I kind of like the new statue of Mary in the Our Lady of Angels Cathedral in L.A. From the pictures I’ve seen
it looks like a competent and interesting work of art, and I find it much more appealing than some of the other images that Steven Greydanus posted in The Many Faces of Mary. This type
in particular always gives me the willies, and, TO ME, doesn’t resemble the Mother of God I know any more than a ham sandwich does: It’s a perfectly pleasant and appealing thing, in its way—but would you go to it for help? Maybe for help with skin care.
However, the key phrase is “TO ME.” These things are incredibly subjective, being based on personal taste (which itself is constructed out of a million baffling threads) and personal spirituality, which, of course, varies widely and legitimately from person to person. So there’s no point in protesting that Ms. Fischer (people who are mad at me always misspell my name) hates beauty and God and apple pie because I think of the work above as Our Lady of Maybelline. That’s what it does TO ME. If it does something good for you, then be my guest.
However, since I know Steven—or should I call him STEPHEN—can take it, I’m going to pick on him for these lines:
What’s going on in the LA cathedral strikes me not as a blending of cultures, but a radical break from all previous Marian iconography. It looks less to me like any conceivable Mary than some New Age goddess or icon of the Feminine As Such. It is as much or more Pocahontas, Joan of Arc, valkyrie, priestess, Amazon, you name it, as the Mother of God.
Not so fast, Mr. Graydonis! A radical break from all previous Marian iconography? Nah. You don’t have to like it, but it’s nothing new. The main thing we know about Mary’s looks is that we don’t know what she looks like—and so it’s been common, until recently, to depict her in clothing contemporaneous with the artist. Greydanus covered that, saying, “[D]espite vast diversity of cultures, styles and traditions, there is still something recognizable about Mary from culture to culture, tradition to tradition,” and illustrated his point nicely, showing Mary in a kimono, in a Mexican robe, in a Russian headdress, and so on.
But it’s also been common to represent Mary in different attitudes, depending on what the times demand. Several readers abhorred the proud, “self-absorbed,” perhaps haughty bearing in this new sculpture, identifying that as what makes the sculpture un-Marian. Well, feast your eyes on this:
AIEEEE! I don’t know what else to say about this bizarre and famous work of art (Fouquet, Madonna Surrounded by Seraphim and Cherubim, 1452)—which, yes, was commissioned for a church (although it now hangs in a gallery). Look at that prissy face! Look at that shaved forehead! No veil, no humble docility, no generous outpouring of succor for the downtrodden—just a gaudy crown, a worrisome lack of melanin, and a downright alarming pair of gravity-defying anatomical impossibilities, which Baby Jesus appears to regard with understandable mistrust.
And how would you describe her attitude and her posture? I think she’s conveying the idea, “Don’t you pee on my ermine, boy!”
Tell me, how is this painting more Marian than the much-maligned statue in L.A.? Oh, and just for an extra zing to the theological cuckooery on display here, the model for this Virgin appears to have been the mistress of Charles VII. Say what you want about the multi-ethnic blend of the L.A. sculpture, at least Monica Lewinsky didn’t pose for it. And what is the deal with the blue and red angels? Are they made out of Jell-o, or what?
Or how about this:
The Virgin of Paris from Notre Dame Cathedral, early 1300’s. Sure, you can tell it’s Mary because of the baby and the crown. But beyond her costume, what can you show me that looks Marian in her face or posture? Would the L.A. statue be perfectly acceptable if she had a sour face and double chin like this Notre Dame Madonna, but someone stuck a crown on her head?
Here’s another celebrated Marian painting (Parmigianini, The Madonna with the Long Neck, 1535, also commissioned for a church, which depicts a beautiful, wealthy, very oddly-proportioned young woman—with none of the features which the harumphing readers have so far listed as indisputably Marian:
Pretty lady holds a baby = mother of God? If there’s anything else specifically Marian about this lady, I don’t see it.
Art is weird—always has been, always will be. Just as in personal taste and personal piety, a thousand tangled threads make up the artist’s intentions. I believe that people protested when they first saw the paintings I’ve shown above—and maybe they were right! Just because something’s executed skillfully, that doesn’t mean the artist has done something good. I’m not saying there’s no such thing as a bad portrayal of Mary. My point is that a Mary that strikes us as odd is not necessarily a “radical break”—unless we can say that artists have been making radical breaks routinely since Marian iconography began.
