- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Starting this as a separate thread, to avoid the tone of the idolatry thread… I was at a visitors’ center for the church (but not in SLC) a while back. They had a copy of the Christus Statue there. I immediately found it odd, because this statue had been modified to make it look… well… friendlier.
Here is the statue in SLC:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/SLC_replica_of_the_Christus.jpg I find the one in SLC to be serious. Jesus looks down on the earth with a mixture of love, concern, gentleness and perhaps a bit of melancholy. He seems to be saying, “Let peace enter your soul… know that I am Lord… I have suffered and died that you might live… follow me, and I will lead you to the Kingdom of God.”
Here’s the one at the Oakland Temple VC:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Oakland_Temple_statue_of_Jesus_in_the_visitors_center.jpg Here, Jesus’ hands are more welcoming, and he has a look on his face like he just told a joke and is waiting for you to get it. He seems to be saying, “Come give Uncle Jesus a hug, you little rug-rats.”
Honestly, I can’t tell if the statues are different or not, since the angles of the photos are different – the Oakland one being up closer and angled upward more. It’s hard to see the facial expression in the SLC picture, and the hands difference appears to me to be an effect of the camera angle. It would be a very difficult task to change the statue (requiring a totally new mold be created to change only two minor details), and I can’t think of a single good reason to do it – so I tend to think it’s the same statue.
Old-Timer wrote:Honestly, I can’t tell if the statues are different or not, since the angles of the photos are different – the Oakland one being up closer and angled upward more. It’s hard to see the facial expression in the SLC picture, and the hands difference appears to me to be an effect of the camera angle.
It would be a very difficult task to change the statue (requiring a totally new mold be created to change only two minor details), and I can’t think of a single good reason to do it – so I tend to think it’s the same statue.
If the statues are carved out of stone of some kind then they would be different because no mold would be used. I also noticed that both have part of the chest exposed and both are from many years ago. I don’t think the church would commission a statue like that today. Today’s art is always much more modest and meets with the standards of current leaders. I collect some art and I love the human form and appreciate it when shown in the different art forms.
Quote:If the statues are carved out of stone of some kind then they would be different because no mold would be used.
Good point.
Either way, I doubt very seriously any changes that might exist were intentional and meant to convey a different message than the original. If there are differences, I think they are nothing more than the sculptor’s personal work, not a cultural statement of any kind.
After looking at both photos repeatedly, it does appear that the hands are more upturned and the facial expression less solemn in the Oakland version. I am unsure if this is a result of camera angle. A member of my ward was recently commissioned to carve a statue of Jesus for the LDS Church. He relayed a meeting with Pres. Packer where the ward member asked Pres. Packer if he should attempt to create a more historically correct jewish Jesus. Pres. Packer responded that the historical stuff is not the main concern, a reflection of christlike attributes is the focus.
Both of these statues expressions as described by On Own Now seem to meet the “christlike” qualification.
SLC: http://scott.sphotographs.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/LDS_conference_April_2010_10.jpg http://www.lds-images.com/images/christus4.jpg London Temple VC:
Hill Cumorah VC:
” “Come give Uncle Jesus a hug, you little rug-rats.”” Okay this line is so funny, I have tears running down my face. Because I believe God has a sense of humor I imagine him laughing along with me.
Thanks – OnOwn.
Thanks, On Own Now. Those are very helpful. There are differences in the facial expressions. I like both of them as reflective of how people see Jesus.
And just for completeness, though I’ve shown these specific links before, these appear to be from the same relative camera angle (approximately) giving a good sense of the changes. SLC:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/SLC_replica_of_the_Christus.jpg HCVC:
http://www.hillcumorah.org/flash/VisitCtr/VisitCtr_3.jpg The former is a beautiful piece of art. Jesus is sublime. He is both elegant and powerful. He is intelligent and focused. The person depicted in this statue would look good in a tuxedo, getting out of a Jaguar at the valet station of Restaurant Lasserre in Paris, France.
In the latter, Jesus is looking up more, has more open posture, more open hands, and is grinning from his broader face. He’s powerful, but almost so much as to be clumsy. The person depicted in this statue looks like he’d be a really helpful guy at the gym. He’d look good in western wear, getting out of a truck in the parking lot at the Sizzler in Paris, Texas.
I agree that there is nothing patently wrong about either version, in their depiction of the Savior. But I do think there is a deliberate attempt to change our perception when we see the statue.
When I saw the new version live for the first time, I have to admit that I found it embarrassing.
On Own Now wrote:SLC:
http://scott.sphotographs.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/LDS_conference_April_2010_10.jpg http://www.lds-images.com/images/christus4.jpg London Temple VC:
Hill Cumorah VC:
http://www.hillcumorah.org/flash/VisitCtr/VisitCtr_3.jpg I have no idea why there is such a need to alter it, but the church will portray Christ as it wants to. I prefer the Danish (?) original and the replicas of the original. I hope we don’t end up with such faded copies that the majesty of the original work is gone.
