The sponsors of the Dappled Things competition saw a need for better images of the Sacred Heart because more and more Catholics are displaying (enthroning) an image of the Sacred Heart in a prominent location in their homes, schools, workplaces, and other locations. They don’t want to settle for one of the commonly available over-sentimentalized images that can impede devotion instead of enhancing it.
I don't remember where I read it, but I do recall learning about a scientific study done on one of the Eucharistic miracles where a bleeding host was tested. They found that the flesh it had turned into was human heart, and were able to identify a blood type, and most tellingly that it only had half the normal number of chromosome pairs - 23, not 46.
Well you might have read this in THIS article: ""In the eighth century AD, a Basilian monk was saying Mass in the Church of St. Legontian in modern-day Lanciano, Italy. As he was saying Mass, he doubted the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. After the consecration of the bread and wine into the Most Precious Body and Blood of Christ, the host became Flesh and the wine became Blood. . . . The miracle of Lanciano tells us that we receive the very heart of Christ when we receive the Eucharist at Holy Communion."—Joseph Tuttle in "The Eucharist and the Sacred Heart of Christ" at Word on Fire." :-) I never heard about the 23 chromosome pairs before though.
Sorry Hilary, I read it too quickly. Thanks for the comment! I'm mentioning the 23 chromosome pairs in my latest Ancient Liturgies Update—San Francisco newsletter.
God says: "Do not be afraid". What I see around every artist trying to render religious painting is dying under the weight of 1000 years of Christian tradition. Repetition of traditional icons is something other than what the viewer appreciates. People are looking, as always, for something fresh, bold, and beautiful. Christian art without the new, fresh approach is boring; it means it is dead.
> People are looking, as always, for something fresh, bold, and beautiful.
I like my fruit fresh, my comments bold, and my art beautiful. I think it is strange to generalize, however. I am sure there are some people who like their comments fresh (or even salty), their fruit bold (jackfruit with BBQ sauce, for some reason that I cannot fathom, is a recipe that exists), and their art beautiful by some definition of beauty altogether different from mine.
That's pretty glib. People who prefer traditional art are not "afraid." It's a common slander used by misguided people who are trying to force supposedly better innovations to attribute fear to people who prefer traditional art, along with traditional doctrine. Tradition comes from the word that means handing over. Latin: tradere (to transmit, to hand over, to give for safekeeping). Traditional sacred art is weighty but in a good way. Your taste has been formed to prefer non-traditional art, but that does not mean anyone else who prefers something higher and more conducive to contemplation has to conform to your point of view. Many of us are not looking for something "fresh and bold." Most of the "fresh and bold" art I've seen is pretty hideous. One example that comes to mind is the art of the hideous Fr. Marko Rupnik. Another sculptor created a semi-traditional sculpture of Our Lady that has what looks like a dishpan for a womb. For another thing, If you love something (or someone) you don't feel bored. And traditional art certainly isn't dead, even though many have tried to stamp it out. Thanks be to God.
I am writing not about people but about artists. Please read again. Plus, as I see it, you are referring to your preferences and experience when it comes to so-called modern art.
You never experienced the quietness of Rembrandt's work or the delicate feeling of Watteau. I know you are not the artist. I am writing about artists. There is always a way for the artist to express the greater when you have the willingness and the Talent. Talent is rare. Truth is always simple. You must be true to experience and express and this is what is lacking today. Words "Fresh and Bold" have its own meaning not connected to the sample of the "ART" you are referring to. Protesting you are confirming my own observations about the "hideous " art output today. Artists are afraid, They are not interpreting but repeating, copying what was done before. Art painting is not something photographing the reality. Properly done is the artist interpretations of the symbols and meanings and the honesty and spirit (insides) of the maker.
How can you assert what I know or don't know? I have experienced "the quietness of Rembrandt," etc. I have an art degree, and I continue to study art. I'm writing about the demands of sacred art. I don't need to read what you wrote again. The best sacred artists are willing to learn the language of sacred art and reinterpret it in their own work. Who gave you the insight to proclaim, "Artists are afraid." Freud? I could just as well say, "Jacek is afraid" to experience art created within the discipline of traditional forms. But that would pseudo-psychoanalyzing you, and that would be inappropriate.
Holy Father Benedict of Bavaria, pray for us!
☦️ Grace🔥 and Peace🕊️ to you,
MOST HOLY THEOTOKOS SAVE US!
