usatoday24

It is not necessary to be a scholar, or have an eye trained in the study of medieval art. Soon you are familiar with the Christian iconography of the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth centuries or have seen any of the Religious altarpieces That they painted themselves in Europe at that time, you are likely to ask yourself a question: why do they show the Child Jesus like this, ugly, aged, touched? And ugly, aged and touched are three adjectives that probably fall short for not a few of the medieval portraits that represent Jesus in their early years, in Mary’s arms. Where there should be a child in his most tender childhood we find a creature with wrinkles, incipient baldness and the expression of a philosopher submerged in brave reflections. The most curious thing is that they are not due to lack of expertise of artists. They are anything but childish because that is what was sought. Portraits of the child? Jesus. There are examples to bore. Paolo Veneziano, Duccio di Buoninasegna, Massaccio, Giotto… If something has in common their representations of the Virgin and the Child Jesus, beyond having painted them between the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries and always represent the same religious characters, it is how they did. They were supposed to represent a young woman with her newborn son or only a few years, but what came out of her brushes was very different: “old children”, creatures not very healthy who seem sexagenarians about to sign retirement. Instead of angelic faces, they created incipient baldness heads, wrinkles and expressions that evoke anything except the idea of childhood. And to show a button. Or several. Arrives with a look at the child Jesus of ‘Crevole Madonna’ (1283-1284), by Duccio Di Buoninasegna who looks at you from the right side of the cover image. Or this other painted by Giotto At the beginning of the fourteenth century and observes you with an equally intense expression under these lines. Detail of ‘Maestà di Ognissanti’, by Giotto, the beginning of the fourteenth century. Lack of expertise? That is the first explanation that comes to mind: if they painted the Child Jesus of that guise, maybe it was because of the ability of those who handled the brushes. The reality is much more complex … and fascinating. “These ugly babies were very intentional,” Phil Edwards explains in Vox Magazine. They were more or less skilled, when drawing the face of Jesus the painters were guided by conventions, an assimilated and shared code and a cultural background that in this case affected both the idea of childhood and especially that of the Child Jesus himself. In fact, one of the keys that help us understand these pieces is that medieval artists did not seek to faithfully capture reality. If their babies are not realistic it is because they were not interested in realism. The message matters, not fidelity. “The strangeness we see in medieval art is due to the lack of interest in naturalism. They were more inclined to expressionist conventions,” Matthew Averett recountsProfessor at Creighton. Each painter handled their own brushes and paintings, true; But in a context that influenced his works. They were the creators, but they resorted to a language and clear conventions. “The idea of artistic freedom to represent these people as one would have been new,” he adds. “Art was not interested in naturalism, but rather in the theological expression,” emphasize in The conversation Angela McCarthy, from the University of Notre Dame Australia. And that does not notice only in the aspect with which the Child Jesus was portrayed. In Western art theology also influenced COMPOSITIONS: Jesus usually appears sitting with a mature or diaper posture. “The latter was an attempt to represent the biblical references to a child wrapped in diapers or the shroud placed on Jesus after his death,” Apostille McCarthy. Detail of a representation of the Child Jesus of the mid -14th century of Paolo Veneziano. Do not say a child, give better “homunculus”. If there is a word that helps to understand those disturbing “children-man” who rest in Maria’s lap and look at us from the medieval tables is that: homunculus, which means “Little Man”. The Child Jesus was after all a child, but not anyone. McCarthy recalls that his artistic representation with Mary began to expand after the Council of Ephesus, in 431, and not much later, in 451, another council was held in Chalcedon that would be key to the representations of the Child Jesus: “Part of the interpretation that the Church made of the Council was that Jesus was fully human and divine. Some theologians interpreted that this meant that this meant that this was fully formed. with knowledge of his divinity “, reveals The expert of the University of Notre Dame Australia: “This was difficult to represent in art and hence the name of the child.” “Perfectly formed”. What we observe in the Middle Ages altarpieces is therefore not a simple (more or less realistic) representation of a child with his mother. No. The message is more complex … and rich. It shows us an idea of the Jesus Child influenced by Christian theology and certain conventions. And in which that concept, the “homunculus.” “There is the idea that Jesus was perfectly formed and unchanged”, Remember Averett“And if you combine that with Byzantine painting, it became a standard form to represent Jesus. In some of these images it seems that he had baldness with an adult pattern.” Good example is the child who observes you from the left side of the composition that opens this report. The image is taken from ‘Madonna Della Pace’an icon that, as they remember from the Santi Giovanni E Paolo Basilica, was donated to the Dominicans by a senator who took him from Constantinople in the mid -fourteenth. “In the eastern orthodox tradition, from approximately the sixth century to the present, the child Jesus looks like a little man,” McCarthy abounds. Detail of ‘Virgen … Read more