Quote:But I do think there is a deliberate attempt to change our perception when we see the statue.
If there is, I would assume it is to de-emphasize what some might see as stern and emphasize what others might see as kind and accepting. I don’t really care either way, however, since I think both of them can be powerful to the right people.
Frankly, I think this illustrates perfectly that each and every one of us reads into things whatever we are inclined to see – and I don’t mean that negatively. I think some people would prefer the original, while some would prefer the modified one – based entirely on what kind of Savior image resonates best within their heart and mind. In that way, I like multiple images – just as I like multiple personalities among the apostles. I can ignore much of what one person says in order to focus on much of what another person says – while the person sitting next to me can do the exact opposite.
Generally speaking, I favor diversity over unanimity – so this just doesn’t bother me in any way.
I, for one, see a difference in the facial expressions. Not sure what I think about it, but agree one is a bit more somber, the other more mirthful. Old-Timer wrote:I favor diversity over unanimity
Haha… Yes, I too favor diversity. Now back to the statue.
What bothers me is that the Church owns this iconic work of art… itself a copy, and not the only copy, but a piece of art nonetheless, and the most well known of the ‘family’. It has graced the cover of the Ensign several times. It has been the major focal point of our most visited Visitors Center for nearly 50 years. It is the most (only) significant work of art that the Church owns.
The Church has made many faithful copies of the statue, which can be found in visitors centers around the world. But the the Church has now started to produce unfaithful copies of the original, obviously specifically intended to change the mood of the sculpture, and are placing that version in visitors centers. The different mood is fine. I can remember as a kid thinking the one in SLC seemed somber, so I get that. But then, commission a new work of art, don’t make bad copies and tell your visitors that it is a “copy of the original is SLC” as I was told when I saw it. My preference would be that the Church not make any copies at all. Something that iconic should exists as a singular. Making a copy for each VC just cheapens it. I would prefer each VC have its individual and diverse focal point, appropriate for its own setting. But if the Church is going to make “copies” they should try not to make bad ones. If they want a different Jesus, then make a different piece of art.
Imagine if the Church decided to class-up the Conference Center by adding artwork, and they got a copy of the David Statue but put a silly grin on his face (and a loin cloth on his… er… on him). Imagine they had Greg Olson make a “copy” of the Mona Lisa, but asked him to paint her with a more reverent expression. I don’t love the Mona Lisa, but I would hate to see it modified.
It’s nothing more than a bug-factor. This doesn’t mean I’m leaving the Church or that I think the Church is engaging in any unethical activity. I simply find it annoying. To me it is a reminder of the Church’s sort of tone-deafness when it comes to art, music, architecture. In the LDS Church, all music should sound like the mo-tab. All men should wear white shirts. All stake centers (don’t call them ‘cathedrals’) should look the same as the other stake centers. All art should look like Norman Rockwell paintings.
Quote:To me it is a reminder of the Church’s sort of tone-deafness when it comes to art, music, architecture. In the LDS Church, all music should sound like the mo-tab. All men should wear white shirts. All stake centers (don’t call them ‘cathedrals’) should look the same as the other stake centers. All art should look like Norman Rockwell paintings.
I share that concern.
I recently learned something about my favorite portrait of Christ. It is “Christ in Red Robe.” Jesus is looking forward but slightly off to the viewer’s left. I have always loved this portrait, and I feel like it portrays a loving Jesus. My husband, on the other hand, has always been confused by my love of it. He feels like Jesus is stern looking, and judging the viewer. What I recently learned is that the duel interpretation is intentional. If you cover the left half of Jesus’ face (his left) then the face looks softer, with an upturned corner of his mouth and a slightly raised eye. If you cover the left half (His left) and look at His right, then the face takes on a more stern look. The eyebrow slightly down, as with the corner of the mouth and the eye has a sterner look. The shading is darker on His right than on His left.
I never noticed this until my GD teacher pointed it out. I pointed this out to my husband, who was equally surprised. Our different interpretations is not a surprise. I have always looked to Jesus as my strength, and I feel He loves me. My faith/believe in Christ is separate from my faith change in the institution. My husband will never leave the Church. Never. But he always feels judged, and as if he never does enough. Although, that is what keeps my husband engaged in the Church, and striving to be a better person.
I love that the portrait has two different Christs in one. He is different at different times. Sometimes stern, sometimes comforting, but always in love. He is also different to different people.
The idea that the Christus would be slightly different appeals to me in the same way, as long as it is not represented as an exact replica, but rather and interpretation of the artist/viewer.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.