his shame and feel even more ashamed that I had done this to him, I might be able to accept this. But this...this is self-indulgence for the sake of it. Modernising for the sake of it. I cannot judge the hearts of men, but...it doesnt seem to reflect anything more than the artist's conceptualism. If that was not his/her intention may they forgive me, but thats how it looks.

You are a theologian? Where do you teach? What do you teach? Any published works I can get, if it is of topics I am interested in?

Indeed, but I think many people forget this about Jesus. They do not want to be reminded of it. There is a puritanical twist to the body, which is slightly gnostic, in the "modern era." I find it sad. There are reasons for icons without showing the historical reality, but there are also legitimate reasons to remind people of the historical as well.

I will agree. I do not like the art as art myself, either. But I am more responding to the point of nudity, and the shock that Christ can be portrayed nude. That to me is really shocking, since it was what happened.

I think too many "artists" today are interested in gaining attention by producing works that are shocking. I am not necessarily upset by nudity when the context surrounding it fits. However, I all too often see mediocre artists portray the bizarre to cover their genuine lack of talent and inspiration.

All good points so far but question is this how do you define what is "good" art?

If you go back to the original article the priest
(Note: It appears the article is down right now) at the Cathedral makes a reference to Sistine Chapel. Who defines what is good religions art? An extension to this question; can icons evolve? If you answer yes they can evolve (i.e. Greek letters to vernacular) who determines to what extent of this evolution?

The definition of "good" is difficult to pin down with art. But I think there are major differences between secular art, and devotional art. I wouldn't use the same standards for religious art that I would use for secular art. If the religious art is causing conflict, dissension, discontent, and taking the focus away from the religious purpose, that might be a sign that the art is not "good" for its intended purpose, but is sensationalism.

I find this disturbing. These are the kind of things that will keep the traditional East and the wanting to be progressive West seperated.

We live in a society we were are bombarded with too many images of nudity and it is always associated with sexuality.

I don't see this as puritanical. Would the family of a person found dead and naked want everyone else to see their loved one naked in the casket or in an obituary? Out of RESPECT, I think not.

Society has certain mores which contribute to respect. This has been corrupted to the point that we are so desensitized that most young people don't even realize the difference. The value of people as created in the image of God is debased daily in popular music, news and the media.

I would have hoped that our church temples would have been the last oasises of sanity and respectability in a world that assaults our senses with nothing but crass images and thoughts.

In Christ our Lord and Saviour,
Alice

I agree with that. To be shocking is sometimes a substitute for a lack of talent. I also agree that not all nudity in art is offensive.

But, as for showing Jesus naked: that's just disrespectful. I think so because the point of such art inevitably becomes His nudity -- regardless of whether that was the original intention and regardless of whether it shows Him naked as a child or as an adult.

In other words, nakedness reduces our ability to focus on a person as a person and what that person stands for. Instead, we focus on a person's nakedness when a person is shown naked.

Hence, just showing Jesus naked diminishes our ability to focus on Him in order to keep His commandments and to live the Gospel. It's hard to be reverent and devoted to the Son of Man who is also the Son of God when He is depicted as having no clothes on.

But there is something else. Public nakedness is usually associated with shame. Everyone who has read the Gospel knows that Jesus was stripped naked when He was crucified. It's bad enough that He suffered because of our sins. The least we can do, in our so-called repentance, is to give Him a shred of dignity by giving Him a shred of clothing in our art.

--John