Constructing Jesus

Dana Ellyn art

2010-04-20T16:40:00.000-07:00

“Silly Rabbit, Myths are for Kids” is one of the works created by Dana Ellyn. This piece of work features Jesus in a bunny suit, being laughed at by a female figure, who appears to be a woman, but is assumed to be a child based on the title and her size. Although this figure may imply that the message is geared toward children, it more than likely is implying the silliness of adults who believe in these Church teachings with the unquestioning acceptance of a child. It plays off the commercialization of Easter, portraying Jesus as the Easter Bunny, while also making a statement about the reality of Jesus, implying he and his resurrection as just as mythical as the holiday creature. The Trix slogan “Silly rabbit, Trix are for kids” is being used to add to the humorous intent of the piece.

Two of her other works, “Bottled at the Source” and “Jesus Does His Nails” follow a similar model. “Jesus Does His Nails” was brought to the public’s attention in September of 2009 when it was the featured artwork for Blasphemy Day. This faux holiday had the goal of “opening up all religious beliefs to the same level of free inquiry, discussion and criticism to which all other areas of academic interest are subjective.”

According to Center for inquiry, the organization that created Blasphemy Day, the day is part of a movement to stop the hindrance of honest criticism in the area of religion. They seem to view religion as they would any other academic subject, and would like to see it approached as such, with objective discussion. It is part of the larger Campaign for Free Expression. Looking at her other works, Ellyn seems to take a similar approach to subjects such as politics, evidence that she may really be trying to open up the subject of religion to a new kind of discussion.

Ellyn grew up without being exposed to religion, until one encounter with her father at age sixteen and then through college coursework. She viewed Christianity in much of the same light as she percieved ancient gods and goddesses. As she grew older, she sought to learn more about religion, although she never took to believing in any religion. She’s comfortable with her lack of beliefs. She says her works are not meant to offend, but she does admit she hopes they can bring people a laugh. Although Ellyn is happy with her beliefs, she has been quoted saying that she does not want to be a “poster child” for atheists. While she openly states that she neither believes in a any god, nor does she practice religion, she does not want that to be the defining aspect of her art.

Although we’ve discussed many artists who are not trying to offend, but simply “provoking discussion”, I do feel as though Ellyn may be at least somewhat sincere in her claim. I say this because she does approach other subjects, like politics, in much the same manner. We’ve all experienced the heated discussion political views can bring and yet how an objective mindset is often kept. Religious debate often seems to be taken more personal; it’s one thing to insult someone’s political choice, but their god? That’s hitting a little too close to home for most. Ellyn seems to be trying to break down some of the barriers in the discussion, making religion more like other disciplines.

At the same time, it would be naïve of her to think that such images would not offend believers in Jesus as the Christ. Because she is atheist, she has no ties to religious figures and feels comfortable poking fun at them. However, when looking at some of her works, I did not see her focusing on atheism or other religions to start discussion. Instead, she focused on Christianity, likely because it is one of the most accepted religions, and would give her a larger audience of people who have taken notice. She is purposely going after the big one here, and seems to do so successfully. While her intention may have been to foster discussion on religion, I doubt much talk goes beyond the scope of discussing her work.

Ellyn admits that she is trying to get a few laughs with her work. She is commenting on the seriousness of religion by adding humor into her works, which do have a message. As a Christian, I feel as though I should be offended by an image of my god presented in this way. Yet, I found myself letting out a little giggle. Her play on words is clever. The images themselves are slightly funny to me, and if I weren’t Christian, I’d probably be rolling on the floor laughing. I realize that this is probably because many of the traditions within certain Christian groups, such as believing that the wine at Church is literally transformed into Jesus’ blood (at least up until part of the digestive tract because Jesus can’t be bodily waste-I’m not kidding, my high school taught that), are rather ridiculous. If I, a Christian, can laugh at their seemingly absurdness, I would expect a stronger response from someone who didn’t believe in Jesus as the Messiah. While the idea of Jesus being equated to the Trix rabbit is also pretty humorous, it does point out that the story seems often more fiction than fact. That said, it would seem as though Ellyn’s works are drawing light to the ideas she hoped to presents.

Sources:
http://randazza.wordpress.com/2009/09/30/jesus-blasphemous-nails/
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/dc/events/blasphemy_day_artist_showcase_dana_ellyn/

The Art of the Billboard

2010-04-18T21:34:00.000-07:00

Billboards have been around a long time, according to Wikipedia the first “real” posters were created in 1794 with the invention of the lithograph. Traditionally billboards were considered a means to sell a particular product or advertise a service. Now we see billboards being used more creatively with 3D components, light up features, and changing messages. The modern billboard is also used to advertise a wider variety of messages. While some may still consider billboards strictly a way to advertise, the “products” can now be opinions on any number of subjects including politics and religion.

When most people think of religious billboards their mind turns to something fairly controversial they may have seen with their own eyes. Billboards are common and living in the Midwest means that most of us have seen religious billboards on a more regular basis than we have been exposed to great works of art. Some people claim it is the size of the billboard that makes the message stand out and others see the seemingly public space that the billboard occupies as the problem. Because of varying locations of where billboards are placed free speech is also brought in to question. Most religious billboards that I have seen deal with issues of abortion in favor of both sides, but sometimes these ads bring humor in to play, like the God speaks billboards with slogans like, “don’t make me come down there,” or “If you must curse use your own name”. Other ad campaigns combine a product with religion such as the portrayal of Jesus drinking a beer between the words “King of Jews/King of Beers”.

However, the billboard I chose to focus on seems much less controversial, at least it did at first glance. The billboard portrays Jesus’ head in a field of wheat as his hand holds up a fistful of the same wheat. Jesus is portrayed as white with a brown beard and blue eyes. The billboard was built in 2009 in Colby, Kansas along interstate 70. Tuffy Taylor and Linda Kay Taylor were the couple behind this particular billboard although they were not the ones who created the image. Instead they hired an artist from a nearby shopping center, Phyllis Shanks, “who paints on a variety of mediums, including rocks,” (Corn). Although Phyllis has her own website advertising her other work, mainly paperweights, she does not mention this particular piece of artwork at all. I don’t know if this means that the website was outdated or that she did not care to comment since the Taylors have tried to stay fairly anonymous as well.

The Taylor’s say they were influenced by similar billboards but they wanted this particular piece to make people think for themselves. They purposefully chose not to include their names or any message to accompany the picture of Jesus hoping that, “People could make up their own mind,” said Tuffy Taylor. However, the art itself was important enough to convince the Taylors to finance the billboard almost entirely themselves. They admit to having lots of outside help with putting their message in to action, but if they had not they estimate the billboard would have cost around 34,000 dollars.

A few bloggers have described this image of Jesus as creepy because they describe Jesus as disembodied and relate the picture to agricultural horror films. That was not my opinion. Initially I found the billboard refreshing. It was nice to see a religious image on a billboard that did not preach something hateful or portray some sort of trashy humor. Billboards are often used as gimmicks, but that wasn’t what I saw. Although the wheat is not discussed in any interview I could find with the Taylor’s it was essential to how I first thought about the billboard. It seemed that this billboard was making a connection between the modern day hardships of the farmer and Jesus’ possible agricultural background.

It seemed to be a picture that quite clearly showed Jesus sharing his bounty, but that is the risk you take when you don’t add an explanation to your art. In fact some readers added their own slogans to the billboard, “Fresh, like Jesus, our bread was risen this morning,” or "welcome to Kansas, home of the crazies" and "Praise White Jesus! Praise Wheat Jesus!” In general most of the 99 comments posted to this article found the billboard offensive or ridiculous in ways that I couldn’t see. I agree that portraying a white Jesus is typical, but it doesn’t really strike me as a surprise given the context of the billboard.

One comment from a woman who identified as Catholic thought the billboard was offensive because it “treated Jesus as a joke”. At first I found this comment extremely unjustified, but maybe the means were more offensive to her than the actual image. Billboards could be seen as a cheap or frivolous way to portray any type of spiritual message.

All things considered I found this image to be interesting if not completely original because of how it communicated to its audience. I might find a giant head of Jesus intimidating in some cases but against a real blue sky surrounded by nature seems like Jesus is remembered by this couple as a giant peaceful farmer and I sort of like that image.

