tree_and_leaf: Eowyn, tight image of dirty face, yelling.  Caption "I am no man" (Eowyn - no man am I)
The BBC has a page on answers to the difficult questions children ask, which are mostly science-y (except for 'why did God let my kitten die?' - and couldn't they have asked a theologian as well as the philosopher for that one? - and 'why does my friend have two daddies?').

One of them is 'why do I like pink?' On this, the lay answers are actually more helpful; the philosopher waffles about the Value of the Feminine, but on the other hand 'pink reminds you of other things you like' is reasonable, and an improvement on the psychologist, who produces the usual rubbish about evolutionary psychologists telling us that teh femalez haz evolved to like red, because of the redness of berries (because, of course, there's no such thing as edible blue, black or purple berries in nature!) or, alternatively, because they need to be able to spot when their babies have fevers, and are consequently flushed. Which I would have thought, if colour preference was really genetically hard-wired into us, that women would tend to be filled with a shrinking horror at the sight of pink/ red (why didn't he suggest the rosy cheeks of healthy infants, I wonder?)

Of course, it's all tosh anyway, because a brief examination of historical inventions shows that on the whole, previous centuries in Western Europe (can't speak to other places) associated red/ pink† with men, because it's the colour of blood and therefore Manly, whereas blue was rather feminine. Which is why you generally see Our Lady in blue* (which the more catholically inclined, as Mr Eliot reminds us, tend to consider 'Mary's color').

[personal profile] oursin, may I borrow your codfish?

† Of course there's a separate problem, in that the vocabulary we use to talk about colour is very culturally conditioned anyway, and the middle ages certainly didn't have the sophisticated distinctions between various shades; there isn't, as far as I know, a word in Middle High German for 'pink', for instance, and the colouring of paintings tends to be fugitive. Still, one can tell red from blue.

* Other iconographies of the BVM are available. Ask your art historian, parish priest, or friendly local Anglo-Catholic loon for details. (For instance, you sometimes do see Mary in red; this is to draw attention to the future sufferings of her Son and her participation in it, so it still comes back to bleeding men in the end).
tree_and_leaf: Cartoon of Pope Gregory and two slave children.  Caption flashes"Non Angli sed Angeli" and "Not angels but Anglicans." (Anglicans not angels)
Yesterday I was at the Scott-Holland lectures, which this year were given by Neil MacGregor, the director of the British Museum on 'the constraints and opportunities of a visual tradition' - or rather, what the making of images does to Christianity, and what the images we make, inherit and modify say, particularly to people outside the church. The Scott-Holland for whom the lectures was named was Henry Scott-Holland,† sometime Dean of St Paul's, high-churchman and one of the founders of the Christian Socialist Union - he was one of the second wave of churchmen of the Oxford Movement, whose strongly incarnational understanding of God as intimately involved in the world and concerned for the poor led them to the East End, and to a passionate interest in social justice (even to the insistence that it is as important to pay a fair price for goods as it is to pray and receive the sacraments). This, incidentally, is why so many Anglo-Catholic churches are in poor places - or what were poor places at the turn of last century - and also why I get irritated when people assume that all 'Spikes' are only interested in ceremonial and the cricket pages of the Daily Telegraph.

Yes, but is it art? )

In conclusion: I seem to have turned into a Neil MacGregor fangirl (though I get the impression that he wouldn't know what to do with one), and I really wish I had seen the exhibition Seeing Salvation in 2000; I wonder if you can still get the catalogue?
tree_and_leaf: Photo of spire of Freiburg Minster (14th C broached gothic) silhouetted against sunset. (Schönste Turm)
Yesterday I went to an extremely good talk about depictions of the apostles in Freiburg Minster (which is exceptionally interesting architecturally), and learned a myriad of interesting facts, such as that apostles are very rarely depicted without shoes - except St Bartholomew, because he was patron saint of the tanners†, and James, because of the pilgrims to Santiago all requiring shoes. The reason for this seems to be the sending out of the apostles without bags or shoes or a second shirt, thought the lecturer noted that in Luke's Gospel Jesus also specifies that they should wear sandals. The lecturer attributed this to Luke being a doctor and therefore concerned about the medical aspect; I think he was joking. At any rate, he knew a stunning amount about mediaeval art in general and the Minster in particular, which is impressive given that he's a retired Germanist rather than an art historian.

I can't find any decent pictures of the Freiburger apostles online, so for sheer comedy value, have a link to an image from the Minster of an ox trying to eat the swaddling bands. (Clearly, a very stupid ox, given that there was hay lying about. If it had been a goat, I could have understood it - and it would have explained Our Lord's otherwise somewhat inexplicable prejudice against goats, which I've never understood, given that they were his idea in the first place!)



† For the unedifying reason that according to the Legenda Aurea, he was flayed alive. For some reason this seems even more tactless than making Sebastian the patron saint of fletchers.

Profile

tree_and_leaf: Watercolour of barn owl perched on post. (Default)
tree_and_leaf

December 2021

S M T W T F S
    1 234
567891011
12131415161718
192021222324 25
262728293031 

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios