Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
That may be the idea NOW, but it wasn't then. You're looking at history (and art history in particular) with revisionist glasses. What started out as a tool for recruitment turned into the standard of the day and then tradition. By the time the Renassiance rolled around, I'm sure most artists didn't even give it thought. After all, most of them were working without access to most of the information we have today about the actual conditions in Palestine at the birth of Christ. If you've ever taken an historigraphy course, you know what I mean. Accurate histories are a very recent invention.
|
Didn't give it thought = idiot. The thing is, it was never a secret that Jesus was born in what is now Israel, and what was then the Ottoman Empire, which was not white. That wasn't history then, it was current events.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
Here's what I don't get - you're admitting that any artist that depicted Jesus as an Arab (or anything other than white) would be "way ahead of their time", yet you've cast the entirety of artists from Medieval times up to about 30-40 years ago as "idiots".
|
You somehow misread my post. If an artist sarcastically painted Jesus as white back then as a way to represent the lies of the church or the whitewashing of the teaching of Jesus, THEN they'd be ahead of their time. Like I said, "a political statement".