Ship of Fools: With this statue I thee worship

Thread: With this statue I thee worship Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024937

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Do religious statues / sculptures aid your worship or do they leave you unmoved? I've heard complete polarisation of views on this issue - people who think that any portrayal of Christ on a crucifix, for example, is wrong; statues of the Madonna and child are criticised as examples of Mariology; and yet Cathedrals seem ever keen to encourage modern sculptures to add to their collection, many as focal pieces in side altars, clearly intended as aids to worship.

I must admit to being very moved by some of the pietas I have seen, but most other statues and sculptures leave me cold.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

I do find a bit of an urge for some sort of representation... It's just that every actual representation always (so far) leaves me feeling dissatisfied.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I think the Orthodox preference for painted icons rather than statues has a lot to be said for it. Not from a theological point as far as I am concerned, but that it seems to be easier to use them as a focus of prayer. Statues in churches are often bad art which is off-putting, or good art which conveys too much of the artist and dictates the form of the prayer by pointing to one interpretation.

If I'm lighting a candle in front of a statue of Our Lady (for example) I often close my eyes to the statue and offer a prayer to my mental picture of Mary. Which is just as limiting I suppose.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

Moving up the candle, I have really come to appreciate statues in church - or at least the idea of them. I have come across a very arresting depiction of the crucifixion in a Catholic church but I find that the Virgin suffers the most in terms of quality of art. I have difficulty associating Mary the mother of the Lord from Scripture with the milkfed blonde woman in most statues of Our Lady.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I think the Orthodox preference for painted icons rather than statues has a lot to be said for it. Not from a theological point as far as I am concerned, but that it seems to be easier to use them as a focus of prayer. Statues in churches are often bad art which is off-putting, or good art which conveys too much of the artist and dictates the form of the prayer by pointing to one interpretation. ...

I agree.

Posted by crunt (# 1321) on :

I like statues. When I was growing up in the Church in Wales, they were there, but not as the focus for private prayer or worship. However; fast forward a few decades and things seemed to have changed. I have recently clicked on two church stories in the online version of the South Wales Argus, and in both cases the stories have had an accompanying photograph of the church interior, and each photo showed a prominently placed statue of the Virgin Mary with a votive stand before it. The statues, in both cases, have been rather sentimental depictions of Mary in a traditional RC style. While I like the idea of statues being used as an aid to worship and / or contemplation, I wish that the CinW would adopt a Celtic or even modern flavour for statuary, rather than recycling C19/20 images from the RC tradition. It all just comes down to personal taste, I suppose.

ETA capital letters ...

[ 12. October 2012, 23:49: Message edited by: crunt ]

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

I would agree that images are often better quality that statuary but I'm afraid that our Lady doesn't come off too well in either form most of the time. (Sacred Heart suffers in a similar way).

This may be one reason why I like our Lady of Guadaloupe - image rather than state, beautiful but not in an artificially manicured way, and refreshingly non-Arian.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Our place is riddled with statues and images, both large and small...... personally, I'd get rid of them all bar three - a mediaeval wood carving of Our Lady (reputedly from a Continental rood screen), a modern Polish wood carving of St. Francis (a recent gift) and a lovely little modern sculpture of Our Lady somewhat after the elongated style of Modigliani.

We have a beautiful little icon of our Patron, as well as a hideous image......

Like others,I find good modern icons far more seemly and edifying than 19th Century tat. YMMV.

Ian J.

Posted by cheesymarzipan (# 9442) on :

quote:
Originally posted by crunt:
I like statues. When I was growing up in the Church in Wales, they were there, but not as the focus for private prayer or worship...

That was my experience also - I grew up in a tiny church in north wales with lots of paintings around the walls (painted onto the walls) which were good to look at when the service/sermon was too boring*
These days, I like statues/paintings etc as long as they're fairly unobtrusive/useful - I love the symbolism of the bird lecterns to carry God's word around the world, for instance.
I find that the paintings/images/statues can be useful visual clues to the type/style of church if I'm a visitor.

Nowadays I'm in a baptist church which combines long sermons with no images to look at! I may have to start sneaking some in...

*from a child's point of view! there was sunday school but not when I was very little.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
If I'm lighting a candle in front of a statue of Our Lady (for example) I often close my eyes to the statue and offer a prayer to my mental picture of Mary. Which is just as limiting I suppose.

