Crucifiction of Man - WIP

[JamieM]

Hi Guys,

Here is one of my current projects. As disturbing as this is, I feel compelled to paint it. I'm still working on layer 2, so there's still lots to be done.

The Crucifiction of Man

[MarkMark]

What is this all about? I think It needs more explanation

[Biki]

yes - "please explain"?

( all the aussie's will get the joke of this phrase - ex Pauline Hanson :p )

there is something about you JamieM, that is delightfully wicked.
if only i undertood. :wink2:

[JamieM]

Hi Guys,

I was compelled to paint this picture after seeing the attached photo in the newspaper. My painting is about man's ignorance being at the root of his downfall.

[sarahbellum]

Hi Guys,

I was compelled to paint this picture after seeing the attached photo in the newspaper. My painting is about man's ignorance being at the root of his downfall.
Or, of course, it is about artist's need to see himself as clever bad boy.

[jhercilia]

this is a disgrace.

[rjKing]

I think its interesting..

What does the sign on the top of the cross say? Normally it says 'INRI', but you've replaced it with something else but I can't read it! :(

On a purely technical note, the hands don't read 3 dimensionally.. is that intentional? If not you may want to increase the modeling there..

Another question.. the body is obviously male, but the hips seem rather wide to me.. is that also intentional?

Another small detail you may or may not want to deal with.. the light source for the head is coming from upper right, where as the light source for the figure is coming from the upper left.

Truly interesting work. Have you thought about the use of a blindfold or some other device? Right now I don't read 'ignorance'.. and if that is what you are going after you might think in terms of visual imagery associated with ignorance..

Your painting technique is getting better for sure! Very interesting stuff.

[dcorc]

As Moderator

May I point out that we do allow "contentious" subject matter - anyone who is unclear about what is, and isn't allowed to be depicted - and also what the limits of acceptable comment are - would be well advised to re-read the user agreement: http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/rules.php

If you find artwork "offensive", and it doesn't fall outside the limits of the user agreement, then I'd suggest that the best option is to hit the "back" button, rather than the "post" button.

Dave

[JamieM]

I think its interesting..

What does the sign on the top of the cross say? Normally it says 'INRI', but you've replaced it with something else but I can't read it! :(

On a purely technical note, the hands don't read 3 dimensionally.. is that intentional? If not you may want to increase the modeling there..

Another question.. the body is obviously male, but the hips seem rather wide to me.. is that also intentional?

Another small detail you may or may not want to deal with.. the light source for the head is coming from upper right, where as the light source for the figure is coming from the upper left.

Truly interesting work. Have you thought about the use of a blindfold or some other device? Right now I don't read 'ignorance'.. and if that is what you are going after you might think in terms of visual imagery associated with ignorance..

Your painting technique is getting better for sure! Very interesting stuff.


Hello Richard,

The sign says Ignotus, latin for ignorant.... my camera has a problem focusing.
I do intend to address the other issues that you've pointed out. It's still early in the work though, with each stage I make more adjutsments.

I've used Guido Reni's "Crucifixion" as my model for the work. Although I find his work significantly less powerful than my beloved Caravaggio, I do like his style.

I expected that my painting would be disturbing... and in fact, it disturbs me to paint it. My goal is to have it depict beauty as well as agony. In any case, I love imagery with some kind of impact.

Many thanks for you comments and sugestions.

[rjKing]

The sign says Ignotus, latin for ignorant.... my camera has a problem focusing.

You're welcome.. only too happy to help.

Ha!! I might have gotten it if I'd been able to read the sign (I have a small working knowledge of latin). Very good!

Yah.. I recognized the reference to Reni.. some of your other work also makes references to classical work (its another thing I find interesting about what you are doing.. you take straight classical references and work them with modern subjects.. ).

Again, interesting stuff!

[Pars]

I, too, find this interesting or perhaps provocative, and have sub'd in order to see where you go with it.

I generally don't ask about intention, especially if I'm viewing a WIP, but I wouldn't mind hearing what underlying thoughts you have about the juxaposition of this image and ignorance.

