Warner Sallman painting of the head of Christ

[Vasiliki D.]

Warnaer Sallman is the famous paitner of the "Head of Christ" image. For many of you who do not know this painting I have provided a link to his webpage.

I have a strange question about this image. Growing up, I had this in my room until a monk told me it is the image of the Anti-Christ. Out of respect to this monk, who I adored and adore, I burnt it.

My question is, whilest I am aware that it is clearly NOT an icon is it the image of the Anti-Christ. What is the churches position on this highly controversial image.

Whilest I will never own an image of Christ that has not been formerly blessed by the Church as canonical, I do want some "closure" on whether this particular image is indeed that of the Anti-Christ. Thank you.

Here is a link to Warner Sallman's images:
http://www.warnersallman.com/collection/images/head-of-christ/

[Paul Cowan]

I don't know about this being the anti-Christ, but it is the protestant view of christ in the 3D anglo, blued eyed grab my heart strings image. This from the same site, shows what the image expresses.


One admirer of the Head of Christ wrote the following about its meaning to her:

There is something about Warner Sallman’s pictures that makes me feel … that this artist had felt Christ’s presence when he made the images … and you can feel Christ’s presence … conveyed … to you through his images. From the image of the head of Christ I see righteousness, strength, power, reverence, respect, fairness, faithfulness, love, compassion. From the way the hair in the image is highlighted in the back and highlights around the front of the head and face there seems to be a holy radiance emitted from the image, depicting the qualities mentioned above. (Correspondence file, Sallman Archives, Anderson University)


The poster "feels" the image.


None of our texts accurately describe what Christ looked like other than being nothing much to look at. So why does the western latinized world make him look so "attractive" to the eye? Wasn't he a Jew? Don't the Jews typically have darker skin and generally larger noses? (no offence, just a personal observation) So why make him out to look like a Hollywood model on estrogen?

Paul

[Herman Blaydoe]

In that it is not an Orthodox image, I don't think there is any "official" Orthodox position on this specific picture beyond "it sure ain't no icon!" At least it doesn't show blond hair and blue eyes. It might be nice on a bedroom wall or perhaps a den, but I wouldn't hang it in my icon corner, but that might just be me.

If the anti-Christ is going to look like anybody, an "idealized" Christ-like image would help fool the most people I suppose, so I think the monk's opinion has some merit. I don't think that makes him a prophet.

Herman.

[Alice]

I don't know about this being the anti-Christ, but it is the protestant view of christ in the 3D anglo, blued eyed grab my heart strings image. This from the same site, shows what the image expresses.



The poster "feels" the image.


None of our texts accurately describe what Christ looked like other than being nothing much to look at. So why does the western latinized world make him look so "attractive" to the eye? Wasn't he a Jew? Don't the Jews typically have darker skin and generally larger noses? (no offence, just a personal observation) So why make him out to look like a Hollywood model on estrogen?

Paul

Dear Paul,

As a native New Yorker where there are more Jews than probably anywhere else in the U.S., I can say with all assurity that your idea of what a Jewish person looks like is a generalization. I know just as many, if not *more*, Jews with blue eyes than I know WASPs, and many, many of them have very light hair, very light skin, and anywhere from red to light brown hair. The Sephardic Jews are the only darker Jews (with dark eyes or blue eyes, dark skin and dark hair). If you were to ask me what color eyes, in general, Jewish people have, from the many different Jews I know, it would most definitely be blue!

For me, the most beautiful depiction of Christ is the one in Aghia Sophia, (Deisis icon) and he is an ethereally beautiful human man with light brown hair in that mosaic.

Alice

P.S. Somewhere along the line of my life I have picked up the picture of Christ which Vasiliki linked us to. I think that it is beautiful. I have it along with my icons in my icon closet.

[Michael Stickles]

Whilest I will never own an image of Christ that has not been formerly blessed by the Church as canonical, I do want some "closure" on whether this particular image is indeed that of the Anti-Christ. Thank you.

I hadn't heard of any opinions on that picture from any Orthodox sources, "official" or otherwise, before you mentioned the opinion of the monk, and I couldn't find any online who agree. That's not to say, of course, that this monk you know must be the only Orthodox who thinks that way, but if there are others, I couldn't find them online. I found one (apparently) Orthodox blogger who called it "absurd", but that was all the Orthodox opinions I could find doing some basic Googling.

The only online source I could find which links the "Head of Christ" painting to the anti-christ is Norbert Kox's "Apocalypse House", and that's not a resource which would attract any admiration from devout Orthodox (I'll just leave it at that).

In Christ,
Michael

[D. W. Dickens]

It's clear that regardless of official position, in practice there's a lot of ... latitude? ... in icons and "religiously inspired art" in the homes and parishes. Personally, I'm revolted by this image far more than I was as a convert trying to adjust to "Byzantine art". The aesthetic qualities are quick to deepen into one. Romanticism seems out of place in that mindset.

Though, I, myself still have a romantic "Road to Emmaus" painting. It was over my parents' entry hall. My priest likes it, but told me it didn't belong on my icon wall. However, even in my own parish there are a couple of fairly "western" icons. One makes me a little uncomfortable. I'll admit that when I couldn't find any icon of the Patriarch Isaac for whom my son was named, so I got one from a schismatic group (though their monastery has a good reputation). I think we had a discussion once on this board about incense from pagan sources and that sort of thing.

