halos

Painting or icon? That big hole in New York Times report on Catholic University controversy

Painting or icon? That big hole in New York Times report on Catholic University controversy

Let’s start here: There is nothing new about artists painting images of Jesus as a Black man.

A few of these images may have been controversial at the time of their creation, in part because of the political motivations of some (repeat “some”) artists. But the vast majority are clearly works of Christian devotion showing reverence for the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. For many Christians, these images are way less problematic than the omnipresent Warner Sallman “Head of Christ” painting from 1940, depicting Jesus with light, wavy hair and very European features.

As an Eastern Orthodox Christian, the image of Jesus that I know best is the ancient Christ Pantocrator icon from St. Catherine’s Monastery at Mt. Sinai. It is a complex icon of Jesus that, well, would be hard to label as one of the “surfer Jesus” images in some contemporary churches.

This brings me to that New York Times story that ran the other day with this dramatic double-decker headline:

A Painting of George Floyd Roils Catholic University

At the Catholic University of America in Washington, conservative students called for a campus ban on further displays of an artwork that depicts Floyd as Jesus.

This story does a pretty good job of describing the timeline of this controversy — which is described as yet another clash over race, art and religion. It’s clear that, for the leaders of private schools, controversies of this kind are especially complex.

The problem, for me, is that the image in question — “Mama,” by Kelly Latimore — is consistently described as a painting based on the famous Pieta statue by Michelangelo.

Thus, what we have here is a “painting,” based on one of the most famous statues in Western Christian art, but is clearly meant to be interpreted as a holy icon in the Eastern Orthodox tradition.

Did you follow that? The journalism question here is whether the Times team did an adequate job of describing why the term “icon” — which does not appear in the story — is so important, if the goal is to understand the thinking of some of the Catholics (the story contains zero input from the Orthodox) who believe that this painting is blasphemous. Here is the overture:


Please respect our Commenting Policy