Which artist has caused the most harm to Western culture? Picasso? Warhol? Maplethorpe?
Photographer and philosopher Laszlo Bencze offers a surprising answer: Michelangelo
It was Michelangelo who chose to depict God in such a profoundly powerful manner that no member of Western Civilization can escape thinking of God creating Adam—their forefingers just having touched—on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. There’s a reason God tells us not to attempt to depict Him. It’s not that some cheap, silly, inept, awkward, or satirical image might diminish Him. It’s that some truly great artist might create an image so compelling that it would ever after define and limit Him.
So now we are stuck with this image of God as an old man (vigorous though he may be), clad in a rough woven robe, presumably wearing sandals, grey bearded, no longer in his prime, unacquainted with modern technology, not up on current literature or philosophy, paternalistic, bombastic, stubborn, opinionated, and just plain out of touch.
Is there anyone among us who doesn’t at least fleetingly glimpse Michelangelo’s vision whenever anyone mentions God, the Creator, or the Intelligent Designer?
Perhaps – to people who only view art without ever feeling or considering the message or impact of the art – or who never think about God very deeply.
I can’t even begin to imagine what God *looks* like. What I love about Michelangelo’s picture is the God reaching out to man and man reaching out to God. One critic (Sister Wendy!) phrased it along the lines of this beautiful creation (man) who has no LIFE until God touches his “flaccid finger.” Yet, we don’t see the touch – we see the space between. To replicate the moment would be impossible, but art isn’t about replicating a moment, is it?
I am quite sure Michelangelo knew the Biblical account involving dust and breath of life, but I still think he got a correct message across.
Can you blame people for seeing “old” when God is “older” than everything? : ) Even if it’s inaccurate, we humans have very limited minds, after all!
Great post. Yes, isn’t it Chesterton who wrote that, in a way, God is actually younger than tired, old, and worn out humanity? But it’s hard to get the ‘God as old man’ image out of one’s head.
A bit of an interesting provocation, but it bears pointing out that, whatever one thinks of it, the depiction of God the Father as a white-bearded old man goes back much further in Christian art than Michelangelo. For example, there are Orthodox icons of the “Ancient of Days” that depict the Father that way. It should be said, there has been a great deal of controversy in the East over whether such depictions were appropriate or not, whereas in the West there really hasn’t been much debate over it. Whether that’s due to Michelangelo or other factors is perhaps open for debate.
There are plenty of Orthodox icons that depict God the Father in various ways, as an older bearded man, as an angel (in depictions of the Trinity and the angelic visitors to Abraham) and in the Baptism and Resurrection as a being of pure light. I have also seen Roman Catholic depictions that showed the Father as an old man, in versions both modern and ancient. And, by the way, is the Holy Spirit really a dove?
Recall the theology of icons, as windows to heavenly spiritual realities that are otherwise invisible to us. It is a modern conceit that old men are feeble, forgetful and out of touch. Before our time, they were repositories of wisdom, experience and good advice, and bestowers of blessings. That we see these images as something else is our fault, not the artists’.
I believe the blog post is an overstatement. There are limits and preconceived notions that we all have to battle with in our perception of who God is. But jumping to the conclusion that an artist’s depiction of the Heavenly Father (in particular Michelangelo’s depiction) has done more harm than good is ridiculous. The incarnation of Christ seems to me to give some artistic license to those artists who depict God in flesh-of course, keeping in mind the intent of the depiction.
In the movie “Erick the Viking”, the Norse gods are portrayed as careless, capricious children instead of men of any age. Given the choice, I think we are better off with Michelangelo’s vision. Thinking of God as aged is only a problem in a culture that worships youth. If you respect your elders, there is no problem with an image of God (to rephrase the article) as a vigorous old man clad in a rough woven robe, presumably wearing sandals, grey bearded, full of dignity perhaps, as well ancient knowledge, compassion, justice, etc. All the negative’s in the article come from Mr. Benze’s perspective, not from Michelangelo’s art.