Lol, its not that I didn’t understand or that I missed it. It’s that I disagree that its a cogent reason.
When I was young, I used to draw pictures of people with stick bodies and round heads. They were also often bright or powder pink in colour. I propagated the shit out of that too.
Then, when I found out that wasn’t the correct way to draw people or the natural colour of human skin, I stopped drawing them and colouring quite so comedically ridiculous.
The comparison with your own childish vs adult drawings is simply off the mark. A more similar comparison could be provided by how artists depict the Vikings. It is well known today that the helmet with bull horns is made-up, and was probably never used by actual Vikings. Yet tons of people still portray them with such helmets, and most non-artists still have that same association in their minds. Why? Because a child growing up and developing their observational and artistic skills is not the same as a culture with its century-old symbols and images.
Admittedly the depictions of Jesus in art today are frequently done by more or less amateurish artists and are meant to be traditional in their style, which additionally makes them less likely to move away from the inherited imagery.
Your viking analogy is bizzare. Not that many people know that vikings didn’t actually wear anything like that in battle, unlike how everyone knows Jesus was a homeless middle Eastern man and, depsite this, continue to draw him as northern European. More so, vikings are known for wearing those helmets. Jesus isn’t known for being a white man. Why? Because Jesus wasn’t white man and isn’t know for it.
Youre really starting from where you want to end up and working your way back. Theres no cogent justification for it, as much I enjoy people trying to sell me an appeal to tradition, with extra steps.
OK, so why did they persist with it for all the centuries in between and still to this day?
The last line
You grow up with whatever colour Jesus, then you do your drawing
Lol, its not that I didn’t understand or that I missed it. It’s that I disagree that its a cogent reason.
When I was young, I used to draw pictures of people with stick bodies and round heads. They were also often bright or powder pink in colour. I propagated the shit out of that too.
Then, when I found out that wasn’t the correct way to draw people or the natural colour of human skin, I stopped drawing them and colouring quite so comedically ridiculous.
Why can’t the people who draw Jesus manage this?
The comparison with your own childish vs adult drawings is simply off the mark. A more similar comparison could be provided by how artists depict the Vikings. It is well known today that the helmet with bull horns is made-up, and was probably never used by actual Vikings. Yet tons of people still portray them with such helmets, and most non-artists still have that same association in their minds. Why? Because a child growing up and developing their observational and artistic skills is not the same as a culture with its century-old symbols and images.
Admittedly the depictions of Jesus in art today are frequently done by more or less amateurish artists and are meant to be traditional in their style, which additionally makes them less likely to move away from the inherited imagery.
Your viking analogy is bizzare. Not that many people know that vikings didn’t actually wear anything like that in battle, unlike how everyone knows Jesus was a homeless middle Eastern man and, depsite this, continue to draw him as northern European. More so, vikings are known for wearing those helmets. Jesus isn’t known for being a white man. Why? Because Jesus wasn’t white man and isn’t know for it.
Youre really starting from where you want to end up and working your way back. Theres no cogent justification for it, as much I enjoy people trying to sell me an appeal to tradition, with extra steps.