Stigmata

"Stigmata are bodily marks, sores, or sensations of pain in

locations corresponding to the crucifixion wounds of Jesus Christ.

An individual bearing stigmata is referred to as a stigmatic.

 

The first reported cases of stigmata, in a Flemish nun and a young

Englishman, occurred in the early 13th century. The first well-

documented case, and the first to be accepted by Roman Catholic

authorities as authentic, was that of Saint Francis of Assisi (1182?

1226), who first experienced stigmata in La Verna, Italy, in 1224.

 

In the century after St. Francis's death, more than twenty

additional cases of stigmata were reported. Stigmata have continued

to be reported since, with over three hundred cases by the end of

the 19th century. In the 20th century, the number of cases increased

dramatically; over 500 cases have now been recorded. In modern

times, increasing numbers of ordinary people ? rather than mystics

or members of religious orders ? began to report stigmata. Cases

were also reported among non-Catholic Christians.

 

Famous stigmatics include Saint Catherine of Siena, Saint John of

God, and Saint Marie of the Incarnation. A famous twentieth-century

stigmatic was Saint Pio of Pietrelcina (1887?1968). Other modern

stigmatics included Brother Roque (1968?1996); a novice in the order

of Los Hijos de Los Hijos de La Madre de Dios (The Sons of the Sons

of the Mother of God) in Villavicencio, Colombia; Therese Neumann

(1898?1962), a German Catholic mystic; and Canadian Lilian Bernas,

who began claiming to exhibit stigmata in 1992."

This is a picture of a very sloppy paint job. To bring in the idea of "stigmata" is too much. I have lately refrained from issuing any negative critiques, since people are too defensive about them and feel attacked and insulted. (however carefully worded they may be). This, however, I could not pass by. I have watched your portfolio and liked a lot of it...not all, but many. Here you have gone too far. To show us a picture of an opening in a stone wall, covered by wooden slats, painted red, with paint spilled over onto the stone work and then go into a dissertation of "stigmata" as if they were a scientific fact about which you have to enlighten us, is simply beyond the pale.....Bert

Haha! Not all ideas work, of course. And, your point is well taken. No hard feelings at all! Without honest and heart felt criticism, this site would be a joke.

 

The great basketball player, Bill Russell, tells a story of when he signed his first professional contract, not the million dollar deals they get today, but a nice chunk of money that allowed him to approach his father, who had worked in a factory for 20 years with the idea of retiring. His father replied: "I have given them 20 good years; now, I will give them ten bad ones".

 

I think I have been here long enough to deserve to toss out some stinkers along the way. This "badly painted wall" intriuged me as I walked by it. I had posted an earlier version of it, but tweaked it and reposted it as a fellow pnet member had suggested. It's not as sharp a picture as I would have liked, but it was shot with analog film long ago, using a Nikon EM and kodak Gold film handheld. Still I felt like sharing what I saw.

 

As for the stigmata idea, as a Catholic, I had heard those stories from way back when I was a toddler. I'm not trying to suggest those are "scientific facts" anymore than I tried to suggest the story of Jonah and the whale was scientific fact. Anyway, I'm glad that you have followed my work as you have, and I have followed yours, too. Fell free to strongly criticize any of my ideas that you think missed the mark. This is, after all, what this site is about.

Well, this is an intriguing one. My immediate reaction even before reading the title or explanation is that this was reminiscent of blood splatters. The wood seems bathed in red, rather than having it merely painted on. And the red splatters over the rocks appear random. Is this an intentional wrought or a random act of violence? I wonder....

 

Labeling this as resembling stigmata is interesting. Whether stigmata is a real phenomenon or contrived isn't the issue here--the fact that people suffer is. People suffer, often as the direct result of their faith. Sometimes one's faith spills over and causes others to suffer like paint dripping on stones. For many belief systems, faith and suffering intermingle. As a person of faith, I'm not trying to convey anything anti-religion in saying this. Invoking a religious connotation to this photo simply adds another layer.

 

There's something raw about human suffering. Faith seems to structure it and give meaning to it, even when on the surface suffering appears random.

 

 

Buen punto de vista y manera en que el titulo le da argumento a la imagen.

Beautiful it is not, unless you look at it from a vampire's viewpoint. Because of the strong color associated with blood I find it a bit repulsive, gory and even premeditated, perhaps to cause shock. I fail to see your association between this and something as sacred as a stigmata. Isn't stigmata usually accompanied by religious ecstasy? I don't perceive anything ecstatic about this scene, which to me is a feeble attempt at artistic pretension by whoever "painted" this. Having said that, your picture has already caused some strong reactions and even controversy. Engaging? that's for sure.

Thank you so much for your comments, and thank you so much for generously following my work for the short time you have been on this site. I reiterate once again that the lunch invitation is still open, should you ever wander into the city.

 

As for this picture, no, I did not set out to seek revulsion in my peers. That has never been my intention, for it makes no sense to INTEND that others be revolted by your work.

 

But, I can understand the reluctance of many to associate what is indeed a gruesome-looking image with a religious idea, but, need I remind you that the crucifiction itself, the lynchpin of the idea of Christianity itself was a gruesome affair. It involved the torture and ritual murder of three men, and the mutilated bodies being brought down from the cross has been covered ad nauseum by artists from Fran Angelico to Rembrandt to even Mel Gibson in his movie "The Passion of the Cross"

 

Stigmatas, themselves, are gruesome affairs as well, and, literally involve the bleeding of the victims from parts of their bodies that correspond to the nail holes in Jesus Christ's body. They are no more pretty than the spectacle of Christ's broken body hanging from the cross.