Works Cited
Corn, Mike. "Colby Couple raises billboard of Jesus on I-70." L.J.World. 2 August 2009. Web. 18 April 2010.

Additional links
http://www2.ljworld.com/photos/2009/aug/02/175105/
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2009/aug/02/colby-couple-raise-billboard-jesus-i-70/
http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&tbs=isch%3A1&sa=1&q=religious+billboards&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&start=0

Has Animation Gone too Far?

2010-04-12T20:48:00.000-07:00

On many occasions, society depicts Jesus in cartoon and other TV shows that air daily. It is not hard to flip on the TV and find some sort of representation of Jesus or other aspects of Christianity. Often times, the representations are thoughtful and full of insight. Other times, they are downright rude and discourteous. However, it seems as if society is more ok with these graphic outbursts of what some would call blasphemy. It is getting more and more difficult to portray Jesus in a new, innovative way that can describe his holiness or resemblance of God. On the other hand, it seems like cartoons are defiling his name monthly, if not more often than that. One such show that has numerous references to Jesus and Christianity is “Family Guy”.

“Family guy” producers have had Jesus or God appear in over 10 episodes, and they seem to be increasing in frequency. As these are recent portrayals of Jesus, occurring in the last decade, they seem to have modern twists on the way that Jesus is depicted. One time, Jesus is a record store employee, who says that he is just checking in on the world, and does so every few hundred years.[1] This is very contrary to what many Christians believe. The idea of Jesus coming back to the earth is when the Kingdom of God shall reign and life will change drastically. However, according to “Family Guy”, Jesus just wants to hang out and reconnect with earth. This makes it seem as if the Kingdom of God is not what the religion has made it out to be. Why would anyone want to leave what is supposed to be better than anything ever imaginable, to come back to earth? I don’t think the writers of the show have thought this deep into the scenario, but I am sure that I am not the first one who has. For the record, I could not find any comments from the creators of “Family Guy” on their portrayals of Jesus so anything that I say about them is speculative.

In other episodes, the writers have had Peter (the main character) and his family test Jesus and have him perform acts to prove his holiness.[2] This could be a modern way of showing what people did to Jesus in Galilee. It was often that Jesus was tempted and people asked favors of him. However, is this offensive in the manner that “Family Guy” presents the requests? Traditionally, people asked of Jesus miracle that would bring them back into society, or to have society accept them as a person again. Often, this included casting out of demons, healing of disease, or cleansing of sins. In cartoon portrayals, Jesus generally will perform miracles to “better” them by social standards today. This is not so much as changing what Jesus does, but rather tuning Jesus to our present culture. Some loose similarities could be on the minds of “Family Guy” writers.

There are many instances in episodes where Jesus is put into a more comical, less theological scenario. Jesus is seen on the golf course, in the back of limos, and turning into comic book characters. Are the writers just trying to be comical in these instances? I believe that they are writing more than just comedy. It seems as if “Family Guy” writers could be trying to say is that religion it too serious in present society. People claim that if Jesus is taken out of context, then you will burn in hell. Preachers preach that the only way to reach heaven is to be Christ-like. In all honesty, how do these people know that Jesus was not a fun-loving, down to earth kind of guy (no pun intended). The view of Jesus brought out by the writers is one of a different type of Christ, one that many teenagers and college age kids might see at more their level. Perhaps this is a way that religion should start to portray Jesus to spark interest in young adults.

Now you may be asking yourself, just because Jesus may appeal to people in these scenarios, does that make it right? Are the writers of “Family Guy” doing the world any good by portraying Jesus in the manner that they have? It is often thought by critics that family guy goes too far. They create an image that tarnishes the view of Jesus and Christianity as a whole. They believe that the offensiveness needs to stop. Ultimately, the question should be asked; is humor an appropriate way of understanding Jesus? Or is this more offensive than it is beneficial?[3]

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIK3GXdkxL0

[2] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkPgYbdQ1kQ&feature=related)

[3] http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/16253/ - this contains many clips of “Family Guy” portraying Jesus and God

Pieta by Paul Fryer

2010-04-11T14:52:00.001-07:00

The most common artwork of the death of Jesus we normally see would be Jesus dying on the cross. But this piece of sculpture – Pieta by Paul Fryer, a British artist, shows Jesus posing on an electric chair, dead. It didn’t shock me much as I have seen a few debatable pieces during our class. But I did have a lot of questions when I first saw the picture. I wasn’t exactly sure whether this was just another art piece that trying to create controversy to gain fame or if there was a deeper meaning behind it. I also wasn’t sure whether Jesus died on the electric chair or he still died on the cross but was taken down and moved to the chair afterward. If there is a deeper meaning, is the artist trying to raise the topic of anti death penalty? Or is he trying to say that we have become so corrupt that Jesus must die again for us?

Pietà in Latin language means pity, in Italian it originally is a subject in Christian art depicting the Virgin Mary cradling the dead body of Jesus and it is often found in sculpture. Pietà is a form of the lamentation of Christ, a scene from the Passion of Christ found in cycles of the Life of Christ. When Christ and the Virgin are surrounded by other figures from the New Testament. Pieta is one of the three common artistic representations of a sorrowful Virgin Mary.

Paul Fryer was born in Leeds, England in 1963 and moved to London in 1996. It states in his biography on his own website that studied art in Leeds College of Arts but never received any degree. He was once an electro pop singer, transvestite DJ and poet and musical director. Fryer was commented as an artist who is “throwback to the enlightenment of the 18^th century as he is prescient of the new.” Paul Fryer claims himself as a going-church Christian. After going through some of his work, it seems he hardly had any religious related art pieces until the display of Pietà in 2006.

Paul Fryer’s Pietà is made of wax, wood and human hair. Unlike traditional Pietàs, Jesus is not cradled by the Virgin Mary but an electric chair. The sculpture portrays Jesus in a “quasi-crucifix” pose, except he is not on the cross but in an electric chair looking unconscious. Pietà was displayed with his new two-part exhibition “Let There Be More Light” held in the Holy trinity Church, Marylebone, Oc. 14-21 2008, and Simon Dickinson Gallery, London, Oct. 15-31 2008.[1] In April 2009, Pietà was installed in different cathedrals in the French town of Gap, which were supported by the Cathedral’s Bishop Jean Micheldi Falco. This time the art caused big controversy, even several protests in France as well as England.

As I previously mentioned this piece has caused some great debate and discussion. British press and some Christian organizations criticized Fryer for trying to start a controversy with the use of a religious symbol to create fame for himself. They also questioned that the intention behind the defend by the Bishop as he said to the interviewed he was overjoyed to see “a large number of people who normal don’t step foot in a church line up at the cathedral.”

After days of debating and questioning Fryer did step out and explained his position: “The scandal is not where one believes it to be. I wanted the provoked shock to make us once again conscious of the scandal of someone being nailed to a cross. “Usually, one does not feel any real emotions in front of something really scandalous: the Crucifixion. If Jesus had been sentenced today, he would have to reckon with the electric chair or other barbaric methods of execution. Scandalous is therefore not Jesus in the electric chair, but the indifference to his crucifixion.”

His words make sense to me, it seems he wanted to challenge us to see modern punishment is still as bizarre and cruel as ancient Roman methods. Paul Fryer’s Pietà is asking us if we are so offended seeing Jesus in the electric chair, shouldn’t we feel the same for a convicted person? And how many people are executed today for reasons that we are certain and are valid, but future opinion will consider barbaric. Another thought I got from this work is if Jesus were to be executed today, he would be strapped to a chair instead of on the cross.

Mr Fryer said: “The meaning is open to interpretation. But the original meaning of the Latin word Pieta is pity. To take pity is a crucial part of living, human beings taken pity others.” Today people might be electrocuted or given the lethal injection, but it is all the same thing, someone ending another person’s life.

Lately, Paul Fryer raised even more eyebrows when he replaced the Jesus was a starving, exhausting black Jesus. He said to the interviewer that, he wants to tell the world that hundreds more black people have been executed in the chair than white people. More black people are suffering from hunger than white people. The piece is also trying to make a point that after 2000 years of Christ’s death, people still execute people.