Almost exactly what i was preparing to say in response to the OP

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Do religious statues / sculptures aid your worship or do they leave you unmoved? I've heard complete polarisation of views on this issue - people who think that any portrayal of Christ on a crucifix, for example, is wrong; statues of the Madonna and child are criticised as examples of Mariology;

I think the word you are looking for here is Mariolatry, which is an excessive devotion, possibly even worship, of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Mariology, OTOH, is the study of the person and nature of Our Lady, especially her role in the Incarnation. The former is an abuse; the latter is a routine speciality of RC theology, and many Catholic seminaries and graduate programs offer degrees in Mariology.

And, yes, I find statues and icons of every sort to be very helpful in my spiritual and devitional life.

[ 13. October 2012, 17:13: Message edited by: Ceremoniar ]

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

Like any art, I have my own preferences when it comes to what's good and what's not. Some people find great comfort and spiritual strength in looking at this statue, whereas I'm more likely to be uplifted spiritually looking at this smirking young lady.

In trolling the Internets for the preceding images, I've found a statue of the BVM that really speaks to me and that I'd like to have in my home-- this one right here. Actually, the internal dialog went more like,

"Ooooh, I like this!"
"But she's so white. Ugh."
"Hey, you paint D&D miniatures and action figures all the time, you know how to tint her skin to a slightly more believable color."
"Oh, yeah! Where's the credit card?"

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
I think the word you are looking for here is Mariolatry

Yes, you are correct. My mistake.

(preview post would be a good idea, too....)

[ 13. October 2012, 22:10: Message edited by: Chorister ]

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
Like any art, I have my own preferences when it comes to what's good and what's not. Some people find great comfort and spiritual strength in looking at this statue, whereas I'm more likely to be uplifted spiritually looking at this smirking young lady.

In trolling the Internets for the preceding images, I've found a statue of the BVM that really speaks to me and that I'd like to have in my home-- this one right here. Actually, the internal dialog went more like,

"Ooooh, I like this!"
"But she's so white. Ugh."
"Hey, you paint D&D miniatures and action figures all the time, you know how to tint her skin to a slightly more believable color."
"Oh, yeah! Where's the credit card?"

That Kitchen Madonna is wonderful and I would love to own one. Looking at that website, I very much like this one .

I can really imagine Mary sheltering the infant Jesus with her cloak like that on the Flight to Egypt.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

While I was in general appalled by the renovation of Holy Name Cathedral in Chicago done in the 1970s (it began to look like a huge living room, complete with wall-to-wall carpeting), I thought that the new Stations of the Cross were striking. What made them effective was the three-dimensional relief combined with lighting, which together formed shadows. Two-dimensional art can represent complex shadows but not make them.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

It's strange how people who are usually very anti statues (for theological / churchmanship reasons) usually have a nativity set. I don't quite get that.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

We have a large (maybe life size, although it is hard to tell because it is elevated) statue of Mary holding a baby Jesus, both with crowns, just to the right of the lectern. She was moved once, to a side aisle to the left of the chancel, but was moved back by popular demand. It isn't the most attractive statue in the world, but we like it. A seminarian we sponsored put it best. If you look at the statue, she isn't holding Jesus close like a mother would. She is holding him out, as if to say, "here, you take him." We like to think of it as a visual representation of our evangelical duty.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
It's strange how people who are usually very anti statues (for theological / churchmanship reasons) usually have a nativity set. I don't quite get that.

I agree. I sort of think if you're that way inclined, you may as well take the Muslim position of not having any art that portrays humans. I think some Christian groups do this but they tend to be those that don't celebrate Christmas anyway - for example Amish dolls don't have faces.

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:

A seminarian we sponsored put it best. If you look at the statue, she isn't holding Jesus close like a mother would. She is holding him out, as if to say, "here, you take him." We like to think of it as a visual representation of our evangelical duty.

I haven't seen the statue, obviously, but somehow that depiction makes sense to me. She did have to give him to the rest of us, didn't she, and no doubt it broke her heart.

Then again, she just might have been in exhausted-mom mode: "Here! I've been carrying this kid all day. You take him!"