I like the sculpture because it reminds us that Mary was very young when she bore Christ; that she was virginal, hard-working, and simple. Maybe her posture depicts the moment she received the Holy Spirit when Christ was conceived. No, it’s not what we’re used to seeing. And as I said, you don’t have to like it! But condemning it as something new and unacceptable just isn’t historically sound.
Comments
Post a Comment
Why, Simcha, are you MAD at me?
You are right, I can take it. And I stand by my critiques, although I won’t respond to your cross-examination just now. I suspect other readers may, and perhaps I’ll have some follow-up comments later. Cheers!
Simcha, you selected a nice picture of Mary in Our Lady of Angels, I had to agree with you when you described her. But when I decided to go to Steven’s blog, and I took a look at the pictures he showed, I had to agree with him as well and with Samurai Jack’s analogy. I guess I am lacking personality this morning, I hope I can recover it latter…
That said, keep up the good work! I always love your posts.
I don’t dislike the new statue of Mary in LA but I think I am having a difficult time getting past her wardrobe. It looks like origami or some kind of futuristic wardrobe which kind of distracts me a bit. But I am easily distractable.
I love Our Lady of La Leche
http://www.missionandshrine.org/la_leche.htm
Our Lady of China
http://www.tuvy.com/blog/2010/12/jesus-in-asian-culture/our-lady-of-china/
You’ve chosen a very bad quality photograph taken from a very unflattering angle of Mary’s statue in Notre Dame Cathedral. Here is a much better photo : http://www.e-voyageur.com/forum/album_pic.php?pic_id=8050&full=true. You can see that she has not a “sour face”, rather a calm and regal one, and absolutely no double chin !
Besides, this statue was responsible for the conversion of Paul Claudel (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Claudel) !
@Thibaud - meh, I don’t know, to me she still looks like she’s suffering from some allergic reaction—obviously just a matter of taste, though. My point was that we are all accustomed to accepting Mary in all different forms as long as she looks sufficiently old-fashioned, you know? I don’t see how even the nicer picture of the Notre Dame statue is any more Marian than the L.A. one.
kk, I agree. The face and posture don’t bother me - I can easily see this as the Annunciation. But I wish she were clothed differently. I’d really love to see the same statue with more “traditional” Marian dress.
Honestly kk, I’d way rather see a statue or portrait of Mary wearing something that looks more authentic to what she would’ve worn during her time on earth. I laugh a little at the old paintings that depict her in the fashion of that time period (just look at the above Fouquet Madonna!).
//
Can you imagine the uproar if the L.A. statue depicted Mary in jeans and a long-sleeved tee? Hehehe.
//
I love all different styles of depictions of Mary—from icons to somewhat sappy Western-style pious art. I love other cultures’ depictions of Mary too—the nativity scenes from Africa and S. America and Indonesia that I love to study in my “Work of Human Hands” catalog.
Admittedly I am biased towards my awesome and brilliant honey (though we do disagree sometimes), but I have to agree with him here. This isn’t some kind of modern interpretation of Mary - no one dresses like that except for maybe when they go to their Tai Kwan Do class. And there is no point of reference to even tell you that this is supposed to be Mary—no Jesus, no crown, no halo - nothing. I think your other examples are ugly, yes (jello! haha!!) - but at least instantly recognizable as some kind of attempt to portray Mary.
“I’d really love to see the same statue with more “traditional” Marian dress.”
But why? I’m not trying to criticize, I’m really curious about this. We have no problem admiring Mary wearing all kinds of clothes that she herself never wore. Some of them are anachronistic, but some of them are just plain made-up, like the “Mary of Maybelline”—there never was a time when women wore light blue and light pink cotton robes with gold trim. So if an artist invented those robes, why is it so unacceptable to invent a Marian costume in 2011? It’s not immodest.
Fouquet’s Maddonna seems most likely to be from LA. Look, her skin is white and it has red and blue angels, American Flag anyone? Also, clearly a woman with implants, a face life and an eating disorder posed for this picture.
I am most disturbed by the ‘infant’ in Parmigianni’s depiction. That kid’s at least 5 and suffering from alopecia.
Is it wrong to be sassy about the Virgin Mother’s iconography?
