Ship of Fools: Homeless Jesus

Thread: Homeless Jesus 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=026588

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

I walked past this statue every week in Toronto:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/good-news/ontario-man-jesus-sculpture-gets-big-fan-pope-175159441.html

I sat down next to it sometimes and find it very meditative.

Other reactions? Some people insist that Jesus of Nazareth was not homeless and therefore it is an appropriate to portray him this way. That being said, Jesus probably didn't wear a golden crown when he was on earth, but it doesn't stop artists from drawing him with a crown. Does art about Jesus have to be "historically accurate"?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

It's showing Jesus' wounds in his feet.

Does that not suggest he's homeless now, rather than 'then'?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Doesn't Jesus identify with the poor and homeless and such? There are myriad stories of people who have extended hospitality to beggars, wanderers, and so forth, and found that it was really Jesus in disguise. If we do not see him in the homeless, how will we see him in the Eucharist? Portraying Jesus as homeless seems very apropos. It may not be historically accurate (although he did say he had no place to lay his head), but it's accurate in the here and now.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Other reactions? Some people insist that Jesus of Nazareth was not homeless and therefore it is an appropriate to portray him this way. That being said, Jesus probably didn't wear a golden crown when he was on earth, but it doesn't stop artists from drawing him with a crown. Does art about Jesus have to be "historically accurate"?

Er, pretty sure he was homeless - "foxes have holes, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head" - but he was also a refugee in Egypt.

But as to the substantive question: no, art about Jesus doesn't have to be historically accurate. But neither does Jesus have to be white.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

If Jesus is supposed to share our suffering, then Jesus is supposed to share our suffering.

And that line about "the least of my brothers [and sisters]".

I'm also reminded of CBC's the late Alan Maitland's reading of Fredrick Forsythe's "The Shepherd" which is played on Xmas eve or close to each year.

If Jesus can come in the guise of a WW2 pilot to help another pilot in 1957 land safely, Jesus can do anything. And probably will. Even for the homeless, popes, hell-called shipmates and complete effing idiots like me.

Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :

I think what's more questionable is whether Jesus should be portrayed playing soccer (or football if you prefer).

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Around the rural Churches of SW England I occasionally hear of tramps and the like dossing down in church porches and being told to hop-it .

Always strikes me as something of an irony . I suppose it's embarrassing for the half dozen worshipers to have to walk around a homeless person once a month.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Does art about Jesus have to be "historically accurate"?

No art has to be "historically accurate" (even assuming we think we know what that might mean). It's probably better if it's not. After all, if it was historically accurate, it would be history, not art.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

But as to the substantive question: no, art about Jesus doesn't have to be historically accurate. But neither does Jesus have to be white.

The concepts of whiteness and being "of color" did not exist as we understand them in Jesus' time. Furthermore, I do not think a Palestinan Jew of the 1st Century would look very much like the "white" Christs portrayed in most Christian art throughout history.

I think art should portray Christ as a. one of us, our neighbor (so He will look different in every culture) and b. one of the "least of these" (one of the people we do not like to think about at all, let alone think about as being divine).

That said, is it acceptable to portray Jesus as a female in church art? If so, can it be in any and all Church art? What about in the principal crucifix on or behind the altar? Or in a nativity scene?

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

The fact that images of Him are so androgenous, feminized, gracile at best (and does this site's spellchecker not use anything other than a learner's dictionary?) was always a huge problem for me from adolescence. I polarized in to a God the Killer cult as the result. Only to find that many here and most in Christendom reconcile pretty boy transgender girlfriend Jesus as God the Killer. And now I reject the latter and embrace Him as the former!

It's a funny old world in progressive revelation.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

But as to the substantive question: no, art about Jesus doesn't have to be historically accurate. But neither does Jesus have to be white.
The concepts of whiteness and being "of color" did not exist as we understand them in Jesus' time. Furthermore, I do not think a Palestinan Jew of the 1st Century would look very much like the "white" Christs portrayed in most Christian art throughout history.

What's always puzzled me is that a 'white' Jesus is seen as the norm, when the artists know that Jesus was a Middle-Eastern semite - and the counter of a black Jesus from the African traditions seen as somehow wrong.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

There's a thread in the superb Second Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever where Covenant encounters an old man on the street with cancerous breath who insists on giving him a commission. Covenant realises, correctly, that it is God.

In Triangle on a Friday night I'm surrounded by God. I failed Him again last night. More of that on a fresh thread perhaps.

And yes, in his three and a half year mission, Jesus was on the road, travelling very light indeed.

