quote: Artist told to remove Rabbi Jesus paintings
Associated Press Published September 5, 2006
LA CROSSE, Wis. -- A hospital has asked an artist whose paintings portray Jesus as a rabbi to take them down because they could be controversial, the artist says.
Clara Maria Goldstein had put up 10 oil paintings Friday but was back at Gundersen Lutheran on Sunday night to take them down. Goldstein said the hospital's gift shop manager asked her to remove them because they could be controversial.
"It was insulting at first, but now I'm just sad," Goldstein said. "The Bible says Jesus was a Jew, but no one wants Jesus painted as a Jew."
The hospital issued a statement Monday saying its officials respect people of all faiths and acknowledge "an artist's right to express their personal beliefs through their work."
But it said they have "an obligation to determine what is appropriate for our diverse patient population, and our healing environment."
Marna Holley, the hospital's director of marketing and corporate communications, would not comment beyond the statement Monday.
Goldstein said she is not disputing the hospital's right to choose the artwork. She said she created the Rabbi Jesus paintings to promote love and acceptance. "These paintings are about history and truth," she said.
The hospital provides gallery space to Eastbank Artists, which rotates artwork from different artists every two months. Goldstein, president of Eastbank Artists, was taking her turn to display her artwork.
Goldstein said her paintings also were turned down by La Crosse's Viterbo University for display at a Holocaust symposium because they might be controversial. She showed six of her paintings in an exhibition at the city's Pump House Regional Arts Center earlier this year.
"Many people said the paintings were inspiring and eye-opening," Goldstein said. "What's sad is people won't get a chance to decide for themselves what they think because it may be controversial."
I just want to know who they are worried about offending. My assumption would be that being a Lutheran hospital, they are afraid of offending Christians (or possibly just Lutherans, I don't know enough about their specific religion). In an environment made up mostly of people that believe a Jew names Jesus is their Lord and Savior, what is controversial about depicting scenes from his life?
I can understand why her paintings were not permitted at a Holocaust symposium. While her intentions appear to be great, many Jews will not take it that way in that type of environment.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
I have no idea why anyone would be offended. In the absence of good reasons why the paintings are offensive, I can't come up with any reasons anyone should be offended, provided that they would be fine with displaying traditional pictures of Jesus. Heck, unless identified as such, I wouldn't even know who the paintings depicted.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
"what is controversial about depicting scenes from his life?"
...scenes from his life?
I think it's safe to say that the Jewish community in the 1st century of the common era didn't even remotely resemble the modern Ashkenazi imagery depicted there. What these do is place Jesus into a present-day Jewish context. Whether you think that's a good idea or not (I'm agnostic on the question), it's neither historically or theologically accurate.
Posted by Tænte Shvæster (Member # 9711) on :
Do the pictures on that site scream "Messianic Jew" to everyone else, or is it just me?
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
I'm quite offended by the "traditional" portrayals of Jesus, which I pretty much consider blasphemous in both their inaccuracy and audacity. I don't really need any visual portrayals at all, but these are the least offensive I've ever seen.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tænte Shvæster: Do the pictures on that site scream "Messianic Jew" to everyone else, or is it just me?
I was wondering that myself, but I can't find out anything about the artist. It doesn't make a difference to me if they are displayed in a Christian environment anyways.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Although he looks too modern to be historically correct, it is no worse than the blond Jesus we often get. I don't see the issue.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I can't worked up about this either way.
I think portraying Jesus as looking like a modern-day Jew is a very different message from portraying him as a Jew of his time. What either message is I won't venture to say, but they are not identical.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I'm curious. More people are complaining that Jesus looks like the WRONG kind of Jew. Or that he is too modern looking. Could somebody with knowledge on the subject elaborate?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I think Ashkenazi is a freaking cool word.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Oh, I'm not complaining. My comment was merely that although the pictures are unlikely to be "historically accurate" that is the norm for Jesus pictures rather than the exception.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
Well, for starters, he's white, and in various paintings he's wearing a modern yarmulke or tallis (prayer shawl).
The more I think about this, the more I side with the hospital; modern Christianity and modern Judaism are fundamentally different religions, despite sharing a common origin. These paintings seem to be arguing for a contrary position, viewing Jesus as a modern rabbi. Thought-provoking? Sure. Art? Yeah. A good choice of decor for a Christian hospital? Probably not.
Edited to add: I agree that most pictures of Jesus are historically inaccurate. However, the argument, made in the original article, that these particular paintings should be seen on grounds that they "are about history and truth" doesn't hold water.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I was under the impression that even during 33AD Jews (the ethnic group) were capable of quite light hues of skin. Olive skinned people don't have to be brown or dark.