I like the new statue. She looks like a strong, humble woman, one who I could truly imagine riding a donkey to Bethlehem during her last month of pregnancy.
..
What disturbs me in the other blog’s comment is the seeming assumption that Mary had to have been “pretty” or “feminine” looking (whatever that means, as standards of feminine beauty change according to time and cultures). We know literally nothing of Mary’s physical appearance, as she is not described in the Bible as anything other than a young girl betrothed to a widower. She may not have been attractive. She may have been dumpy or had thin hair. But God didn’t care about that. He cared about her spirit.
..
I think the new statue portrays the spirit of Mary perfectly—a young woman, physically able, asking for strength from God to take on an immensely difficult and challenging task: to be the Mother of God. I may print out that picture for my focal point during labor later this month. She’s not simpering, she’s not staring at the viewer as if to say, “Aren’t I pious?” She’s having a dialogue with God: “According to thy will.”
..
To those who are distracted by her outfit or her features, or as one person stated on Stephen’s blog, “her flat chest”—you’re missing the point. And you’re truly not thinking of her as the Mother of God, but as just a woman and judging her based on her appearance.
This is hilarious because I was just discussing the Fouquet painting with some friends last Saturday. Personally, I’ve always doubted that is a Madonna and Child portrait. It looks more like he’s illustrating a story that the king’s mistress told him about this time when she was smoking some opium and started changing her clothes and then MARY showed up and asked her to hold Jesus a minute. Then, while she was holding him, these crazy blue and red angels showed up and, well, she really couldn’t remember what happened next, but that was enough to give Fouquet plenty to work with.
Bahahaha I nearly spit out my oatmeal this morning after reading “Our Lady of Maybelline”. I wonder how many keyboards you have helped uined Simcha?
Our Lady of Maybelline???
Ms.Fisher is obviously no great fan of Medjugorje :-))
Every time I see that L.A. Madonna, all I can think of is Ursa from Superman II. Plunge the neckline, make laser beams shoot from her eyes, and it’s spot on.
I’m with Mrs. Decentfilms. The Madonna of the Maybelline, of the Shaved Head, and of the Long Neck—ugly, yes. But they’re clearly attempting to depict Mary - there’s a crown, or a halo, or a traditional pose, or a Baby Jesus.
The LA statue doesn’t have any of those things. It’s not really contemporary dress, there’s no crown, there’s no halo, there’s no angel, there’s no Baby, there’s no nothing: just a serene diverse-looking lady. How does this statue communicate to us that this is Mary, as opposed to a yoga instructor or a Star Trek extra?
I think a piece like John Collier’s lovely Annunciation gets it right: contemporary dress and a contemporary setting, with details drawn from received tradition to help us recognize Mary and the Gospel story.
Is not our lady of guadalupe the only image of our lady not produced by human hands, hence the most likely to represent.
St. Bernadette was shown a gallery of pictures and icons of Our Lady and asked which ones looked most like the Lady she saw. None of them, she answered. The only ones that even came a little close were traditional icons, and some pictures and statues from the time up to and including Fra Angelico, but none afterward.
@Ima: I’ve also heard that when they showed Sr. Faustina the painting they made of her vision of Divine Mercy, she cried because it didn’t look anything like what she saw.
@Anima: well, you’re right, the things I hear about Medjugorje make me very wary; but the statue is not Mary, it’s just a statue that someone made. I could be Medjugorje’s biggest booster and still not like the statue.
Here’s a better angle of the statue in L.A.:
http://www.sacred-destinations.com/usa/los-angeles-cathedral-of-our-lady-of-the-angels
At this angle, Mary appears a young girl, humbly submitting to God’s will. I just don’t think this is a stark break from Marian iconography.
Sorry Simcha, I couldn’t resist.
“Say what you want about the multi-ethnic blend of the L.A. sculpture, at least Monica Lewinsky didn’t pose for it.”
No, from the picture here, it looks as if Halle Berry posed for it.
about Mary perhaps being “dumpy with stringy hair”- The Theotokos was conceived without sin- so would she suffer from the consuquences of sin- being dumpy, sick, etc?
That said- standards of beauty change over time- I think Mary in the Passion of the Christ is a beautiful possibility of what Mary looked like
Simcha- There is something about a photo of a statue that just turns me off- I can handle Our Lady of Mabelline in person- but not in a photo
I see the round window behind Mary of LA to be her halo
A commenter on my post said it looked like Angelina Jolie, which I thought was spot on, except for the absence of alarming gravity-defying anatomical impossibilities.