[ 30. November 2013, 14:35: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]

Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I walked past this statue every week in Toronto:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/good-news/ontario-man-jesus-sculpture-gets-big-fan-pope-175159441.html

I sat down next to it sometimes and find it very meditative.

Other reactions? Some people insist that Jesus of Nazareth was not homeless and therefore it is an appropriate to portray him this way. That being said, Jesus probably didn't wear a golden crown when he was on earth, but it doesn't stop artists from drawing him with a crown. Does art about Jesus have to be "historically accurate"?

Art is never historically accurate; art is an interpretation of the world by an artist, to convey something of meaning to someone else.

I paint icons. I use existing ancient images of the Lord and other saints, and remain as faithful to them as possible; I try to make sure they can be recognised. Alongside that, however, there is plenty of space for me to interpret the subject at hand and create a sermon around it. This sermon is about my own spirituality in relation to the subject, the world and eternity, and the hope is that in saying something about this, other people will find something of themselves as well.

One image I painted is the 'Ecce Homo' station. It shows the Lord in a flowing robe, with just enough of the echoes of an orange boilersuit to be recognised obliquely, while remaining a flowing robe. This is not at all historically accurate and is not intended to be. But it is, nonetheless, true.

Here is one of my images; this has nothing whatever to do with a historical approach.

Crucifixion here:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7333446/

Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
What's always puzzled me is that a 'white' Jesus is seen as the norm, when the artists know that Jesus was a Middle-Eastern semite - and the counter of a black Jesus from the African traditions seen as somehow wrong.

When most artists are white, the norm will be for a white(ish) Lord. When the artist is black, I would expect the Lord portrayed to be black as well; that would be right.

What would be wrong would be for me to depict the Lord as Vietnamese or as an Inuit. But I would expect people from other countries to paint the Lord as he appears to them; as their brother.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:

What would be wrong would be for me to depict the Lord as Vietnamese or as an Inuit. But I would expect people from other countries to paint the Lord as he appears to them; as their brother.

I understand what you're getting at here, but I think there's a problem with ethnic self-segregation in art. We live in multicultural societies and art exists in a globalised world. 'People from other countries' are our neighbours, and artists, like novelists and musicians, should feel free to engage with all of that so long as they work with sensitivity, respect and understanding.

I'm reminded of the image of Che Guavara, the Argentinian revolutionary. This image was reworked into the 'Che Jesus', created by the British artists Chas Bayfield and Trevor Webb in 1999. I don't know if either artist has any Latin American ancestry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Jesus

Robert Lentz, an American artist (and monk) of Russian descent, created the 'Masai Jesus'.
http://mattstone.blogs.com/photos/african_christian_art/masai-jesus.html

As for a 'Homeless Jesus', I imagine that any well-known artist who chooses to depict Jesus this way is likely to have the benefit of a nice, warm home to live in. We wouldn't be offended by that incongruity, would we? (Well, maybe if the artist were the mega-rich Damian Hirst!)

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

It might depend on what you want the image for. I don't need to be reminded that Jesus is my brother. I might be better off with an image of Jesus that is African or hispanic, to remind me that those people are my brothers and sisters.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:

I paint icons.

You don't paint icons. You write them. I am not reminding you of this to correct you like some anal-retentive nitwit (although I am an anal-retentive nitwit). Rather, I am reminding you of this to give greater respect to the prayerful work that you do [Smile]

.

[fixed ubb code]

[ 01. December 2013, 06:15: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:

I paint icons.
You don't paint icons. You write them. I am not reminding you of this to correct you like some anal-retentive nitwit (although I am an anal-retentive nitwit). Rather, I am reminding you of this to give greater respect to the prayerful work that you do .

Not everyone agrees.

[code]

[ 01. December 2013, 06:14: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Al Eluia: I think what's more questionable is whether Jesus should be portrayed playing soccer (or football if you prefer).

That's wrong.

Surely, Soccer Jesus should be Brazilian.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

I think if I were homeless I might prefer the bench to have room for me to lie down, rather than the statue?

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I think if I were homeless I might prefer the bench to have room for me to lie down, rather than the statue?

I was wondering if anyone else would have that thought. Perhaps a Protestant version would have more utility?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I think if I were homeless I might prefer the bench to have room for me to lie down, rather than the statue?

Somehow I doubt they are going to tear out an existing bench to put the sculpture in.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I think if I were homeless I might prefer the bench to have room for me to lie down, rather than the statue?

The bench has space beside next to it for people to sit. Puts a whole new meaning to communion with Jesus.

Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I walked past this statue every week in Toronto:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/good-news/ontario-man-jesus-sculpture-gets-big-fan-pope-175159441.html

I sat down next to it sometimes and find it very meditative.

Other reactions? Some people insist that Jesus of Nazareth was not homeless and therefore it is an appropriate to portray him this way. That being said, Jesus probably didn't wear a golden crown when he was on earth, but it doesn't stop artists from drawing him with a crown. Does art about Jesus have to be "historically accurate"?

I snapped this similar statue in Chicago last year. Very powerful. I think the Matt 25:40 gets round the need for "historical accuracy"

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Apparently the Pope liked the Homeless Jesus statute. He prayed over it and blessed it.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2013/11/pope-blesses-sculpture-of-jesus-as-a-homeless-man/

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
L'organist: I think if I were homeless I might prefer the bench to have room for me to lie down, rather than the statue?

Now I'm thinking of a bench with a free pillow dispenser, coffee machine, and an image of Jesus holding up a large umbrella over it.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

I find the depiction of the risen Christ as a pitiable character in need of our help somewhat unhelpful. The biblical picture of Christ in his risen glory tends to inspire awe and worship, not compassion and condescension. It just seems somehow wrong to me.

[ 02. December 2013, 10:07: Message edited by: daronmedway ]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

But is it clear that the homeless Jesus is depicting the risen Christ?

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
But is it clear that the homeless Jesus is depicting the risen Christ?

According to Boogie it depicts Jesus with nail wounds in his feet, which would suggest that it is.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

I don't think that would make me think it was a depiction of the risen Christ. That seems too much a linear application of time to a physical body and not what a depiction of Christ should be limited by. I wouldn't, for instance, assume that any picture of Christ featuring a cross in the background was actually located in Golgotha.

The homelessness, I would assume, is an aspect of the earthly travail of Christ, despite some other aspects of the sculpture suggesting an event which happened later.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
But is it clear that the homeless Jesus is depicting the risen Christ?

No. But without the wounds, what visual cue would the artist use to tell you this is Jesus? Or might it be better art if there were no visual cue?

Posted by ButchCassidy (# 11147) on :

I had understood as (essentially) a crucified Christ - one of the myriad punishments that Christ takes for us is our inhumanity to the homeless and poor. Christ suffers with and for the homeless.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Or might it be better art if there were no visual cue?

The idea that you might not identify Christ in a homeless person would also be a powerful message. But perhaps a different message from the one the artist was trying to convey. So maybe neither better nor worse, simply different.

But I think we're both agreeing that the presence of the wounds don't denote a particular location in time for the depiction. I don't think the conventions here are the same as they would be for a realistic film scene, for instance.

Posted by andras (# 2065) on :

Studdert-Kennedy (perhaps better known as Woodbine Willie) famous captured the idea of the homeless, friendless Christ in his poem Indifference, which imagines Our Lord as a homeless man in Birmingham.

[See here: excerpt removed for copyright reasons]

[ 03. December 2013, 09:24: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Or might it be better art if there were no visual cue?

Better, not better, subjective as art. but it would br rubbish as message without the wounds.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

hosting/

Andras, I've removed the text you quoted and replaced it with a link because as far as I could see, your quote comprised two-thirds of the poem in question.

In terms of what constitutes a breach of Commandment 7 (don't post illegal material, including copyright violations) our policy is to err on the safe side in order to avoid being sunk by legal action.

As a general rule, posting a link to text elsewhere is to be preferred for anything but the shortest of excerpts of other material.

/hosting

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
The fact that images of Him are so androgenous, feminized, gracile at best (and does this site's spellchecker not use anything other than a learner's dictionary?) was always a huge problem for me from adolescence. I polarized in to a God the Killer cult as the result. Only to find that many here and most in Christendom reconcile pretty boy transgender girlfriend Jesus as God the Killer. And now I reject the latter and embrace Him as the former!

Jesus is, in my opinion, neither of these things. [Paranoid]

quote:
Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
I had understood as (essentially) a crucified Christ - one of the myriad punishments that Christ takes for us is our inhumanity to the homeless and poor. Christ suffers with and for the homeless.

I agree with this. Like Pope Francis, I am moved by the statue.

On representation of Jesus generally: Western Christian art, as beautiful as it so often is, has been successfully ignoring Jesus's Jewishness for centuries. High time this was re-addressed. But for a non-Jewish Jesus, I am very taken with the lovely art of the Jesus Mafa website (Jesus depicted as an African): http://www.jesusmafa.com/?lang=en
I have sometimes used these images - with permission - in Power Point worship presentations at my evangelical Anglican church.

And then there's He Qi:
http://www.heqigallery.com

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0