The Great Art Debate

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Woah there. I didn't ignore your personal opinion Mummy, just posted my own view. Am I not allowed to disagree? Sounds almost headmasterish.

I just found some of your tone a bit dismissive, but this is the internet.

Not dismissive at all, believe me, just a different perspective. I agree Jesus wasn't exactly the same man they had known (doubting Thomas etc), and surely art is wide open to personal interpretation? There is also your advantage of viewing the painting rather than a picure of it. I suppose we just see what we want to see. The idea of gold rings floating over the heads of holy/saintly figures was always more artistic rather than realistic. Some day I may get to see the original. The quality of the artist's painting skills is beyond argument.

"I discount that", "that's immaterial" and "that sounds like art gallery blurb" sounded like dismissive comments to me.

And no artist's skills are beyond argument.

[Bruce Rioja]

Jesus himself, for reasons known to anyone but me, looks like he's gained a couple of stone in weight and had a botox job.

Compared to what exactly? Surely Jesus would've been of a more middle eastern appearance anyway rather than the fresh skinned European that we so often see depicted.

[TANGODANCER]

"I discount that", "that's immaterial" and "that sounds like art gallery blurb" sounded like dismissive comments to me.

And no artist's skills are beyond argument.

Sorry, got interrupted, (wife sees lawn-mowing as an art form).

Okay. I discounted the halo (which I just see as the shadow of the guy's basically round head) as mattering, to me. It's his shadow, not that of Jesus. I explained my view on the Christian fish sign as maybe the artist intended that, maybe not, don't know. The whole concept of having paintings "explained" , again I see as "art-gallery blurb", yes. Facts about the artists, dates and titles (if they had one) are all fine. Unless the artists themselves explained what they was doing or portraying, then that's all interpretation and surely left to the viewer? . If that's dismissive, then okay, I dismissed it.

You praised the artist's skills, I agreed. That's beyond argument. Done.

[TANGODANCER]

Jesus himself, for reasons known to anyone but me, looks like he's gained a couple of stone in weight and had a botox job.

Compared to what exactly? Surely Jesus would've been of a more middle eastern appearance anyway rather than the fresh skinned European that we so often see depicted.

Yes, a point I have made in the past, he was a Jew. Being heavier and fatter faced isn't comparing racial features in any way..

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Verbs theory is a fine theory - the fact that I feel it can be 'destroyed/demolished/knocked-down' so quickly has nothing to do with its fine quality, more a lack of appreciation as to just how revolutionary Monet truly was.
I am of the opinion that Monet was a superbly talented painter who accomplished many things in painting, and not just in composition, but also in style and technique. I also accord little value to Van Gogh - I find him overblown and very dramatic, but in no sense revolutionary. Therefore my main aim in this 'discussion' is to assert the traditional view that Monet influenced Van Gogh, but this funky new idea that Van Gogh influenced Monet is to my ear* an affront, because to put it in the bluntest of blunt terms how can a crap painter influence a genius like Monet - there, colours (yellow included) firmly nailed to mast. * d'ya see what I did there?

Since this discussion I have read into Monet's life and work for the first time, and I have to admit that it has brought me round to LLS's way of thinking a lot more, both in terms of appreciating his genius and doubting the potential for Van Gogh to have influenced him.

It is an unfortunate coincidence that Monet appears more similar to Van Gogh as he got into his seventies and his gifts waned with age and ailments. I still have a lot of time for VVG, however. I think I can agree that he wasn't 'revolutionary' - to my mind he was just a special one-off and it is testament to his gifts that he could achieve so much with that loose, swirling brushwork.

I'm happy that you've read about Monet a little as a result of our discussion. I tend to find he is quite underrated by many people, so I'm glad a little rebalancing in the world has occurred.