It also somehow reminds me of Dali. I'll have to go see the Reni.

Thanks for sharing your process.

[jhercilia]

Dave,
For your information, I wasn't really in this "oil painting" area but the link to this pic was in portraiture. That's how I got to see it. And it is still a disgrace.

[JamieM]

Dave,
For your information, I wasn't really in this "oil painting" area but the link to this pic was in portraiture. That's how I got to see it. And it is still a disgrace.

This is odd. I've never posted in portraiture???

[jhercilia]

I am sorry, it was under Inspirational Art.

[JamieM]

I, too, find this interesting or perhaps provocative, and have sub'd in order to see where you go with it.

I generally don't ask about intention, especially if I'm viewing a WIP, but I wouldn't mind hearing what underlying thoughts you have about the juxaposition of this image and ignorance.

It also somehow reminds me of Dali. I'll have to go see the Reni.

Thanks for sharing your process.

Hello,


It's interesting how this painting came to be; My initial plan was to juxtapose cute cats into disturbing scenes. Initially I had planned on a different, maybe equally disturbing subject. (I'll keep that a secret for now) I was curious to see if I can paint a cat cute enough as to balance the disturbing subject matter with cuteness. As it turns out I found the newspaper photo to be a very powerful image, in that it depicted agony so strongly. Upon seeing it I was compelled to use it in a crucifixion. It wasn't even a choice. The fact that it was a photo of a popular figure was secondary. I expect that in time the figure won't be recognized anyhow.

Obviously, everyone's interpretation of the work will differ. Truthfully my challenge is to somehow depict beauty in the face of agony. The "meaning" is secondary.

That being said, the work is about man's ignorance being his downfall. i.e. Ego, self importance, indifference, and stubbornness combined with high technology = disaster.

Thanks for you kind comments,

[Pars]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and your process. It is so interesting that you are creating this from an image of the Pope, while I just created a Pope as the Heirophant (in Tarot) as an explorer and a shaman.

I've also been intrigued by all the wonderful photographs that have appeared in local newspapers of John, and may try to do a collage with him in mind.

I'll be here watching (and au contraire to some of our viewers, I don't shock easily).

[Keith Russell]

this is a disgrace.

If I may be so bold, something can't be simply 'a disgrace'. May I ask, a disgrace to what?

[dcorc]

If I may be so bold, something can't be simply 'a disgrace'. May I ask, a disgrace to what?

No, Keith, in this case you may NOT ask.

This thread is NOT going to be turned into a debate.

If you wish to discuss the limits of tolerance of "offensiveness" in artwork, then I suggest it be taken back to the parallel thread currently running in the Debates forum, from whence you came.

Dave

[Keith Russell]

Hey, someone made a vague statement. I'm more than a bit surprised that no one else had asked for clarification before me.

Oh, well.

No, Keith, in this case you may NOT ask.

This thread is NOT going to be turned into a debate.

If you wish to discuss the limits of tolerance of "offensiveness" in artwork, then I suggest it be taken back to the parallel thread currently running in the Debates forum, from whence you came.

Dave

[monzie]

scripture tells us that man is destroyed by ignorance, or lack of knowlege, in the context of ignorance to God's ways and laws.

it appears that you could be calling christianity ignorance and with the placement of a cat, which is and can be, regarded as an occult symbol, that somehow the occult lives on and christianity does not...

or, are you saying that catholisim (the religions of man) is ignorant and the cat is just cute?? if you are just saying that man's ignorance slays him, why use a clearly Christian symbol to represent his demise?

i don't see a clear message, even after your explanation. in my opinion, if the artist has to explain his work, he should write, instead of paint. imagery, when done well, explains quite powerfully on it's own.

blessings,
dan
(monzie)

[rroberts]

Jamie:

I don't want to get overly involved with the layers of meaning you may be trying to express, but in this instance I don't really see anything related to the concept of ignorance. I see a crucifixion of an old man, and a kitty cat. And that's all I see. Using an image of the late pope will have a very short-lived value because it's a specific image tied to a very brief moment in history, and thus cannot precisely convey much about universality. And since very few people these days are up on their Latin, your "explanation" is lost. Some of your other paintings using pigs were more effective because of the universality of the concepts - it wasn't Porky Pig, it was a pig. I hope that makes sense.

