Angelina Jolie Reaches Sainthood

The Catholics are going to see this as blasphemous and the critcs are going to have to see this as art (they did with the cross in the jar of pee or the virgin mother painted in poo) if they don’t want to be really recognized as hypocrites.

I agree that everyone wants to profit or get their opinions across and what more of a sensation than Angelina and her brood.

For those of you who don’t have a Catholic background, the images of Mad and Zee are supposed to be cherubs. They are supposed to be nude children with wings. The artist incorporated them with the Madonna and child (sometimes the child is nude too but the Madonna is always clothed).

The painting is beautiful but I wish the artist hadn’t done it. I am a Catholic and I do not appreciate our blessed mother or our other religious icons being made into sacrilegious objects. I wish she’d chosen to use Angelina as Mother Earth or Lady Bountiful. It still woud have made an impact if she had.

Estelle Says:

January 3rd, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Hey Alex, I have to catch up on the e-mail ( hopefully it’s not in the thousands )
glad to hear that you had a wonderful time in England. I hope your work loads are not so overwelming. I have 3 new thread to catch up on and to tell you the true, I don’t like this thread at all.
————————————————————————————————
Hi Estelle, how are you lady. How was your holiday? I hope it was great. The e-mails are not that bad. Yeah England was wonderful, I had a great time with the family; and as for work, I do have a lot to do, but my temporary replacement did a fantastic job, otherwise I will be buried deep under work right now :). And I agree with you I don’t like this thread either, I am just lurking mostly today.

Alexanderina

work is hectic. i’ve got a lot to catch up on and a wedding show saturday. that’s why i’m having lunch at my desk today.

********************************

Estelle

thank you! happy new year!

Tidbit Says:

January 3rd, 2007 at 12:24 pm
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Actually, I’m pretty sure that Sinatra was arrested for seduction, not adultery.

Pls. go vote angelina for most atrractive woman in Hello mag.

Happy Birthday Gitane.

this is sacrilege!!!!!

gotta go…boss is here Bye Bye For Now

My view of this painting.

Exploitative? Yes, particularly when it comes to the children. They shouldn’t be used as tools for social commentary without their consent or their parents.

Racist? Biased against Zahara and Maddox? No, I don’t think that’s the intent. Some people may perceive that Mad and Z being relegated to Angelina’s feet and being depicted as nude is may be racist/biased against them. I prefer to give the artist the benefit of the doubt. Remember the painting’s composition is derived from the traditional “Virgin and Child”/“Madonna and Child” paintings so popular in the Renaissance that almost EVERY artist from Raphael to Leonardo to Verrocchio had at least one such painting. The composition of those paintings were usually the same regardless of the artist: the Virgin Mary in the center wearing Blue (the Color of Heaven) holding the Christ Child and usually flanked by Saints or ANGELS on either side. The artist here is emulating the latter composition—angels on either side. I don’t think this choice was prompted by any racist tendencies—the artist is simply following a formula, hence wings on both children (also most cherubs in Renaissance paintings are depicted as nude so I don’t think there was a perverted intent here by the artist although the Jolie-Pitts and most people would probably object to this artistic license since the children’s faces are the ones used here). Also, the Madonna and Child paintings usually don’t have Joseph in them (those paintings are usually a different type called “the Holy Family” and that type of painting traditionally has a different composition) so that is why Brad isn’t in this painting.

So why is Shiloh the one chosen to be clothed and held in Angelina’s arms? I think there are 2 reasons. The first and more rational reason is that at the point in time this painting was created, Shiloh is not walking yet and is most likely to be carried by Angelina as opposed to Mad and Z who are already walking or at least able to stand on their own. The second has to do with part of what the artist is playing with—remember the ridiculous frenzy surrounding the impending birth of Shiloh? How some idiots were calling her birth the most anticipated birth since the birth of the Christ Child? Additionally, some people’s translations of Shiloh Nouvel’s name is that she is the New Messiah of the New Peaceful One. That’s the background the artist is playing with and why Shiloh is depicted as the Christ Child.

