Representation of Christ

On Wednesday and throughout this class in general, a great deal of emphasis has been placed on the idea and interpretation of sight and vision. In class on Wednesday, this especially manifested in the use of art to describe the crucifixion and the resurrection. To me, the objective of religious art seems like a catch 22 within Christianity, for while Christianity seems to be at its most controversial when 

discussed through imagery, this is also how it is most effectively represented.

But if this is true, why do conversations get so complicated when we try to depict Christ? This led me to think about two questions: What is the point of representation? Furthermore, what is true representation? To begin, I think it is important to look at the Gospels. The Gospels allow a close to historical recounting of events- as in, they recount the events as they were supposedly seen. To me, the Gospels are to be seen as a much more reliable source than any piece of artwork, because they present a story with very limited emotion or narrative reign.

In representation of a Gospel, there are many factors that can influence what it is a viewer takes from the work. Therefore, the story the viewer takes away from the piece depends on not only on the artist’s own interpretation of the Gospel but also their rendering.

Giotto di Bondone, "The Crucifixion"

Matthias Grünewald, "Crucifixion"

This is Giotto di Bondone’s rendering of the resurrection, featuring a light blue background, weeping angels, halos, and an inescapable sense of holiness.  Meanwhile, looking at Matthias Grünewald’s painting gives an entirely different impression of the crucifixion. The sky is now dark gray. Jesus’ mouth is open in what looks to be a pained gasp. His limbs are gnarled and knotted, and those around them have much more hollow expressions than the elegant pain of Bodone’s piece.

Piero della Francesca, "Resurrection"

Anthony van Dyck, "Resurrection of Christ"

Though easier to see within the context of the crucifixion, it is also easy to spot differences in the representation of the resurrection. Piero della Francesca famously painted the resurrection as a moment of power for Jesus, but in a very human context. Here, he maintains his earthly façade and merely lifts himself out of the tomb using his own body. This is unmistakably a nod to his humanity, and in stark contrast to Anthony van Dyck’s portrayal of the same event, wherein Jesus, in a direct path of sunlight, rises up through the air. Looking at this painting, you would never be able to forget Jesus’ divine origins, nor his unwavering power.

With an inordinate amount of differing depictions, what are Christians meant to pay attention to? When thinking of the crucifixion, are we supposed to follow Grünewald’s lead and fixated on Jesus’ inhabiting of a body? His human suffering and the grotesque state of his flesh? Or do we follow Bondone’s example, focusing on his grace and peace in death, surrounded by weeping angels? In the resurrection, is he a god? A man? A zombie? Art surrounding the mystery tells us so many stories it’s hard to be able to tell which one to believe.

These questions reminded me of a short scene from the television show “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia”, where two characters are arguing about how bloody the crucifix hanging in their bar should be. While this was just meant to be a quick joke, it actually parodied what it was like growing up Catholic for me. A lot of the icons I was always surrounded by had faces twisted in agony, prominent bones, and ample amounts of blood (no one does macabre like German Catholics). So, when thinking about what true representation of what the crucifixion should look like, I realized through talking with my friends from different denominations that traditions are widely varied. Every church has a different emotion they are trying to evoke. Some, like mine, focused in sorrow and repentance, while churches that may welcome happiness might lean toward the peaceful Jesus, looking graceful as he died to save our souls. I just find it very interesting how these focuses seem clustered within various Christian sects, and how many of us seem to be taught different versions of the same story, with the variance only growing through the use of image.

"It should be terrifying! That's how you know God loves you!"

 In conclusion, I think that the first question might find its answer in Christianity itself. I think artists and believers want to find a place within the mystery by actualizing their own interpretation of Christ, his death, and resurrection. This also goes hand in hand with what one thinks is the most important to take away from these events- what version of Christ should be shown? However, this just accentuates the second question- what is the true representation of Christ? Is it found in the word of the Gospels or is it best represented by those who are actively devoted to him? Is it even possible to have a true representation of Christ at this point? Was it ever possible?

-ID