Ugly Jesus
By Ray Charles Istre
Was Jesus ugly? The Bible seems to indicate that he might have been…
He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
Isaiah 53:2 (New International Version)
It also says that during the crucifixion, his visage was marred beyond recognition.
I just received an email from Ray Charles Istre, artist and creator of the new Ugly Jesus series. You can view his work here:
Ugly Jesus home page
Description of the Ugly Jesus Project
Gallery of sketches
I’m still not entirely how I feel about the project. When I first saw the pictures, I have to admit I was somewhat offended.
But then I began to ask myself, why? Why is this offensive? Certainly I feel that any attempt to mock Christ is offensive to Christianity, but after pondering the issue, I don’t think Istre is attempting to mock.
But still, something about it makes me cringe. You know that art is effective when it evokes emotion, and in that sense the work is a success. Could it be that it makes me uncomfortable because it so radically clashes with the preconceived image of Jesus that has been ingrained in me over the years?
Part of the point of “Ugly Blog” is to get people to think, and in that regard I share something in common with Istre. But perhaps, my indecisive opinion is based in part on my inability to easily ascertain his motives for the project.
Yes the project is thought-provoking, but is it right to use Jesus as the subject matter of art created for the purpose of being “art” and not as a means of worship or evangelism? If the answer is “yes”, then where do we draw the line of appropriateness? And if the answer is “no”, then why?
Hmmm… if you have any comments, please post them. This seems to be a timely issue in light of the recent “Mohammed cartoon” controversy.
Honest feedback wanted!
March 8th, 2006 at 9:01 pm
About this “Ugly Jesus” topic, i feel that Jesus can be portrayed in different ways, and certainly there can be different interpretations of how he would have looked. The thing that is sort of disconcerting to me is how it straight up says on the homepage “Ugly’ Jesus is more about how Jesus of Nazareth has been portrayed by atists and the media than it is about Jesus himself.” I feel if Jesus is going to be the topic of an artistic study there should also be some influence in this from who Jesus was, and what he means to so many. Most art and media portrays Jesus a certain way for a reason, this reason being they are inspired by who he is.
March 10th, 2006 at 12:58 pm
“Ugly” Jesus is about artistic images of Jesus and the media. A factual knowledge of Jesus is necessary to compare with what these artistic images portray.
The facts are that Jesus did not leave a portrait or sculpture of himself. There is no physical description in the scriptures from his contemporaries (but to say he had a beard and that only to describe that it was plucked out on the cross). This may have had something to do with the “no graven image” law of Moses. To this day, Jewish tradition is not very involved in visual arts such as painting or sculpture.
If Jesus were interested in a media campaign such as Caesar or the Medici family, there would be plenty of images ready to withstand the billions of kisses to its feet (”it’s” feet, as opposed to His feet). Besides that, if Jesus was Jewish, why make him look European, American, African, Asian or androgynous?
The reason I called the series, “Ugly” Jesus, was to make light of the “Pretty” and “GQ” versions that we all know so well. Are these images “branded” into our minds like a corporate logo? If not, why is a particular “face” in the snow or in that pancake, recognized as “Jesus”?
Did Jesus come looking like a “regular Joe”, leaving no visual record of his physical body for a reason? I think so, and that is why “Ugly” Jesus is more about artistic imagery and media interpretations of Jesus than about Jesus himself. Jesus wasn’t interested, but for me, art is my job so I relate to the various “Jesi”.
Art is a conversation between human beings rather than God speaking to us. God is Spirit and his masterpiece is Jesus Christ. If you want to know God, talk to Jesus (not to be confused with his many and varied artistic interpretations).
While one side of me is glad to see discussion about Jesus, another side of me wants to hear Pauls warnings about “another Jesus”. The fact that there are a gazillion versions or doctrines, should come as no surprise.
“Pretty”, “GQ”, “Shot-gun Toten’”, or “Ugly”, Jesus, has not been given all authority in heaven and earth. The various “Jesi” put together, could not knock Jesus of Nazareth off of his throne but we need to understand how they could influence we who are so easily influenced.
April 9th, 2006 at 2:39 pm
Check out the newspaper article by Terri Jo Ryan in the Waco, Tribune Herald. Eric is quoted from this blog in the article. Click the link below
http://www.wacotrib.com/featr/content/features/stories/2006/04/09/04092006wacuglysjesus.html
The book is out now, ready to order from www.uglyjesus.com
Ray Charles Istre
April 9th, 2006 at 5:09 pm
Hey that’s cool- thanks for letting me know!
E
April 9th, 2006 at 9:55 pm
Please sketch or draw the real picture of Jesus that was described in the king james bible in Isiah 53:2.
See also Matthew 17: 2. Let the world see him as he really looked like, ok.
April 9th, 2006 at 10:23 pm
Genevieve, Are you saying you think that Istre is or isn’t giving an accurate portrayal? Isaiah 53:2 seems to coincide with his project, but Matthew 17:2 may or may not…
There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light.
April 11th, 2006 at 7:42 pm
Genevieve,
There is no way you or I can know exactly what Jesus looked like as a man. The whole issue with my project is limited to these images painted by artists and moviemakers.
When he was transfigured, he took on a whole new appearance with the Glory of God. It reminds me of the description in Revelations where his hair was like lambs wool. While the transfiguration was an actual event, the description in Revelations seems to me to be more of a spiritual description.
Don’t fret though, because Jesus will return and every eye shall see him.