I’m still not a fan of Our Lady of the Borg Cube.
In college, my roommate had a small garishly painted figurine of the Virgin Mary that she picked up at Dollar Tree. We affectionately referred to her as Our Lady of the Dollar Store, Patroness of Broke College Students.
I agree with priest’s wife that it is not advisable to judge a statue, or its ability to move or not move you, until you have experienced it in person, in the context it was created to exist. I think it would be quite astounding to walk through these doors with the Blessed Mother and her glorious halo above you on a sunny day. However, I understand what others mean about her dress. Simcha, exactly what is the cultural reference her dress is making? It is not modern or post-modern, ancient or faux-ancient, renaissance or supposed realism. Because it forces the beholder to question what the reference means, it becomes a distraction. And I am not so sure Mary of LA would look all bad in jeans and a long tee.
Great article, Simcha. You haven’t even scratched the surface of the “Nursing Madonnas”. It was a big fad for a while. Often Jesus was latched at the breast and looking AT you (Google it if you dare). :/ To each their own. If the art isn’t heretical, blasphemous, or with evil intention, then it seems fine with me. I actually appreciate Mary being depicted by different cultures and traditions… it helps me experience her through others’. She’s probably much grander and more complicated than the Mary I think I know.
One of my favorite depictions of the Madonna is Michelangelo’s Doni Tondo: http://static.artbible.info/large/michelangelo_donitondo.jpg
Check out those arms! And gymnastic baby Jesus…
@Jenny: I dunno, I’ve only seen pictures (and I agree with you that a sculpture, in particular, really can’t be judged through photos), but to me the dress looks intended to be simple and modest, without pointing to any specific culture—much like the one in the second picture I posted (no culture wears pastel blue and pink robes with gold trim, either!) I can imagine the triangular fold on her breast is to suggest the Trinity over her heart. I think it was probably designed to not look dated in ten years, which is what would happen if they sculpted her wearing, say, modest 90’s fashions!
.
It’s funny, but to me, it’s a distraction when Mary appears wearing a Renaissance dress or other anachronistic clothing—but we’re more used to that; to our modern eyes, anything old-fashioned seems appropriate, I think.
.
I’ve seen plenty of clunky, awkward, space-age modern religious art which deserves scorn and ridicule, but I don’t see how this is one of them! I very much like the idea that different Marys are called for my different times. The last century has produced plenty of wishy washy, wilting, mannequin Marys. While it’s perfectly legitimate to portray ideas of meekness and humility, it’s not right to ignore her strength and courage.
Don’t like it….she was a woman from a different age…she was Jewish and would wear her hair covered. The images of Lourdes and Fatima are from descriptions(as close as is possible) of what the children saw, the one on the Miraculous Medal was asked to be minted by Our Lady. This statue does NOT represent her to me.
I agree with you, Simcha, that her dress was most likely intended to not reflect any particular culture or time, as are her features, therefore not dating itself, however, that can often be convoluted to the point of distraction. And honestly, it kind of already looks dated, perhaps in a hundred years other eyes will be able to regard it with the timelessness intended. I do disagree with your assessment of Our Lady of Mabeline existing outside of a cultural framework. The dress, minus the colors, is pretty consistent with how we moderns conceive of everyday wear for a Jew at the time of Christ. Perhaps it is not entirely correct, but nevertheless, it is not far off base. And the colors, just as the triangular piece you were suggesting, although far from historically accurate, undoubtedly are representional, whether you particularly like them or not. I guess my point is that perhaps the artist, in an attempt to homogenize her dress while giving it a feeling of modest strength, ended instead to marginalize the observer because it has proved distracting. But maybe not, I would have to look at it from underneath, as intended, to really know one way or another.
@Maria - so you must also disapprove of this one?
http://preview.tinyurl.com/5v8xwd5 (Fra Angelico, bare headed women in the clothing of a girl approximately 1,400 years after mary was born)
@Jenny - yeah, I always feel silly arguing about statues I haven’t actually seen! I keep doing it, though.
Simcha, perhaps we are playing into the artists, hands, however, if he intended as James Joyce did: “I’ve put in so many enigmas and puzzles that it will keep the professors busy for centuries arguing over what I meant, and that’s the only way of insuring one’s immortality.”