Now for the painting ...
To me, that pink swipe is a detractor. The image would be a lot more powerful without it. The brown mound, which I suppose represents Calvary, could be softened along the upper edges. Otherwise, you're on a pretty good track here. Keep going with it.

cheers!

[Philco]

Hello,

Obviously, everyone's interpretation of the work will differ. Truthfully my challenge is to somehow depict beauty in the face of agony. The "meaning" is secondary.

That being said, the work is about man's ignorance being his downfall. i.e. Ego, self importance, indifference, and stubbornness combined with high technology = disaster.

Thanks for you kind comments,

I'm wondering what beauty you see in the image you have created, and I'm also wondering, in regard to ignorance - if you're professing your own ignorance or if you're making a point from "above it all" so to speak.

Is martyrdom an act of ignorance, or does the cross represent ego, etc. as you mention above?

I'm not editorializing or trying to make any point by asking this, I'm genuinely curious.

[Rosic]

This piece... as well as the last three posts are very thought provoking. Some great insights there but I seem to be of the same mindset as Philco that the piece asks more questions than it answers... if that is your intent you have handled this very well.
Bernie

[DanaT]

I was curious to see if I can paint a cat cute enough as to balance the disturbing subject matter with cuteness. ... [SNIP] ... Truthfully my challenge is to somehow depict beauty in the face of agony.

Cute...disturbing...beauty...agony...too many messages in this painting. :eek: From what I can see your technical skills look good; I think you're still trying to figure out what you want to say and a lot of ideas are competing for attention. If you are joining the long line of artists of political commentary art, you might want to take a look at some of the masters work in this genre.

As a political commentary piece Goya's The Third of May (http://eeweems.com/goya/3rd_of_may.html) is one of the best and at the time most provocative. It was a commentary on the ravages that the invading Napoleonic army was inflicting on the Spanish peoples. Like yours, his painting uses the cruciform, although in the body of the condemned man to be shot.

Almost two hundred years later, we don't know the details behind the events but we know exactly what he wanted to say. The commentary in the above link is quite good at analyzing a political commentary work and I highly recommend it.

What you are sharing looks closer to satire and Goya did that too in his ink washes but they didn't have the longevity of the paintings.

[krispee]

not sure if you wanted a crit on the techs of the painting but here i go...

i have to agree with the person who commented on the light source, or sources, as it appears that there is a little confusion as to where the light is coming from, most of it seems to be coming top left but there are parts of the lower right side that are showing an alternative light source....
and i have to disagree with DanaT as the anatomy is really not right....there is almost no neck, the arms aren`t long enough(and the relationships of the lengths of the parts of the arms may need altering), the muscles for the shoulders should be bunched up creating almost a ball shape(the arms being raised), the legs may be too long but it depends on whether you correct the other problems, and although he is a guy he has the hip bones of a woman....the waist being far too narrow and too high.....not sure about the feet either, the right maybe too long....
tonally it looks ok, you have some of the musclature well enough in places...
not sure what to say about the cat, so i won`t...

i`m not commenting on the symbolism, if you think there is any.....as that really isn`t my bag....

krispee

[DanaT]

and i have to disagree with DanaT as the anatomy is really not right

I probably should have clarified that when I referred to technical skills I meant the technical skills with the oil medium not the anatomy.

Regarding the anatomy, there are invariably going to be problems when you put an elderly man's head on a young man's body. This mismatch between the head and the body was so obvious it looked intentional so I saw no need to critique that. That mismatch is the reason there is no neck and adding a neck wouldn't make it work. The head from the photo reference that Jamie used would be impossible to make look right on a crucifixation pose. I never particularly cared for putting one person's head on another's body even in caricature but that is just personal taste.

