Pentecost Art Review
I have had lots of practice comparing paintings in college while earning a B.A. in Arts but it is still something that I like to do. I don't know if everyone had the same bulletin for today; it featured a painting by Don Kueker, copyright 2007. The black and white picture is by an unknown artist and dated 1889. The topic of both pictures is the day of Pentecost.
In the 1889 print, the figures are easily recognizable as Mary and the Twelve Apostles. The coming of the Holy Spirit is recognizable from the tongues of fire, but also in the form of a dove, by which we are drawn to see Pentecost in light of Christ's baptism. The poses of the figures reflect the posture of worship, on bended knee or in the orans posture, while the facial features reflect a serene humbleness. Hands, most of which are folded in prayer, and eyes point the viewer to the Holy Spirit in the top, middle of the picture. Where some of the eyes are closed, it is the head that is inclined in a bow that points to the Holy Spirit. Halos, symbols of holiness, adorn the figure's heads along with a little tongue of fire that almost settles itself on the halo. The richly ornate background, and even the throne adorned with cherubim, seems to suggest that these earthly figures are brought into the Kingdom of Heaven. Blessed Mary herself symbolizes the Church, because she is the best expression of unity in Christ, having had Christ Himself take up residence in her own body. With Mary being such a symbolic figure, the apostles are gathered in an arch about her. The overall movement of the picture is vertical, eliciting a stability of form and concept. The symbolism and easily recognizable figures all point to the fact that this print is meant to instruct the viewer. There is very little room for personal interpretation, but the picture clearly illustrates the significance of the event.
The 2007 painting we see on our bulletins is quite the radical opposite of the earlier 1889 print. The figures in the painting are many and varied, none of whom are easily identifiable. The poses and faces of these figures reflect surprise and worry or fear. They seem to be generally overpowered with emotion. Most of the eyes gaze at something unseen by the viewer, and indeed the Holy Spirit is not depicted in any form. The hands of some of the figures point in the same direction, but the majority of the hands are busy with something else - clutching a child, holding various items, shielding faces, merely hanging at the sides or rubbing a throat as if in some sort of Disney's Little Mermaid moment. None of the figures are adorned with halos, but rather long torches of flame seem to blow off of their heads by some diagonal wind. The whole of the general movement in the painting is a dynamic diagonal that stirs up excitement and grabs the viewer's attention. The man in the right foreground seems to be in some sort of "throws" as he has forgotten his immediate environment and knocked over his cup. As evidenced by the tables, bread and cheese, and serving women, it appears that this scene is taking place in a tavern or at least some other public building - or just a home perhaps? This painting avoids the symbolic representations of the Church and heavenly Kingdom, and rather focuses on an a postmodern concept of spontaneity. The painting hinges on the emotions of the figures painted and also on the viewer's emotions as it invites them to look at each and every figure to wonder what this one or that one was feeling. Nothing is declared in the painting but much is left to personal interpretation. Perhaps the woman in the foreground has heartburn (if only someone would not have knocked over the water, she might have had a cool drink to help her throat) but you may interpret it differently.
These two pictures, although centuries apart, depict the same Biblical event, yet they are diametrically opposed to one another. One is meant to teach and instruct while the other is meant to make the viewer feel and become involved. One deposits the scene in a symbolic background that points to Heaven while the other is depicted in a contrived, "realistic" background. One clearly shows the Holy Spirit and His work reflected back to Him by the figures in a worshipful nature, while the other one seems to show the Holy Spirit imparting chaos. This painting from our day and age is greatly lacking all manner of instruction or even a simple direction. It does not instruct the viewer about the Holy Spirit or the proper way in which we are to receive Him, but rather shows an admixture of emotion that leads no one to a deeper understanding of the biblical text. But if you're still in love with the painting you can go on over to CPH and buy yourself a nice framed print.
The 1889 print is from www.TheCatholicLibrary.org and can be purchase through shutterfly.com, photoworks.com, or fotokasten.de.
For a pastoral review of the Keuker painting on the bulletin, check out the post CPH: Concordia Pentecostal House at Paredwka: Dropping the Ball.