I would believe that of any artist besides James Joyce, who was, in my scholarly estimation, just a big jerk.
Believe what, that he said that or felt that? To me that is the perfect explanation for Joyce, he often seems to make references and suggestions just for the sake of themselves, not because they help the story line in any way. What
Oh, I don’t know. I just think it’s a stupid way to insure immortality, so I hope he was just kidding. I enjoy a book with layers, but I think it ought to be enjoyable on at least one of its levels, and not just pure puzzle.
agreed! So what does that say about Our Lady of LA?
Well, I liked it before I started thinking about it! Then I had to start coming up with reasons why I liked it. (I don’t mean to imply that everything that’s good must appeal to us immediately. And really, I don’t know a durn thing about James Joyce. I just don’t think that this statue, from the picture, appears to be an example of a work of art which is nothing but references and puzzles.)
but for the fact that i haven’t seen anything but people puzzling and deciphering over it. (sorry no caps, i’m holding a baby.) i think your original point is that historically speaking there is nothing exceptionally outrageous about this piece of art, and that for some, it can be a beautiful and refreshing and strengthening portrait of one of the many aspects of the queen of the universe. but geez, i just don’t really like her dress!
*whispering* I don’t like it, either.
teeheehee, but thanks for being a voice of sanity (sometimes)
Simcha Fisher, Sometimes Sane. I’ll take it.
As anyone knows, it is much more difficult to imagine Heaven than it is to imagine hell. Perhaps the more traditional representations of Mary are attempts to depict her now as she is Heaven, unbelievably and indescribably beautiful in both body and soul. I think that Sr Lucia from Fatima described her as the ‘beautiful lady”. Any representation of Mary as she is now, transformed in Heaven, would fall far short of any earthly depiction simply because we do not have the capacity.
Our Lady of Guadalupe: Features & complexion of a Mexican teenager, dressed as an Aztec princess, using Aztec iconography - and one of, if not THE most powerful image of Mary ever (might have something to do with the artist…)
Only point: Our Blessed Mother as an Aztec Princess has hundreds of millions of devotees. Dress her as Jewish peasant girl - and it might still work. But that’s not what happened.
Loved this. I saw the LA statue in person a few years ago, at a time when a strong and capable image of Our Lady was just what I needed to minister to my broken heart. Thank you…
I’m surprised that no one has mentioned the context of the Los Angeles statute. The Archdiocese of Los Angeles today is very multicultural and multiracial, and I suspect that the sculptor may have been trying to suggest that. And if the statute resembles Halle Berry, so what? Her complexion is probably closer to Mary’s than my fair skinned Irish sisters’ ever were.
The new L.A. cathedral was very controversial when it was built, and is a very modern building which is a striking departure from traditional church architecture. Again, the sculptor may have been trying to create a work of art that was consistent with its surroundings.
If you haven’t guessed already, I love both the statute and the cathedral.
I particularly like Simcha’s suggestion that Mary is depicted at the moment of the Annunciation. In my rosary meditations, I’ve always thought that Mary at that moment was imbued by God with absolute free will, and that means that she fully understood that the divine nature of her motherhood and was cognizant of all the sorrow and heartache that her decision would have involved. She also was imbued with the ability to say ‘no’ without personal consequences.
What a moment! All of creation must have been holding its breath waiting for her answer!
To be totally honest, I would be much more receptive of any religious artistic license and architectural innovation if they didn’t seem to always be tied to deviations from tradition of actual import like taking license with Church teachings and inappropriate liturgical innovation, or failed, impotent, leadership.
Basically what I am saying is I don’t mind having mass in a basement nor would I rip up a 5-year old’s playdoh depiction of Mary, but no matter how beautiful something is (ie the LA Cathedral), if I know it was forged in a spirit of “take that, traditional Catholics,” it’s going to leave a bad taste in my mouth. From what I’ve experienced in the LA diocese, that assessment is not too far from the mark and frankly leaves me looking at the art and the architecture in a different light.
