Disfellowshipping Image

by naazira 150 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Billy the Ex-Bethelite

  It looks like a real person surrounded by ghosts. The woman in blue is thinking, "I see dead people."
• 

  cofty

  There is no comparison between intellectually analysing the beliefs of a religion and reading meanings into the shapes and shadows in a drawing.

  One involves comparing their doctrines with objective evidence about reality. Uncovering lies and deceptions and exposing fallacies. The other involves screwing up your eyes and using your imagination.

  If someone sees a cross in the image, or whatever else they see, they should state what it is they see, what it means to them and why. That is exactly how a viewer takes control of the image rather than letting the image control them.

  That isn't what I'm criticising. People are making far-fetched assertions about the intent of the artists/s. The world is awash with cross-shapes. Look at any door in your house and you will see them. I am looking at 3 from where I am sitting.

  The picture is an example of the cult's emotional manipulation. That is bad enough without inventing demons.

  This is the sort of conversation that would be called a critique of the image in any one of several university classes

  I would be asking for a refund.
• 

  Xanthippe

  Iconography, as a branch of art history, studies the identification, description, and the interpretation of the content of images: the subjects depicted, the particular compositions and details used to do so, and other elements that are distinct from artistic style. The word iconography comes from the Greek εἰκών ("image") and γράφειν ("to write"). A secondary meaning (based on a non-standard translation of the Greek and Russian equivalent terms) is the production of religious images, called "icons", in the Byzantine and Orthodox Christian tradition; see Icon. In art history, "an iconography" may also mean a particular depiction of a subject in terms of the content of the image, such as the number of figures used, their placing and gestures. The term is also used in many academic fields other than art history, for example semiotics and media studies, and in general usage, for the content of images, the typical depiction in images of a subject, and related senses. Sometimes distinctions have been made between Iconology and Iconography,[1][2] although the definitions, and so the distinction made, varies. When referring to movies, genres are immediately recognizable through their iconography, motifs that become associated with a specific genre through repetition.[3][need quotation to verify]

  Reading a painting is used in university level history because paintings are primary sources. As you often say to people about evolution Cofty, do more reading, you are embarrassing yourself.
• 

  cofty

  Reading a painting is used in university level history because paintings are primary sources. As you often say to people about evolution Cofty, do more reading, you are embarrassing yourself. - Xanthippe

  No I'm not.

  I agree totally with discussing the feelings and emotions and even subliminal messages that are communicated by artwork.

  I am objecting to the nonsense about hidden demons and crosses and ape heads.

  Please respond to what I actually wrote. If you are looking for a dolt who can't appreciate the nuances or art I am not that man.

  Look at my avatar.
• 

  FayeDunaway

  Im really not into the 'I see faces in the walls' kind of thing, tho I do think the one in the seat back is kind of strange. BUT, the doors are interesting. What artist would make the doors not match? These types of French doors always should match. One door has three panels of glass across, one has two. This was a stupid mistake. I actually do think this artist is sympathetic to ttatt, for all the reasons mentioned before, and those are pretty distinctive crosses, and the doors don't match, so maybe they were intentional.
• 

  punkofnice

  

  Looks to me like everyone else is DF'd and the bird in the turquoise dress is the only JW.
• 

  OrphanCrow

  cofty: People are making far-fetched assertions about the intent of the artists/s.

  
  I am objecting to the nonsense about hidden demons and crosses and ape heads.

  
  Those visual symbols - whether intentional or not - are no longer hidden when they are perceived to be there. They are visible, not hidden. Even if they are not visible to everybody - everyone approaches an image with their own cultural biases and those cultural biases are not inclusive to all peoples.

  They are only hidden if you refuse to recognize them or lack the ability to do so or lack the cultural understandings that others come equipped with.

  Please respond to what I actually wrote

  Many of the observations that have been made on this thread about what has been 'seen' in the image make no claim whatsoever as to the intent of the producer of that image. None. No claims. So, take your own advice, Cofty, and don't ask people to respond to what you actually wrote when you don't do the same yourself.

  Xanthippie - good post about iconography. The image has been far more prevalent and influential in history than the text ever was in the proliferation of religious beliefs. The language of the image is as important as the language of text when decoding how religion transmits belief in doctrine.

  And the people who study the power of the image, and teach or study it in university classes, would be more than glad to refund the money of anybody who would rather pursue other branches of knowledge. Different strokes for different folks.
• 

  punkofnice

  
  
• 

  millie210

  OrphanCrow2 hours agoThis is the sort of conversation that would be called a critique of the image in any one of several university classes. .....
  - it is dismantling the meaning of visual language in an attempt to understand it. You know, like exjws do with the doctrine and Bibble - they dismantle it, they take it apart, they scrutinize it.

  Thanks for your most informative post about Media Studies Classes. I have never taken that class so it is interesting to learn more about it. It would be pretty fascinating to take that course I think.

  But in the meantime I am grateful that I found this forum where I can learn from people of all walks of life and many disciplines and persuasions.

  This thread is obviously one where a diverse group of people feel comfortable throwing thoughts and ideas out to be considered. Those make the best threads.

  In the creative process, many ideas must be considered from the outlandish and bizarre to the literal and constructive (like the one about the French doors - I hadnt even noticed that point!) and then after that has been accomplished, the reader can form their deduction about what is going on.

  Thanks for encouraging us all in the process and sharing what you have,

  I hope people continue to share what they "see"

  And you are right that deconstructing it takes away its "power". I was SO bugged by this picture when I first saw it. Now I can laugh as I examine it and nod as I read various posters contributions.
• 

  cofty

  Many of the observations that have been made on this thread about what has been 'seen' in the image make no claim whatsoever as to the intent of the producer of that image. None. No claims

  And those are the ones I said I was not criticising. Once again please read what I actually wrote.

  If you agree that there is absolutely no evidence that the demon, ape heads and crosses exist except in the minds of people who gaze at the image too long, and had nothing to do with the actions of the artist/s then we agree.