Overall, I don’t think Paul Fryer was simply trying to throw something that would cause controversy in order to throw his name out there. As he said, people usually focus on the less important point of the story, such as the scandalous of Jesus being in the electric chair, but not showing any emotion to his crucifixion. Paul Fryer was also trying to challenge people to face the darker side of the modern punishment of the society we are living in. It really got me thinking, how would we react if Jesus were sentenced with death penalty today? Would him be put in the electric chair? I think a lot of us have the same answer.

Reference:

http://kevers.net/blog/?p=2301

http://www.dazeddigital.com/ArtsAndCulture/article/5408/1/Paul_Fryer__Age_Of_The_Marvellous

http://www.sustainablepractice.org/page/57/

http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/the-ticket/2009/04/art-paul-fryers-pieta-at-the-c.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piet%C3%A0

Rest for the Weary

2010-04-07T06:41:00.000-07:00

My first thought when looking at “Rest for the Weary” by Michael Belk, was very curious and unsure. I was not sure what this image was trying to say and unsure if it was a positive or negative depiction of Jesus. The image appears to have a business man that looks very stressed and tired laying across Jesus’ lap on the steps of a business building.
Michael Belk is a self-taught photographer born in Orlando, he never picked-up a camera until he was 20 years old. Michael started photographing sample lines and models and presenting to retail clients. The first year or two of Michaels career, he describes his career as very exhausting and unfulfilling. One day he describes an epiphany that he had. He says that he felt the presence of Jesus in his room one night and that he was to start photographing something different. Michael then started creating Journeys with the Messiah. These are works of art that depict the teachings of Jesus but with modern examples. Michael felt like he was called to create works of art by God and I believe that he has don’t a good job of recreating his teachings.
“Rest for the Weary” was created in March 2009 in the midst of a serious economic downturn. People’s fortunes have been lost with bank failures, jobs have been lost, and people are working harder for less. Michael talks about that we are assigning too much importance to issues “that, in the end, will be of no consequence”. Today we worry so much about little things that in the end we will not have. We are focusing so much of our time on money and possessions that will not matter after we die. If we are cutting off relationships with others and God for the sake of gaining an extra dollar, we are only hurting ourselves in the long run. Jesus said that we are not to worry, but to “seek His Kingdom first” and His Father would generously take care of our needs. With the events that have happened we need to look back at what Jesus has said and focus on what is important in life, friends, family, and your faith. On Michael’s website he gets this depiction from his interpretations of Matthew 11:28. In this passage Jesus is telling others to come to him when you are exhausted and need rest. In “Rest for the Weary” the exhausted and overworked businessman comes to Jesus in the midst of a financial collapse.
In conclusion, “Rest for the Weary” brings us a picture of Jesus in a modern scene. A lot of the pictures that are of Jesus have a scene of ancient times and I find it interesting how this artist brings Jesus into modern day terms. I chose to do this picture for my project because I like how the artist brings a historical Jesus into the current time and issues that we are dealing with now. Belk reminds us to whom we should turn for peace in a world filled with financial struggles & economic downturn.

Works Cited
"The Journeys Project." Christian Art Prints | Jesus Art Photography. Web. 05 Apr. 2010. .
"Matthew 11:28-30 - Passage Lookup." BibleGateway.com. Web. 04 Apr. 2010. .
"Taking the Journey: Seasoned Photographer Answers God?s Call | The Underground."
The Underground -- Not Your Average Christian Mag. Web. 05 Apr. 2010. .

"The Truth" by Michael D'Antuono

2010-04-04T19:17:00.001-07:00

by Clarissa LaFlora

“Yes” and “no” were the first two words that popped into my head when looking at the piece art. Jesus is and was known as a figure who gave his life for the sins of many others. He helped so many people in all different kinds of ways. And Jesus was the “Son of God”. Barack Obama is the President of the United States. He is looked at for guidance, for support, and for a helping hand. He is supposed to help lead our nation into the right direction. “Yes” and “no” came to mind at first because Jesus and Obama do have some similarities such as helping and supporting others. People look up to them for guidance, but Obama didn’t save the lives of many by healing their diseases. He didn’t put his life before others because that was his life prophecy. At first glance, I assumed the author was trying to compare about great of a man Obama is considered to be to that of the man Jesus was.

“The Truth” by Michael D’Antuono was done in 2009. Michael is known for his skills with oil painting and his creations with classical romantic art. But one day, he was listening to various news stations and heard many different accounts and interpretations to certain events and he saw how these events affected people in everyday life. For that reason, he was inspired to paint “The Truth”. This is a very controversial piece portraying President Obama standing in front of the presidential seal in a crucifixion like pose. He is also wearing a crown of thrones.

This piece of art brought on a lot of controversy especially those associated with religion. The painting was supposed to be unveiled in New York’s Union Square on President Obama’s 100^th day in office. The painting was supposed to be in a mock voting booth for people to view privately and then interviewed to express their own opinions. The intent of the painting was to show everyone how many of out interpretations are often distorted by the political view. The political view often shapes what we consider to be “The Truth” and how it has become a dangerous problem in our nation today. D’Antuono decided not to show his painting in the Union Square because the upcoming of the unveiling was being announced on television and with this announcement, his picture was shown. After that, Michael had received about 3,000 e-mails and about 98% of those e-mails expressed some sort of anger towards his painting. Michael also wanted to create public discourse with this painting. He wanted to public to come together and discuss the issues and feel free to express themselves. Michael wanted everyone’s voice t be heard and that is a main element that he tries to convey and produce in many of his pieces of art.

Michael claims that he was not trying to disrespect anyone’s religion or try and assume that President Obama is Jesus Christ, but the religious aspects to this piece were metaphoric. The central theme of this piece of art is his makes people think and wonder if what they see as being the “truth” is the real truth. Many of his pieces of art bring a new life to reality while trying to help others understand the complexity of his work and life. The purposes of his pieces are to bring on discussion not anger.

The title of the piece, “The Truth,” suggests a play on biblical themes, as Jesus said in John 14:6, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me”. This art is not exactly the retelling of the text, but it can be related back to the painting. To many, Jesus was seen as the way, the truth, and the life. President Obama is seen as a figure that is the leader of us all and he too can be seen as the way. But how do the people know what he is saying is the truth and he is the life? Many people have a problem with this painting because they feel that the painting suggest Barack Obama is the Messiah and all should follow him when that is not what Michael D’Autuono didn’t mean at all. This piece of art certainly brings on new perspectives like I had mentioned earlier in this response. This piece of art clearly brings on questions of whether the President is the Messiah and if and how they are related to each other. The pose in this piece and the crown of thrones is meant to suggest something more than what people just see. “The Truth” questions what we know and what we think we know. It questions what is the “truth” and if what are being told is the “truth”. It brings on a dispute of how political views often shape what we see and how we think. “This piece of art is more than a presidential portrait," writes D'Antuono on a website touting the painting, "'The Truth' is a politically, religiously and socially-charged statement on our nation's current political climate and deep partisan divide that is sure to create a dialogue."

References:

http://freedomeden.blogspot.com/2009/04/michael-dantuono-truth-and-obama.html
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=96138
http://www.artandresponse.com/

Jesus of the People - Janet McKenzie

2010-03-29T12:30:00.000-07:00

By Kelsi Roberts

Large photo

In western society, the most common depiction of Jesus Christ is of a white man with long brown hair and a beard. All of us have seen this image somewhere—perhaps in church, at a relative’s house, or in a Bible. One could assert, however, that this white, male image of Jesus, could make certain groups of people feel disconnected from Jesus.

In 1999, Janet McKenzie, an artist from Essex County, VT heard about the Jesus 2000 competition put on by the National Catholic Reporter’s Commission. This contest aimed to attract pieces of art depicting a new “Jesus for the millennium” (janetmckenzie.com). McKenzie’s piece, “Jesus of the People,” depicting an African-American Jesus, won the competition.

The judge, Sister Wendy Beckett of PBS, said of the piece, “This is a haunting image of a peasant Jesus – dark, thick-lipped, looking out on us with ineffable dignity, with sadness but with confidence. Over His white robe He draws the darkness of our lack of love, holding it to Himself, prepared to transform all sorrows if we will let Him” (janetmckenzie.com).