It’d be one thing if LA was packed with faithful orthodox priests and Catholics under a strong bishop. I wouldn’t really be able to say a peep about their art and architecture; like you say it would be a matter of taste. But when we look at the reality, I can’t help but feel that the spirit that drove the cathedral design and Samurai Mary is not just a taste but rather a desire to make a statement, the same spirit and desire that makes them flaunt not only their non-traditional art but non-traditional everything to the point of liturgical abuses and heterodox beliefs. My two cents.
@Kephas: Good point. By the same token, I’m perfectly willing to tolerate the lackluster music and kitschy decor of churches I’ve known, because the priests are strong and orthodox, etc. You couldn’t pay me to move to L.A.
I’ve looked at this statue from a few perspectives online (not in person, though) and I’d have to say that what bugs me most are the sleeves/bodice of the figure’s gown, the overall androgynous look of her form, and the position of her head and hands.
The sleeves are just…weird. I could see Mary in a short-sleeved gown; in fact, one of the other commenters on this blog post linked to such an image. But there’s a big difference between “short sleeved” and “something harkening back to the original “Star Trek” series when aliens were often costumed in wildly odd garments just to show they were aliens.” These open, flapping sleeves would be highly impractical for a peasant girl in Mary’s day, and wouldn’t have been safe in a carpenter’s shop—yet if they’re supposed to be some idealized, Heavenly garment, they seem equally strange, since they’re so disproportionate to the rest of the gown/dress/robe/peasant shift/whatever the rest is supposed to be.
The rest of the bodice is weird, too. I don’t even sew, but I look at the “flap” that tucks in at the top and forms the “v” of the neckline, and I think—where the heck did that flap of extra fabric come from? Did somebody cut a “v” out at the top, let the flap flop down, and then tuck it in at the waistline with no apparent stitchery? From the folds in the sculpture it looks more like the flap originates at the waist and folds up—but where the heck did an extra “v” of material come from on a one-piece dress? There does appear to be a seam at the front of the skirt portion, but…?
The androgynous look is pretty self-explanatory: this could just as easily be a young boy as a young girl, and even with all that unnecessary and strangely-draping fabric at best this seems to be an “Our Lady of the Nearly-A” sort of statue. And others have commented on her head and hands: the hands are stretched outward, palms up—yet her eyes are closed in a prayer-like position—yet her head is not bowed, but looking straight ahead. It’s sort of an odd mix of submission, prayer, and pride (and I think it’s the last quality that some find unsettling in the Blessed Virgin Mary).
In any case, it’s not the worst depiction of Mary I’ve seen. A parish I used to attend had a sort of Hindu-goddess looking thing in metal surrounded by candles—stuck in the back by one pastor, relegated elsewhere by a second, and finally removed by the third, I believe. Nobody even realized it was supposed to be Mary without being told that by people who’d been there when the thing was first put up.
@ Simcha Fisher:
Off topic maybe? But, um…. how ARE you, Simcha? Just wondering. I stumbled onto your other blog recently and well… just wondering how it’s going for you. If you care to say. It must be very difficult to write a blog(s), come up with topics, stay true true to how you feel and what you believe, try to be interesting and hopefully entertaining all while knowing that some people will be P.O.‘d, some offended, some bored and so on. You can’t please everyone, but there must be some hope of trying to please most.
Anyway - sometimes I imagine that it is all hard to do. Hope that it does not come at a cost for you.
BTW - Art IS weird because, well, so are ARTISTS!
I think it looks aweful, scary, and artistically dumb. A cross between an Oscars statue and a Rolls Royce hood ornament. I think the reason modern renditions of Our Mother bring out so many reactions in people is because nothing good has been done. It’s as if post modern art points a finger at society and says, “Whatever”. Give us something inspired and worhty of the title “Holy Mother of God” and maybe there would be better reception.
Looks to me like she is standing with the moon at her feet—much like Our Lady of Guadalupe. [Mary](http://www.sacred-destinations.com/usa/los-angeles-cathedral-of-our-lady-of-the-angels)
Pssss. Kephas and Simcha. We have new leadership :)
I think Kephas hit the nail on the head.
This is actually the most flattering photo I’ve seen of this statue. The reason I don’t much care for this statue is that it looks like either a young boy or an androgynous humanoid.