A messy topic indeed. I suppose some things have to be left to our spiritual fathers as doctors of our souls as to what wisdom of the Church to draw on to treat our illnesses.

[Olga]

My two cents' worth:

It would be safe to say that few, if any, forum members would regard this painting as an icon, as it is deficient on so many counts with regard to its expression of theological and doctrinal truths. (Frankly, I have long found this painting rather schmaltzy, but that is not the issue here.)

Icon it is not, that much is obvious. But an image of antichrist? Hmmm. With all respect to the monk who said this, the most charitable interpretation I can come up with is that this painting cannot represent Christ as it falls far short of expressing the truth of the Incarnation, and all that that entails, in the way a true icon does. Or, this monk may simply have some rather dark views on matters of the world, as, indeed, some do. Monks are human, after all.

[Nina]

Maybe it is what is being said in the thread. Or maybe that monk is holy and has been revealed to him how antiChrist will look like, or maybe he is the spiritual child of someone who has seen how antiChrist will look.

[Angela V.]

I will just throw in my 2 cents worth, and say that their is nothing wrong with this picture. Icon it is not, but it is a beautiful picture of Christ. I do like the style and the colours are beautiful. I have "Christ the Shepherd" and it's great when showing the children.

Thanks
Angela

[Nicolaj]

When the monk said so, he will be right.

For I am not so far developed in spiritual things that I am able to develop and have an argumentation considering my own opinion about such things.

So being humble and a child following his shepherd, I agree that this is Anti-Christ and evil.

In Christ, Nicolaj

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Vasiliki and others,

There have been an interesting range of responses to your question!

My own reaction is this: In an on-line discussion forum such as this, it is not really appropriate for any of us to speak too emphatically about the words given to you by this monk. We do not know him or his spiritual life and growth; we are not in relationship with him in order to approach in a personal way his words and their meaning; and we are not you, to whom these words were given and for whom they may have had meaning not meant for others. (Please note that I am saying this as an observation, not as a request that you tell us anything more about this monk - please don't!)

It is an error (against which the Fathers, in fact, warn) to take the words of any specific cleric or monastic as if they were the absolute definition of the truth, until such words have been received by the Church and affirmed by her. This does not mean their words cannot be true; but it means (and this pattern is expressed very clearly in the canons of the Church and various patristic writings) that, in such a case as this, it is inappropriate for any of us to say, 'Since that monk said this to you, therefore I and we should/must accept it also.' This is, of course, not the way the testimony to Truth is understood in the Orthodox Church; and it is not a question of being argumentative-vs.-simple in one's approach. When we speak in pastoral relationship to confessors, spiritual fathers, teachers, their words are for us and for our salvation. Christ's Church does not work by personal globalisms.

As to the image: I personally find it abhorrent, and yet very useful. I show it regularly to my students as an example of everything an icon is not, and to explain how its style, focus and intent can in fact bring about precisely the opposite spiritual conditions than an icon seeks to develop. And in this context, I do raise the question: can a 'pretty' picture, painted with surely no ill-intent of a holy subject (e.g. Christ), nonetheless be a spiritual evil? Most students immediately react, 'No, of course not; you're being overly sensitive and judgemental'. But that is the cue to delve deeper: if an image evokes emotions that enflame passions, that develop certain theological views that the Church views as in error, is this image, then, not evoking anti-Christian truth even as it strives to be a Christian devotional tool? We have to go beyond the very superficial response of 'Oh, it's pretty and Jesus looks lovely - what can be so bad about that?' to ask the questions that were, for example, very much in the air in the iconoclastic disputes as well as various other points in history: what happens in me when I am exposed in a focused way to an image? What am I being taught, what am I learning - witting or unwitting - that I should or should not be?

Is this picture a 'portrait' of the person, Antichrist? I've never received such a teaching. But we must remember that in Orthodoxy, anti-Christ is more than just a person given in the revelation of the eschaton: it is all that teaches what is opposed to the Truth; that evokes belief in that which is not the true Son, the true Trinity; that stirs the heart from the contemplation of God to the contemplation of that which He is not. And so, may there be something of this in such an image?

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Angela V.]

Thankyou Father for this great response.

However, when a child is colouring in pictures of Jesus, say for school, some of these have Jesus drawn differently. I am talking about very young children.

Thankyou
Angela

[Angela V.]

I was thinking about childrens bible, and how Jesus is drawn differently than we orthodox do. How is this different to Warnaer Sallmans picture?

Thankyou
Angela

[Antonios]

Dear Angela,

I agree it is aesthetically a wonderful portrait, a beautiful and majestic painting of the Incarnate Word of God. And like pictures in a children's bible, it's aim is to captivate and impress upon those whom look upon it.

That being said, the only description in the Holy Scriptures of Jesus Christ's physical appearance is by the Prophet Isaiah in Isaiah 53:

1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?
2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

So, while it may be an aesthetically pleasing portrait, we must never attribute the Lord's outward appearance as a source of His Power, since He Himself did not captivate with his physical form nor with any attractive physical features (of which the Prophet told us He had none), but rather by His humilty, mercy, obedience and love, which have no source in creation but rather in the Divine.

If Warnaer Sallman's painting demonstrates that by embelleshing the physical features of Christ, than, like pictures in a children's book, it is most useful for those who are still children, whether in mind or in spirit. Does this mean it is useless and serves no purpose? Of course not! Just that it's usefulness is limited, whereas God is not.

In Christ,
Antonios