Clay Render Night: Female Jesus

[Wayne]

http://dashdotslash.net/gallery/FemaleJesus-sm.jpg



An old and currenlty unfinished work in progress. The plan was eventually to add hair in the render using shave and a haircut in a shade of grey / white to fit in with the overalll render tone. But as I hate setting up hair wiht a passion normally reserved for warring nations I never got around to it. Part of my 'Clay Render Night'


Wayne...

[cali3d]

nice model, but on a historically correct issue, studies has shown that crucifixion actually was done through the wrists and not the hands. The hands are simply too weak to carry the weight of the body.

If the crucifixion actually was done through the hands, the arms were tied to the cross with robe / cloth around the upper arm - the armpit/biceps area and then the nails through the hands was done purely for pain related issues.

[Wayne]

Ah yes but never let the facts get in the way of a image to make young guys horny lol.

But in all seriousness I had to make a choice whether to go for realism and risk offending the entire christian populous of planet earth, or something a bit less offensive to some people.... So I wimped out to be honest instead of doing my orginal idea which would have seen me marched off to the vatican in handcuffs lol. I try not to offend the religous fundementalists of ANY religion, as those are the guys with weapons and reason (and I bruise easily) lol.


Wayne...

[Hulahuga]

"(and I bruise easily)"
Hahaha ;).
A wise decision. Though, no offence to anyone, pictures of Jesus at the cross are not offensive to Christians... Just look at "The passion of Christ".
Gibson wasn't hung or something :P.

Sculpt issues though: The feet are a bit large, also the pose is very strange ;). It seems like she is floating...
Are you going to post some updates?

[Wayne]

Well the difference is mel gibson is a bloke....the vatican have a histpory of getting a wee bit mad at depictions of jesus or god as a woman. (They still hold 2 davinci paintings in their vault unseen by the world that were confiscated as one showed jesus on the cross as a woman, the other showed god himself as a woman at the moment of creation. They were apprently confiscated very fast after davinci did them and have never been seen since.) So that did have the possibility for heavy duty christians gto get a might prissy about it lol..

Doing more on this really depends on how much time I have...one day I would like to do my idea for the whole scene I had...but I want a fast car on standby 1st. ;)

Wayne...

[Hulahuga]

:) haha.
I meant depicting god as a man ;).
Though I don't think (if it's not extraordinary "offensive") that the Vatican would take action on your 3d project :).
Even though Vilks (a swedish artist (painter/builder)) was threatened with death by Muslims after picturing Mohammed next to a couple of very famous people. (Don't remember exactly whom)


- Who is god?
- She is black.

(no offence meant to anyone)

[Hulahuga]

Here is his site
www.vilks.net (http://www.vilks.net)

though the following is from a subsite: (about his own country)
[url=http://www.ladonia.net[/url]


Nimis and Arx

In 1980 the artist and arthistorian Lars Vilks started to work on Nimis, a construction of driftwood and rests from the cutting areas.

Nimis (lat. "too much") is situated on the peninsula of Kullaberg in the south of Sweden - now an independent state Ladonia.

When Vilks started to work with hammer and nail at Nimis his ideas were rather vague, but he had in mind to make a meetingplace between theory and practice.

[Hulahuga]

Haha, btw Vilks has actually made his own country called Ladonia.
They have officially declared war against Sweden ;). Though it's all for fun though. The so called country lies in southern Sweden, I was there at their first year anniversary. :), he is a really cool guy.

[theleast]

Just a suggestion (coming from one of those Christians you're worried about shocking): The image itself is fine, but by calling her "Jesus" it gives the impression that you're *looking* for trouble. Jesus, after all, was a historical figure, and I've never heard any one suggest that he wasn't male. By titling this piece "Female Jesus" you're immediately putting people off-side - some will be offended, while others will simply roll their eyes - but the end result is that the work will generally be dismissed out of hand.

A more ambiguous title is likely to cause less offense and inspire critical thought and discussion. After all, countless thousands of people were crucified, why would people assume that this one woman is meant to be Jesus?