April 11th, 2006 at 10:18 pm
Hey Ray -
As I was in the National Gallery in Washington DC a couple weeks ago, I noticed that there were other times in history when artists definitely seemed to portray Jesus as being “ugly”. Of course they also depicted people differently in general, but even relative to the other people within the same paintings, it seems they did not view Jesus as being above average or attractive…
Here are details from some photos I snapped while I was there…
Constantijn van Renesse (Rembrandt workshop), 1650/1652
Benvenuto Di Giovanni, 1491
Benvenuto Di Giovanni, 1491
Rimini, c. 1330/1340
I’m wondering if the image of “good-looking Jesus” is really a fairly modern phenomenon, and also whether it is mainly restricted to western society…
April 13th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
It is true that my “Ugly” Jesus is not the first of its kind. Some of the Byzantine “Jesi” are very judgmental and may be seen as ‘ugly.’ Many of the mideavil portrayals could be termed, ‘ugly.’ Some of the Gothic ‘Jesi’ are very ugly, even grotesque.
If you did research on it, I think you would find that Jesus is the most portrayed individual in the history of mankind. Buddah may be close because of the population in Asia, but the west has had massive printing and governmental support for the arts, especially religious art, over the past 2000 years. It is amazing to me, as a Christian, that Jesus was so uninterested in having his image remembered and how do we re-act?… we do a gazzillion attempts to portray him.
One of the questions raised in my book is, “Why is the ‘pretty’ or ‘GQ’ images so popular?” Given the fact that there are so many ‘Jesi’ in the art world, why is it that the popular ones are a certain look? Could the promotion of especially “pretty” and “GQ” Jesus have a competition going for branding control? Branding such as seen in the promotion of corporate logo’s, I mean. If this is not intentional, is the branding a practical development of the mass production of the images?
Jesus went to be with the Father. He said he would send the comforter, the Holy Spirit, who would show us the things of him. We have the Holy Spirit to teach us the things of Jesus.
To answer your question, the “good looking Jesus” (what I call ‘pretty’ Jesus) really got going in the Italian Rennaisance particularly by DaVinci and Raphael. The “GQ” Jesus seems to me to be what Michelangelo was trying to achieve in the Last Judgment. This large mural in the Sistine Chapel, has been seen as a statement by Michelangelo, of the judgment faced by the Roman Empire, of the armies invading northern Europe at the time. The Rennaisance may have been the height of the “Holy” Roman Empire, but it seems to be the beginning of it’s downfall as well. The reformation was about to get underway and it’s grip on Europe was beginning to loosen.
To me, art is a conversation between human beings. We get our revelation of Jesus from the Spirit of God.
April 13th, 2006 at 5:20 pm
Hey Ray,
It’s good to hear your comments on that. It is really intersting how as society “we do a gazzillion attempts to portray him.” It also reminds me of other religious icons and symbols, such as the cross, which we are mindful of this Easter season.
We have taken the cross, which is arguably the most powerful thing that ever occured in history, and reduced it to a fashion accessory.
I am also encouraged by your pointing to God the Holy Spirit for revelation about Jesus. Although you have stated on your site and in the newspaper that Ugly Jesus is not an evangelistic endeavor, it seems maybe you are becoming more inclined to tell people to “look to Him” for the real answers…
Would you say it’s a form of covert evangelism because it causes people to ponder the questions, or is that too strong a statement?
Has this project changed you, and in what way? Have any of your views or motives changed as you created the project and now as you publicize it?
April 19th, 2006 at 7:11 pm
Hey Eric,
While I do support evangelistic efforts, I don’t consider this book to be in that vein. It is mainly about art and media portrayals of Jesus. It’s not that Jesus has become secular, but the portrayal of “Jesi” (plural imagery of Jesus) may in fact, be secular. Of course, we know better than to confuse Jesus with his artistic portrayals.
I’ve started out with this direction and plan to stay in it. If the Lord wants to use me, fine
Anyone who gets to know Jesus, does so from hearing the Spirit of God. He is not an intellectual persuit.
God Bless you bro
Be praying with me. I’ve sold my first copies to Hastings Book Store and want to do more. Will have a book signing on May 6, after two weeks of raffling off an original drawing at the store.
Ray
April 19th, 2006 at 8:36 pm
- Ray He wants to use you. And yes I will pray for you.
Blessings
- Eric
April 21st, 2006 at 12:53 pm
Thanks brother
May 20th, 2006 at 10:45 am
hey Eric,
Hope all is well with you and yours…
Check out my blog for the latest on my book signing at the Hastings Book Store in Waco, Texas. It was interesting to say the least. There was a threatened boycott of the store, and I had to stay over an hour later than the 4 hours planned, just talking to people. I think there may be something that could have wings here.
Ray Charles Istre
May 24th, 2006 at 10:29 am
I personally feel that regardless of how He looked like, it still doesn’t change the fact that He is beautiful from the inside out, and that He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.
Ugliness is abhorrence only in the eyes of man, which is socially constructed anyways.
Just passing by.
June 28th, 2006 at 8:37 pm
Right you are anne-jo,
All any artist can possibly deal with is appearance. One of the most interesting probabilities about Jesus is that he was not at all interested in having his portrait made for posterity. At the least, he was not going to allow himself to sit for any artist to do a portrait.
The only portrait he left is himself, transfigured on the mount… as Peter described him. Now that’s art!
Ray Charles Istre