Holy Father Benedict of Bavaria, pray for us!
☦️ Grace🔥 and Peace🕊️ to you,
MOST HOLY THEOTOKOS SAVE US!
I don't remember where I read it, but I do recall learning about a scientific study done on one of the Eucharistic miracles where a bleeding host was tested. They found that the flesh it had turned into was human heart, and were able to identify a blood type, and most tellingly that it only had half the normal number of chromosome pairs - 23, not 46.
Well you might have read this in THIS article: ""In the eighth century AD, a Basilian monk was saying Mass in the Church of St. Legontian in modern-day Lanciano, Italy. As he was saying Mass, he doubted the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. After the consecration of the bread and wine into the Most Precious Body and Blood of Christ, the host became Flesh and the wine became Blood. . . . The miracle of Lanciano tells us that we receive the very heart of Christ when we receive the Eucharist at Holy Communion."—Joseph Tuttle in "The Eucharist and the Sacred Heart of Christ" at Word on Fire." :-) I never heard about the 23 chromosome pairs before though.
Yes, Lanciano is one of the prominent Eucharistic miracles, but there are a lot more. I wish I remembered where I read about it.
Sorry Hilary, I read it too quickly. Thanks for the comment! I'm mentioning the 23 chromosome pairs in my latest Ancient Liturgies Update—San Francisco newsletter.
Well, be careful not to base any claims just from my recounting of a badly-retained and vague old memory.
God says: "Do not be afraid". What I see around every artist trying to render religious painting is dying under the weight of 1000 years of Christian tradition. Repetition of traditional icons is something other than what the viewer appreciates. People are looking, as always, for something fresh, bold, and beautiful. Christian art without the new, fresh approach is boring; it means it is dead.
> People are looking, as always, for something fresh, bold, and beautiful.
I like my fruit fresh, my comments bold, and my art beautiful. I think it is strange to generalize, however. I am sure there are some people who like their comments fresh (or even salty), their fruit bold (jackfruit with BBQ sauce, for some reason that I cannot fathom, is a recipe that exists), and their art beautiful by some definition of beauty altogether different from mine.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but having itching ears,
That's pretty glib. People who prefer traditional art are not "afraid." It's a common slander used by misguided people who are trying to force supposedly better innovations to attribute fear to people who prefer traditional art, along with traditional doctrine. Tradition comes from the word that means handing over. Latin: tradere (to transmit, to hand over, to give for safekeeping). Traditional sacred art is weighty but in a good way. Your taste has been formed to prefer non-traditional art, but that does not mean anyone else who prefers something higher and more conducive to contemplation has to conform to your point of view. Many of us are not looking for something "fresh and bold." Most of the "fresh and bold" art I've seen is pretty hideous. One example that comes to mind is the art of the hideous Fr. Marko Rupnik. Another sculptor created a semi-traditional sculpture of Our Lady that has what looks like a dishpan for a womb. For another thing, If you love something (or someone) you don't feel bored. And traditional art certainly isn't dead, even though many have tried to stamp it out. Thanks be to God.
I am writing not about people but about artists. Please read again. Plus, as I see it, you are referring to your preferences and experience when it comes to so-called modern art.
You never experienced the quietness of Rembrandt's work or the delicate feeling of Watteau. I know you are not the artist. I am writing about artists. There is always a way for the artist to express the greater when you have the willingness and the Talent. Talent is rare. Truth is always simple. You must be true to experience and express and this is what is lacking today. Words "Fresh and Bold" have its own meaning not connected to the sample of the "ART" you are referring to. Protesting you are confirming my own observations about the "hideous " art output today. Artists are afraid, They are not interpreting but repeating, copying what was done before. Art painting is not something photographing the reality. Properly done is the artist interpretations of the symbols and meanings and the honesty and spirit (insides) of the maker.
How can you assert what I know or don't know? I have experienced "the quietness of Rembrandt," etc. I have an art degree, and I continue to study art. I'm writing about the demands of sacred art. I don't need to read what you wrote again. The best sacred artists are willing to learn the language of sacred art and reinterpret it in their own work. Who gave you the insight to proclaim, "Artists are afraid." Freud? I could just as well say, "Jacek is afraid" to experience art created within the discipline of traditional forms. But that would pseudo-psychoanalyzing you, and that would be inappropriate.