On a recent visit to New York City, while visiting The Metropolitan Museum of Art, I was shocked, SHOCKED to see this picture The Holy Family with Shepherds, 1616
Jacob Jordaens (Flemish, 1593-1678). I can't show the picture here due to the usage restrictions on the museum site, but you can either follow the link from the title or view it on my site at http://www.bigtimepatriot.com/default.asp?itemID=428 . Suffice it to say that the shepherds are getting an eyeful of the Madonna's maternal breast. I only hope that the decent Christian zealots of America will crack down on this obscene artist. Sure this Jordaens guy might have died 327 years ago, but I don't think we should let him off easy just for that.
Sure, the idea that viewing the human breast is evil is something that over the last 2000 years has only occasionally been taken as a moral dilemma. Sure, 400 years ago, viewing the breast of the Mother of Jesus was not a big deal, in fact its symbolism was important as part of a depiction of faith.
But many people in America know better than that. The timeless values of 2000 years of Christianity are one thing, but the values of the last 50 years are the ones that need to be enforced by strict moral admonishment. These people are conservatives, but its not as if they are really at all interested in conserving real ''old time'' values, they are really interested in conserving the values of the recent past as they imagined it was. The golden ages for conservatives don't appear to be 300 years ago or 1000 years ago or 2000 years ago, it was just the world of several decades ago as seen through the gloss of memory and its ability to diminish the actual nasty bits of the past.
Article comments
1 - francisco68
I read this post disbelievingly. I assumed it was tongue in cheek satire on the bizarre religious right, our very own Elmer Gantry Shiite Christians running around again (the Victorians ruined many a painting with fig leaves) trying to impose their narrow minded and mindless sentiments on the world - including the world of 17th c. art. A 1616 Flemish painting has an infant Christ nursing. Wow!
Then I read Big Time Patriot's blog and some of his links and a few of his collected Blog critic posts and guess what?
I cannot figure out if he is a decent person with an incredibly wry sense of humor or an evil censor who would paint fig leaves on paintings and/or dance at the nearest book burning.
I am lost on this one. The painting is, says the Met, important as an art historical objet d'art and I'd love to be able to come back to the City to see it even though I am not as drawn to the Renaissance as to the course of art from the Impressionists to yesterday afternoon at 9:30.
But I am still confused. He cannot be serious. So is this a Dave Barry kind of thing or a dangerous religious fascist on the loose?
On the other hand he doesn't seem to like the junior president from Texas so he can't be all bad.
2 - Aaman
I am eternally grateful to this post for pointing me to the very fine Met webpage. While I have visited the Met, and most of the world's great museums, it was a serious lacuna on my part not to have been to the Met's website.
Apart from this most excellent painting, I recommend a browse through the vast collection available online.
3 - gonzo marx
oh francisco68....you poor person..i believe you are in serious need of having yer "funnybone" examined...
i can reccomend a nice 12 step Program to excercise you Satire muscle..
it seems Big Time Patriot here is continuing in the fine Tradition of American greats such as Mark Twain, Will Rogers, Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, Hunter Thompson, Bill Hicks, Bill Maher, and Jon Stewart (chronological order, not neccesarily in order of Greatness) in utilizing Humor to emphasise a Point..
/golfclap
keep up the fine work...you keep typing..i'll read more
Excelsior!
4 - francisco68
Thanks for the funnybone directions. We live too close to a group of religious radical fundamentalists who are here in Mexico to convert the world to the "true religion", whatever that is. They have spoiled me for satire because they are so serious. For example they had one of the most beautiful gardens I had ever seen and totally destroyed it to the last leaf when building a place for their loudspeaker sermons. I became too ready to believe the worst.
I, too, thank you for the Met's webpage and a look at another painting I won't get to see in the "flesh". And I will visit the nearest curandero/native healer and have my funny bone splinted. One does have to watch how wry is wry.
5 - Mat
Great post. Thanks for a much needed laugh. I nominate it for the best title I've seen in ages award.
6 - purple tigress
Check out the Jamster ads with the annoying thing or frog or whatever you want to call it.
It used to have evidence of genitals (male and very small) and then suddenly yesterday I noticed the ads have a very green (St. Patrick's Day theme?) fig leaf.
The morality patrol at work?
7 - jadester
more likely a jibe at the morality crowd at the same time as honouring St Paddy's Day
As for satire, the problem with good satire these days is that there seems to be many more people around that you think are satire but are actually being serious, i.e. good satire is almost too close to real.
Some good examples have been recent comedy shows (at least here in the UK)
8 - Purple Tigress
An article on Jamster's questionable critter.
9 - Tristan
nice succulent boob there .........
got milk ????
10 - aacool
Troll visiting from Philistine, I presume
11 - swingingpuss
Boob in question seemed too small to er...satisfy the infant. Did they have wet nurses then?;)
12 - Eric Olsen
very nice BTP, your last paragraph is particularly insightful and well-written
13 - RJ
If Mary was a vigrin, how did her body know to produce milk? ;-P
14 - RJ
virgin*...
15 - alienboy
lol
16 - Dave Nalle
With or without a penis that Frog is still damned annoying.
Dave
17 - Tristan
ribbettttttttttttttttt ....!