Before creating this piece, much of McKenzie’s work was focused on imagery of women and African Americans—groups she feels are underrepresented in art and in our world. After hearing about the Jesus 2000 contest, McKenzie intended to make her image of Jesus in celebration of her nephew, who is a person of color, so that he might be able to see himself in Jesus. McKenzie also opted to utilize a female model to give Jesus a more feminine, soft appearance so that perhaps women would also be able to connect with the image as well. She feels that these two groups are often commonly left out when it comes to representations of Jesus. One of her goals with this piece was to show that “Jesus is in all of us” (Janetmckenzie.com).

McKenzie says that she did not intend this painting to cause controversy. Instead, her hope was that more people would be able to connect with Jesus on a different level. McKenzie herself claims to be a “devout agnostic,” but says that the painting is “about love” (Laredo Morning Times).

The first thing I noticed about this piece when first coming across it was that Jesus was depicted as black. This is an incredibly obvious observation, however, it is something that is not often seen in depictions of Jesus. Upon further inspection of the piece, I noticed a few things that I had never seen in an image of Jesus before: A feather and a yin-yang symbol.

As I researched the meaning behind these symbols, I came across McKenzie’s explanation. The yin-yang symbol not only incorporates another culture into the painting, it also symbolizes “perfect harmony.” The halo behind Jesus’ head (that we do see in many other paintings) represents “Jesus’ holiness.” The feather beside Jesus incorporates yet another culture into the painting (Native American), but also represents “transcendent knowledge” (janetmckenzie.com). The pink in the background signifies femininity, but also signifies the color of blood (natcath.com).

These meanings are definitely peripheral. At first glance, one may not notice just how many different kinds of people are represented in this painting. These symbols help to further McKenzie’s goal in making people feel that “Jesus is in all of us” and to incorporate as many cultures as possible. As I have mentioned, the cultures of women, African American, Native American, and Asians are all included in this work.

This painting seems to not necessarily be a retelling of biblical text, but more of a reinterpretation of what Jesus may have looked like. The artist is really trying to convey that Jesus can essentially be whatever we want him to be. She says on her website that she is not trying to replace any existing images of Jesus, she just wants to add this one “in addition to” the others, so that people who may feel disconnected to Jesus have a way to connect and can “see themselves in him” (janetmckenzie.com).

This piece certainly brings a new cultural perspective to Jesus, as I have mentioned throughout this analysis. This Jesus clearly strays from the white, male norm and goes toward a multicultural depiction that many more people can connect to. McKenzie is really challenging what we accept in western society as truth, and with this painting, tries to show that Jesus could have been any color, sex, or culture. What she is really trying to get at is that Jesus should symbolize love and acceptance, so that everyone can identify with Jesus, not just white men. As she says, “all of us need to be celebrated in the images of Jesus…” (janetmckenzie.com).

Much of McKenzie’s other works include women and multiracial holy families. For example, McKenzie has one piece depicting the “three wise women” and other pieces that depict the holy family as African, Asian, Caucasian, and Indian. She aims to allow, “all people to find themselves celebrated.” She has received some hate mail for “Jesus of the People,” but much more mail supporting it.

An interesting video interview with Janet McKenzie:

Sources: Janet Mckenzie's Website

Laredo Morning Times

The National Catholic Reporter

The Baltimore Sun

Why Do We Celebrate Christmas?

2010-03-28T19:01:00.000-07:00

When I was thinking about what I wanted to do for my Jesus Then and Now presentation I didn’t really know where to start. The ones I had thought about doing were already used in class, so I felt I was kind of in a bind. Then, after some research, I stumbled across a news story out of Nipomo, California.

To most people Christmas has two main ideas. For all the religious people, it signifies the birth of our Lord, Jesus Christ. He is portrayed as and angelic child lying down surrounded by his parents, and many others. To other people, like the kids, it means that it’s time for Santa Clause will come down the chimney and leave presents under the tree if you’ve been a good boy/girl. People around Christmas time also like to decorate their houses with festive lights and lawn displays portraying these two figures of the Christmas holiday. However, instead of choosing one of these figures to use in your lawn decorations, what not just use both?

This last Christmas, Ron Lake of Nipomo, California did just that. On his lawn, he put a life size Jesus figure standing over what is supposed to be the body of a dead Santa Clause. I forgot to mention, Jesus is holding a two barrel shot gun in his hands. The piece of “art” is supposed to represent the United States idea of commercialism during the Christmas Holidays. “You can tell your kids and make it as if there’s a Santa Claus,” said Lake, “and let them believe all that, but you can’t explain these things or ignore this thing. I don’t get it.”

Susan Cruz, a neighbor of Lakes said, “I know it’s freedom of speech, but it’s pretty disturbing and there are lots of children, that’s our main concern.” After it was put up, multiple complaints were filed with the police. Others are concerned about the children because the display is located right next to bus stop. The concern is that the kids will get the wrong idea about the holiday and it will there for make it a negative experience for them.

“Christmas is not about Santa,” said Lake, “it’s about Jesus, not the Jesus as the killer with the shotgun, but come on there’s a little humor here, a little tragedy here.”

Lake also said, “It’s an expression of my repressed creativity.”

When looking at this image I don’t know what to think. I personally am a semi-religious individual. Seeing Jesus with a shotgun in his hand is the last thing I think about when I think of Christmas. I feel like Santa is a way for children to enjoy this holiday. I feel that this man is trying to portray how our country represents this holiday. Christmas is ultimately a holiday to celebrate the life of Jesus, but our society uses it to sell and make our consumerist run society eager for more.

I am also kind of offended because this guy is portraying Jesus as a killer. A quote he gave before said differently, but when you put a gun in his hands and dead body of Santa portrayed on the ground it’s hard not to be a little upset by it. Jesus was never portrayed this way in the bible, and especially on a holiday like this, this is the last image I’d want to see.

Questions

Do you find this picture disturbing? Do you think this is appropriate?

Does the fact that this is a freedom of speech issue make it any more ok?

Do you think this picture properly portrays U.S. commercialism?

Do we focus too much at material goods during this time of year, and not enough on Jesus’ story?

Do you think he has a point behind his argument?

“Dopbilder” by Elisabeth Ohlson Wallin

2010-03-24T00:00:00.001-07:00

Shocking and thought provoking were the first words that entered my head when I first saw this picture. Many things struck me about this picture. The unavoidable truth located at Jesus’ waist was the first thing that was obvious to me. Do we need to see naked Jesus? What is the artist trying to say? My interpretation is that this is a western style homosexual modern day Jesus. His face, hair, and beard match a sort of stereotypical western view of Jesus. He is holding what I imagine are his clothes and is at peace with his baptism. There are a few things that triggered me that this seems to be a homosexual interpretation. First, he is naked. I don’t know many baptisms of adults where the person has to be naked. Second, John is behind Jesus and they are both standing. From what I have seen of baptisms it seems that the person getting baptized faces and even bows or kneels. Not only is he behind him, but his hand is also placed on Jesus’ hip. It seems modern day to me because they are in what looks to be a pool and John’s hair and facial hair. This doesn’t fit with my classical ideas of what they would look like if they were from before 30 A.D.

In addition to the features of the work I just mentioned there is a dove on Jesus’ shoulder. The two also appear to be very alone.

This photo was included in a collection of 12 photos called Ecce Homo. They were created by Swedish photographer Elisabeth Ohlson Wallin. She has been called one of Sweden’s best-known and established contemporary photographers. She is also ranked as the creator of one of the world's 20 most abused piece of art. The collection was shown in 1998 in Stockholm at Sweden's foremost church, Uppsala Cathedral. The photos show Christ at different stages of his life in the company of homosexuals. When it was first shown riots, demonstrations, and anger flowed towards Wallin and those who allowed it to be displayed. Pope John Paul II also canceled a meeting with Swedish Archbishop K.G. Hammar because of the exhibition. Ecce Homo is Latin for “behold the man”. Pilate used the phrase when he presented Jesus to the angry crowd before the Crucifixion. Wallin chose it for it as the title because of the obvious wordplay with the word homosexual.

