Bosch: Christ Crowned with Thorns

[Faithfulservant]

land of fleas? I wouldnt guess they had any fleas than we do wil.. do you dye your hair because of fleas? Or do you wash it in water? Think common sense is needed here.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

land of fleas? I wouldnt guess they had any fleas than we do wil.. do you dye your hair because of fleas? Or do you wash it in water? Think common sense is needed here.

conjecture yes...modern society v. then...I'm assuming things were different..who knows what oils or concoctions covered up whatever went on then...

I'm still confused as to why my humor offends and yours in reference to the garden is ok...is this the proverbial goose/gander thing....do as I say not as I do...or was that a moment of weakness that you wish you didn't allow to slip?

I'm not deriding you here...just wanting to know why I should be taken to task, and what was the difference in your eyes...

[Pathless]

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

It wasnt about vanity it was about a Jewish man observing Jewish culture.

Hi Faithfulservant,

I may be sticking my nose where it is not welcome, but I can't resist. At the same time, I don't mean to be disrespectful; I just would like to raise a question.

First off, I do not think Jesus was vain. Secondly, whether or not he dyed his hair, wore lip gloss, earrings, and a skirt vs. did his work in a plain dusty robe and sandals matters little to me (if he were depicted as wearing a business suit and toting a briefcase, I admit I would be upset ). The question that I would like to ask, though, is does beauty have to be about vanity?

I personally believe that Jesus must have radiated beauty. To be filled with unconditional love must make one strikingly radiant, don't you think? Without any "beautification" at all, I imagine Christ received second looks, double-takes, and secret longing glances from people wherever he walked. "Wow!!! Look at that guy!" people may have thought--"How does he get that look? That confident, peaceful, loving look? And those eyes!! Amazing."

My thoughts.

Peace and Love,
Pathless

[Faithfulservant]

Bringing this back to the Christian forum here is a website ALL about it so feel free to check it out.

Touching the Hem of His Garment

[Faithfulservant]

Originally Posted by Pathless

Hi Faithfulservant,

I may be sticking my nose where it is not welcome, but I can't resist. At the same time, I don't mean to be disrespectful; I just would like to raise a question.

First off, I do not think Jesus was vain. Secondly, whether or not he dyed his hair, wore lip gloss, earrings, and a skirt vs. did his work in a plain dusty robe and sandals matters little to me (if he were depicted as wearing a business suit and toting a briefcase, I admit I would be upset ). The question that I would like to ask, though, is does beauty have to be about vanity?

I personally believe that Jesus must have radiated beauty. To be filled with unconditional love must make one strikingly radiant, don't you think? Without any "beautification" at all, I imagine Christ received second looks, double-takes, and secret longing glances from people wherever he walked. "Wow!!! Look at that guy!" people may have thought--"How does he get that look? That confident, peaceful, loving look? And those eyes!! Amazing."

My thoughts.

Peace and Love,
Pathless

If this was true why was He tortured and crucifed? He was despised...not admired. His own disciples would not stand up for Him.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

If this was true why was He tortured and crucifed? He was despised...not admired. His own disciples would not stand up for Him.

Because it was exactly why he was sent to material form. It was not us, nor his Father that would take that cup from him, and he knew it. He was sent to stir the soup and wake those that were not awake. The crucifixion was not man's plan but according to scripture G-d's plan was it not?

[Faithfulservant]

Thanks wil but I wasnt really asking the question... It was to pathless who said he imagined Jesus to be a certain thing that the bible says He was not.

[InLove]

I doubt that the artist meant for the painting to be taken literally. It is a symbolic interpretation which involves much more than physical appearances. Renaissance-style art often depicted Christ with the symbolic red hair, drawing upon certain ancient customs wherein royalty and members of the privileged classes would distinguish themselves in this way. If the artist had meant for the painting to be true to literal observation, he most likely would have rendered more realistic details. See how prominent and surreal he paints the hair on Christ? To me, it almost looks like a unskilled photoshop job (believe me, I know what that looks like, lol, as I have recently been a transgressor in this area!). This comment is not meant to be a negative criticism of Bosch, but to point out that the technique is used purposely by many artists. If we look at the rest of the painting, then we can see just how symbolic it is meant to be, and so the red hair is just another element of that symbolism. These are my thoughts on the subject, anyway.

I think Jesus was both admired and despised. I imagine that there was something about His countenance and demeanor that could either disturb or comfort and inspire. Personally, I think that His clothing was probably that of a simple teacher-nothing too fancy, as I'm pretty sure He was not considered terribly affluent. I would think it would also need to be practical, considering all the traveling He did through wheat fields, in fishing boats, and down all those dusty roads. Maybe there were some symbolic reminders there, but if there were, I think it would have gone against His purpose to flaunt them. I also imagine that His mother may have made for Him a cloak of the finest design and cloth she had available, all the while pondering in her heart the beginnings of His life and the prophecies told her by the angel. There certainly could have been something unique about its construct. If the garment was to be the prize in a casting of lots among soldiers, it may very well have been because of this—probably not because the gamblers were necessarily big fans of Jesus, even though some of them might have wondered deep down in their souls.

InPeace,
InLove

[Bruce Michael]

Hello InLove,
>I doubt that the artist meant for the painting to be taken literally. It is a >symbolic interpretation which involves much more than physical appearances.

That was my point. Anyone who knows Bosch, knows his work is full of the most fantastic symbology.

Here we have a picture of our lower nature as it prevents us from accepting Christ.

The Old Masters were fond of the theme of the temperaments. I posted a thread about Durer on this.

Blessings,

Br.Bruce