The Alexamenos graffito (also called the graffito blasfemo) was first discovered in 1857 inscribed on a plaster wall in a building called the domus Gelotiana in the Palatine Hill district of ancient Rome. The building once served as part of the imperial palace of the emperor Caligula and became a boarding school for boy servants after his death. The building then became part of the support walls for structures built above it and remained sealed until its excavation in the nineteenth century.
The graffito itself depicts a donkey-headed human form on the right being crucified with a human worshiper to the left. An inscription accompanies the images which reads alexamenos sebete theon, or “Alexamenos worship (or worships) God.” Disregarding the problematic Greek verbal form (as written an imperative, but many scholars believe that is a mistake made by an inscriber unfamiliar with the intricacies of the Greek verbal system), the name suggests that the human form is that of an otherwise unknown ancient worshiper named Alexamenos.
What makes this graffito particularly important is that it is the earliest known representation of the Crucifixion of Jesus. Scholars debate when the crucifixion of Jesus became central to early Christian veneration, most suggest that it was not until after the fourth century. The date of this image could be anywhere between the late first century and the late third, with most scholars who studied the image leaning toward a later date. With either date, the image also provides some evidence of the kind of discrimination faced by early Christians within their Roman context before the abolition of such practices in the early fourth century by the emperor Constantine.
Among the many accusations leveled at Christians during this period of persecution was the connection of Christianity and Judaism with the practice of “onolatry” (or donkey-worship). Descriptions of these accusations are discussed by the early Christian heresiologist Tertullian in the late second century. He mentions that these groups were accused of worshipping a god that had the head of a donkey, he even mentions a story of a Jew who had converted to Christianity being forced to walk around the north African city of Carthage carrying the image of a man with a donkey’s ears and hooves with the label “the God of the Christians born of an ass.”
Tertullain, Ad nations, 1:11
In the next accusation we are found guilty not just of abandoning our communal faith, but of adding on a monstrosity of superstition. Some of you have entertained the dream that our god is actually the head of an ass. Cornelius Tacitus first launched this fantasy in the fourth book of his Histories where he recounts the Jewish war. Starting with the origins of the Jewish people, he traces the source of their religion and its name. He relates how the Jewish people, hard-pressed for water and wondering abroad in desolate places, were delivered by following the lead of a herd of wild asses thought to be in search of water after feeding. For this reason the likeness of this animal is worshiped by the Jew. This is why I believe that we Christians, being linked to the Jewish religion, are associated with the same image...Perhaps this is your charge against us that in the midst of all these indiscriminate animal lovers, we save our devotion for asses alone!
Tertullain, Ad nations, 1:14
There is now a new rumor about our God going the rounds. Recently a most depraved individual from Rome, your city, had defected from his own faith and allowed his skin to be shredded by wild beasts. Every day he would hire himself out for viewing while his skin was stripped. He would carry around a picture directed against us with the heading "Onocoetes," meaning Donkey Priest. It was a picture of a man wearing a toga and the ears of the donkey with a book in hand and one leg ending in a hoof. And the crowd believed this Jewish man. Who else plants the seed of our infamous reputation? As a result the whole city is talking about the Donkey Priest. Since this rumor has been around since yesterday, it lacks any authority of time and is compromised by the character of its author.
The image of the Alexamenos graffito raises important questions of religious tolerance, the representation of Jesus within early anti-Christian art, and the response of worshipers to derogatory implications.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Yo Mama’s Last Supper
The "Last Supper" by Leonardo da Vinci is one of the most iconic images of Jesus in the Western world. Da Vinci created the 15 x 29 ft. mural painting in the 15th century on behalf of his patron Duke Ludovico Sforza. Currently the painting hangs on a wall at Santa Maria delle Grazie in Milan, Italy. The painting depicts the meal that Jesus shared with his disciples on the night of his betrayal and arrest. The disciples are portrayed as frightened and dismayed, suggesting that Jesus had just announced his impending arrest and execution.
