Sunday, January 2, 2011

Holy Family

Holy Family with St. Anne and the Infant St. John (circa 1550)

7 comments:

Lydia said...

I don't see how they were perfectly comfortable painting baby Jesus and his-you-know-what. I would not feel right doing that at all. I could see painting a naked baby with red hair and pale white skin, naked as all get out if the occasion so called for it but it's Jesus...

Esther said...

I'm no art expert, but I don't get the impression that they were overly worried about that. In fact, since the human form was admired, it seems like beings, especially holy beings (think, the goddess Diana) were depicted in the nude more often than not.

Katy said...

At least he is a BABY! :) I mean, I wouldn't hang this picture on my living room wall or anything, but it isn't offensive to me. I think it is awesome that Jesus willingly came to Earth as a totally dependent, helpless little baby. Maybe that is what this painter wanted to portray. However, I am no art expert either!;)

Lydia said...

Like the above comments, ladies, very true... I'm just saying I would not have been comfortable had I been the painter. He is sacrosanct.

Esther said...

Yes, but you are quite modern...and quite Protestant.

Esther said...

Or is it that we are American? Still mulling it over...

Lydia said...

Protestant and American I can claim...modern I have trouble swallowing. More water please! ;) On second note thinking of the holy family, I haven't thought too much before about Jesus' brothers not accepting Him. "For if you do these things show yourself to the world. For His brother's were not even believing in Him." John 7:1-5