About Face
April 22, 2001 | 12:00am
It was my wife who first noticed the resemblance. Glancing at the headline photo of The STAR, she pointed and asked me: "Doesn’t that look like…?"
It was a picture of freed American hostage Jeffrey Schilling, just released from the Abu Sayyaf.
I rifled through a stack of old newspapers until I came up with the mirror image: the BBC’s computer-generated image of Jesus Christ, which has raised such a predictable stink.
So what’s in a face, anyway?
And why does an image – something designed to represent something else, not actually be it – have the power to rattle so many people’s cages? Isn’t there something in "Exodus" about false images and idolatry?
Oh, the uproar was pretty much as you’d expect, here in the Catholic Philippines. How could the British Broadcasting Corp. (usually prefaced by "non-Christian" or "godless") have the audacity to present this face – this "homely," "distorted," "broad, swarthy peasant’s face"– as the face of Jesus Christ? Is the BBC suggesting that – no, they can’t be, they aren’t, are they? Are they saying that Jesus was … black?
Whoa, daddy. One surefire way to strike a nerve among Catholics is to hit them where they live. And most Catholics live in homes where the image of Jesus Christ, if it is displayed, is one that was handed down from centuries of Western Art, very well-accepted images of Jesus as a kind of matinee idol: large, expressive blue eyes; soft, flowing brown hair; a thin nose and narrow facial features. In short, a composite European look. These images began appearing in earnest during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, throughout northern and southern Europe. And they are pretty much how the world – helped along by Western Civilization – now view the face of Jesus Christ.
These images were delivered safely to Filipino doorsteps by the Spanish, the Caucasian visitors with crucifixes and Bibles in tow. But wouldn’t the face of Jesus Christ look quite different if Art History were written by the Asian side of the world?
Of course it would. But those upset by the BBC’s "hoax" (as one letter-writer testily put it) have a hard time seeing straight when it comes to this facial debate. Yes, the BBC used some pretty hinky methods to generate their computer image: skulls from around the same period and place of Jesus’ death were modeled on a computer, facial features added using layers suggested by the shape of the skull. This was not meant to be the actual face of Jesus, of course, but a better idea of how someone living during those times, in that part of the world, may have looked. Skin tone was deduced from available climate data from those times. Similarly, kinky hair (as opposed to smooth, brown hair) was more commonplace, as was a broader nose. Much data supports this. Arabs, Jews and Africans at the time probably looked more similar than different. It’s more scientific to pin your profile on probabilities, rather than dissimilarities.
So, the "likeness of Jesus." And the usual fits and cries. Here’s a sampling of letters and comments about the BBC image (all from Star readers):
• "That Barabbas thing is a real misrepresentation, or a distortion perhaps by those non-Christian Brits at BBC."
• "Jesus is the son of the Virgin Mary who, according to Church-recognized visionaries, is a very beautiful lady."
• "The Shroud of Turin is more acceptable than some rotten skulls of some Jewish Neanderthal primitive man of the Paleolithic period."
Besides getting their geological periods mixed up, I must admit I don’t understand people’s passionate objections. Ugliness, after all, is in the eye of the beholder. Didn’t the Book of Isaiah say: "He (Jesus) had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him"? (Isaiah 53:2-3)
What is it with Catholics and their graven images? I thought the whole point of Christianity was not to judge by appearances. Not every great or respected world leader looked like a Hollywood hunk, after all. Winston Churchill, for instance, was rather troll-like in appearance. But a great leader. Same with Gandhi. And closer to home, people tell me that Carlos P. Romulo was no young Joseph Estrada in terms of looks, but was still one of the Philippines’ finest statesmen.
But we have our images! The images shown to us in movies, in our churches, in famous paintings (some from the 20th century). How rude of science to brush aside these things! Science isn’t always right, is it? "The Shroud of Turin"– now that’s a Jesus I can get behind.
Granted, the BBC program which featured the Jesus morph was probably geared toward controversy. Calling itself Jesus: The Complete Story, this BBC production (airing on the Discovery Channel) looked at ruins, excavations and remains to get a better sense of Jesus’ life, or at least how he might have lived historically. The computer image was no doubt tacked on to give the program some watercooler-discussion appeal.
The photo raised plenty of discussion in the Philippines – even hostility. Others went further in their calumny. "He looks like a criminal!" was a typical reaction to the Star’s headline photo. "I thought it was a kidnap suspect," admitted another. "Or the Abu Sayyaf."
"He’s an ugly mother," cackled one critic. "How could someone follow and admire a face like that?" went another openly-angry reaction.
Answer: look beyond the face. Remember the words of Jesus to Samuel: "Do not consider his appearance or his height… The Lord does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart." (1 Samuel 16:7)
Or if you want something more 20th century, look to J.D. Salinger. Franny and Zooey, the part where Buddy explains it all to Franny:
"There isn’t anyone anywhere who isn’t Seymour’s Fat Lady. Don’t you know that? Don’t you know that goddamn secret yet? And don’t you know who that Fat Lady really is? … Ah, buddy. Ah, buddy. It’s Christ Himself. Christ Himself, buddy."
Or look to the face of Jeffrey Schilling, with its superficial resemblance to the BBC Jesus: a face that no one, up until now, is sure how to judge – whether as true captive, secret collaborator, or walk-in guest. A face that, if anything, is gentler, more peaceful than the fierce-looking BBC Christ. Look to the face. Then look beyond the face.
