Calm Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 I love that they are including more variety in the art that is being suggested for lessons (as stated on home page for lds.org) on the BoM, including some that is more art than illustration. Still plenty of the classics, but enough others that if used will cause some at least to rethink their assumptions. https://history.lds.org/exhibit/exceedingly-valiant?lang=eng&cid=HP_TU_5-7-2016_dCHD_fHIS_xLIDyL2-4_ I am curious about others' reaction. 2
ksfisher Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 1 hour ago, Calm said: I love that they are including more variety in the art that is being suggested for lessons (as stated on home page for lds.org) on the BoM, including some that is more art than illustration. Still plenty of the classics, but enough others that if used will cause some at least to rethink their assumptions. https://history.lds.org/exhibit/exceedingly-valiant?lang=eng&cid=HP_TU_5-7-2016_dCHD_fHIS_xLIDyL2-4_ I am curious about others' reaction. Still a lot of white skin. But I am glad that the newer pictures are moving away from the Roman body builder look.
mfbukowski Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Calm said: I love that they are including more variety in the art that is being suggested for lessons (as stated on home page for lds.org) on the BoM, including some that is more art than illustration. Still plenty of the classics, but enough others that if used will cause some at least to rethink their assumptions. https://history.lds.org/exhibit/exceedingly-valiant?lang=eng&cid=HP_TU_5-7-2016_dCHD_fHIS_xLIDyL2-4_ I am curious about others' reaction. OH MY GOSH! A tad abstract? Not a literal representation??? You mean we are now in the 19th century artistically?? Clearly the sky is falling Edited July 16, 2016 by mfbukowski 4
mfbukowski Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 Just watch out for the guy on the far right with computer chips embedded in his skull. He may be a Borg.
Calm Posted July 16, 2016 Author Posted July 16, 2016 1 hour ago, ksfisher said: Still a lot of white skin. But I am glad that the newer pictures are moving away from the Roman body builder look. It seems like the more recent artists have consistent skin tones for both Lamanite and Nephite; so if they are lighter, all are lighter as in the Doty picture with Ammon and Abish and the Lamanite king or darker like the first though they are all Nephites. 1
Calm Posted July 16, 2016 Author Posted July 16, 2016 (edited) Okay, I changed my mind some. I just realized that two of Rane's pictures were of Samuel the Lamanite and not one of them a Nephite. Put the verse in the wrong book. Looked at his lamanite pictures vs, nephite and his nephite still look way too European for my taste. Still moving in the right direction, some faster than others. Edited July 16, 2016 by Calm 1
BlueDreams Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Calm said: It seems like the more recent artists have consistent skin tones for both Lamanite and Nephite; so if they are lighter, all are lighter as in the Doty picture with Ammon and Abish and the Lamanite king or darker like the first though they are all Nephites. I was pleased with that. I like the new artwork overall and Hope that it grows as a trend....for Rane though his style is a little more new I style think of his figures of having the older mentality of looks. Edited July 16, 2016 by BlueDreams
Calm Posted July 16, 2016 Author Posted July 16, 2016 I agree about Rane now I figured out the Samuel pictures, which I like though the King Benjamin and Waters of Mormon ones look less Europeanish. I think he does better on his paintings of an individual than those with more people, they look bland, little expression in groups. https://history.lds.org/exhibit/scenes-from-the-land-of-promise-book-of-mormon-paintings-by-walter-rane?lang=eng#mv7 But grateful they are not so 'picture perfect'/heroic as Friberg's. Hmm...if you compare his Lamanite queen with passed out king to the previous one of passed out Alma and his friends, skin tone looks pretty consistent....and his Samuels look lighter on this page, so maybe it was just the 'lighting'. Would like to see them in person.
BlueDreams Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 I would say his figures are all around the same shade...kinda a light tan at best and mostly Dark haired.
Glenn101 Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 I don't understand all of the angst over Book of Mormon art. In some older Bible's there was a lot of art depicting various scenes from the stories. Some very graphic and bloody. Angels with wings also. There is angst over some of the depictions of Jesus that show a physically attractive person, because as Isaiah described him "he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him." To me, what is important with the art is that I feel a connection between the art and the story and me. With the Book of Mormon art I do feel that connection. With any of the art depicting Jesus with his outstretched hands, I fell that connection, the longing to actually see it happen. But, to each their own. Glenn 1
RevTestament Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 There are examples of breastplates and helmets in North American archaeology, which would be interesting to see in Book of Mormon art rather than the stereotypical Roman soldier look. Being descendants of Joseph and his Egyptian wife, is very doubtful Nephites looked like white Europeans, so I am glad the Church is willing to break that mold. As Glenn inferred, it is quite doubtful Yeshua was a striking blue eyed white man even if He appeared to JS in that more familiar form.