I’m a big BAMZ fan and I my first reaction to this painting was one of irritation because like others, I believe it capitalizes on the family unfairly and because I’m Christian, I also felt that it was offensive to superimpose the traditional depiction of the Virgin Mary on Angelina especially with such a blatant title as “Blessed Art Thou.” Even among Saints, the Virgin Mary has traditionally been elevated even ABOVE typical saints—Catholic doctrine claiming she was so pure as to be born without original sin so as to be worthy of being the one to carry and give birth to Christ. I’m not going to debate religious doctrines here but my point is, there are some religious things I consider people should leave well enough alone—imagine for example Brad’s face on traditional depiction of Christ at the Crucifixion, on Muhammed, on Buddha and on and on. Something like that is bound to offend someone. Thus I think use of the Virgin Mary metaphor here is uninvited and undesired by Angelina and her fans alike, particularly because critics who won’t care to ponder the painting as a whole would be all too ready to jump on Angelina and her fans as being delusional for elevating her to this status (which we did not).
With that said, I am however not about to call for censorship of this painting. This art is what freedom of expression is about and insensitive as the artist may be in its depiction of Angelina and children, there are interesting social commentaries here. There is the commentary that “deification” these days are not created by churches but by the media and the avid consumer of celebrity news. The most interesting commentary to me is the contrast between the Virgin Mary and Angelina. Mary was deified for her purity and her role in giving birth to the Christ Child who revolutionized a society. After the birth of Christ, she wasn’t mentioned too much anymore since her role was done. Her value was rooted in her unquestionable chastity and her motherhood and by today’s standards, this is a rather limited and paternalistic view of her worth as a human being and as a early founder of Christianity. Contrast that to Angelina who everyone agrees wasn’t exactly the poster child for virginity. However, despite her terrific mothering skills, Angelina is admired for so much more than being a mother because people also admire her compassion, her strong and adventurous spirit, her acting skills, her advocacy, etc. That’s a reflection of the our times—the modern one where a woman can be valuable for what she says and does not just for what she gives birth to.

I’m sure there are other messages in this painting that other people will find. Despite my initial reaction to this painting, I think it shouldn’t be dismissed so easily as it has, like many works of art, a message that is interesting to ponder and debate. Art that makes you think is always worth a second glance.

Me Too Says:

January 3rd, 2007 at 10:30 am
Why doesn’t this artist depict the wronged woman as sainted??? She is the one that started the malestrom and seems to keep it on the front pages, not Angelina and her family.

++++++++++++

She didn’t used the SUPPOSEDLY wronged woman because she wants someone to buy the damned thing, that’s why! Nobody is going to bid on something their too busy laughing at.

this is silly,
I voted the whole afternon for every 15 minutes, now it’s 9 pm here in my country.

L&S part 1 Says:

January 3rd, 2007 at 11:26 am
I know it’s L&S magazine but hey, even they know that everyone love B&A and are changing their tune.

http://img90.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ls010807pitaq4.jpg

++++++++++++++

Clearly you missed my tabloid report on Saturday. L&S isn’t changing their tune…they’re making up one! This story is so full of holes it’s not even funny. Actually…it WAS funny and I’m still laughing about it. The whole “How Brad Celebrated His Birth” article is one big fabrication from beginning to end, but then they had to go and trump that non-sense with the “Jen Agrees To See Shiloh” bullshit. The folks at L&S reached a new low last week…but I’m sure this week they’ll try to top…er, bottom…themselves.

Oh brother… Says:

January 3rd, 2007 at 11:35 am
Someone somewhere else posted this….

[Tonight on EXTRA they said that oprah is going to state her opinion on “brangelina”.]

+++++++++++++

Damn…this is going to be important…I should watch, huh? Oh wait a sec…what’s that I feel…YES…yes…it’s true…the world is STILL spinning!