In a Wired article she explained how the exhibition came about. "I realized what a great responsibility the church assumes when it issues statements about homosexuals. We still live by the morals and ethics of the Bible."

Wallin, a lesbian, wanted to remind people that Jesus worked with and helped the outcasts of the society. She had the idea when one of her friends died of AIDS in the early 1990s, and saw that some religious extremists called it God's punishment for homosexuality. In a translated quote she said, “The reason that I did Ecce Homo was that there were / are priests who said that AIDS is God's punishment.”

This picture is titled “Dopbilder” which translates to “baptism photo.” This photo is what she calls the source of the entire exhibition. She also said this picture represented her frustration the most.

What I interpreted to be a pool is actually a traditional bathhouse in Stockholm. The dove symbolizes the Holy Spirit coming to Jesus.

Since then, Ohlson travels with a bodyguard after receiving several death threats. In 2007, a Christian group tried to set fire to one of her pictures and a fight between 30 people broke out.

This is certainly an important piece. It has been shown around the world and is a time when it was far less acceptable to be gay. The fact that it was displayed in a church is remarkable to me. She is a significant artist because she has shown how religion affects our everyday lives and how the rhetoric of churches may not always include minority groups and represent their values of peace and acceptance. Jesus hung out with the outcasts and she points out through her work that there is some hypocrisy in that.

http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/1999/08/21012 "

Exhibit showing gay Jesus inspires fracas." UPI NewsTrack. 2007. Retrieved March 23, 2010 from accessmylibrary: http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-32628172_ITM

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=sv&u=http://www.rfsl.se/%3Fp%3D4257%26aid%3D11489&ei=1JSpS7W8G5DUMpKlpcAB&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CCkQ7gEwBg&prev=/search%3Fq%3DDopbilden%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3DRmI%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official

http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Ecce-Homo

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=sv&u=http://www.ohlson.se/utstallningar_ecce.htm&ei=66upS7vML4reNeS78KIB&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAgQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3DElisabeth%2BOhlson%2BWallin%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3DmJK%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official

Piss Christ - Andres Serrano

2010-03-06T10:11:00.001-08:00

When I was thinking about what to do my presentation on, I decided to do it on something controversial. I typed in “controversial Jesus artwork” into Google and “Piss Christ” by Andres Serrano was the number one result from the search. “Piss Christ” is an image of a plastic crucifix with Jesus on it and the whole thing is submerged in a bottle of the artist’s urine. When I first saw this image, I wasn’t offended or shocked. I never expected to see anything like this, but it didn’t have much a shock factor in my opinion. Art can take on many forms, this being one of them. I can see why it would offend some people. It does defame Jesus in my opinion though.

This work was produced in 1987. When first looking at the picture I saw Jesus on the cross with a lot of yellow throughout the whole picture. It seemed a little different because there were a lot of scratches on it. I didn’t understand why the picture would look like this. Then, I read the description and realized that this was a figure in a bottle full of urine. I didn’t really think of this as art, when first viewing it. Then, I saw that it won an award from the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art.

This piece was first seen as controversial in 1989 after winning this award. New York Senator Alfonse D’Amato began receiving letters and phone calls from citizens about the painting. The citizens were shocked and angry at the sight of this painting. This is partly because the artist received $15,000 from the National Endowment for the Arts. The citizens could not believe that their tax dollars were being used for this sort of thing. The Senator himself could not believe that the money from taxes was being used for this. This caused him to take this problem in front of the Senate. He then wrote a letter to the chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts. In the letter he talked about how appalled he and the citizens were because of the artist receiving the money for that piece of art. He also said that he wants the Chairman to make sure that future winners are thought over more carefully.

D’Amato wasn’t the only Senator to go before the presiding officer about this artwork. North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms had a problem with it as well. He as well believed that “Piss Christ” was a blasphemous piece of work. He went as far as to call the artist a jerk and said that he hopes that he never has to meet the artist. Helms couldn’t believe that something so offensive would honored by receiving an award and money. He even called the National Endowment for the Arts flawed because of their choices.

In 1997, while on display in Australia, “Piss Christ” was vandalized by two youths. During this vandalism, a couple of staff members were injured. This was the second time that it happened to this photograph in Australia. A couple of weeks before a man actually tried to remove the painting. He was arrested and given a one month suspended sentence. These vandalisms took place in the National Gallery of Victoria. The administrators decided to close down the gallery because of unsafe conditions for visitors because of these vandalisms. Archbishop Dr. George Pell applied for an injunction to prevent “Piss Christ” from being exhibited because he believed it was a blasphemous piece of art. Justice Harper of the Supreme Court in Victoria, Australia denied the injunction.

Everyone didn’t find “Piss Christ” offensive. Surprisingly, Catholic nun and art critic Wendy Beckett didn’t find it offensive at all. She believes it shows what people are doing to Christ today.

Serrano has made some comments on “Piss Christ.” He believes that the best place for this piece of art is in the church. Serrano said that he held an exhibit in a church once and everything went smoothly. He even said that the Vatican would be smart to display it one day. Serrano said he ignored all of the stuff going on in the Senate because it was his way of not letting them change his artistic direction. This was all said in an interview, in which he was talking about why he was taking pictures of Ku Klux Klan members. This is a little controversial since Serrano is a Hispanic man. In this interview he also said that he believes that his work is religious, not sacrilegious.

Andres Serrano was born in 1950 in New York City. He attended the Brooklyn Museum of Art School. At one point in his life he became a drug addict, which put his artwork on hold for several years. He was most influenced by European art movements of surrealism and Dada.

“Piss Christ” wasn’t a change from his usual work. That is what makes me think he didn’t want it to cause such a problem. Most of his art involves bodily fluids from humans and animals. His “Madonna and child II” features Mary and Jesus submerged in urine as well. His latest work revolves around feces from himself and other animals. Also, Metallica’s “Load” and “ReLoad” albums feature his artwork as their covers.

References:

http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/361_r7.html

http://www.communityarts.net/readingroom/archivefiles/2002/09/shooting_the_kl.php

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1248/is_n7_v86/ai_21113230/pg_2/

http://www.artslaw.com.au/publications/Articles/97Blasphemy.asp

http://rogallery.com/Serrano_Andres/Andres_Serrano-Biography.html

http://cruciality.wordpress.com/2009/06/25/rethinking-serranos-piss-christ/

Christ The Redeemer

2010-03-03T08:10:00.000-08:00

Christ the Redeemer is a gorgeous statue on the top of Corvocado Mountain in Rio De Janeiro, Brazil. This is one of the most instantly recognizable images in South America. It stands around 130 feet tall and overlooks the city of Rio. The Redeemer was voted in 2007 one of the New 7 wonders of the World.

The construction of this statue took many years to build, as well as to conceptualize. In the 1850s Pedro Maria Boss was a Catholic Priest who saw Corvocado mountain overlooking the city of Rio and wanted to put a monument of his faith there to overlook the city. In order to do this he needed the approval of Isabella, who was the Imperial Princess of Brazil at the time. He wanted to dedicate this monument to her. It did not work out as Boss had planned, Isabella was unimpressed, and the project never gained popularity.

In 1889, the monarchy over Brazil was overthrown and a new Republic was created. Not soon after this the separation of church and state was proclaimed once again bringing doubt about the possibility of the statue's construction.

It was not until 1921 when the idea was proposed again, supported by the archdiocese, that the creation looked possible. In order to gain funding the Catholic church in Rio held a "Monument Week" where Catholics throughout Brazil sent donations to fund the project, it was a huge success.

Once there was funding for this monument, Carlos Oswaldo was to design the statue. After multiple attempts to try and create a working design for the statue, Oswaldo was dropped from the project and a civil engineer by the name of Heitor da Silva Costa was hired after he came up with the idea for a Jesus with his arms outstretched in the shape of a cross on top of Corvocado Mountain. Corvocado teamed up with French sculptor Paul Landowski to create the statue.

The statue was built in France and brought to Brazil in pieces and assembled together on the mountain using the Corvocado railway. Christ the Redeemer was created using reinforced concrete underneath an outer shell of soapstone, in order to last rough weather conditions. It took five years and $250,000 to complete the statue and there was a huge opening ceremony in 1931 to celebrate its completion.

