As I explain in the comments section, I couldn't quite capture what I was aiming for in this blended photo of the two photos below. I merged the photos, played with the color, and added light where the nails penetrated the body. I took the photo of the crystal back in September, and the marble Christ photo I took in Chicago in 2007--it's featured on the blog in May of that year. What I was aiming for was the sense of triumph through death, and I was trying to generate the idea of heavenly light coming through the cross. The problem is that the photo of the suffering Christ is so excruciatingly painful that I could not extract a sense of victory out of it no matter what. Which led me, of course, to consider theology. In their churches (and jewelry) Protestants depict the cross as empty. The theology they want this representation to depict is victory over death. Catholics, in turn, have an altar crucifix (and piece of jewelry) which always depicts Christ still on the cross--the idea, I think, being to remind worshipers that the Christ who triumphed (represented by the altar) was the same Christ who made that horrible sacrifice (represented by the crucifix). Naturally Protestants have a real beef with this because, after all, it's different than their view, and we wouldn't want that, now, would we? Oh, and don't forget that Catholics relish re-crucifying Christ with each Eucharist. What other proof would one want than that Catholics aren't Christians, right?
I digress.
The point is that the no matter how I played with these images, I could not extract triumph to my satisfaction from the image of that poor man on the cross.
So the photo remains ambivalent. Something is going on for sure, but it's a mixed message in terms of that Moment.
Which strikes me as about right. The day of Crucifixion is called Good Friday, after all.
Posts
.jpg)
5 comments:
back to the sad. music at least. cool photo.
I never could quite do what I wanted with the photo.
I layered the Christ (which i have featured elsewhere) over a photo of a crystal I took. Then i turned it black and white, then blue, and I added some cool lights coming from the wounds.
I was trying to create the idea of triumph, but the truth is that the figure of the Christ dead on the cross couldn't be triumphant no matter what.
So the photo is ambiguous, I think. But it was fun to make a few days ago. I only had time to post it here. Still a long evening ahead of me getting ready for NOLA.
And, I would note: you went from cheery straight back to death with no transition whatsoever.
Just sayin'
Love the photo. I find it moving.
I recently had a convo with a friend about Catholicism. A devout Protestant (and rather young), she maintained that Catholicism is an entirely different religion than Protestant Xianity.
What about those of us who are Anglo-Catholic. Is this to suggest we are 2 religions? If so, does that make me a pluralist? hmm..i guess so. I never thought of myself as a pluralist;-)
MB, I know there's a catholic residing deep within your tortured soul.
Give me your friend's name, and I'll set her straight. Except she does have a point that there's some serious differences. Our friend H.H. once told me that Cardinal John Henry Newman said (in effect) that Protestantism may be a lot of things, but one thing it's not is Christianity.
I'm sort of this school: You know, if you like Jesus and think he's a special and favored kind of guy, you can call your self a Christian. But that let's in all sorts of weirdos.
And, no, I'm not talkin' about Calvinist closeted-Catholics like me. I'm talking about--well, I'll let you decide for yourself.
As for Anglicans, y'all are a very sweet breed. Well-mannered. Love your wine in moderation (or not). Love to think about the poor but don't like to interact with them. Closeted Republicans who vote Democratic because of some guilt thing. I love you guys.
Post a Comment