Showing posts with label virgin mary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label virgin mary. Show all posts

3 Jul 2024

On the Crowning and Beheading of the Virgin Mary

Crowning - a sculpture of the Virgin Mary by Esther Strauss
Photo: St. Mary's Cathedral / Franz Wurzinger
 
 
I.
 
As a rule, I wouldn't normally support the vandalism or destruction of an artwork.
 
But I'm tempted to make an exception in the case of a sculpture by Esther Krauss [1] depicting the Virgin Mary giving birth and displayed in a cathedral in the Austrian city of Linz as part of an installation concerned with issues around women's roles and gender equality.
 
I'm not a Catholic and I don't think the work blasphemous or abominable. 
 
But it is undeniably obscene and its installation was deliberately designed in order to provoke - as the vicar for education, art and culture in the Linz diocese openly confessed [2] - so perhaps no surprise then that someone who takes their faith seriously and found the work grossly objectionable should take action.
 
 
II.
 
It's probably an age thing, but one grows increasingly weary of militants such as Ms. Krauss masquerading as artists who seem to believe their political convictions allow them to disregard the religious or cultural sensibilities of others. 
 
Arguing that whilst most works depicting the Blessed Mother have been made by men - and therefore often serve patriarchal interests - Krauss goes on to say that her intention was simply to emphasise the materiality of giving birth. 
 
For Krauss, removing the head from her sculpture was an act of brutal violence and "an expression of the fact that there are still people who question women's right to their own bodies" [3]. Ironically employing phallologocentric language, she has called for very firm measures to be taken and the police are now investigating.
 
 
Notes
 
[1] On her personal website - click here - Esther Strauß describes herself as a performance artist and writer, who, above all, loves to carry out light-hearted experiments; such as sleeping for a night on Anna Freud's couch at the Sigmund Freud Museum in London, or digging up the grave of her grandfather with her bare hands and then stripping naked so that she might cover herself with the excavated soil and mud. 
 
[2] Please give a slow handclap to the Rev. Johann Hintermaier. 
 
[3] Strauss was quoted in a Vatican City Associated Press report that was published in The Guardian (2 July 2024): click here
 
 

31 Oct 2022

Reflections on the Virgin Mary's Pussy

 
Aubrey Plaza as the Virgin Mary holding 
Grumpy Cat as the Meowsiah (2014) 

 
There are no cats in the Bible. 
 
Neverthless, during the Middle Ages, they silently crept their way into Christian mythology and became associated with the Virgin Mary, as evidenced in the work of many great artists including Leonardo, Rubens, and Rembrandt. 
 
It's not really clear why the Madonna became associated with a feline companion, but one legend is that a cat had given birth to a kitten beneath the manger in Bethlehem and that Mary was deeply touched by the display of maternal tenderness that mirrored her own love for the newborn baby Jesus. 
 
Further, it's sometimes claimed that when Jesus began to cry due to the coldness of the stable in which he lay, the she-cat instinctively jumped into his make-do crib and comforted the infant with the warmth of her body and gentle purring.      

That's a nice story. However, I can't help imagining in my more diabolical moments what might have happened if the cat had sucked the breath away from Mary's bundle of joy and suffocated the Son of God ...
 
Would Joseph have strangled the creature in a rage? 
 
Would Our Lady have adopted the kitten in order to compensate for the loss of her child and become its blessed surrogate mother? 
 
Would the Three Wise Men have fallen down in worship before the kitten and recognised him as their Messiah? 
 
Would we celebrate the birth of a feline saviour each December?   
 
Would Nietzsche have written a work entitled Die Antikatze?
 
And would we now find the above photo of Aubrey Plaza an iconic and profoundly serious image, rather than an amusing and mildly blasphemous one?
 
 
Note: this post is for Gail Marie Naylor, whose picture of the Virgin Mary holding a cat inspired me to write it: 


 
 

18 Jan 2021

On Erotico-Religious Lactation (Or Get Your Tits Out for the Saints)

St. Bernard of Clairvaux being treated to a squirt 
of fresh breastmilk by the Blessed Virgin Mary 
 
 
I. 
 
As I'm not a great lover of dairy products or female breasts, lactophilia has limited erotic appeal for me. 
 
However, for some individuals - and we're talking adults here, not babies - there's nothing more arousing (whilst, paradoxically, at the same time strangely comforting) than to suckle on a mammary gland swollen with rich, creamy milk.   
 