Posted by Quam Dilecta (# 12541) on :

The artistic quality (or lack thereof) of Christian art has been a serious problem for the past century and a half. Romanticism and Modernism, with their pursuit of novelty and disdain for beauty, seldom produced liturgical or devotional art of high quality. The industrial revolution, which produced a glut of cheap reproductions, made matters worse.

Under these circumstances a revulsion against all devotional art is understandable. In my view, such a rejection of the visual arts in the service of the church is misguided. It is a repetition of the the errors of the Iconoclasts and the Puritans, who insisted on purely verbal forms of public worship and personal piety.

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

I come from an iconoclastic tradition but despite that I do appreciate the beauty of art, and think it certainly has it's place in Church. However, the excessive use of statuary still speaks to me of a focus and appreciation of the human body rather than of God. I like the idea of the modern art used in churches nowadays, as an expression of religious truths, without being bogged down by needing to express and dwell on every muscle and sinew of the human torso, or the idealised perfection of our own faces.

Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on :

The most moving piece of statuary I have ever seen is in Cartmel Priory Church. Its a depiction of Joseph, Mary and the Baby Jesus having a rest whilst they fled to Egypt. Joseph is dog tired, but protecting his family. Mary is resting her head on Joseph, but has a hand towards Jesus, who looks as though he might be toddling away. Mary and Joseph are so obviously exhausted, but somehow trusting.

It moved me immensely. Anyone else seen it?

Posted by Flossymole (# 17339) on :

Posted by Quam Dilecta

quote:
The artistic quality (or lack thereof) of Christian art has been a serious problem for the past century and a half. Romanticism and Modernism, with their pursuit of novelty and disdain for beauty, seldom produced liturgical or devotional art of high quality. The industrial revolution, which produced a glut of cheap reproductions, made matters worse.

Under these circumstances a revulsion against all devotional art is understandable. In my view, such a rejection of the visual arts in the service of the church is misguided. It is a repetition of the the errors of the Iconoclasts and the Puritans, who insisted on purely verbal forms of public worship and personal piety.

Yes. The most moving Christian art I have ever seen is in the 16th c calvaires of Brittany. The Mary of Plougonven, with her strong, resigned, bitter face and stone tears raying out from under each eyelid is wonderful. The guide books truly call them 'books in stone'. They all look as if the sculptors meant it. Not all modern stuff does.
Thanks Nicodemia, for mentioning the statue in Cartmel Priory Church, I'll try to see that.

[deleted duplicate post]

[ 17. October 2012, 15:49: Message edited by: Mamacita ]

Posted by Flossymole (# 17339) on :

Sorry, made a mess of the post and doubled it. [Hot and Hormonal]

[All is repaired. Mamacita, Host]

[ 17. October 2012, 15:50: Message edited by: Mamacita ]

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
The most moving piece of statuary I have ever seen is in Cartmel Priory Church. Its a depiction of Joseph, Mary and the Baby Jesus having a rest whilst they fled to Egypt. Joseph is dog tired, but protecting his family. Mary is resting her head on Joseph, but has a hand towards Jesus, who looks as though he might be toddling away. Mary and Joseph are so obviously exhausted, but somehow trusting.

It moved me immensely. Anyone else seen it?

Is it
this one?

If so, it looks superb from this photo.

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

It does, rather.

I wonder if there's a miniature version anywhere.

Thurible

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

We have a wooden Madonna and child in the lady chapel - Mary looks very young and Jesus looks very old - I'd love to have a conversation with the woodcarver to ask why he made it so. My guess is to emphasise Mary's vulnerability and Jesus' wisdom, but I'm not sure.

Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:

quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
The most moving piece of statuary I have ever seen is in Cartmel Priory Church. Its a depiction of Joseph, Mary and the Baby Jesus having a rest whilst they fled to Egypt
Is it
this one?

If so, it looks superb from this photo.

It does indeed. Another view of it and some information about the artist. I don't think there are any reproductions of it (except as photographs) available, although other work by the artist that may be available includes a head of someone who looks remarkably like a "typical" depiction of a certain Galilean gentleman, but which is actually Sir Richard Branson. Perhaps a home could be found for it in a chapel somewhere.

Chorister - the idea of depicting Jesus as older than Mary is an intriguing one. I know of a church near here where Jesus is depicted as a young child, but not a baby as is more common. The priest there told me this may be because the piece came from the chapel of an orphanage, so a statue showing care for a child may have seemed appropriate.

Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on :

Yes, that's the one - thanks chapelhead for the link and all the other photos.

The work is not huge, and you can walk round it, so get different views. As I said, I found it immensely moving. The photos of it are good, but not so good as seeing the living stone.

Posted by Manipled Mutineer (# 11514) on :

For me, they are things I like to see around me, but don't use as a focus for worship per se. I agree with Angloid and others about having a personal preference for icons, in particular as things to possess, over statues, but even my great wall of icons (I have approaching three dozen marching up the staircase wall) are more about things which I find beautiful and which are important to me than about prayer. Perhaps I am missing out on something there.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

Oddly I tend to like churches with no stateues or almost too many. I suspect that both absence and abundance result in nothing having undue prominence. More vexing to me are those churches which might run to a crucifix, our Lady of Sorrows, Our Lady of Guadelaupe, and a statute of the Sacred Heart and another of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. It suggests a cerain counter reformation piety with which I am thoroughly out of sympathy.

The other week I was in an Anglo-Catholic shack with a fascinating large array of "holy gnomes" I found that during Mass I could ignore them, then I had a happy time afterwards trying to idnetify the "who's who." I also like the abundance of images in the old Missions in this part of the world even though the Spanish Colonial style is not my thing it prevents certain images gaining too much prominence.

Growing up with the Irish Catholic style (French Jansenism with Guinness) which hung on architecturally long after it disappeared theologically tends to make me think less is more. The usual quota of a crucifix with Our Lady and St John, a Madonna and Child and a statue of the patrong of the parish is quite enough TYVM.

PD

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

At our church, we go in for multiplication of a few which frustrates me. I'd rather have a panoply of the heavenly residents than what we have which is:

two icons of our patron, one statue of our patron, a matching one of Our Lady, one of Our Lady of Walsingham, another of Our Lady, a large crucifix with prayer-desk.

At home, we have a variety of statues, crucifixes, and icons dotted around. To be honest, they're not really used for prayer as such (other than the kitchen crucifix and icon of the Last Supper, which are where the Office is said) but more in a family photos type way.

Thurible

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

My shack runs to the following:

A Christus Rex over the high altar

A San Damiano style crucifix over the side altar

Then there are icons of

Our Lady, Christ the Teacher, and St Paul in the church. Our Lady and also the Holy Apostles in the lobby.

There is also a set of stations of the Cross of a rather sentimental 19th century description replacing some rather nasty 1970s lino cuts.

I suspect the choice of images is one that rather reflects the theological priorities of the last three rectors, two of whom were Prayer Book Catholic, and the third was an Anglo-Papalist who did not last long! None of them are really large enough for the space, which tends to give the church a rather sterile feel, but has also prevented an unhelpful 'no popery' outbreak.

PD

[ 19. October 2012, 17:00: Message edited by: PD ]

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

The most lovely collection of statues I've ever seen can be found at the Episcopal Cathedral of St Paul in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin. The statues are late-19th century German wood carvings. The link includes a slide show where you can see several of them. The apostles flank the side aisles in the nave, there are lovely carvings of Our Lady and St Joseph in the side chapels, Christ over the altar, even some smaller ones atop the Rood Screen (I think of Our Lady, John and perhaps the Other Mary (?) -- a parishioner I asked wasn't sure, so between the two of us, that was our best guess). Several carvings of angels can be found as well. The whole effect is classical, maybe a little old-world, but certainly very warm and natural.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

wish it were possible to obtain some of those pre-Reformation English ones that had moving parts. Ones that could wiggle their eyes and do things. It might make the pilgrims come again.

Quite seriously, I did hear of the statue of Santa Maria Desolata which had a heart stuck with swords. There was a special prayer as each one was stuck in. That was in Lent, of course.

In Eastertide with each alleluia one was pulled out.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

The ones I find it really hard to identify with are the cherub carvings in stone and wood. Many churches have them all over the place (we have one on the organ case, way larger than all the other more tasteful carved figures on it). But they are very much of their time - don't fashions catch on so? - and can now often be a distraction, rather than an aid, to worship. IMO, anyway.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I think they are cute! What freak me out, especially since the Doctor Who storyline, are stone angels of mid-Victorian vintage.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0