It was a picture of freed American hostage Jeffrey Schilling, just released from the Abu Sayyaf.
I rifled through a stack of old newspapers until I came up with the mirror image: the BBC’s computer-generated image of Jesus Christ, which has raised such a predictable stink.
So what’s in a face, anyway?
And why does an image – something designed to represent something else, not actually be it – have the power to rattle so many people’s cages? Isn’t there something in "Exodus" about false images and idolatry?
Oh, the uproar was pretty much as you’d expect, here in the Catholic Philippines. How could the British Broadcasting Corp. (usually prefaced by "non-Christian" or "godless") have the audacity to present this face – this "homely," "distorted," "broad, swarthy peasant’s face"– as the face of Jesus Christ? Is the BBC suggesting that – no, they can’t be, they aren’t, are they? Are they saying that Jesus was … black?
Whoa, daddy. One surefire way to strike a nerve among Catholics is to hit them where they live. And most Catholics live in homes where the image of Jesus Christ, if it is displayed, is one that was handed down from centuries of Western Art, very well-accepted images of Jesus as a kind of matinee idol: large, expressive blue eyes; soft, flowing brown hair; a thin nose and narrow facial features. In short, a composite European look. These images began appearing in earnest during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, throughout northern and southern Europe. And they are pretty much how the world – helped along by Western Civilization – now view the face of Jesus Christ.
These images were delivered safely to Filipino doorsteps by the Spanish, the Caucasian visitors with crucifixes and Bibles in tow. But wouldn’t the face of Jesus Christ look quite different if Art History were written by the Asian side of the world?
Of course it would. But those upset by the BBC’s "hoax" (as one letter-writer testily put it) have a hard time seeing straight when it comes to this facial debate. Yes, the BBC used some pretty hinky methods to generate their computer image: skulls from around the same period and place of Jesus’ death were modeled on a computer, facial features added using layers suggested by the shape of the skull. This was not meant to be the actual face of Jesus, of course, but a better idea of how someone living during those times, in that part of the world, may have looked. Skin tone was deduced from available climate data from those times. Similarly, kinky hair (as opposed to smooth, brown hair) was more commonplace, as was a broader nose. Much data supports this. Arabs, Jews and Africans at the time probably looked more similar than different. It’s more scientific to pin your profile on probabilities, rather than dissimilarities.
So, the "likeness of Jesus." And the usual fits and cries. Here’s a sampling of letters and comments about the BBC image (all from Star readers):
• "That Barabbas thing is a real misrepresentation, or a distortion perhaps by those non-Christian Brits at BBC."
• "Jesus is the son of the Virgin Mary who, according to Church-recognized visionaries, is a very beautiful lady."
• "The Shroud of Turin is more acceptable than some rotten skulls of some Jewish Neanderthal primitive man of the Paleolithic period."
Besides getting their geological periods mixed up, I must admit I don’t understand people’s passionate objections. Ugliness, after all, is in the eye of the beholder. Didn’t the Book of Isaiah say: "He (Jesus) had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him"? (Isaiah 53:2-3)
What is it with Catholics and their graven images? I thought the whole point of Christianity was not to judge by appearances. Not every great or respected world leader looked like a Hollywood hunk, after all. Winston Churchill, for instance, was rather troll-like in appearance. But a great leader. Same with Gandhi. And closer to home, people tell me that Carlos P. Romulo was no young Joseph Estrada in terms of looks, but was still one of the Philippines’ finest statesmen.
But we have our images! The images shown to us in movies, in our churches, in famous paintings (some from the 20th century). How rude of science to brush aside these things! Science isn’t always right, is it? "The Shroud of Turin"– now that’s a Jesus I can get behind.
Granted, the BBC program which featured the Jesus morph was probably geared toward controversy. Calling itself Jesus: The Complete Story, this BBC production (airing on the Discovery Channel) looked at ruins, excavations and remains to get a better sense of Jesus’ life, or at least how he might have lived historically. The computer image was no doubt tacked on to give the program some watercooler-discussion appeal.
The photo raised plenty of discussion in the Philippines – even hostility. Others went further in their calumny. "He looks like a criminal!" was a typical reaction to the Star’s headline photo. "I thought it was a kidnap suspect," admitted another. "Or the Abu Sayyaf."
"He’s an ugly mother," cackled one critic. "How could someone follow and admire a face like that?" went another openly-angry reaction.
Answer: look beyond the face. Remember the words of Jesus to Samuel: "Do not consider his appearance or his height… The Lord does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart." (1 Samuel 16:7)
Or if you want something more 20th century, look to J.D. Salinger. Franny and Zooey, the part where Buddy explains it all to Franny:
"There isn’t anyone anywhere who isn’t Seymour’s Fat Lady. Don’t you know that? Don’t you know that goddamn secret yet? And don’t you know who that Fat Lady really is? … Ah, buddy. Ah, buddy. It’s Christ Himself. Christ Himself, buddy."
Or look to the face of Jeffrey Schilling, with its superficial resemblance to the BBC Jesus: a face that no one, up until now, is sure how to judge – whether as true captive, secret collaborator, or walk-in guest. A face that, if anything, is gentler, more peaceful than the fierce-looking BBC Christ. Look to the face. Then look beyond the face.
BrandSpace Articles
<
>