Images - how they lure us

Art historian David Morgan, in a number of his throught-provoking texts, especially 'Would Jesus have sat for a portrait?'...(2002) tells an intriguing story about the construction of Jesus images over time. In the 19th century and early 20th century, there emerged a division between Christian followers, with one side preferring Jesus to be represented in a softer more compassionate way. While those opposing this rendition suggested this approach highlighted Christ's effeminate qualities, whereas their preference was to portray Jesus in a more manly or masculine light, stressing his manhood, his courage, his charisma and his strength. Jesus was to be the veritable all American hero. But why not embrace both perspectives?

In many of the depictions of Jesus over since the 1800s, Jesus has blond hair and blue eyes? So let's consider the historical, social and political rationales for this 'white' construction.

In their book, The Colour of Christ:The son of God and the saga of race in America, authors Ed Blum and Paul Harvey (2012) outline the construction of the Jesus image according to the socio-political and historical eras and events in the US. In particular, they show how the Jesus image has been used both as a symbol of freedom and civil rights, as well as its total opposite - a symbol of white supremacy promulgated by white supremacist groups such as the KKK.

In an interview with one of the authors, Ed Blum stresses that showing Jesus always as white falls directly in line with white supremacy viewpoints: 'The belief, the value, that Jesus is white provides them an image in place of text, ...It gets them away from actually having to quote chapter and verse, which they can't really do to present their cause'.

When asked what 'colour' Christ would probably have been, Blum replied that it would not be white. [He would be] 'darkly complected, not pure black, more in a kind of light brownish [color]'. In fact, Blum points out that up until the 18th century, Jesus was generally shown with brown eyes.

So how did he become white and why? Blum and Harvey document the shift from Jesus as the bringer or epitome of Light to a re-rendering of light into white. For colonial Americans, light connoted power, goodness, love. White [at least in those days] was a sign of trouble' (Blum and Harvey 2012). In fact it was this 'darker' version of Jesus that sparked interest among Native Americans and African Americans, a move which may have fostered a shift from dark to light, white and right.

The rise of Protestant Christianity and the sacred values of Christ were promoted across the US through the 19th century by an organisation known as the American Tract Society. Started in 1825, it spread the Gospel message far and wide. During the 1800s, with an active slave trade and the dispossession of Native American lands, Christians distanced themselves from the earlier 'darker' Jesus image. Armed with increasing migration, the support of providence and the philosophy of manifest destiny, American was destined (it was believed) to become a Christian nation heralded by a now white Jesus representing 'civilized Christian values' (Blum and Harvey 2013).

Blum and Harvey conclude their article in The Chronicle of Higher Education with a pessimistic or perhaps it is a pragmatic vision for the future of Jesus images in America by saying:

'Jesus will probably remain white for most Americans, because Christ still serves as a symbol and symptom of racial power in society. But because of the nation's complicated histories of race and religion, Jesus will also continue to be a complicated savior—white without words, and yet made and remade in many shades'.

Arguments about the allure of Jesus images have shifted over time in relation to gender stereotypes, colour representations and political and religious expediency. Images, like words, have power, and the power to influence public perception and public opinion. A white Jesus becomes normalised, unquestioned, accepted and adopted. What would it mean if the image was not this norm? 

To find out what Jesus may have looked like, the BBC program 'Son of God' has reconstructed a possible representation of Jesus based on the skull of a first century Jew. Using forensic, historical and archeological techniques, the face that emerges from the screen is that of a man of Middle Eastern appearance. In contrast to the white 'Hollywood' Jesus, the BBC's rendering showed Jesus of Nazareth was likely to have been very different from the idealised Christian American and so-called 'civilised' version. It's fascinating viewing.

Questions
- If you were to cast a movie of Jesus in 2013, what kind of actor would represent the Saviour? 
- Could Jesus or a particular image of Jesus be deemed a kind of 'trade-marked' (TM) brand?
- If you were running an advertising campaign promoting Jesus or contemporary Christianity, how would you do it?
- How do you perceive the argument of gender qualities still relevant in 2013? Why?

References
BBC. 2001. The face of Jesus reconstructed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2-0jU2-m6I [There are several youtube clips from the series Son of God].
Blum E.J. and P. Harvey. 2012. The Colour of Christ:The son of God and the saga of race in America. University of North Carolina Press.
Blum E.J. and P. Harvey. 2013. The Contested Color of Christ: How the image of Jesus has been made and remade in American history. The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 17, http://chronicle.com/article/The-Contested-Color-of-Christ/134414/
Morgan D. 2002. 'Would Jesus have sat for a portrait?' The likeness of Christ in the popular reception if Sallman's art. In S. Brent Plate, Ed., Religion, art and visual culture: A cross-cultural reader. New York: Palgrave.

Image source:
http://pixabay.com/en/antique-art-building-cambridge-21803/