“I was appalled at the sexualization of Christ”

As a person who collects religious icons and loves byzantine art, I will have to admit, that doesn’t look like a ‘six-pack’ to me. No wonder Mary Magdalene was smiling in the last supper picture 🙂

Actually the art is inaccurate;

Janet Jaime is the artist who designed the crucifix hanging in St. Charles Borromeo Catholic Church. She was unavailable for comment, but her husband said critics are misinterpreting a common religious icon.

“This isn’t just a subjective drawing. This is a historical icon of the church,” said Reggie Jaime, husband of Janet Jaime, an Oklahoma City iconographer commissioned by the church to design the crucifix. “I can’t help what you see in things, or she sees in things, or anyone.”

I commissioned the ‘Epiphany’ from a Russian byzantine artist (John the baptist, baptizing Jesus), and while the muscles on the stomach are similiar, my piece includes horizontal lines representing stomach muscles, this piece does not. I think this artist is going to have a hard time convincing people his work is accurate.


#1 Timothy Fountain on 04.16.10 at 4:13 am

LOL probably an example of why the Puritans avoided religious art.

Yikes! I can’t agree with some of the commenters at the article that “you only see genitalia if your mind is in the gutter.” I’m not even done with my first mug of coffee, and, sorry, I see genitalia.

Probably not the artist’s intent, but it needs work before being hung (sorry) in a church. Don’t know if we have insurance for sensitive people fainting and banging (sorry) their heads on pews.

#2 l3wis on 04.16.10 at 7:50 am

Well, it is accurate, like I said it is ‘almost’ identical to the painting I own, except for the stomach muscle lines missing. Details, Details.

#3 Plaintiff Guy on 04.16.10 at 8:36 am

Maybe it’s a festered cecarian scar.

OMG, there’s another christ born from a virgin asexual.

Funny for some but sacreligious for most.

#4 l3wis on 04.16.10 at 9:27 am

Here’s another image;