Alex Smart Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hello Teacup, Sue, and others,
>
> Well, I have looked closely at this painting (high
> res internet image) and I'm blessed if I can see
> anything even remotely sexual about it.
>

~ Sigh~

In other words, you are asking me to defend the redoubtable reputation of my subconscious?

LOL. No thanks.

It seems the Church rejected the painting-- without any help from me and my fantasies-- because in part of the sexual innuendos.

The traditional explanation for the Church rejecting his Death of the Virgin centers upon (a) his use of his mistress (prostitute?) as the model for the Virgin; (b) that rather than portraying the Virgin upright and ascending to heaven Caravaggio has her lying down; (c) showing her bare feet, a no-no apparently during that period; (d) dressing her in red instead of blue; and (e) portraying her with a distended belly (implying pregnancy, according to some).

I don't deny these explanations. What I am suggesting is the painting is more virulent even than this. If you don't see what the Church objected to then I don't expect you to see this other.

t.

PS I notice you didn't write for my analysis.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/29/2005 12:09PM by teacup.