Since this image has become almost universally known in the west, it has been used as a source for later artistic images of the Last Supper and even for advertising campaigns and parodies. The iconic nature of Da Vinci's painting allows images from pop culture to replace Jesus and the disciples to evoke comedic and offensive reactions (see 50 Last Supper Parodies)
In 2001, controversial artist Renee Cox again employed the image of Da Vinci's "Last Supper" to make statements concerning women, race, religion, and politics. Her series of photographs, entitled "Yo Mama's Last Supper," were installed in the Brooklyn Museum of Art as part of a 2001 exhibit on contemporary black photographers. The images replace Jesus with a self-portrait of a nude Renee Cox surrounded by eleven black disciples and a white Judas. The images ignited a controversy when New York City Mayor Rudolph Guiliani called the installation "disgusting," "outrageous" and "anti-Catholic." He subsequently called for a "decency panel" to review all works of art shown in any museum that received public funds (Elisabeth Bumiller, NY Times, Friday, February 16, 2001, see the archive at nytimes.com). Cox responded, "Get over it," and subsequently went skiing for the weekend. Later in an interview with Salon.com, she elaborated on her feelings about the reaction: "The thing is, here in America, it still is a very puritanical state of mind going on and when people of Giuliani's ilk see something that is nude, somehow they react that it's obscene. I say you should refer back to Greek antiquities. The Met is full of naked Greek statues and no one is upset about that." Cox continued that in addition to the statement the images make about women, it was also a critique of the Catholic Church and how it has treated women, Africans, and all minorities, noting the lack of traditional images of people of color in classic Christian scenarios.
Image Source: www.reneecox.net/series04/series04_1.html
Since this image has become almost universally known in the west, it has been used as a source for later artistic images of the Last Supper and even for advertising campaigns and parodies. The iconic nature of Da Vinci's painting allows images from pop culture to replace Jesus and the disciples to evoke comedic and offensive reactions (see 50 Last Supper Parodies)
In 2001, controversial artist Renee Cox again employed the image of Da Vinci's "Last Supper" to make statements concerning women, race, religion, and politics. Her series of photographs, entitled "Yo Mama's Last Supper," were installed in the Brooklyn Museum of Art as part of a 2001 exhibit on contemporary black photographers. The images replace Jesus with a self-portrait of a nude Renee Cox surrounded by eleven black disciples and a white Judas. The images ignited a controversy when New York City Mayor Rudolph Guiliani called the installation "disgusting," "outrageous" and "anti-Catholic." He subsequently called for a "decency panel" to review all works of art shown in any museum that received public funds (Elisabeth Bumiller, NY Times, Friday, February 16, 2001, see the archive at nytimes.com). Cox responded, "Get over it," and subsequently went skiing for the weekend. Later in an interview with Salon.com, she elaborated on her feelings about the reaction: "The thing is, here in America, it still is a very puritanical state of mind going on and when people of Giuliani's ilk see something that is nude, somehow they react that it's obscene. I say you should refer back to Greek antiquities. The Met is full of naked Greek statues and no one is upset about that." Cox continued that in addition to the statement the images make about women, it was also a critique of the Catholic Church and how it has treated women, Africans, and all minorities, noting the lack of traditional images of people of color in classic Christian scenarios.
Image Source: www.reneecox.net/series04/series04_1.html
Monday, January 18, 2010
The Assignment
Students will choose a particular “construction” of Jesus to present at the beginning of a class session. This can be a piece of either ancient or modern art. The students will present one or two images of Jesus to the class with an introduction and explanation. The students are then responsible for leading a discussion with the class. At least two days before the student is scheduled to present in class, the written presentation (approximately 3 pages) should be posted to the course blog (constructingjesus.blogspot.com) where we will collect all of the presentations. The written presentation should include an explanation of the context of the image (artist, time period), a description of how Jesus is represented in the work, and an interpretation of the message that the artist is trying to convey about Jesus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)