Costa is best known for his design of The Redeemer, but Paul Landowski had many other sculptures throughout France. Much of his work is surrounded by religion, such as a statue of David, a Reformation wall and many other religious monuments. There is a museum in Paris dedicated to him and contains over 100 of his works.

This statue is amazing in my opinion, not only because of the beauty of a peaceful monument overlooking the city of Rio, but because of its simplicity. It depicts is Jesus with open arms in the symbol of the cross. He does not have much of an expression on his face, and his eyes are not detailed. The statue leaves a lot to the imagination because it is so neutral. There is not much to argue about in this depiction of Jesus because Christ the Redeemer is a very nondescript piece of work. I think this was done for a reason.

With the separation of church and state in Brazil I don't think the constructors wanted to offend anyone. If they were to go into great detail, or have Jesus posing in some aggressive manner people could be easily offended. Because this is a monument for the entire city regardless of religion, I think it was smart to be very generic in Jesus' features and clothing. Jesus shows up in many religions, not just Christianity, so by having Jesus posed in such a peaceful manner with open arms, it is probably easier for everyone to appreciate as a symbol of peace.

The state of the city of Rio is another reason I think this monument is so attractive. Rio is a very rich city in some areas, but is known for its dangerous slums and violence. In a place that is known throughout the world for both its beauty and its danger, it is very fitting to have a statue of Jesus overlooking the entire city, I think it can give hope to a lot of people.

This is such an important monument to the people of Brazil that they are currently raising money again to repair the cracks in the statue which will take around six months to complete.

Resources: http://www.ilovefiguresculpture.com/masters/france/landowski/landowski.htm,http://www.google.com/search?q=christ+the+redeemer+rio&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=7rQ&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbs=tl:1&tbo=u&ei=hMCLS-D5Io7WNb-S2KUB&sa=X&oi=timeline_result&ct=title&resnum=12&ved=0CDQQ5wIwCw,http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11626074,http://modern-latin-american-history.suite101.com/article.cfm/history_of_christ_the_redeemer_statue_brazil

2010-02-22T22:25:00.000-08:00

Painting the Divine

When choosing a piece of artwork for this assignment, I hoped to find a painting that represented an interpretation of the birth of Christ to create an appropriate segway for our classroom discussion. I had a difficult time finding anything put the typical nativity scene.

However, when I stumbled upon this particular painting I was captivated by its many different components. After doing some research, I discovered that the original painting is on a 10 X 17 foot canvas. It was painted by Brian Kershisnik, an artist from Utah. He earned his bachelor at Brigham Young University and completed his graduate studies in Austin, Texas. He now resides in Utah, where he is deemed one of the finest artists in the state. This particular painting is from 2006, and was a project that he didn’t have a whole lot of thought or preparation for. In a speech he gave to BYU, he originally started the project to prove to his art students that he “still had game.” However, this particular painting entitled “Nativity” did more than just prove that.

It would seem that the most common response to Brian’s painting is a positive one. Yet, it does not posses the normal components of the nativity scene. I found myself not only analyzing the painting, but also completely captivated by it. What did Kershisnik intended to demonstrate through this wildly different interpretation of Christ’s birth? Fortunately I discovered a speech on his “Nativity” where I was able to different factors about his artwork. First and foremost, there are the angels. This is probably the most captivating part of the painting- they completely surround Mary, Joseph, Jesus and the midwives.

When I first saw the painting, my first reaction was that there the Bible tells us there are only twelve angels: Revelations 21:12- It had a great, high wall with twelve gates, and with twelve angels at the gates. This painting seems to suggest there are a great deal more- and not only that, but also that angels are of all ages.

This is perhaps why I immediately took these angels of many shapes and sizes to exemplify followers of Christ. The angels closest to Jesus and even the angels on the entire left side of the painting are longing to be nearer to him. Even the children and babies are reaching out, unable to look away from him. The angels on the right side of the painting seem to be rejoicing to God- as if they are unable to contain their graciousness after experiencing Christ. It seems to suggest that they long to spread the word of Christ.

In the speech Kershisnik gave to BYU, a woman asked him why all the angels were white. Kershisnik confessed he encountered this question quite a bit. He replied to the woman that when he paints, he paints what he knows. He paints in his own “language.” He went on to say that he would certainly never question a Hispanic nativity or a black nativity- but assume that it connected or expressed whoever created it. This notion of race is an interesting one, because according to Jesus would actually be more Arabic than how he is commonly represented in the Christian church.

This brings me to another aspect of the painting. Baby Jesus is darker than he is normally depicted in the nativity scene. This could be interpreted in a couple of different ways. Jesus was just born, and if this is realistic portrayal of that- it could be argued that he hasn’t been cleaned yet. This argument could be supported by the fact that the midwives in the painting seem to be washing their hands from the blood of the birth.

This is actually a factor that was commented on in a Latter Day Saint’s magazine entitled Meridian Magazine (www.meridianmagazine.com). One man (a pediatrician) interviewed by the magazine at an art exhibit displaying “Nativity” expressed the idea that he thought the size and newness of baby Jesus reminded him of his earthly birth. Here was this magnificent event; but it was also like a million births that took place before it and after it. He went on to say that every birth has a similar moment such as this one- a “holy” moment.

After the angels, the second thing that struck me about this painting was, of course, Joseph’s expression. At first glance, he seems almost greatly upset. However, after a second look it seems that he is overwhelmed. His hand lies lovingly on Mary’s shoulder, but it is almost as if he needs to be the one who is comforted. I think this brings a lot of issues up about who Joseph was to Jesus. He was not biologically related to Christ, yet his wife carried this child and was his earthly mother. Perhaps Joseph has realized that he is responsible for this child- this tiny helpless creature is completely dependent on his care. This in itself is a pretty life altering realization, not to mention the tiny factor that this infant is the Son of God. I would certainly be making this expression too.

Kershisnik expresses in his speech at BYU a very similar explanation to how the pediatrician in the magazine interpreted Joseph, Mary, and Jesus in the painting. He wanted to express this idea of humanly birth. He wanted to connect this heavenly event to something that many experience at least once in the course of his or her earthly life. There is something so divine, so majestic about the birth of a new child; there is something almost Christ like about the event. In the article in Meridian Magazine, it stated that many of the people who came into the exhibit were moved to tears. Even looking at a much smaller version of this painting gives me goose bumps. Kershisnik expresses this perfectly divine yet incredibly normal event in such a way that it is almost impossible to not feel shaken with its simplicity.

References

http://www.kershisnik.com http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/66762 http://www.meridianmagazine.com/arts/070613nativity.html http://www.kershisnik.com/change-image.php?current_image=20

Jesus Is My Homeboy

2010-02-21T18:53:00.000-08:00

Jesus and religion continue to pop up through modern art and style. From the small WWJD bracelets that were all the rage in the 1990’s, to the crosses on graphics of t-shirts at The Buckle, connotations back to Jesus and Christianity always make a powerful statement. This statement was made strongly and worn by celebrities everywhere with the “Jesus Is My Homeboy” shirts. Although these shirts may seem like they are making a mockery of the relationship one has with Jesus, the message created by Van Zan Frater actually tells of the power of Christianity and the possibility that Jesus really can make a difference in everyday life.

“Jesus Is My Homeboy” t-shirts broke onto the scene in 2004. The shirts began being sold in Urban Outfitters; however, they are sold in many different stores today. They can also be bought online through the shirt’s official website. Not only can one buy t-shirts with this saying screen printed on them, but a customer can also buy “Jesus Is My Homeboy” bags, aprons, and coffee mugs. Before even beginning my research into what the Jesus Is My Homeboy shirts really mean, I had to lay aside my original connotations regarding the shirts. Since these types of shirts were often worn by celebrities and sold at places like Journey’s and Urban Outfitters, I initially thought they were downplaying the importance of Jesus in many Christians’ lives. This turned out to be quite the opposite.

