Face of Christ in Painting

I received this email yesterday from an artist requesting my opinion. Feel free to leave your own opinion in the comments:
Being an artist, in August of 1996 I painted a picture.
It was supposed to be a simple picture of a large cross on a white background.
The picture is 24 x 30. The two axis of the cross are 11.5 inches wide.
Roughly 28 x 22.5. The cross was made by taking a pallet of mixed colors of paint and with one vertical and one horizontal swipe nothing more.
When the paint dried you could "I would say" clearly see the face of Christ on the cross. I was so afraid I put the picture away and in the last 8 years have only showed it to several of my friends. Please give me your honest input on what you see in and think about my picture.
You can either call or email me back.
This is no joke.
Warmest Regards,
DiMarcia (Dee) Ancrum
(Click on the image to enlarge it. I had to trim it down significantly because the image file was huge... 3.3MB)
Posted By: Alex | Date:
Mon Jan 17, 2005 |
Permalink |
Total Comments: 66
Category:
Art,
Religion
Comments
Listed in chronological order. Newest comments at the end.
Page 1 of 4 pages 1 2 3 > Last »
Well, I'm glad she can see it, because I can't. I suppose I can see something at the top of the cross, but I wouldn't leap to the conclusion it was Jesus.
Posted by Tanith on Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 10:37 AM
The first time I looked at it, I could see the head and shoulders of a rather cartoonish looking man in the centre. The second time, I saw the face of a man in the cente with the eyes just below the top of the horizontal. Hey - if you're told something's there, then you're likely to see it.
Posted by Alaiva in Canada on Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 10:52 AM
it's very clear.... top left hand side of the vertical bar..... Skeletor!
Posted by Azrael on Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 11:20 AM
Who knows, if you say it's there, sell it on eBay.
Posted by sbnature in sb ca on Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 12:00 PM
If it's haunted by the ghost of Jesus, then it'll sell great on ebay.
Posted by Azrael on Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 12:29 PM
Jesus is dubious. tehre's no beard, the eyes are off center--looks like jesus by way of Picasso, maybe. Now the face at the top, that is clearly Brak.
Posted by rwt1138 on Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 12:29 PM
The guy is obviously a religious nutcase. I don't see any face at all. If it really is a message from Jesus, could he ask him why God made the tsunami?
Posted by Captain Al in Alberta, Canada on Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 12:46 PM
I didn't see anything...
Posted by Maegan in Tampa, FL - USA on Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 12:48 PM
That totally doesn't look like me! I dont see it at all unless your like some religious person who wants to make $$$ off of some painting that you claim looks like me!
Posted by Jesus in heaven on Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 12:53 PM
I'm pretty sure it's Mojo Nixon.
Posted by IndyGuy in Indianapolis, IN on Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 12:57 PM
The picture is too grainy to really make much of anything out of the paint. Who paints two swipes of brown and calls it a painting anyway? I think he's trying to salvage a really BAD idea.
Posted by Andrew J in Des Moines, IA on Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 12:57 PM
I definately Skeletor in the upper left hand side, but not so much The Late Great JC.
Posted by DaveO in Denver, Co on Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 12:58 PM
I see nothing. Swipes of paint, which, like Andrew said, is not exactly the most original idea in the world.
Posted by James D on Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 01:07 PM
I don't see it. *shrug*
Posted by lilad in Canada on Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 01:21 PM
Aside from the fact that nobody actually knows what Jesus looks like anyway...the image of Jesus as a long haired blue eyed guy was dreamt up in renaissance Europe(which conveniently linked well with their own needs to lord it over north Africa/mid east territories)
So if the statement was "To me, it has a passing resemblance to the modern idea of the image of Christ," then yes. She would be correct in making that statement.
The statement "When the paint dried you could 'I would say' clearly see the face of Christ on the cross" is false.
But hey, if it makes you happy/makes you a buck...go for it.
Posted by David on Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 01:41 PM
It could be two swipes, but probably is more.
The horizontal stripe in relatively uniform, as one would expect from this kind of gestural painting.
The vertical stripe is uniform also, but only the lower two thirds. The upper third has obviously been doctored.
'images' can be seen anywhere, the brain has the capacity to try to make sense, or information, out of non-sense, disorganised material in our field of vision from clouds to oil stains, tree follaige to rusted areas on metal.
Posted by pepe nero in new york on Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 01:45 PM
I don't see Mr JC in this picture either. However, I don't think the painting has been doctored- I think that the more detailed coloring in the top arm of the cross is because that is where the paint was first applied and then squeegied down. Then the squeegie was picked up, put on the right edge of the paper, and moved to the left to make the cross bar.
I'm a painter, and I agree that it's not a very good painter. I'm very into abstract experssionism. I love Robert Motherwell and Ellsworth Kelly- both who make rather large, bold, simple works- but this doesn't quite compare.
Posted by Katey on Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 01:52 PM
i don't see it!!
Posted by kara in Avondale, AZ on Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 01:53 PM
I mean "not a very good painting."
Alex, have you seen any other work from this artist? And are they male or female? There seems to be some confusion about this.
ps: I paint but I don't think I'm a very good painter either. I guess that's because my taste exceedes my talents. I make a good grilled cheese sandwich, though.

Posted by Katey on Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 01:54 PM
I see it now!!!!!! I think he's giving you the thumbs up to go ahead and sell it.
Posted by sbnature in sb ca on Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 02:17 PM
Page 1 of 4 pages 1 2 3 > Last »