As far as the rest of the anatomy, yes the arms are a bit short, the thigh looks a bit short, and the overall body looks thin compared to the height. But a lot of cruxification paintings depicted a rail thin Christ so if its not anatomicaly correct it does look like it follows in the tradition of cruxification paintings which were not exactly anatomically correct.

[Pars]

Well, Jamie, you've certainly got many of us interested in this piece.

I went in search of Reni's work and see he's done several versions of the crucifiction of Christ, one of which is clearly portrayed as androgynous. I can't seem to find any that is worthy of sharing here (low resolutions, very small). Your figure is leaning toward the feminine, and several more experienced posters have suggested some changes.

What I've learned as a result of my own leaning towards symbology is that if my symbols are not recognizable, I miss reaching my audience with my message. Although they are unconscious, archetypes, do IMO, hold true both in visual and literary works. You might consider using a more understandable symbol or set of symbols to portray "ignorance" and its relationship to pain.

Merely suggestions, of course, and I am keen to see how you bring this into fruition.

[JamieM]

Jamie:

I don't want to get overly involved with the layers of meaning you may be trying to express, but in this instance I don't really see anything related to the concept of ignorance. I see a crucifixion of an old man, and a kitty cat. And that's all I see. Using an image of the late pope will have a very short-lived value because it's a specific image tied to a very brief moment in history, and thus cannot precisely convey much about universality. And since very few people these days are up on their Latin, your "explanation" is lost. Some of your other paintings using pigs were more effective because of the universality of the concepts - it wasn't Porky Pig, it was a pig. I hope that makes sense.

Now for the painting ...
To me, that pink swipe is a detractor. The image would be a lot more powerful without it. The brown mound, which I suppose represents Calvary, could be softened along the upper edges. Otherwise, you're on a pretty good track here. Keep going with it.

cheers!


Hi Robert,

This work is more about the image. A man in agony and a cat. As far as the background goes... I think I'll try a dramatic Turner sky.

Thanks for your comments,
Jamie

[JamieM]

scripture tells us that man is destroyed by ignorance, or lack of knowlege, in the context of ignorance to God's ways and laws.

it appears that you could be calling christianity ignorance and with the placement of a cat, which is and can be, regarded as an occult symbol, that somehow the occult lives on and christianity does not...

or, are you saying that catholisim (the religions of man) is ignorant and the cat is just cute?? if you are just saying that man's ignorance slays him, why use a clearly Christian symbol to represent his demise?

i don't see a clear message, even after your explanation. in my opinion, if the artist has to explain his work, he should write, instead of paint. imagery, when done well, explains quite powerfully on it's own.

blessings,
dan
(monzie)

Hi Dan

I guess I would say... man is ignorant and the cat is cute. :) It's not specifically about religion. The crucifixion aspect is more about suffering and agony than about Christianity.

I thought it might be fun to hang the work above a bed as people do with crucifixes.

All the best,

[JamieM]

I'm wondering what beauty you see in the image you have created, and I'm also wondering, in regard to ignorance - if you're professing your own ignorance or if you're making a point from "above it all" so to speak.

Is martyrdom an act of ignorance, or does the cross represent ego, etc. as you mention above?

I'm not editorializing or trying to make any point by asking this, I'm genuinely curious.

I've still got a long way to go but I hope to accomplish portraying beauty in the man's anguished face.

Personally I find the symbolism quite straight forward. A man in agony nailed to a cross bearing the sign "IGNOTUS" (IGNORANT). I guess whatever anyone reads into it kind of works?

[JamieM]

Hello,

Here's an update.

[JamieM]

Progress, Stage 3 begins....

[Tripod]

No way a disgrace. Maybe Janet has gone round with her eyes closed looking at art. There are far more contentious works than this.
Keep it going as I feel it's going to be a good painting, that's if you remove the bird killing, self obsessed and uncontrollabe animal.
No offence and my son is called Jamie.

[dcorc]

if you remove the bird killing, self obsessed and uncontrollabe animal.

LOL - meow?

:) Dave

[JamieM]

that's if you remove the bird killing, self obsessed and uncontrollabe animal.