The story of how these shirts began to rise through the ranks of popularity derives from one man who had an unfortunate run-in with a gang in the 1980’s. According to the official website of “Jesus Is My Homeboy”, Van Zan Frater had recently moved from Texas to Los Angeles. One night, when Frater was driving in Los Angeles, he needed to use a pay phone. Since this was before the days of cell phones, Frater had to pull over at a liquor store. As he was using the pay phone, a group of boys began hassling him. Van Zan Frater knew that he was dealing with some sort of street gang, and he also realized that these boys were very young. One of the younger boys hit him and put a gun to his head. The boy cocked the trigger and looked around for approval from the rest of the boys in the gang. Van Zan Frater knew he had to do something, so he simply said, “Jesus is my homeboy and don’t you know that Jesus is your homeboy too,”. The boy took the gun away from Frater’s head. The entire group felt the power of what he had said, and understood the message.

Van Zan Frater knew what had saved his life that night, so he wanted to spread the message through a silkscreen print on t-shirts. The print was made, however, it was lost due to the Los Angeles riots in 1994. Years later, the silk screen was found by men who thought it would be a great idea to make t-shirts out of the saying, and they were distributed all around the country. Van Zan Frater had no idea that the production of his image had actually become real life until several years after he had intended. In fact, he maybe would have never even known if it were not for the front page of People Magazine. The image and saying was created by one small moment, however, it has made an impact on many different people. Van Zan Frater simply made the image to depict the idea that Jesus was for everyone.

A very important aspect of the image that has been replicated so many times onto t-shirts and hats is the fact that it is not signified by a certain race. It is not just the stereotypical European-looking Jesus that we have seen so many times in so many different pieces of art. It has no racial specific traits. Van Zan Frater did this specifically to show that Jesus can be there for everyone, no matter his or her race, ethnicity, or background. Jesus can be someone’s “homeboy” who grew up in the ghetto or for someone who grew up in a white-collar family in the suburbs. It does not matter, because the power of Jesus is just the same.

Through looking at the Jesus Is My Homeboy image and the body language that is represented, Jesus looks like a very kind and comforting person. One can see this by his arms being outstretched in a sort of “come here” way. Frater really wanted people to get that feeling and for them to embrace Jesus. Through embracing Jesus, Frater hopes that random acts of gang violence can be avoided. Van Zan Frater began the Jesus Is My Homeboy Foundation in 2007. This foundation benefits from the sale of the saying. A portion of each sale goes to the foundation that helps people who are affected by gang violence. He is also currently writing a book to help victims of these types of crime.

My original connotation of what “Jesus is My Homeboy” signified was definitely not the case. The saying was not really looking for the popularity of people like Ashton Kutcher or Jessica Simpson, it was simply looking for a way to express the love and potential for Jesus in everyone’s lives. I feel like this story is extremely powerful. The way that Jesus is portrayed in the shirts is very important because it has gone into the popular world and popular style. No longer are the days that one’s expression of religion is looked at negatively or with a certain stereotype. Jesus has the possibility to be everywhere and anyone’s “homeboy”.

Osama bin Laden and Jesus

2010-02-16T09:18:00.000-08:00

This piece of artwork, depicting Osama bin Laden “morphing” into Jesus is causing quite a stir in Australia. The illustration is three images, one of Osama bin Laden, one of Jesus, and the one in the middle a hybrid of the two. It was created by Priscilla Bracks, an Australian artist, who said she did not intend to be offensive. She claims she wanted to create a discussion on what is and is not religiously acceptable.

Ms. Bracks has said that there are many ways to interpret her work, but most people are mistakenly focusing on the most controversial interpretation: that she is comparing bin Laden and Jesus. She said she questioned whether Jesus could be in a cult-like status similar to bin Laden, while also looking at the comparison between good and evil. She also wanted to highlight how glorified bin Laden is in some areas of the world.

According to her biography, Ms. Bracks practiced law prior to obtaining a degree in photography in 2002. She says that she is “interested in the interplay between human nature, social-justice, law, media, and contemporary social, political and environmental issues,” which explains somewhat her reasoning behind such a controversial piece of art. Her overarching project, called Making the Empire Cross, discusses the relationships in popular ideology, truth, and history.

Personally, I think that Ms. Bracks wanted to attract attention by comparing the most wanted man in the world with a religious figure. It is not a very significant piece of artwork, nor does it use new or revolutionary techniques. In order to gain popularity, she created a more controversial piece of art, and it was a successful maneuver. Created in 2007, this modern piece of art capitalized on the constant man-hunt for Osama bin Laden and the terror his image invokes. This depiction of bin Laden and Jesus attracted interest to her ongoing series, Making the Empire Cross. This work is very different from her usual works, many of which use Barbie, not Jesus.

This image is not directly related to any biblical text. The image of Jesus is a typical depiction in the Western World of Jesus. In the image he is a white man, with a holy aura about him. It is the lack of any biblical significance or parallels in her other works that lead me to believe that this was simply a publicity stunt. There is no clear cultural perspective in Ms. Bracks’ artwork either. Her other works of art are typically commentary on current social issues, but not usually in the same vain as this work.

If one dismisses the possibility that this piece of art was simply a publicity stunt, it is possible that the artist could be addressing how easily cults can form around popular figures. There have been several large Christian cults, and no one can dispute that Osama bin Laden has created a cult-like following. However, even this idea is not clearly depicted in this piece.

This piece of art was entered into a prestigious religious art competition in Australia, despite opposition from the Prime Minister John Howard and his political opposition, Kevin Rudd. (There was also a statue of the Mary wearing a burqa in the competition.) Neither of these controversial pieces won. Instead, a retelling of the Stations of the Cross won the prize.

For more information on this piece of art, please see the following websites:
www.priscillabracks.com

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22332714-953,00.html

La Pietà - Michelangelo's Jesus Through the Years

2010-02-13T11:07:00.000-08:00

Michelangelo’s La Pietà (1499) endures as one of the greatest sculptures of the Renaissance era, and all-time. The life-like marble statue depicts the dead body of Jesus in the arms of his mother, Mary. The sculpture captures an intimate moment that is not explicitly shared in any of the four gospels. Presumably, Mary held her son’s body when it was removed from the cross, before Joseph of Arimathea arrived to clean and bury it in his own tomb. The canonical texts allow readers to project their own interpretations of what happened in the times between major events. For example, Matthew 27:50-56 describes the death of Jesus on the cross, the ensuing earthquake, and reaction by the witnesses. All these things happened during the day (Matthew 27:45.) The very next verse (57) skips ahead to the approach of nightfall and the appearance of Joseph of Arimathea.

What happened in the hours between the death of Jesus and the arrival of Joseph of Arimathea? Michelangelo attempts to address this question, among others, in his earliest rendition of La Pietà. Later in his career, the Renaissance master began other sculptures of the same theme, most notably the Pietà Palestrina (1550), and the Rondanini Pietà (1564); Michelangelo did not complete the later Pietà (pl.) before his death in 1564. The earliest Pietà (the word means pity, in Italian, and is used as a generic term to describe all works depicting this historical moment) is the only of these three works to be fully finished. It was commissioned by Cardinal Jean de Billheres, and originally stood at his funerary chapel before being moved to St. Peter’s Basilica. The Cardinal undoubtedly imposed his vision for the piece on the artist, which accounts for the dramatic departure in style and message of Michelangelo’s later Pietà, which he created of his own accord.

La Pietà

In looking at the physical representation of Jesus in each piece, we can read what the artist was trying to convey about Jesus, his relationship with Mary, and his followers’ relationship with him. La Pietà bleeds with emotion, though Jesus and Mary’s faces are seemingly neutral. Of course, Jesus is dead so too much expression on his face would be counterintuitive, but some viewers are surprised by the stillness on Mary’s face, considering she holds the body of her dead son. Her left hand is positioned with an open palm, reminiscent of meditation images seen in Eastern art. Can Mary be at peace after witnessing her son’s crucifixion?

Other aspects of Mary’s appearance tell us more about the way Michelangelo perhaps wanted Jesus to be seen. Mary is shown supporting the body of a fully-grown man on her lap. In a practical sense, that is difficult for the average woman to do. In La Pietà, Mary’s figure is actually larger than that of Jesus. Her bottom half forms a sturdy base for the body of Jesus. Even though the piece is life-like, it is not realistic in this sense. Mary’s size makes Jesus look small in comparison. This has been interpreted to mean that Mary is actually holding baby Jesus, but the viewer of the piece sees a glimpse of the future, in which Jesus is an adult. Though it is somewhat valid, this complicated theory was never supported by the artist himself or any contemporaries and thus is not widely supported today.