Simcha - Yes! I relate to the statue of Our Lady at OLAC because she seems so real, so evocative of the bold attitude Miriam demonstrated when she questioned the angel Gavri’El “How can this be?” As a devoted Roman Catholic who observed as a conservative Jew for many years, I knew many young women in our shul who presented as strong and resolute as Mary must have been (as she continues to be) and more truly beautiful than pretty. It’s a disconnect in cultural perception about what a “woman of valor” looks like. What makes Mary beautiful over all time(as Rev. Martin Luther once commented about race) is the “content of her character”.
I agree with Lrabbit. For some reason that I can’t fathom, it seems that we Catholics just can’t relate to the humanity of Jesus or Mary. Christ was fully divine AND fully human. His mother was first of all a woman, with an identity and personality all her own. I very much like Lrabbit’s thoughts about Mary being a “woman of valor” who was “strong and resolute.”
Very few people in this thread have engaged the question of the artist’s intention. Barbara Nicolosi recently gave a talk on beauty in which she described taking a tour of the LA Cathedral. The tour guide explained that the artist’s intention was to combine features of all of the world’s cultures into a single image… lips from one ethnicity, cheekbones from another, etc. So that everyone would be able to see themselves in the features of this statue of Mary.
That’s about as anti-incarnational an idea as you can get. Only man would dream up the suggestion that to be universal, one has to become literally an amalgam of all human things. Is it any surprise that a piece of art driven by that kind of apersonal agenda is ugly?
God chose the scandal of particularity when He sent his Son among us. He wasn’t part Jewish, part Palestinian, etc. He wasn’t aiming at some kind of materialist agenda. He was simply about the work of love, the self-communication of Himself… a love that was personal, and therefore particular and unrepeatable.
Whatever else this statue represents, it would really be a stretch to claim that it has its origins in a Christian (or even theistic) impulse.
You can hear the Cardinal give an audio tour of the Cathedral, as well as answer questions about the project, here:
http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Oct2002/feature2_web_only.asp
I think the interview is from 2002.
Here’s the relevant section of the audio about the entrance to the Cathedral:
Cardinal Mahony interview
Sorry Simcha, but I still agree with Mr. Greydanus. As far as your examples, hmm, are they really strengthening your point? I agree that they are either “ugly” or at least unusual, but they do bear the marks of traditional Marian imagery—holding the infant Jesus, wearing flowing clothes, having a general air of “royalty”...the L.A. statue on the other hand is a woman in a strange Asian-inspired costume who could be anything from a representation of your Inner Goddess to Sacagawea.
@Lea S.
EXACTLY!!!!
I showed my stepson the image from Greydanus’ “Bad Church Art” post without any context at all, and asked him for his first reaction:
“Hmm. Doesn’t look like a statue - looks like a guy doing performance art, standing on the crescent moon - you can see the little platform he’s on and the width of the moon. I know that symbol he’s representing from somewhere but I can’t remember it.”
Then I told him what it was. His reaction: “Who thought that looked like Mary?”
I think what’s missing is any hint of her reliance on God, her Savior. Our Lady of Guadelupe looks down and to the side to prove she’s NOT a god. Aztec gods look straight ahead—as this statue does.
Egad! Fouquet’s statue looks like the Borg Queen in tulle. Just sayin’
Sorry, that would be “Fouquet’s painting”. I was typing fast trying to keep crawling baby away from the stairs which she just discovered recently.
Re: the the long-necked Mary painting. It’s symbolic. The woman represents the Church, which the artist is critiquing for losing it’s hold (seen literally in the painting) on Christ. The Church is vain, neglectful of and indifferent to Christ, who rests sickly on her lap and is just about to fall off. The manner in which her right hand frames her left breast illustrates her lack of nurturing (no exposed breast here indicates no breast-feeding). The miniature man in the right background represents a prophet, heralding something ominous (consider the natural environment around him). The angels crammed in the left are none actually looking at Christ, none adoring him as they should. It’s stunning, I think.
All I’m going to say it’s that “Fouquet’s Mary” makes the LA statue look positively beautiful by comparison.
Simcha, I seriously think that the L.A. Mary looks like Angelina Jolie. Are you sure it’s Mary…? ;-)
I don’t think that the Fouquet painting was meant to be a piece of or for veneration. It’s not an icon. Not all representations of Mary were / are meant to be looked upon in the same way we look upon paintings and sculptures created in honour of Mary. Sometimes, an artist wants to say something philosophical or political or religious that isn’t reverent or pious or faith-filled. So, whether or not these Marys are ugly or beautiful is kinda a moot point, if we are looking at them as pieces for honouring our Blessed Mother.