I suspect that had D. H. Lawrence chosen to develop the kinky relationship established between Sir Clifford Chatterley and Mrs Bolton, this is the direction it would have taken. For the former had already adopted an infantalised role in relation to the latter and liked nothing better than to feel her arms around his shoulders as he put his face on her bosom and allowed himself to be gently rocked and kissed like a baby:
 
"He would hold her hand, and rest his head on her breast [...] And he would gaze on her with wide, childish eyes, in a relaxation of Madonna-worship [...] letting go all his manhood, and sinking back to a childish position that was really perverse. And then he would put his hand into her bosom and feel her breasts, and kiss them in exaltation, the exaltation of perversity, of being a child when he was a man.
      Mrs Bolton was both thrilled and ashamed, she both loved it and hated it. Yet she never rebuffed or rebuked him. And they drew into a closer physical intimacy, an intimacy of perversity, when he was a child stricken with [...] an apparent wonderment, that looked almost like a religious exaltation: the perverse and literal rendering of 'except ye become again as a little child.'" [1]   
 
As I say, breastfeeding would seem to be the natural next step in this illicit love affair. But what really interests is how Lawrence stresses not just the erotic but also the religious aspect of the relationship - something that is crucial but often overlooked and which I'll pick up on below in section III ...

 
II. 
 
Breasts, particularly the nipples, are almost universally recognised as erogenous zones; certainly in Western culture. So it's no surprise that their stimulation is a common aspect of human sexual behaviour. But what some might find surprising is that milk production can be induced by regular suckling on the breast of a woman even when she's not pregnant or nursing an infant (note: this may require both patience and practice).  
 
Thus it isn't all that odd - and perhaps not even all that uncommon - that many couples proceed from oral stimulation of the nipples to actual breastfeeding. Indeed, lesbians regard this as a perfectly normal expression of affection and tenderness (much as they do golden showering, or so I'm told). 
 
That said, many people would still regard erotic lactation as a queer practice that goes against accepted norms and values, though that isn't something that troubles me; as I said at the opening of this post, I'm more lactose intolerant than intolerant of that which gives pleasure to others (be that producing milk, consuming milk, or just playing with breastmilk in a wet and messy sexual context).           
 
 
III.     
 
Those who know anything about the history of European art in the Middle Ages will be able to vouch for the fact that there are a number of erotico-religious works depicting the Virgin Mary breastfeeding not just the infant Jesus, but also adult males [2]
 
Perhaps the most famous example of this is the Lactation Bernadi (or, as it is known in English, the Lactation of Saint Bernard). An example of one work illustrating this visionary experience is shown above.
 
Now, you might think that it would be regarded as sinful or blasphemous to consume something intended to provide sustenance for Our Lord. But apparently not; apparently it's okay to drink Our Lady's sacred milk squirted straight from source (albeit from some distance). In fact, it's seen as a sign that the recipient is blessed and on the road to sainthood. 
 
Another interpretation of the story is that Mary allowed Bernard to sample her milk in order to demonstrate that she is Mother of the Church and, via the Church, the mother of all mankind. Or that she was attempting in her own manner to directly offer spiritual nourishment (her milk thus paralleling the role played by the blood of Christ). 
 
Either way, as someone once joked, it proves that Mary was the original MILF: Mother Imparting Liquid Faith ...  
 
 
Notes
 
[1] D. H. Lawrence, Lady Chatterley's Lover, ed. Michael Squires, (Cambridge University Press, 1993), p. 291.   

[2] After the Council of Trent (1545-1563), clerics discouraged nudity in religious art and the use of the Madonna Lactans iconography began to fade away. However, pictures involving St. Bernard being gifted milk by the Virgin survived even into the late Baroque period.
 
 

26 Dec 2020

Towards a Synthetic Nativity

 
O come, all ye cyborgs, joyful and triumphant 
O come ye, o come ye to Bethlehem 
 
 
Whilst looking at a piss-poor picture of the Nativity printed on the front of a crappy Christmas card, it occurred to me that whilst she certainly had problems of her own to deal with, one thing that the Blessed Virgin Mary didn't have to worry about was the presence of microplastics in her placenta. 
 
But that's now a very real issue for pregnant women presently awaiting (like the Blessed Virgin Zena) to give birth ...
 
For scientists have discovered a range of synthetic materials in tissue samples taken from new mothers in Italy and described this as a matter of great concern (even though at this stage the effect that the tiny particles may have is unknown and the women who took part in the study had no complications during pregnancy or with the births of their bei bambani) [1].
 
The fear is that chemicals found in the microplastics - which are small enough to be transported in the bloodstream - could damage the immune system of a developing foetus; or that we'll end up inadvertently creating a race of cyborg babies composed of human cells and inorganic elements. 
 