 

In his famous novel, "The Idiot", the great Russian writer, Fyodor Dostoevsky has one of the characters question the wisdom of a painting of Christ by the Flemish artist Breugel in which Christ is depicted as a dead human being, complete with rigor mortis and skin discoloration that comes from bleeding for hours. He asks what would happen if a man, upon seeing that, lost his faith?

 

But, should the artist desist from presenting what he feels because he is afraid of its effect on someone else's faith? This was the question for Gallileo when he postulated that the earth was not the center of the univers, but revolved around the sun. Well, we know what happened to him.

 

In closing, the image was shot in 1998. The idea of stigmata only came to me last year AFTER I posted the original version and another member tweaked it and generated a more extreme version of the image.

Emmanuel, I appreciate the background information for this picture and your perspective. Being able to express oneself openly without hesitation is a characteristic of true artistry. I might disagree with your interpretations but I respect you for your convictions. Thanks for reiterating the lunch invitation. It is always in the back of my head and I will let you know one of these days. You don't have to thank me for following your work. On the contrary, thanks for being captivating and inspiring.

Your first posting of this image was my introduction to you. I commented, and forgot about you, but not the image. It stayed with me, but we did not have much interaction until fairly recently when you kind of rediscovered my work, and I yours. I am a little troubled by the negative reactions because of the title. I have seen much discussion of Pnet about the use or overuse of them. My own feelings are that titles are an integral part of a piece of work, and can be a tremendous enhancement to any work of art. But I happen to be a person who really enjoys words as much as images. I don't reckon I'd be going to a movie with the name "Untitled" on the marquee. Likewise, I'd be a lot less inclined to buy a book with no title. Yes, I know that is not entirely analogous, but I'm trying to make a point. The point I'm trying to make, is that you attempted to provide the viewer with a visual and emotional clue as to how you feel about the image and its characteristics.

 

If someone comes along and admits that the image reminds them of the candy striper girl at the local hospital, or the sunset they saw last night, or their uncle Fred because he has a ruddy complexion, then terrific. They are entitled to that interpretation. It just seems to me that civility would call for not berating someone because they don't like the title. As always, you handle such criticism with uncommon grace. Man, I'd like to get some of that.

 

The image is not just a sloppily painted wood covering some stones any more than a person is just a collection of dumb cells. Sorry, but that's the way it is. It evokes a feeling of dread and maybe terror. It exudes violence. It is a well seen scene even if it is not the most esthetically pleasing sight on Pnet. It is good work.

As usual, thank you for your support. And, no, I do not think I handle criticism with any more grace than the next guy. Like all artists, I have somewhat of a thin skin, and bristle at what I consider malevolent and unwarranted attacks. Those two were polite disagreements, and they were prefaced by statements that the authors generally follow and like my work. It would be the height of rudeness for me not to see them for what they were.

 

As to your idea of a movie named "untitled", that is indeed intruiging. Unfortunately, I was cursed with a literal mind, that is, I tend to get idea associations by looking at things. There was an old song by the late great American singer, Jim Reeves called "The Talking Walls". My father used to play it when I was a kid, so it stuck in my head. When I walked by this wall, my first thought was "the bleeding walls", that is, the genesis of the idea occurred to me right away, so I hacked off a piece of it with my Nikon EM and have kept it since. It was at once a moving and striking image to me, which explains why we're having this discussion now.

Perfect colours and tones!

I think this idea is great and I have no problem with it or the title. Like it alot:)

"Ouch"!

My first impression when seeing this photo and reading the title was very positive . Here we have a photographer with and eye for photographical scenes and a sense of humour giving it the title of "Stigmata". For sure, the painter that did this is stigmatized as a bad painter for days having paint all over his arms and hands.

 

I think you went in another direction with you reference to the history of stigmata, a reference that suddenly stops the humour and informs the viewer of a serious intention of reflection and chocking.

 

I would have preferred the first mentioned interpretation, without the historical reference, because the photo can stand alone as a good photo leaving it to the viewer to make his/her own interpretations.

I found this an original and exceptional image, first because it made me feel like in the absence of saints even the walls bleed witnessing mankind, of course that is a personal interpretation, but one originated with your ideas.

The brilliance of the colors and the particular area you chose give to the stones an appareance of almot worn out faces, martyrs unable to pronounce a word to stop what they see, and in that sense is very effective and not just a depiction of painted stones. After all the stigmata is to me a sign of a hypersensitivity to the divine that makes one hurts with the pain of others, not just perceiving it but feeling it in oneself and now even stones can speak of it... Part of the beauty of art is the freedom a good idea to inspire more thoughts. Glad you showed it.

Again, another bold colored and well taken shot with a simple but striking composition. My very first reaction on seeing this photo was akin to horror. I was shocked and then ingtrigued at the same time. I think the title was a brilliant idea that conveyed a powerfull reaction.

 

The boards, old and weather worn do appear to be more soaked in red than painted with it and every line of them leads your eye down to the splattered stones. It looks almost like thoughtless violence. A VERY powerfull image. That some painted boards and spilled paint should evoke such strong reactions is just another indicator of your skill, eye, and vision. You remain one of my very favorites.

I am just going to "ditto" David Meyer and Nicole York because it's as if they both stole my words. And I would like to add that I hate primary colours but I love this image.

This is very strong, indeed. Does not resonate with me with your "stigmata" theme, agree with the comments above. But is is enigmatic, holds my interest for long, well seen and captured (technically, the red channel is clipped but I am not sure if this is a drawback here, maybe it adds impact).