[thebish]

Jesus himself, for reasons known to anyone but me, looks like he's gained a couple of stone in weight ...

the bible doesn't record Jesus' weight and never describes his physique... so I don't know from where you get the idea that he has gained a couple of stones in weight...

what the bible DOES say is that his enemies called him a glutton and a drunkard because (Matt 11:19) of all the "inappropriate" parties he went to... so it is entirely possible he carried a bit of timber...*

*(cross-carrying pun unintentional but rather brilliant!)

[TANGODANCER]

Jesus himself, for reasons known to anyone but me, looks like he's gained a couple of stone in weight ...

the bible doesn't record Jesus' weight and never describes his physique... so I don't know from where you get the idea that he has gained a couple of stones in weight...

what the bible DOES say is that his enemies called him a glutton and a drunkard because (Matt 11:19) of all the "inappropriate" parties he went to... so it is entirely possible he carried a bit of timber...*

*(cross-carrying pun unintentional but rather brilliant!)

Since none of us saw him, including all the artists who have painted him for centuries, he may well have looked like Demis Rousos (sp?) for all we know. Nobody seemed to think so though, as per the thousands of paintings/pictures/illustrations around. It must remain a mystery.

[mrkint]

Jesus himself, for reasons known to anyone but me, looks like he's gained a couple of stone in weight ...

the bible doesn't record Jesus' weight and never describes his physique... so I don't know from where you get the idea that he has gained a couple of stones in weight...

what the bible DOES say is that his enemies called him a glutton and a drunkard because (Matt 11:19) of all the "inappropriate" parties he went to... so it is entirely possible he carried a bit of timber...*

*(cross-carrying pun unintentional but rather brilliant!)

and not achieved

[thebish]

Since none of us saw him, including all the artists who have painted him for centuries, he may well have looked like Demis Rousos (sp?) for all we know. Nobody seemed to think so though, as per the thousands of paintings/pictures/illustrations around. It must remain a mystery.

indeed - which is why I could not understand why you said he had gained a couple of stone in that painting...

and - in the gospels, some DID call him a glutton.

[TANGODANCER]

Since none of us saw him, including all the artists who have painted him for centuries, he may well have looked like Demis Rousos (sp?) for all we know. Nobody seemed to think so though, as per the thousands of paintings/pictures/illustrations around. It must remain a mystery.

indeed - which is why I could not understand why you said he had gained a couple of stone in that painting...and - in the gospels, some DID call him a glutton.

I said he looked like he'd gained a couple of stones. I also just said in relation to the thousands of images of him. I also said I didn't know what he looked like. Anything else you choose not to understand?

[thebish]

Since none of us saw him, including all the artists who have painted him for centuries, he may well have looked like Demis Rousos (sp?) for all we know. Nobody seemed to think so though, as per the thousands of paintings/pictures/illustrations around. It must remain a mystery.

indeed - which is why I could not understand why you said he had gained a couple of stone in that painting...and - in the gospels, some DID call him a glutton.

I said he looked like he'd gained a couple of stones. I also just said in relation to the thousands of images of him. I also said I didn't know what he looked like. Anything else you choose not to understand?

I was commenting on what you originally said, which was this:

looks like he's gained a couple of stone in weight and had a botox job. The meal itself also seem a little lavish compared to the simple fare of the other painting. Magnificently done, without doubt, but I still prefer the other for reality.

suggesting that the painting was less "reality" because Jesus is carrying a few pounds.

I'm just saying that's not a judgement any of us is qualified to make as we know nothing about how heavy Jesus was - or, indeed, how smooth his forehead was.

there may be plenty of reasons to prefer your painting to mummy's - but that one is overstepping the mark a bit...

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Mathew 6:25
And Jesus said: Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on, although it will certainly be a few pounds, and considerably more than me, as I am a svelte nine stoner.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Jesus himself, for reasons known to anyone but me, looks like he's gained a couple of stone in weight ...

the bible doesn't record Jesus' weight and never describes his physique... so I don't know from where you get the idea that he has gained a couple of stones in weight...

what the bible DOES say is that his enemies called him a glutton and a drunkard because (Matt 11:19) of all the "inappropriate" parties he went to... so it is entirely possible he carried a bit of timber...*

*(cross-carrying pun unintentional but rather brilliant!)