Okay guys, now this is getting personal. :cat:

[Tripod]

I just can't stand the damned things. They s**t on my flower beds and not the neighbours too.
Friends who have cats put them out before I visit or I don't visit.
Nothing personal Jamie - honest

[sp71]

I just can't stand the damned things. They s**t on my flower beds and not the neighbours too.
Friends who have cats put them out before I visit or I don't visit.

Damn. And there was I thinking you were a nice old git who likes real ale at room temperature, girls, 1973 VW campervans, hashing and oh yes... likes to paint.

[Tripod]

I am, I am Seppi.

[Montague]

Hi Jamie
interesting work, although normally when they crucified people in the past they put a cloth over their groin. By the way, I think that "ignotus" in Latin means "unknown", or when referring to a person, someone whose name si not known.
Best of luck with finishing the painting.
Cheers

[birddog]

This is coming along nicely. I think you've captured the anguish on his face quite well and I like the new background. My only complaint is that the cat isn't big enough. It looks so tiny proportionally to the figure... your eye isn't draw to it right away so it almost becomes an afterthought...

[Tripod]

....shouldn't even be a thought! hee hee heee

Sorry Jamie

[Euphonic_Pencils]

I don't really have a comment, but when I first saw it I thought that some people would have a problem with it looking like John Paul II being cruxified. (the face looks like JP II), but anyways it is pretty nice

[JamieM]

Hello Everyone,

Here's an update. I've completed the 3rd stage, still at least a couple more to go. I'm still a slow painter.

[HRobinson]

Hey Jamie. Personally I think shows a lot of humor as a subjective picture. (What? No halo?)

The background is not contiguous, especially around the body, so the depth suffers. Too much brown... and I strained my eyes to make out the cat.

I haven't figured out what showing the little beekie adds to this -- and the cat for that matter -- so the only thing else to comment on is the philosophical nature of the title and its relationship to ignorance.

Jamie might be saying that perhaps it's true that mans' ignorance will be his doom... not doomed from just being ignorant but by revelling in it. Hear! Hear! -H.

[JamieM]

I've actually thought about the halo too :cat:

The contours in the background will appear in later stages. I'm still building material. It's certainly tempting to put more details in early in the work, but perhaps a waste of time as they'll be covered by subsequent layers.

This work, as well as my Delacroix copy, are materials studies. I'm working with a variation of the traditional black oil, mastick, lead medium. It's mixed into the colors and I shave the painting and coat it with medium between layers.

Thanks for the comments.

[muz]

Hi Jamie,

I think it's fabulous and you get :clap: :clap: :clap: from me for making me think... As far as I'm concerned, art has achieved its goal if it brings something out of me, and what it brings out of me is a respect for your willingness to expose the "innate" hipocracy of mankind as I see it (irrespective of whether this was your goal or not). I don't know what you exactly intended, but what matters is that I can interpret your painting in MY own way. I like narrative pieces very much and I am thrilled by the resemblance to the pope...

Now if any sensitive people are reading - please move on to the next post.

Your painting has provided me (again I must reiterate that it is only through my interpretation of your painting) with a message that I have been craving. I have been very disappointed by the world's glorification of the late pope after his death without even a whim of criticism - not even from the world's most respected publications. I believe that the pope has played a strong part in damaging the world with messages of intolerance... :o (May I say that here) Too late. I just have. And anyway, if art is not the platform for pure expression, then what is???

I am still not perfectly sure what your "message" is, but if I'm honest - I don't care. The painting is great and bold and daring and refreshing.

Thank you, thank you, thank you

ps. I agree TOTALLY with Dave about debates. I feel it is my right to express myself, which I have, but I will not respond to any post that attacks my comment here in any way, as I do not want to start an argument. I would also ask any other people who notice a debate starting to also ignore whatever comments come our way. Perhaps we can just read what people think, and thereby learn from others without attacking each other's views. We are all entitled to our opinions and that is what I love about art... It's the reason I paint, and I seek solace in its liberating quality on a daily basis.

Murray

[Tripod]

HRobinson- I think Jamie explains his motive early in the thread if you look back, even the cat, though I am mystified at that totally and have made my thoughts clear to the God of Cats already.

