A local college held an exhibit of artwork. One of the paintings was an apparent copy of Michaelangelo's statue "Pieta," except that it is a painting, on canvas.
The painting was titled: "Magdalena and her lover."
No mention of Catholicism was made. Just the painting and the name.
The painting caused protests, and a collection of letters to the local paper, protesting "anti-Catholic bigotry" or discrimination or whatever. But always specifically anti-Catholic.
Now, I can see people being upset about the reference to Magdalena's "lover," but Mary Magdalene is not specific to Catholics, nor do other Christian religions operate under the assumption that Jesus was sexually active.
Of course, the title only implies sexual activity, it could just as easily refer to any loving relationship, and the bible does describe Mary Magdalene as having been at the cross and at the tomb. The artist doesn't explain the meaning of the title.
But for some reason a group of local Catholics decided they were being discriminated against. Can anyone explain why?
Posted by Nell Gwyn (Member # 8291) on :
Maybe because the original sculpture is owned by and displayed at the Vatican? I can't remember whether Michelangelo made the Pieta specifically for the Catholic church, but a lot of his work was commissioned by various Catholic leaders in Rome. I could see how Catholics might feel a certain amount of ownership, per se, of Michelangelo in general.
But I wouldn't call that painting anti-Catholic, necessarily. A bit subversive, maybe, but I wouldn't get all up in arms about it. But then maybe there's more of a backstory with the artist in question - if s/he has a history with the church that maybe isn't being made public, that could possibly explain the animosity.
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
It may be that the idea that Magdalena was the lover of Jesus is found in "The DaVinci Code" which has some rather blatently anti-catholic messages. If that is why, it is rather a weak argument.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Is it based on the St. Peter's or the Florence Pieta?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Good question. Which is which?
Ok, I'll look it up.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The St. Peter's shows Christ being mourned by a woman holding him on her lap. It's supposed to represent Mary, Jesus' mother.
The other one is incomplete and was intended for Michaelangelo's tomb. I'm not sure what it looks like.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
St. Peters.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There is a long history of anti-Catholic propaganda that recasts Mary (as venerated by Catholics) as the Whore of Babylon. A suggestion of an incestuous relationship with Christ would certainly tap in to the sensitivity to that.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
One of the letters to the editor did mention the DaVinci Code, but I haven't read it.
I do remember sexual overtones in "Jesus Christ Superstar" between Mary Magdalene and Jesus. The song "I don't know how to love him" describes Mary's inability to separate her sexual feelings for the man from a platonic love that she doesn't understand.
I kind of assumed that the whole "Mary is a prostitute" thing hinged on that dichotomy. Maybe it doesn't go back any further than 1970, but it's not exactly new.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Remember, the Mary in St. Peter's isn't Mary Magdalene (who is not necessarily the Mary described as a prostitute, by the way). I've never seent he Magdelene accusations described as anti-Catholic.
The da Vinci code, though, does have some conspiracy theory overtones - it's an accusation of ongoing coverup by the Church, so I could see that being considered anti-Catholic in the same way Catholic/Illuminati theories are.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I don't know if it's anti-Catholic, but I find the idea of taking a well known depiction of a mother and her son and describing it as a woman and her lover a bit rude.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: There is a long history of anti-Catholic propaganda that recasts Mary (as venerated by Catholics) as the Whore of Babylon. A suggestion of an incestuous relationship with Christ would certainly tap in to the sensitivity to that.
I guess I could see that more easily if the painting had been titled: "Mary and her lover," without specifying which Mary he was referring to. The title specifies Magdalena, not Mary, mother of Jesus. But at least it makes a little more sense, given the historical context.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Mary is a touchy, touchy subject for Catholics. If it copied the statue's pose at all well, then many Catholics would recognize it without reading the title. That pose is ubiquitous in Catholic imagery, and always means Mary the mother.
The Florence one apparantly contains a depiction of Mary Magdelene. This could be a huge misunderstanding if the artist thought this Michaelangelo Pieta was a depiction of Mary Magdelene.
Edit: BTW, my reaction is more like dkw's, although I might have picked "tacky."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
On an unrelated and silly note, I'd only consider this discrimination if it were allowed in a government-owned museum or accepted as a homework assignment in a public school and a purely religiously motivated depiction were not. Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: One of the letters to the editor did mention the DaVinci Code, but I haven't read it.
I do remember sexual overtones in "Jesus Christ Superstar" between Mary Magdalene and Jesus. The song "I don't know how to love him" describes Mary's inability to separate her sexual feelings for the man from a platonic love that she doesn't understand.
I kind of assumed that the whole "Mary is a prostitute" thing hinged on that dichotomy. Maybe it doesn't go back any further than 1970, but it's not exactly new.
Actually Mary Magdalene was both a prostitute and posessed by demons before she met Jesus.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
Interesting. I was under the impression (and I attended a Christian university, which is where I got the impression) that the idea that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute is in error.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It IS in error. Mary Magdalene was neither a prostitute or posessed.
edited to add-
she could have been possessed by demons. I'm reading a site about her instead of going to bed like i am supposed to.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I think it's disputed. There's a group who says it's obvious she's the same person as the prostitute who annointed Christ's feet, the demon-possessed woman, and the sister of Lazerus. There are people who say it's certain that all three are different people. I venture no opinion on the subject.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
She was definitely possesed by demons. Seven of 'em. There is nothing in the text that indicates she was a prostitute -- that was later tradition. May or may not be true, but is NOT in the text.
And I can't see any way to conclude that Mary of Bethany and Mary Magdelene are the same person. But I know some people do.
Dag -- I alomost put "tacky." That would be my first reaction too, but I since I was pondering whether or not it was offensive I thought "rude" was closer to the point.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
Since I've seen the real Pieta at St Peter's I thought of it as quite offensive. It now occurs to me that if I hadn't seen it, "tacky" would probably be my reaction.
Posted by Silent E (Member # 8840) on :
My only thought would be that the only conceivable purpose of such an "artwork" would be to bug people, and why would you do that? Seriously, isn't this kind of thing done specifically for the purpose of bugging people? That's just lame.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
My best guess:
1.) He wanted to bug people by touching on an trendy theory about Jesus and Mary Magdelene.
2.) He knew Mary Magdelene was represented in a Michaelangelo Pieta and thought he'd use that.
3.) He picked the wrong Pieta.
That's far better than if he knew that the Pieta he selected actually depicted a mother grieving for her son.
I think I picked "tacky" based on a gut feeling that of lack of intent based on an error, not intentional evocation of a mother grieving for her son. If my gut feeling were wrong, then I'd switch to rude instantly and probably go on to offensive, but not specifically to Catholics. More like to humanity.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I think it's hilarious how the painting is getting all this attention because of how the artist named it. The same painting might have been received much differently with a different name. A word is worth a thousand pictures, in this case. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I don't see where it matters whether Magdalene was a prostitute or not. After all, Jesus was well known for consorting with prostitutes, tax collectors, and other low forms of life; that's a large part of his reputation for generosity. So if you're going to praise Jesus for not minding being seen with working girls, you can't really object to their working, can you? At any rate, not if it's clear they mended their ways after meeting him.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I think it's hilarious how the painting is getting all this attention because of how the artist named it. The same painting might have been received much differently with a different name.
I would argue that this was, almost without a doubt, the artist's point. It's facile and infantile, but I'm pretty sure that's what was intended.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)