Not sure what the sculptor had in mind. Celebration of the unborn child? An anatomy lesson? A macabre exploration of the duality of Modern Woman (poised and polished on the outside, a raw bundle of nerves on the inside)?
I think the sculpture could have been beautiful, in some sense, if the face weren't peeled away. That's the part that really freaks me out. Well, that and the thigh. The whole thing is pretty creepy. Sorry I mentioned it.
The baby shower was nice, though I arrived late (because I missed the 9:30 service at FAPC) and left early (so that I could be a mere 4.75 hours late for my next party). And I skipped a third event entirely that I'd hoped to attend. Ah, the perils of popularity. Or something. People just need to plan their events better -- don't bunch them all up into the same day!
Tim Keller gave a particuarly interesting sermon at Redeemer -- it's been a while since I heard him. He was talking about Mark Ch. 4, where Jesus quiets the storm. According to Pastor Keller, the level of detail in the story shows that it is an eyewitness account; in that time period there was apparently no tradition of "realistic fiction" (where you make up lots of extraneous details that don't serve any real didactic or storytelling purpose to give the appearance of truth). Interesting idea, although I don't know enough about the traditions of the time to know if this theory holds water.
Another point he made was also intriguing. Pastor Keller likes to bring out clues that are (to us) very subtle but that would have been (to the audience of the time) a clear claim by the gospel writer for the divinity of Jesus. What Pastor pointed to in this story was the fact that there were deep, well-known cultural traditions that only the very strongest supernatural power can control or calm a storm. And that's what Jesus does in the story: tells the storm to sit down and be quiet, like an errant child. He doesn't even recite an incantation or spell.
3 comments:
That reminds me of the statue of Britney Spears giving birth which I find even more odd and disturbing.
Thanks for making the connection, Tom. I'd totally forgotten about that statue. The pictures I've seen have mercifully shown the statue only from the front....
The oddest thing about the Britney Spears statue, to me, is the bear head that she is grasping. Apparently she is giving birth on a bear rug, for reasons that remain somewhat opaque. (Presumably, in real life, she was at a hospital.)
And there's another almost equally odd thing about the statue. Her position does not seem a likely one for giving birth - from what I've heard, those who do not allow themselves to be strapped down in a hospital for a doctor-controlled birth usually squat to facilitate a natural birth (i.e., they are taking advantage of gravity).
I suppose both of those odd elements are because the sculptor was trying to re-sexualize Ms. Spears. (Her fickle male fans basically abandoned her in light of the marriage-and-motherhood thing.) From that perspective, the statue is actually kind of cool.
In real life, from what I have heard, she was at a hospital having a scheduled elective C-section.
Squatting like that to give birth is certainly possible and feasible, though more people I know (including myself) have squatted like that during labor prior to birth, as a way of easing labor pains. Gravity does help, indeed, although warm water was my facilitating medium of choice.
I, too, find the NYC statue highly disturbing (the Britney statue much less so, except in its total disconnect from reality and exploitation of Britney's image for publicity). One reason is that it (the NYC statue) reminds me of the waxworks created by early French physicians for teaching purposes, which are all the more sad because they were based on actual dissected cadavers. So lurking behind this NYC statue is a real, dead, pregnant woman (and her fetus), the grandmommy of them all so to speak.
Post a Comment