[JamieM]

A better photo... Natural light. My web site has an even better one.

[dan9000]

First thing -- I've spent quite a bit of time just now studying and puzzling over the painting in its various versions. The fact that I've felt compelled to keep looking at it makes it a "success" in my book, even though I still haven't quite figured out what it "means" to me.

There is one thing I keep coming back to, and that is that I feel it would be better if the cat was a) sitting in a more complacent and lazy pose -- maybe even cleaning its fur with its tongue, as they are wont to do -- rather than standing, and b) not looking at the viewer. I think having the cat be more self-absorbed -- disengaged from both the horror above, as well as the viewer -- would make the cat/crucifixion juxtaposition even more disturbing. Not that I'm one for "disturbing" as an end in itself, but I think to some degree this painting is about the tension between our human tendency to hyper-dramatize our own sufferings, while the world (earth, sky, time, cute little pussy cats) just rolls on.

In other words, nothing is more disturbing to us humans than to think that maybe its not "all about us", that a cute little pussy cat (or God) could be a few feet from such suffering and not give a damn.

Dan

[muz]

Looking lovely, although I think you should have left the sky the way it was. The warm tones brought out the tones in the cat, beautifully. Now the cat is falling away somewhat. It was also more dramatic with the warmer sky.

Murray

[gaugin]

I like that you have moved us all into this narrative without complelely explaining visually all the symbolism. You have directed us down this corridor and given us all enough room to try and figure out these motifs ourselves. And as you see gotten a range of responses..well done . As far as the anatomy concerns some of the distortion and twist work as far as the content. Think of Francis Bacon's painting Pope Innocent, and the distortions he used in the figure to make his statement. Anyway I really jumped in here to say, I liked the warm background. It added to the work. And I may be censored but "Dude, the Popes got a righteous Johnson"

[xvallarta]

A few comments on your composition:

You have placed the man in the classic pose often used by people painting a crusifiction. Unfortunatly, painters have been painting the scene all wrong.

The nails in the hands would have not worked. The weight of the body would have ripped the hands apart and the body would have fallen over. The Romans learned that lesson and hammered the nails behind the wrist. The bone stucture of the wrist would then prevent the skin from being ripped.

Secodly, In a classic crusifiction (there were several types) the cross was actually a T shape. This was easier to build. The intent of the crusifiction was to inflict as much pain as possible and so after the hands were nailed the feet were brough up about 1 to 2 feet and nailed in that position. Why?

Because, the average sufferer died from lack of oxygen. If the feet were nailed at full extension the upper torso would have sagged so that the hands were in a "Y" position, and the large muscle that moves the lungs would be fully extended and would not be able to move and thus the victim would suffocate. By moving the legs up the the victim could push against the nail and allow himself to gasp for breath and then because of the intense pain in the foot nail (usually one spike) he would collapse start to suffocate and the process woudl repeat over and over again until he died.

If the victim was considered especially hated by the Romans they would drill a hole in the long section of the T (or cross) and insert a pug that extended 4 to 8 inches. This allowed the suffer to sit on the peg giving momentary relief but posponing his overall agony for many hours. Sometimes the peg was inserted at an upward angle and sharpend to a point. This resulted in the victim to impale himself. The pain was very intense but the blood loss would increase and soon bring unconciousness and death.

Myles

[JamieM]

Hi Everyone,

I've completed another layer... here it is. Still at least one more to go.

Enjoy....

[Sieve]

I don`t know why everybody keep saying the "disgrace" word...

with all respect If you think about the pope I think that the disgrace was that the religion crucified himself first of all.
I think that the old man should have been retired ages ago living a much more settled and listen to this - "gracious"- life.
Poor old man was dragged everywhere...
I`m religious as well but I simply just couldn`t accept what they did with him in the name of religion.

So nothing wrong with your pic.
Keep posting.

regards to you all.

[Panditha(Damian C.)]