In the 1889 print, the figures are easily recognizable as Mary and the Twelve Apostles. The coming of the Holy Spirit is recognizable from the tongues of fire, but also in the form of a dove, by which we are drawn to see Pentecost in light of Christ's baptism. The poses of the figures reflect the posture of worship, on bended knee or in the orans posture, while the facial features reflect a serene humbleness. Hands, most of which are folded in prayer, and eyes point the viewer to the Holy Spirit in the top, middle of the picture. Where some of the eyes are closed, it is the head that is inclined in a bow that points to the Holy Spirit. Halos, symbols of holiness, adorn the figure's heads along with a little tongue of fire that almost settles itself on the halo. The richly ornate background, and even the throne adorned with cherubim, seems to suggest that these earthly figures are brought into the Kingdom of Heaven. Blessed Mary herself symbolizes the Church, because she is the best expression of unity in Christ, having had Christ Himself take up residence in her own body. With Mary being such a symbolic figure, the apostles are gathered in an arch about her. The overall movement of the picture is vertical, eliciting a stability of form and concept. The symbolism and easily recognizable figures all point to the fact that this print is meant to instruct the viewer. There is very little room for personal interpretation, but the picture clearly illustrates the significance of the event.
The 2007 painting we see on our bulletins is quite the radical opposite of the earlier 1889 print. The figures in the painting are many and varied, none of whom are easily identifiable. The poses and faces of these figures reflect surprise and worry or fear. They seem to be generally overpowered with emotion. Most of the eyes gaze at something unseen by the viewer, and indeed the Holy Spirit is not depicted in any form. The hands of some of the figures point in the same direction, but the majority of the hands are busy with something else - clutching a child, holding various items, shielding faces, merely hanging at the sides or rubbing a throat as if in some sort of Disney's Little Mermaid moment. None of the figures are adorned with halos, but rather long torches of flame seem to blow off of their heads by some diagonal wind. The whole of the general movement in the painting is a dynamic diagonal that stirs up excitement and grabs the viewer's attention. The man in the right foreground seems to be in some sort of "throws" as he has forgotten his immediate environment and knocked over his cup. As evidenced by the tables, bread and cheese, and serving women, it appears that this scene is taking place in a tavern or at least some other public building - or just a home perhaps? This painting avoids the symbolic representations of the Church and heavenly Kingdom, and rather focuses on an a postmodern concept of spontaneity. The painting hinges on the emotions of the figures painted and also on the viewer's emotions as it invites them to look at each and every figure to wonder what this one or that one was feeling. Nothing is declared in the painting but much is left to personal interpretation. Perhaps the woman in the foreground has heartburn (if only someone would not have knocked over the water, she might have had a cool drink to help her throat) but you may interpret it differently.These two pictures, although centuries apart, depict the same Biblical event, yet they are diametrically opposed to one another. One is meant to teach and instruct while the other is meant to make the viewer feel and become involved. One deposits the scene in a symbolic background that points to Heaven while the other is depicted in a contrived, "realistic" background. One clearly shows the Holy Spirit and His work reflected back to Him by the figures in a worshipful nature, while the other one seems to show the Holy Spirit imparting chaos. This painting from our day and age is greatly lacking all manner of instruction or even a simple direction. It does not instruct the viewer about the Holy Spirit or the proper way in which we are to receive Him, but rather shows an admixture of emotion that leads no one to a deeper understanding of the biblical text. But if you're still in love with the painting you can go on over to CPH and buy yourself a nice framed print.
The 1889 print is from www.TheCatholicLibrary.org and can be purchase through shutterfly.com, photoworks.com, or fotokasten.de.
For a pastoral review of the Keuker painting on the bulletin, check out the post CPH: Concordia Pentecostal House at Paredwka: Dropping the Ball.
Comments
Lord have mercy.
There is something almost sinister about the CPH painting, isn't there?!
As for the Little Mermaid comment I feel she feels the peace that comes in the moment.
Of course, the viewers of art are always free to perceive it in whatever way they wish - how one sees something is not the way another may see it. This was the point that I was trying to make about the differences between the two paintings. If an image is meant to teach, then there has to be a way to cut down on that sort of personal interpretation to consistently and clearly convey its message. I think your father's painting does not do well enough in that area, however as you noted, his painting was created to be an illustration. As an illustration it seeks to find out what it must have been like at Pentacost, which is a purely subjective starting point.
...the time differences have to be taken into account also the fact that one was sketched by a Catholic person one by a Lutheran. I would be curious to hear more of your thoughts on that matter. As for myself, it is helpful to compare images from different time periods - the contrasts and similarities are made more evident. Perhaps it would also be interesting to compare modern day depictions of Pentacost with some of the earliest icons of Pentacost. (Interesting to me, anyways!) As far as a Catholic verses a Lutheran artist, I don't know that I would compare them much further than the obvious religious differences. In what way do you see the differences?
Thanks again for taking up the conversation.
Love in Christ,
Emily