He went to inappropriate parties? Not in my version, though perhaps he had inappropriate acquaintances (publicans and sinners in KJV, though I gather other versions say tax collectors instead of publicans).

[thebish]

Jesus himself, for reasons known to anyone but me, looks like he's gained a couple of stone in weight ...

the bible doesn't record Jesus' weight and never describes his physique... so I don't know from where you get the idea that he has gained a couple of stones in weight...

what the bible DOES say is that his enemies called him a glutton and a drunkard because (Matt 11:19) of all the "inappropriate" parties he went to... so it is entirely possible he carried a bit of timber...*

*(cross-carrying pun unintentional but rather brilliant!)

He went to inappropriate parties? Not in my version, though perhaps he had inappropriate acquaintances (publicans and sinners in KJV, though I gather other versions say tax collectors instead of publicans).

it would certainly have been seen as inappropriate for Jesus - A Jewish rabbi - to have gone to parties at the home of a taxd collector where many of the guests were tax collectors and "other outcasts"...

that's what is described in Matt 9:9-11

9 Jesus left that place, and as he walked along, he saw a tax collector, named Matthew, sitting in his office. He said to him, “Follow me.”

Matthew got up and followed him.

10 While Jesus was having a meal in Matthew's house, many tax collectors and other outcasts came and joined Jesus and his disciples at the table. 11 Some Pharisees saw this and asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with such people?”

[mrkint]

it would certainly have been seen as inappropriate for Jesus - A Jewish rabbi - to have gone to parties at the home of a taxd collector where many of the guests were tax collectors and "other outcasts"...

that's what is described in Matt 9:9-11

9 Jesus left that place, and as he walked along, he saw a tax collector, named Matthew, sitting in his office. He said to him, “Follow me.”

Matthew got up and followed him.

10 While Jesus was having a meal in Matthew's house, many tax collectors and other outcasts came and joined Jesus and his disciples at the table. 11 Some Pharisees saw this and asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with such people?”

As shown hither



Jesus looks like he needs some meat on his bones.

[TANGODANCER]

Same artist, same subject, vastly different Jesus.

[thebish]

that's not the same subject - that's "doubting" Thomas! The other is the Emmaus Road...

[TANGODANCER]

that's not the same subject - that's "doubting" Thomas! The other is the Emmaus Road...

Dear, dear Bish, how you love to split hairs. Both happened on the same day and the subject of Caravaggios paintings was Jesus appearing to his disciples after his ressurection. Not a bible in the world would dispute that.

[thebish]

that's not the same subject - that's "doubting" Thomas! The other is the Emmaus Road...

Dear, dear Bish, how you love to split hairs. Both happened on the same day and the subject of Caravaggios paintings was Jesus appearing to his disiples after his ressurection. Not a bible in the world would dispute that.

a painting of the Emmaus Road meal is not the same subject as the appearance to "doubting" thomas in the locked room... they are different subjects!!

(also - not sure why you say they were on the same day... the Emmaus story is in Mark and Luke, the doubting Thomas story is in John's gospel.)

[TANGODANCER]

that's not the same subject - that's "doubting" Thomas! The other is the Emmaus Road...

Dear, dear Bish, how you love to split hairs. Both happened on the same day and the subject of Caravaggios paintings was Jesus appearing to his disiples after his ressurection. Not a bible in the world would dispute that.

a painting of the Emmaus Road meal is not the same subject as the appearance to "doubting" thomas in the locked room... they are different subjects!!

(also - not sure why you say they were on the same day... the Emmaus story is in Mark and Luke, the doubting Thomas story is in John's gospel.)

Yes, I know, I checked. Jesus appeared to the rest of them the same day, but Thomas wasn't there first time and Jesus appeared again a week later and proved himself to Thomas.
My point was the change in Jesus at the time of his revelation (8 days in all), as both shown by the artist.