“whether or not these Marys are ugly or beautiful is kinda a moot point, if we are looking at them as pieces for honouring our Blessed Mother.”
Sounds like a neo-Manichean perspective on art. The physical is tangential; what REALLY matters is the idea.
“a neo-Manichean perspective on art”.
Argh! I don’t even know what that means. But maybe I was unclear? I meant that if the paintings were not meant as art for honouring Mary, it’s a moot point if the Marys are ugly or beautiful; the idea matters more in these pieces.
I am NO art scholar. Just thinking aloud.
The Manicheans said that there are two equal and opposite realms, and that everything spiritual was good, and everything fleshly and solid is evil. So in reaction to this, some artists (over)emphasized the fleshliness of their religious subjects, to show that the body is not evil. Sometimes people with Manichean tendencies claim that beauty or ugliness is utterly inconsequential. I don’t think that was precisely your point; but I still can’t agree with you regarding the particular works of art that I showed, because they were commissioned to be put in churches—and I think it’s a safe bet that at least the ones who commissioned the works intended them to be venerated! I hadn’t heard the theory of the Madonna of the Long Neck as an allegory for the failings of the Church, though. It’s intriguing, but I’m not entirely convinced.
Thanks for that! I think, because this painting and the Fouquet are as “weird” as lots of us say, I am stretching to understand them. Historical context education would help (me). The deathly look of P’s Jesus might also foreshadow Our Lord’s death (Pieta-style depiction?).
Here’s a wonderful painting of Mary that I just love because it’s different:
http://www.hillstream.com/annunciation.html
I know that this post is a few days old, but I’ve been thinking about the question of why an current day artistic rendition of Mary would likely be unacceptable (compared to previous eras when Mary was depicted frequently by artists in garb of that time). I honestly believe that it is because our society (and perhaps our world at large) has no useful concept to illustrate the “queenly” or “majestic” nature of Our Lady. In previous ages, queens were a very common reality…so unless we want a picture of Mary looking like Queen Elizabeth of Britain or the Queen of Jordan…I think we serve the reality and truth of the nature of Our Lady by continuing to present her in a more transcendent and timeless fashion. (That would be my second complaint is that all contemporary art is tarnished by the wound of post-modernist relativism, which cannot admit to any transcendent reality.)
http://holycoast.blogspot.com/search/label/Virgin Mary
I am not sure what to make of any of this. One thing I do know is that Mary doesn’t really care much what you like about an image from an artist.
She has for some 2000 years plus chosen to appear in a wide range of apparel and styles. None of which look much like a peasant. In looking at the image from Mexico one must admit that this is the only image of Mary that has no human author. Perhaps that is the one we should most admire. As for women or men speaking of the depiction of the Mother of God as they would about some hollywood dolly is really a new low. If an image of our Lady of Grace makes you creepy you might want to speak to a GOOD priest. I will hope to see your face when you actually meet Mary in heaven. And I emphasize HOPE.
I don’t have a problem with the facial features, it is the other aspects of this depiction of Mary that are off-putting. She does look very Star Trekkie or like something one would see in a Scientology facility. The usual symbols of Mary are completely lacking and her stance is weird. I think that is what people are bothered by. I think that different depictions of Mary are just fine to reflect cultural perspectives. Here is a depiction of Mary that some found offensive, but I thought it was fine and even appropriate for our area: http://www.signonsandiego.com/photos/2011/apr/25/359106/ BTW, this has been removed from the underpass and will be relocated in the future. It turned out to be a very popular piece of local art.
Art is not merely a matter of one’s own “opinion” or purely subjective. If one likes a work that is crap that is a problem with the viewer and the work itself. There’s a reason why works like Michelangelo’s Pieta are considered a Masterpiece and stand the test of time while this statue will primarily leave viewers wondering who it is and why the Archdiocese chose to put it in front of the Cathedral in the first place (although it does fit in perfectly with the ugliness of the Cathedral itself). This statue of Mary is difficult to tell it is even female when looked at straight on. This means that the artist’s agenda, such as showing an androgynous Mary or all the cultures of the world in one face, overrides what should be the artist’s agenda—to portray a Masterpiece,—a beautiful, iconic statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary. This piece doesn’t even try.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.