I was also under the impression that hoods or coverings for prayer time were standard during Jesus' time.
Jesus was called "Rabbi" and even "Rabboni" on rare occasions. Why not portray him as he likely looked? You can't complain that Jesus looks to Anglo Saxon, and then say that if he looks Jewish you are inappropriately juxtaposing 2 religions together.
The artist probably did not do a TON of research on Roman era Jewish attire. Perhaps she should have if she is doing historical depictions, but I don't think those pictures would be offensive to anybody.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
I don't like his modern-cut beard. Since when did they have electic beard trimmers in first century Judea? Other than that, I don't have a problem. I've seen paintings (granted, LDS-centered ones) with Jesus wearing something very similar to a tallis. They did exist back then.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
Coverings, yes. Modern talleisim in modern styles, no. You might as well give him sneakers and a windbreaker; it'd be almost as accurate.
And, yes, I know about the range of skin tones. The issue isn't that he looks Anglo-Saxon; the issue is that he looks like a modern Ashkenazic Jew. This isn't something requiring a ton of research; this is basic middle school stuff.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Anyone else hearing "some children see Him..." in their heads?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Scott, Sephardi(c) is just as cool, IMO.
-Bok
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Was Chanukah even celebrated in the 1st century?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:The artist probably did not do a TON of research on Roman era Jewish attire.
This assumption is not warranted.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tænte Shvæster: Do the pictures on that site scream "Messianic Jew" to everyone else, or is it just me?
Very yes.
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Was Chanukah even celebrated in the 1st century?
Yes. And for over a hundred years before.
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:The artist probably did not do a TON of research on Roman era Jewish attire.
This assumption is not warranted.
Actually, it is. If she did do a lot of research, she did it WRONG. Assuming she did little research is actually giving her the benefit of the doubt.
Shmuel (and Esther) has summed up my response. The artist has not shown any "historical truth"; she is projecting a modern synthesis.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
It's always kinda bothered me to have Jesus depicted as a snowy white guy. It just seems like short shrift to me. I don't think Jesus's whiteness was very likely. I don't know enough about ancient Jewish traditions to be of any use about the clothing or anything else depicted in the paintings, but I've always been mildly irritated at seeing an Aryan Jesus. I mean, he was born in the Middle East. The likelihood of his being Caucasian was probably not high.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
Now I don't know much about art, so I may be out of line. But if I were the hospital administrator, I'd have taken them down too. Not because they're blasphemous, but because they aren't very good.
Posted by Samarkand (Member # 8379) on :
*snicker* Yes, I agree, Baron. Not that I can paint myself!
Um - I'm pretty sure that Middle Eastern people are considered Caucasian, Libbie . . . I mean, they're definitely not Asian or Black, and when people decide to sort people out by how they look I believe those are the three general groups . . . also I'm a quarter Lebanese and I never get to check a box for that, it's not there.
But I agree that the odds of Jesus being blond and blue-eyed and pale are fairly low. 'course, the odds of someone being immaculately conceived and resurrected seem a wee bit more unlikely, so I'm not sure whether hair color should be especially troubling to Christians . . .
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote: But I agree that the odds of Jesus being blond and blue-eyed and pale are fairly low. 'course, the odds of someone being immaculately conceived and resurrected seem a wee bit more unlikely, so I'm not sure whether hair color should be especially troubling to Christians . . .
Okay, I laughed. I did. I admit it. I may be a Christian and believe in the whole virgin conception thing, but still, that's funny. Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
I agree with Baron Samedi. And with Samarkand... I'm also part Middle Eastern and I'm definitey "white"
The paintings kind of creep me out, actually. Everyone in them is too smiley-smiley.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samarkand: *snicker* Yes, I agree, Baron. Not that I can paint myself!
Um - I'm pretty sure that Middle Eastern people are considered Caucasian, Libbie . . . I mean, they're definitely not Asian or Black, and when people decide to sort people out by how they look I believe those are the three general groups . . . also I'm a quarter Lebanese and I never get to check a box for that, it's not there.
But I agree that the odds of Jesus being blond and blue-eyed and pale are fairly low. 'course, the odds of someone being immaculately conceived and resurrected seem a wee bit more unlikely, so I'm not sure whether hair color should be especially troubling to Christians . . .
Yeah, I guess their skull structure is Caucasian. My mistake. I was talking about skin tone, though. I've seen many paintings depicting Jesus as a blond-haired, blue-eyed white guy, and I doubt the likelihood of that actually occurring back then in the Middle East.
