You are not logged in.

Announcement

Welcome to the the original, the one and only, Spiceislander Talkshop. The site remains Grenadian owned and hosted in the United States.

#1 Jan 22, 2017 2:47 pm

Expat
Active

I am conflicted

A local art gallery with the proprietor a local returned from the States has a predominantly "Black" content of paintings and statues.

Apparently in the USA Black folks were quite interested in buying images relent to them.

Not so in Grenada it seems.

All that aside, I was in having one of our regular chats with the proprietor yesterday, when I noticed a "Black" last supper hanging on the wall. An original, and also a print.

Now I know the common and garden religious images are wrong, and that Jesus and the various disciples etc were not blue eyed with lank blond hair. But just as those images are wrong. Born out of self serving paintings for the powerful of those days.

To paint a modern rendition with very Negro faces and hair is just as wrong, and for those that want to be blinded by false history just as confusing.

As far as I am aware the whole lot in what is now Israel were sallow skinned wavy to curly headed and pretty much as the Arabs and the Jews are today. I guess there would have been Negro's up from further South, and lighter Romon/Greek/Turkish varieties of people wandering around the are at the same time. But the indigenous such as Jesus, Joseph and Mary would have been distinctly Arabic.

With the knowledge that it wasn't a Northern European set up why not create images applicable to what was really there?

Online

#2 Jan 22, 2017 9:40 pm

New Historian
Active

Re: I am conflicted

My mama always used to say: "Christ is as Christ does!" Whatever colour he was, if he was, I'm pretty sure he was more dark than light.

Offline

#3 Feb 11, 2017 8:16 pm

houston
Active

Re: I am conflicted

Expat wrote:

A local art gallery with the proprietor a local returned from the States has a predominantly "Black" content of paintings and statues.

Apparently in the USA Black folks were quite interested in buying images relent to them.

Not so in Grenada it seems.

All that aside, I was in having one of our regular chats with the proprietor yesterday, when I noticed a "Black" last supper hanging on the wall. An original, and also a print.

Now I know the common and garden religious images are wrong, and that Jesus and the various disciples etc were not blue eyed with lank blond hair. But just as those images are wrong. Born out of self serving paintings for the powerful of those days.

To paint a modern rendition with very Negro faces and hair is just as wrong, and for those that want to be blinded by false history just as confusing.

As far as I am aware the whole lot in what is now Israel were sallow skinned wavy to curly headed and pretty much as the Arabs and the Jews are today. I guess there would have been Negro's up from further South, and lighter Romon/Greek/Turkish varieties of people wandering around the are at the same time. But the indigenous such as Jesus, Joseph and Mary would have been distinctly Arabic.

With the knowledge that it wasn't a Northern European set up why not create images applicable to what was really there?

You declare to be an Atheist, so why the interest in who one worships? Do you feel left out? Is it your business to pry into the faith of others?
Those that have faith can see an image of any type of colour or form. Get used to things that don't agree with you.

Offline

#4 Feb 12, 2017 2:37 pm

Expat
Active

Re: I am conflicted

houston wrote:
Expat wrote:

A local art gallery with the proprietor a local returned from the States has a predominantly "Black" content of paintings and statues.

Apparently in the USA Black folks were quite interested in buying images relent to them.

Not so in Grenada it seems.

All that aside, I was in having one of our regular chats with the proprietor yesterday, when I noticed a "Black" last supper hanging on the wall. An original, and also a print.

Now I know the common and garden religious images are wrong, and that Jesus and the various disciples etc were not blue eyed with lank blond hair. But just as those images are wrong. Born out of self serving paintings for the powerful of those days.

To paint a modern rendition with very Negro faces and hair is just as wrong, and for those that want to be blinded by false history just as confusing.

As far as I am aware the whole lot in what is now Israel were sallow skinned wavy to curly headed and pretty much as the Arabs and the Jews are today. I guess there would have been Negro's up from further South, and lighter Romon/Greek/Turkish varieties of people wandering around the are at the same time. But the indigenous such as Jesus, Joseph and Mary would have been distinctly Arabic.

With the knowledge that it wasn't a Northern European set up why not create images applicable to what was really there?