Close View of Jesus and Mary's Faces

The pressing issue concerning Mary’s appearance is, why Michelangelo depicted her with such youthful features. If Jesus died at or around age 30, Mary would have been approximately 45 years old. The Mary of La Pietà has the face of a teenage beauty. With that said, Jesus himself has the face of a much younger man. What does this youthful portrayal of Jesus and Mary say to viewers about their nature? It suggests that both characters embody innocence, which is a common quality of youth. There is conceivably no woman more innocent than the Virgin Mother, and no man more innocent than the Son of God (the Infancy Gospel of Thomas begs to differ.) Michelangelo said,

“Do you not know that chaste women stay fresh much more than those who are not chaste? How much more in the case of the Virgin, who had never experienced the least lascivious desire that might change her body?”

Mary’s youthful appearance is important to the viewer that subscribes to the Holy Trinity, and chooses to see her both as the mother and daughter of Jesus/God. The parent-child relationship is a likely aspect of the artist’s intent. In a study on Early Christianity, James S. Jeffers noted that the term pietas originally referred to the sense of duty a child had toward their parents. Romans later likened that sense of duty to a person’s obligations to their god(s). In a complicated parent-child/human-God relationship like that of Jesus and Mary, we can see the lines of pietas crossing in every imaginable way. I think La Pietà reflects that complication very well. As we see the pair situated on the rock at Golgotha, Jesus is weak in death but supported by a strong yet somber Mary; Mary is simultaneously a weak human, looking to her God for comfort.

A brief consideration of Michelangelo’s later Pietà is in order. The Pietà Palestrina shows the body of Jesus supported by two figures. Mary is on the viewer’s right side, and a man is holding the body from behind. As mentioned above, Michelangelo began this work for himself. It is widely accepted that pupils worked on the statue after his death, which accounts for signs of inferior craftsmanship on the periphery, and eventual abandonment of the project before its completion. The man behind Jesus could be a representation of God. It is likely that he was supposed to be Joseph of Arimathea, who is identified in the Bible as caring for the body of Jesus. As in Michelangelo’s Florintine Pietà, the artist’s own face was likely put on the Joseph of Arimathea figure. It should be noted that the size of Mary makes more sense here, in relation to the men beside her.

Pietà Palestrina

The Rondanini Pietà is interesting in that it shows Mary tending to the body of Jesus from above. This is commonly interpreted as Mary on the back of Jesus, which is a sign that Jesus, in spirit, is actually supporting Mary. It is fitting that Michelangelo would turn to this view of Jesus in his dying years.

Rondanini Pietà (alternate view)

Links to Related Images:

Michelangelo's Florentine Pietà

Giovanni Bellini's Pietà (example of Mary as old woman)

The Crucifixion of Christ

2010-02-09T21:02:00.000-08:00

Politics and religion have been two topics that are never suppose to be talked about at dinner, and haven’t ever easily coincided with one another. There are two stances that one can pull from the scriptures of Jesus’ life, one is that he did not come into this world to take over governments, and the second is that if you put Christ at the head of the government all the problems of the world would be solved. The way politics and religion are currently in the United States is known as a separation between church and state, therefore the two topics should, on paper, never influence or conflict with one another. Separating the two would be nice if it were possible but there is no easy way to say that someone who grows up with views against abortion and gay-marriage wouldn’t persuade them to vote toward the conservative side. Also the conservative side can use these social issues to their advantage to win over the votes of people who hold those religious beliefs. The artist who’s painting I have chosen, Becki Jayne Harrelson, states that she paints the paintings she does because she is “interested in the transformative possibilities of deconstructing classical or mainstream spiritual representations so one can see that how God is constructed, so is the political power that impacts the human condition” (becki.jayne.com). Her focus is on the main political issues of current day society, and how they can relate back to stories from Jesus’ life. She paints to show that just as we know God to be defined, our reality and our laws are also defined in the same way, and the two will always influence one another. Everything that she paints, like most artist, has a basic meaning, however her point is that if you take the basic meaning of her art you will miss the underlying point of why she painted what she did. Her outlook on religion and politics is this, “America was founded by a people seeking freedom from religious persecution. Today, its Old World roots are showing. Mainstream religions shape the fundamental quality of life permeating every aspect, from prayer in schools to political actions” (becki.jayne.com).

The painting of Becki’s that I chose is called “The Crucifixion of Christ.” It is a picture of Jesus at his crucifixion, he is shedding blood from his hands and feet, on top of the mount, the sky is dark and there is a sign above his head that says “faggot” where in a typical crucifixion of Christ it would say something having to do with “King of the Jews.” The first reaction I had to this painting was initial shock that Becki would actually be attempting to say that Jesus was a homosexual. I questioned, “is that really what this political debate is coming to now?” First of all they legalize gay-marriage and now people are going to try to prove that Jesus was a homosexual? Then as I started to read about why she painted this I realized a completely different view. Becki starts off her background information on this painting, “you miss the primary point if you think I’m saying Jesus was gay” (becki.jayne.com). She then goes on to explain how she wanted to paint this picture to show how every time hatred and violence is used toward one another Christ is crucified. Becki says instead of the word faggot one could, “substitute the word Nigger, Jew boy, honkie, redneck, or bitch – it all means the same” (becki.jayne.com). Her reasoning behind choosing the word Faggot has to do with the way homosexuals are currently perceived in society, for the most part they are accepted by cultural means, however from a religious stand-point there is more hate than love being expressed toward homosexuals. Jesus in his time was also made a hate target, the Romans were threatened by him, many others were skeptic, and the citizens of Rome hated him so immensely that they had him crucified instead of a man who justifiably should have been killed. No matter what day and age daring to be different will probably make you a target for hate. Becki Jayne takes a liberal stance on gay-marriage, she sees us all to be children of God and to be comfortable living in our own skin and she thinks that there is no difference between someone who is a homosexual and someone who is left handed. She ends her description of the painting with this statement, “Religion judges homosexuality as sin. Seek God first and listen to no other authority. But beware. Ironically, such spiritual courage can lead to crucifixion” (becki.jayne.com). Becki wants to leave gay-Christians with hope in her painting, Jesus was persecuted for standing out against the religion in Rome, and homosexuals are standing out against what current day religions say about homosexuality, but she encourages them to go into the world, be themselves and they might be persecuted but sometimes that is the price you have to pay for others to live without pain. Biblically this can relate to the verse in John Chapter 18:36, “My Kingdom is not of this world. If it were my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my Kingdom is from another place” (KJV). Jesus was crucified for following what he knew was true in his heart, knowing that regardless of what the Romans said or did, he would follow what he believed. That is what Becki wants her audience to do as well, stand up for what you believe is right, even if it leads you to crucifixion.

Becki Jayne is an innovative artist who is not afraid to take a leap of faith in her paintings by meshing largely debated issues with religion, even if it puts what we see as religion at stake. In a review of her art they state, “Becki Jayne Harrelson’s almost monumental canvases speak directly to that deeply felt realization that what we have been taught by most of our religious leaders is, to put it bluntly, crap” (becki.jayne.com). That is exactly right, she finds a way to paint in a way that to many it may seem offensive and against everything they have been taught, but that is her point. As Christians we need to take a stand against what is being taught in religions that aren’t changing with the times, and if that means someone speaking out for being a homosexual and being socially crucified, then so be it, Jesus did it too right? In conclusion religion and politics will always play a role in each other’s arguments; however it is up to the individual to decide what they want to believe in with both religious and political issues.

http://www.jesusinlove.org/artthatdares/atd3-harrelson-z.html

Alexamenos graffito

2010-01-31T11:32:00.000-08:00

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.

Images from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexamenos_graffito

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.

Yo Mama’s Last Supper

2010-01-26T13:47:00.000-08:00

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

The Assignment

2010-01-18T11:30:00.000-08:00

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.