This painting which we’ll call “Our Lady of Hanging Five” was put on a wall illegally. It’s graffiti and it’s just plain ol’ dopey if you ask me. But that hasn’t stopped government officials from spending thousands of dollars in taxpayer money to preserve it.
The Blaze reports:
The surfing Madonna’s beauty is drawing a mass following, and even city officials who say she must go acknowledge they too have been taken by her. They have spent thousands to hire an art conservation agency to find the best way to remove her without causing damage.
Seriously? I guess this passes as religious art for libs.
But think about this -the city is spending money to preserve illegal graffiti? And what happened to the separation of church and state? We have a city spending taxpayer money to preserve “religious art” like this? Call the ACLU! Call Michael Newdow!
June 8, 2011 at 4:49 pm
What if someone paints Mohammed doing x? My guess is the wall comes down with the building and everyone associated with it gets investigated and fined by the DOJ. But our Madonna is fair game for sacrilege. Perhaps, it is our fault because we don't protest loud enough or "convincingly" enough. The wheel that squeaks the loudest gets the oil. I say we protest. We owe our mother that much – at the very least.
June 8, 2011 at 5:08 pm
Our Lady of Guadaloupe stands on the moon supported by angels or upon the world crushing the head of a serpent. And although the copyright may be 450 years old, the present artist has not the authority to diminish or obscure the virginity and holiness of the blessed Virgin Mary as Mary herself depicted in the telma of Juan Diego. Both Mary and Juan have just cause for plagiarism, pirating intellectual property rights, desecration of the sacred and sovereign persons as both, Mary and Juan, have chosen to be depicted. It is like painting a moustache on George Washington, not out of love but out of contempt. Contempt of court and Justice cannot be supported or allowed with tax dollars.
Mary De Voe
June 8, 2011 at 6:44 pm
I'm going to be the contrarian here and say I have no problem with the painting. It's not of especially high quality, but I've been all over Italy and seen some less than stellar depictions of the Virgin. It's not all of Sistine Chapel quality. Surfing is not a sinful activity. It used to be pretty common practice to paint religious scenes and subjects with contemporary clothing and settings. I would love to see a revival of this practice in the modern art world. It is just as anachronistic to depict Mary as a 16th century aristocratic woman embroidering tapestries as it is to have her surfing. I don't think the painting should be conserved at tax payer expense, but if someone likes it and wants to take care of it why not. I would love to see more contemporary artists taking up religious figures in a positive way.
June 8, 2011 at 8:54 pm
"Religious art for libs:" whatever is vain, whatever bland, whatever banal, if a thing is ugly or irritating to the viewer, show these.
June 8, 2011 at 8:59 pm
I'm inclined to agree with Lauren; I don't have a problem with it.
Do I like it? No, not particularly, but I wouldn't go do far as to call it a sacrilege. It lacks reverence, certainly, but it doesn't transgress the virtue of a sacred figure; surfing is not in and of itself lacking in virtue. It's a rather neutral activity.
I don't think it's any worse than the inspirational Jesus sports statues people can buy (look at the football one… that is one awfully bold child trying to tackle Jesus): http://www.catholicshopper.com/products/inspirational_sport_statues.html
Besides, I can't remember the last time a bunch of liberals defended a piece of religious art that didn't use human waste as a medium… don't look a gift horse in the mouth, you know?
June 9, 2011 at 1:15 am
That wall looks like Frida Kahlo threw up on it. It doesn't particularly seem disrespectful to me – falling into the category of peasant folk art.
June 9, 2011 at 1:00 pm
I'm willing to bet that if the phrase "save the ocean" were missing, so would any efforts at conservation.
GO GREEN!
June 9, 2011 at 1:02 pm
It's not a painting. It's a mosaic. Take a look at other pictures of it, and you can see the stones in it. It's actually quite gorgeous, and obviously professionally done. It's just that it was done without the city's permission, and it is thought that is because it is religious in nature. I think it brings our county back to it's Catholic heritage.
Also, they're not keeping it up, although many of us wish they would. I like it, and it's definitely needed in Encinitas. Catholics seem to be less and less accepted in San Diego county. They were just going to take a sledge-hammer to the mosaic, because it will be expensive to remove intact. However, I'm glad that they are going to find a way to keep it intact.