https://www.amazon.com/Crucifixion-Holy-Scandal-Cecile-Delacharie/dp/B078K6J4DM/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?keywords=Crucifiction+the+holy+scandal&qid=1553011996&s=gateway&sr=8-1-fkmr0
I just
watched a documentary film titled: Crucifixion: The Holy Scandal
It's free
with my Prime membership on Amazon.
Before I go
any further, if you are scandalized or otherwise offended by images of the
Crucified Christ that are (in any way) non-traditional...this is not the film
for you.
Personally,
I found it fascinating how many artists have produced artworks of the
Crucifixion.
Basquiate,
Dali, Francis Bacon, to name a (very) few.
The
documentarian takes one on a tour through many artworks , in churches , in
museums, in art studios of the Crucifixion, with commentaries, by the artists
and art historians.
It was
mesmerizing to me.
The central figure of this film was an artist
named Andres Serrano. Over 20 years ago, he was the central figure of a
controversy over the endowment for the arts. He produced a photograph of a
crucifix in his own urine, which he titled "Piss Christ".
I remember
this controversy, as presented on the show "Phil Donahue". I
remembered thinking the photograph was truly captivating, until I learned what
the fluid was.
As
commentary runs through this film, I learned, I was not the only person with
that view.
I was
appreciative of the different depictions of the Crucifixion.
Andres
Serrano was not the first to bring the crucifixion of Christ into controversy. Michalangelo
produced a sculpture of a (completely) naked Christ on a cross in the 14th
century.
More contemporary
works include psychodrama, by an artist named Nitche (Austrian) who produces
live characterizations of the Crucifixion, with animal entrails as part of the
disply.
An artist named
Fyre has produced a (life-size) wax model of Jesus, with all the beating wounds
and crown of thorns, sitting on an electric chair.
Francis
Bacons representation is a kind of primordial image, no real human figure, on a
cross.
I watched
all of these pieces of art with interest, intrigue, even some appreciation.
It wasn't
until an interview with Andres Sarrano that I found myself so riled up, I had
to produce this blog.
By his own
words, he says he creates Christian art and is a Christian. He's talking about
the work "Piss Christ" and begins his explanation of his perspective.
He says that Christ was on the cross for days, and certainly in that time he
would have urinated and deficated.
OK-so the
idea of Christ losing his bodily control during his own execution, something
upon which I have heard a scientist expound. I am not offended, not even surprised.
But if one says one is a Christian, I would
think, that one had actually read (at least) one of the gospel books. According to Mark's
Gospel, he endured the torment of crucifixion for some six hours from the third
hour, at approximately 9 am, until his death at the ninth hour,
corresponding to about 3 pm.
Am I THAT much of a stickler? I have to admit...sometimes I am.
According to the text that are originally authoritative for the
event to which the artist was alluding, Jesus was on the cross for 6
hours. Some remarks are actually made
about him passing so soon (as other criminals did linger for days). Some
liturgists, I've heard, believe that this "quick passing" was a
"mercy to Jesus".
I don't embrace that concept, as , the account(s) describe him
being scourged before he was forced to carry his own cross, down the via
dolarosa, to Calvary. I've seen many treatise on whether the cross was the
cross entire or just the petibulium (cross piece). I've seen many discussions
and theories as to whether He was pierced through the palms of His hands, or
His wrists. I've seen exortation as to
why crucifixion is actually excruciating. I have never heard anyone suggest he
was executed over a number of days.
For the sake of some sort
of authenticity, at least read the text to which you are making allusion.