The research team, led by Dr. Antonio Ragusa, found microplastic fragments in two-thirds of the placentas sampled - and the fact that they only sampled 3% of the donated tissue suggests it's not just microplastic ocean pollution that should trouble us [2] ... 
 
 
Notes 
 
[1] The research is published in the scientific journal Environment International, Vol. 146 (Jan. 2021). The article, entitled 'Plasticenta: First evidence of microplastics in human placenta', by Antonio Ragusa et al, can be read online by clicking here.  
 
[2] Last year, over 320 million tons of plastic was manufactured and over 40% of this was used in single-use packaging.
 

21 May 2018

On the Art of the Long Neck 1: Parmigianino's Mannerist Madonna

Parmigianino: Madonna dal collo lungo (1534-40) 
Oil on wood (216 x 132 cm)


Despite what some people mistakenly think, Parmigianino is not a type of Italian hard cheese grated over pasta dishes, or shaved on to salads. It's the name, rather, by which the progidiously talented 16th century painter and printmaker Girolamo Francesco Maria Mazzola was commonly known.

Like other artists who worked in the Mannerist style, his work is characterised by its artificiality, its elegance and its sensuous distortion of the human figure. This is clearly seen in his iconic (but unorthodox and unfinished) picture known in English as the Madonna with the Long Neck (1534-40).

The painting depicts Mary seated on a high pedestal in luxurious blue robes and surrounded by half-a-dozen angels who have gathered round to take a peek at the (oversized) baby Jesus lying awkwardly on her blessed lap.

In the lower right-hand corner of the picture is the figure of St. Jerome, the theologian and historian who translated the Bible into Latin and a passionate devotee of the Virgin. Whether he's tiny in size or simply far away I'll leave for others to decide, but Parmigianino is clearly playing with perspective in this work.  

The thing that immediately strikes most viewers, however, is the fact that Parmigianino has given Mary a swan-like neck in a bid to make her look graceful and perhaps relate her story to that of other figures within religious mythology. Her slender hands and long fingers also suggest a becoming-swan - either that, or the artist's model was suffering from the genetic condition known as Marfan Syndrome, which affects the connective tissue.  


Notes

The Madonna with the Long Neck can be seen in the Uffizi Gallery (Florence).

To read the sister post to this one on Amedeo Modigliani's erotico-aesthetic fascination with long female necks, click here.

4 Mar 2014

On the Spectral Rape of the Virgin Mary



Astonishingly, some Christians continue to believe that if they lead modest, conventional lives unblemished by additional sin, then they'll avoid harm and receive God's blessing; or, at the very least, he'll leave them unmolested until they stand before him on the Day of Judgement. 

One might have thought that the shocking story of the girl-child Mary would have taught them differently. For here was a thirteen year old girl who, although born without sin due to her immaculate conception, was nevertheless leading a regular life of moral and social conformity, happily betrothed to a man, Joseph, according to the traditions of her people, and nervously awaiting her wedding night when they would be united as man and wife.

But, having already been selected by God as a broodmare (and doubtlessly groomed by him and his angelic servants throughout her childhood), Mary was never going to be allowed to live a happy, healthy, orthodox life as a Jewish wife and mother. Instead, she would be subject to spectral rape and divine impregnation and obliged to accept her role within a perversely insane religious melodrama:

"This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: his mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.
      But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, 'Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. ...'
      When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus."
 - Matthew 1: 18-24.

What Matthew's account wishes to reassure its readers is that Joseph is placated and, effectively, made complicit in the rape of his young wife and the exploitation of her fertility. It says nothing of how Mary felt about events. For an account of this, we have to turn to Luke. He tells us how God also sent the angel Gabriel to visit the virgin Mary and that he greeted her as the special plaything of the Lord:

"Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. But the angel said to her, 'Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favour with God. You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus ...'
      'How will this be,' Mary asked the angel, 'since I am a virgin?'
     The angel answered, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.'"
- Luke 1: 29-38
     
Recognizing that she has no choice in the matter, Mary gives what might be regarded as consent: 'I am the Lord's servant. Let it be as you have said.' Only then, having got her agreement to be fucked, does Gabriel depart. But her consent is clearly rendered null and void given her age and the situation of extreme duress or coercion under which it was given.

It surely doesn't take much to imagine how, despite her resignation, Mary remains distressed; she is clearly agreeing to act in a manner that she would not normally act were she genuinely free to choose. If it's difficult to say no to sexual predators in positions of power and authority, it's virtually impossible to say no to a god: ask Leda. But yes doesn't always mean yes and all the pure white lilies in the world don't make it so.