I know this is an old thread but i was searching for occult art, and i came across yours. I must say it is quite vivid, and powerful, truly makes you think, I also love the message behind it. :).


cheers
Damian crowley

[Calvado]

Jamie,


Nice painting and Hi from Montreal !

By the way, i would have erased completely the cat since it removes the focus somewhat from your main subject.. .Also, I was wondering why you did at least 4 or 5 different "backgrounds" changing color, texture, etc.. at each layer ?
Usually I try to get the background in 2 or 3 layers... always using close colors... I mean If the background is made mainly with burnt umber, I'll continue to use mainly this color in my next layers... Or maybe, it was just because you were still searching for some effect, layer after layer ?

[aszurblue]

I am glad someone brought this thread back. Jamie, are you are still with us?? I for one would like to see the finished one./? Or have you posted it somewhere else?

Ah Hum.. May I say in the nicest way... Derek... You are not so far removed from going s*** in the woods yourself. :D Give the poor kitty a break :wink2:

[Donna Theis]

Really don't see how this painting suggests man's ignorance leading to his downfall... I get the feeling it was painted for shock value. Later coming up with a "profound" meaning.

[O'Aieghlans]

Um, why is the pope naked? And on the cross? Because there's a photograph of him yawning?

[corvo]

this is a disgrace.


I find it rather brilliant!
I think a lot of people who "think" themselves artists simply because they have the technical skills to apply paint to a canvas and recreate something they are looking at, miss the point entirely of what it means to be an artist.
Without openmindedness your not an artist, just a wrist. Like the wrist flipping burgers down at the local mikey dee's.
You're definetly NOT a wrist Jamie! Good job. Don't ever suppress that imagination of yours to tame the ignorance of others!
Peace

[WTPDOSA]

It's amazing how in the name of "freedom" of expression that religious bigotry raises its ugly head. For an interesting twist, you could have used the Dali Lama, or the Buddha, or hey, just to make it interesting, how about Mohammed. Then you'd have a bunch of people trying to get their hands on you.
Adolf Hitler expounded upon the concept that Germans use their openmindedness to augment change. His religious bigotry caused millions to die.
Yes, its an accepted practice to embrace religious bigotry, even in art. The idea to place a controversial subject in public forum does expose oneself to those who have different views. To call those who oppose or dislike such exposures ignorant is itself arrogant and ignorant, as it refuses to acknowledge, or even in the case of this expression, slap the face of the human condition. It is the mentality of the thief that prevails. I'll do as I please, regardless of who it hurts.
The old world masters were very openminded and had respect for other's beliefs. To say that without openmindedness one is not an artist is nothing more than a fallacy without one good premise.
I find this piece very offensive. You continue to redo the background only to have others continually look at it. To place the face of an old man on a young man's body is what kind of statement? The god of cats with its tail up at the foot of the cross says that you miss your master?
Disrespecting others is about you.
Ignorance is about perception.
Bigotry is about hate.
Which is it?

[JamieM]

Hi Everyone,

Sorry, I hadn't realized that this thread had become active once again. These threads are like volcanos sometimes... forget about them... then... when you least expect it....

I still have not completed this painting nor my little Bouguereau/Jesus thing either as I've been consumed with my Self Portrait/Flagellation painting. It's fairly big and time consuming.

I am looking forward to completing the last couple of stages and work out the background. I've been experimenting with the sky till now. As a fairly new artist I haven't much experience with landscapes and as such I need to find my way by trial and error.

WTPDOSA, Sorry, but I'd rather offend or amuse you than have you feel nothing.

I'll post an update soon...

[JamieM]

Um, why is the pope naked? And on the cross? Because there's a photograph of him yawning?


I would expect that people were crucified naked. People need to relieve themselves sometimes; it would get messy otherwise.

I saw anguish in the photo. That's what inspired me.

[manart]

Yes, it's right.
People were crucified naked; Christ too was naked; he was 'dressed' later because of obvious reasons.

I'm new here, and I see that your painting created many different reactions...
It is important to distingush technical feedbacks (lights, colours, strokes...) from personal feedbacks (I like/don't like it, it disturbs/doesn't disturb me...)

I think that when we put something here, in this forum, we must accept every type of criticism. But remember: we have to 'judge' paintings and not 'people'.

I personally don't like it, since my eyes are not invited to study this painting for long time... I don't like some Mondrian's and Picasso's paintings too! It's a personal opinion...

This is my only thought: paint it if it makes you free. People are free to see or not see what you paint!

Enjoy,

Fausto.

[O'Aieghlans]

My suspicion is that the Pope might be offended by the nakedness; however, he'd be fully in agreement with the suffering portrayed. The life work of the pope is a personal sacrifice inspired by that of Jesus Christ, who calls all to sacrifice in the service of others. Sacrifice is not pretty.

So while your work may be a protest against ... what -- sacrifice? It actually hits the truth about personal sacrifice right on the head.

[Johnnie]

If you are depicting the pope then his private parts are too long.. It shrinks with age.. You might want to fix that.

If you are dipicting the pope as a child like figure then his private parts are too long.. They are small when a child..

Other than that the painting is great. I dont care for the topic. But hey.. If one checks out all the masters paintings with paintings of beheadings, crucifixtions and burnings at the stake , this one aint that bad is it

Fix the parts.

Johnnie

[JamieM]

If you are depicting the pope then his private parts are too long.. It shrinks with age.. You might want to fix that.

If you are dipicting the pope as a child like figure then his private parts are too long.. They are small when a child..

Fix the parts.

Johnnie

Thanks Johnnie,

This had occurred to me too but I didn't want to humiliate the poor guy.

[O'Aieghlans]

How interesting that you have nothing to say about the fact that your depiction of suffering may be exactly in line with what Christianity would espouse!

[JamieM]

How interesting that you have nothing to say about the fact that your depiction of suffering may be exactly in line with what Christianity would espouse!

Hi,

I had considered that too. I thought that in that sense JP would have appreciated it. Also, JP had had a dream about a cat.... Google it, it's a nice story.

[Calvado]

Our private parts shrink with age ??? Another bad aspect of getting older

[JamieM]

Hi Everyone,

Here's the completed picture.

Thanks for watching:cat:

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/05-Feb-2006/43693-CrucifictionOfMan.jpg

[Keith Russell]

Jamie, this isn't as 'finished' looking as your Flagellation of Christ. (And, I really like the finished 'look' of that painting.)

My reaction to my own lack of religion, is to avoid overtly religious subjects, but I still cannot understand the fuss over this. (I remember when you first posted it...)

But then, I place 'art' above nearly everything else; religion, science, philosophy...

Keith.

[JamieM]

Jamie, this isn't as 'finished' looking as your Flagellation of Christ. (And, I really like the finished 'look' of that painting.)


Hi Keith,

I had a photograph for Flagellation. I find it difficult to work without one. I'll always work from a solid source from now on. I'm quite happy with the overall result though. It looks nice framed and hanging above my bed.

[Steve_D]

So the use of the popes face was incidental? You mean having the pope nailed to a crucifix is not making any religious statment? and the blindness and eventual downfall of the catholic church by its inability to recognise and adapt to changes in modern society is not a small portion of the meaning of this work.... boy, have I read this painting wrong.
Interesting work tho.

[Keith Russell]

Hi Keith,

I had a photograph for Flagellation. I find it difficult to work without one. I'll always work from a solid source from now on. I'm quite happy with the overall result though. It looks nice framed and hanging above my bed.

Oh, it's not bad, not at all.

I know what you mean about solid sources, though. And, it's not alwasy possible (it's never easy) to get good references.

It's something I struggle with often myself.

Keith.

[LGHumphrey]

Glad you didn't put Mohammed.

[JamieM]

So the use of the popes face was incidental? You mean having the pope nailed to a crucifix is not making any religious statment? and the blindness and eventual downfall of the catholic church by its inability to recognise and adapt to changes in modern society is not a small portion of the meaning of this work.... boy, have I read this painting wrong.
Interesting work tho.


Thanks,

JP was hardly incidental. He was the inspiration. Seems that there are many reasons why this image works, particularly in today's climate.