But, maybe you can tell me whether it's actually plenty likely...? I have no idea; I just doubt it.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Originally posted by MyrddinFyre: I agree with Baron Samedi. And with Samarkand... I'm also part Middle Eastern and I'm definitey "white"
The paintings kind of creep me out, actually. Everyone in them is too smiley-smiley.
Yeah, my mistake. It's the blondness that gets to me.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Do the pictures on that site scream "Messianic Jew" to everyone else, or is it just me?
I actually don't know what that means, except as referring to Jesus.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I'm pretty sure that the blonde-blue eyed thing is a Northern European trait, and hence not at all likely in the Middle East two thousand years ago. It's just a later depiction addition.
I'd lay pretty good odds that Jesus was brown haired and brown eyed.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
My first thought when I read the article was that the implication of Messianic Judaism was what the hospital feared would offend.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
Oh weird, I've never seen depictions of a blonde Jesus. The thought boggles my mind!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by MyrddinFyre: I agree with Baron Samedi. And with Samarkand... I'm also part Middle Eastern and I'm definitey "white"
The paintings kind of creep me out, actually. Everyone in them is too smiley-smiley.
THANK you.
Is no one else creeped out by the giant toothy grin on his face in the second picture? I can't tell if he's turnin water into wine or trying to sell me a used car.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
"Blonde" Jesus. Not blonde-blonde, but light brown. When combined with blue eyes, it's not particularly convincing (at least to me).
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
Also, ridiculously well groomed.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
What about Jesus makes you think he wouldn't be well groomed?
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
Well, in the way that I don't think they had blowdryers, hairstyling products, and electric razors. I don't think people back then were dirty slobs, but I also don't believe that they somehow managed to look like they used modern grooming tools like that
Orrrrrr maybe I just have really bad hair that takes a lot of gunk and fiddling to make it look like his does in that picture!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I don't think people back then were dirty slobs
By today's standards, I'll be most of them were.
Actually, by today's first-world standards, most of the world's population is dirty slobs.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Well, in the way that I don't think they had blowdryers, hairstyling products, and electric razors. I don't think people back then were dirty slobs, but I also don't believe that they somehow managed to look like they used modern grooming tools like that
Not to mention modern toothpaste, soap, shampoo, or conditioner... I remember the one thing that the wife and teenage daughter couldn't do without on "The 1900 House" was modern shampoo.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by MyrddinFyre: I agree with Baron Samedi. And with Samarkand... I'm also part Middle Eastern and I'm definitey "white"
The paintings kind of creep me out, actually. Everyone in them is too smiley-smiley.
THANK you.
Is no one else creeped out by the giant toothy grin on his face in the second picture? I can't tell if he's turnin water into wine or trying to sell me a used car.
Maybe he just heard a really awesome joke.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Oh, well, sure. But I'm sure by the standards of the day Jesus was, as people went, probably fairly-well groomed. Appearances are important.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:But I'm sure by the standards of the day Jesus was, as people went, probably fairly-well groomed.
I think you've missed the point. The point was that a well-groomed person back then would not look like a well-groomed person to us, unlike those paintings.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: I have no idea why anyone would be offended. In the absence of good reasons why the paintings are offensive, I can't come up with any reasons anyone should be offended, provided that they would be fine with displaying traditional pictures of Jesus. Heck, unless identified as such, I wouldn't even know who the paintings depicted.
They'd certainly be extremely offensive at a Holocaust symposium. I can't believe she even tried submitting them. Tacky.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tænte Shvæster: Do the pictures on that site scream "Messianic Jew" to everyone else, or is it just me?
Absolutely.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Was Chanukah even celebrated in the 1st century?
Sure. Hanukkah started in 164 BCE.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:I think you've missed the point. The point was that a well-groomed person back then would not look like a well-groomed person to us, unlike those paintings.
I realise this.
I am fully aware that any modern depiction of Jesus or any other non-recorded figure from history is likely to be completely wrong in race, facial features, clothes, hair colour, hairstyle, grooming, height, weight, expression...
Judging from the fact that no physical attributes are described in the bible it's likely that he was quite an unremarkable man and looked much like other people. If he was shocking in some way I'm sure that it would have become part of the story. If Jesus had been albino, for example, it would have definately gone down in history.
Aiming for accuracy is a start, and people should probably aim not to offend others, but it's largely meaningless.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
We're talking about a guy who can raise the dead, walk on water, and throw the world's best picnic, and people don't think he could sew up some sweet threads and keep his hair nice?
Anyone who can turn water into wine can probably turn mud into Alberto VO5.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)