The Nehor Posted August 6, 2016 Posted August 6, 2016 When is the furor going to start up about the historical accuracy of Michaelangelo's David? 1
Atheist Mormon Posted August 8, 2016 Posted August 8, 2016 On 8/5/2016 at 11:45 PM, The Nehor said: When is the furor going to start up about the historical accuracy of Michaelangelo's David? Are yo old enough to remember BYU's not accepting Bernini sculpture?
The Nehor Posted August 8, 2016 Posted August 8, 2016 1 hour ago, Atheist Mormon said: Are yo old enough to remember BYU's not accepting Bernini sculpture? No idea, following sculptural acquisitions at BYU is one of my more neglected hobbies. 1
Atheist Mormon Posted August 8, 2016 Posted August 8, 2016 (edited) 10 hours ago, The Nehor said: No idea, following sculptural acquisitions at BYU is one of my more neglected hobbies. Where do you live Nehor? Backwoods of Idaho? Edited August 8, 2016 by Atheist Mormon
The Nehor Posted August 8, 2016 Posted August 8, 2016 4 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said: Where do you live Nehor? Backwoods of Idaho? Texas. I try to ride my mule to the trading post every couple of weeks to catch up on the latest art news but Stan (my mule) might have been ill that month.
Atheist Mormon Posted August 8, 2016 Posted August 8, 2016 3 hours ago, The Nehor said: Texas. I try to ride my mule to the trading post every couple of weeks to catch up on the latest art news but Stan (my mule) might have been ill that month. Ohhh....We are neighbors,,,,(but of course you must feel at home here with the guys like Ted Cruz, formr. Governor Perry) ha.
Atheist Mormon Posted August 8, 2016 Posted August 8, 2016 On 7/15/2016 at 6:36 PM, Calm said: I love that they are including more variety in the art that is being suggested for lessons (as stated on home page for lds.org) on the BoM, including some that is more art than illustration. Still plenty of the classics, but enough others that if used will cause some at least to rethink their assumptions. https://history.lds.org/exhibit/exceedingly-valiant?lang=eng&cid=HP_TU_5-7-2016_dCHD_fHIS_xLIDyL2-4_ I am curious about others' reaction. Thanks for sharing, I always thought they were beautiful.....
The Nehor Posted August 8, 2016 Posted August 8, 2016 1 hour ago, Atheist Mormon said: Ohhh....We are neighbors,,,,(but of course you must feel at home here with the guys like Ted Cruz, formr. Governor Perry) ha. I dislike both of them.
BlueDreams Posted August 9, 2016 Posted August 9, 2016 On July 16, 2016 at 8:20 AM, Glenn101 said: I don't understand all of the angst over Book of Mormon art. In some older Bible's there was a lot of art depicting various scenes from the stories. Some very graphic and bloody. Angels with wings also. There is angst over some of the depictions of Jesus that show a physically attractive person, because as Isaiah described him "he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him." To me, what is important with the art is that I feel a connection between the art and the story and me. With the Book of Mormon art I do feel that connection. With any of the art depicting Jesus with his outstretched hands, I fell that connection, the longing to actually see it happen. But, to each their own. Glenn I think that's a big part of the problem. A number don't feel that connection. I don't. In fact I remember one time on my mission getting angry at our plethora of Jesus pictures all over. (To be fair. It was a BoM picture of the antinephilehites burying their swords that also helped me in that same time). And not all art has to speak to me. But the problem with the church art is that there was only really one option/style presented. Art to me is to tell things that words alone couldn't express. To teach. A lot of LDS isn't that. The ideas are blunt and obvious. and that's before you get into things outside of general artistic preference. The subjects and their looks can also be a way to reify cultural assumptions about the nephites, lamanites, and where brown people of all ethnicities fit in general. It can bring up some uncomfortable feelings for minorities. that's a short answer to some of the angst to BoM art. 1
Recommended Posts