You declare to be an Atheist, so why the interest in who one worships? Do you feel left out? Is it your business to pry into the faith of others?
Those that have faith can see an image of any type of colour or form. Get used to things that don't agree with you.

Trying to make a point rather than making one? Bored I guess.

We are at liberty to question ANYTHING, regardless of being Jewish, Buddhist, Atheist, Good Samaritan or arshole.

Many people of colour have critiqued the almost all white art that surrounds much of Christianity. I happened upon some art which was equally false, painted to please the Black perspective. My proposition is that the 2nd wrong doesn't correct the first.

The first was basically initiated at a time when artists were commissioned to generate pictures to please the knowledge and understanding of the day.  We have moved on. Whether Black or White is would be a more realistic representation to make the image look more Middle Eastern. Which is neither Caucasian or Negroid.

Just as one doesn't have to be a footballer to make judgements on those that play the game, neither do you have to be a person of ANY religion to be able to discuss it.  Live with it.

Online

#5 Feb 13, 2017 12:25 pm

Vanni
Active

Re: I am conflicted

Does an image, a name, make us obsessively focus on it? Does is make us feel superior to the others and part of a select "chosen" group? Do we use it to justify our acting oppressively and violently toward the others? Then we degenerate into idolatry.

Does an image, a name, invoke and generate a universal spiritual experience in us? Does it make us feel humble, loving? Does it make us feel united by heart with all Living Beings? Then we are uplifted in a sacred experience, and it will have fulfilled a noble purpose.

Though, the same image and name can trigger the two different reactions above, according to the individual - so it's ever again our own freedom and opportunity to choose what we do with anything, anyone we are meeting.

"when I show you the moon: do you look at my finger or do you look at the moon?"

Last edited by Vanni (Feb 13, 2017 12:29 pm)

Offline

#6 Feb 13, 2017 1:54 pm

Slice
Active

Re: I am conflicted

Expat wrote:

A local art gallery with the proprietor a local returned from the States has a predominantly "Black" content of paintings and statues.

Apparently in the USA Black folks were quite interested in buying images relent to them.

Not so in Grenada it seems.

All that aside, I was in having one of our regular chats with the proprietor yesterday, when I noticed a "Black" last supper hanging on the wall. An original, and also a print.

Now I know the common and garden religious images are wrong, and that Jesus and the various disciples etc were not blue eyed with lank blond hair. But just as those images are wrong. Born out of self serving paintings for the powerful of those days.

To paint a modern rendition with very Negro faces and hair is just as wrong, and for those that want to be blinded by false history just as confusing.

As far as I am aware the whole lot in what is now Israel were sallow skinned wavy to curly headed and pretty much as the Arabs and the Jews are today. I guess there would have been Negro's up from further South, and lighter Romon/Greek/Turkish varieties of people wandering around the are at the same time. But the indigenous such as Jesus, Joseph and Mary would have been distinctly Arabic.

With the knowledge that it wasn't a Northern European set up why not create images applicable to what was really there?

But Expat, what you know as the original, just might be wrong.  Remember the Last Supper might of been some where in the Middle East, so that original painting should not of been all white.  That kinda goes back to what you said in your post, it is the way the painter see it.

Now ah have that Last supper painting in my basement, and in that painting, there is Maurice Bishop, Haile Selassie, Mohammed, and ah mystery man.  To be honest ah have that painting more than 20 years, and it is my most prize painting.  Anyone comes to my house and goes to my basement, that is the first thing they ask about.

Offline

#7 Feb 13, 2017 4:33 pm

Expat
Active

Re: I am conflicted

The original definitely WAS wrong, I stated that. The reason though IMHO was not a racist white supremacy thing, rather the artist.... several hundred years ago pandering to his audience who would mostly only think in terms of the society they knew.

This latest edition likewise is pandering to an audience that needs to think it is no longer to be kept at the back of the bus.

But in the several hundred years between the first painting and the last most people do now have the understanding that the people of Galilee were swarthy Jews of that region. Not White, and not Black. Definitely not blond and blue eyed.

As for your talking point..... Hmmmm many of those images were definitely dubious people.

http://startjournal.org/wp-content/uplo … 140711.jpg

Online

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB