Talk:Angels in art

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArtsWikipedia:WikiProject ArtsTemplate:WikiProject ArtsWikiProject Arts articles

Theology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Theology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TheologyWikipedia:WikiProject TheologyTemplate:WikiProject TheologyTheology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Romymacari, Ceastburn20, Josephineking. Peer reviewers: Meghancondas, HannibalB216, Muwang988, EKCarleton.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One question

Are Western winged humanoid angel arts an "unbroken" continuation of putti? Komitsuki (talk) 15:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all. I have added to, I hope, clarify this. Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I’m removing the John Vineycomb stuff from the introduction

The introduction ends with »John Vinycomb takes exception to this, finding "the vigorous active principle they represent, besides having the warrant of Scripture, is more fitly represented by man than by woman"«. John Vinycomb doesn’t even have a Wikipedia entry, so he doesn’t seem notable enough to warrant inclusion of his exception. Plenty of people take exceptions to all sorts of things but this doesn’t seem to belong in an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bossk-Office (talk • contribs) 20:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abstract angels

While the idea that the article should have a more "abstract" portrayal of an angel is sensible, the opinions of Robet Prisig are of no art historical importance or value, and the depiction of Jesus is even less relevant. There are many images of angels that do not conform to the "androgynous human with bird wings" convention. eg H.O. Tanner's 'Annunciation. Paul B (talk) 11:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Genderless angels

The heading states that Christian theology teaches that angels are genderless, and that one shouldn't think of angels as gendered based on their appearance in art. I know I have heard the saying that "angels have no gender" a million times, but what basis is it for it? In Scripture they're referred always in the masculine, no matter the translation; even in languages that have neutral pronouns, the translators still use the masculine. They manifest themselves as men, not androgynous beings, and in 1 Enoch (canonical for some Christian Churches) some angels have children with women. Their portrayal in art is often unmistakeable male, with masculine muscles, dressing or armor. Portrayals of female angels by modern artists may be intended to be pure imagination, and not to be taken too seriously. But I don't see a reason to think that traditional art didn't intend its angels to be masculine in a literal way, or that such an interpretation would be essentially wrong.79.154.247.85 (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The representation of angels has varied in different contexts. The ones in the Hebrew Bible are all masculine-designated. But art history is large. Here are some books that examine the representation over centuries and in different Christian contexts of the past:

Angels, Devils : the Supernatural and Its Visual Representation. by Gerhard Jaritz, eBook, 2010, New York : Central European University Press, 2010.

Ferguson, George. Signs & Symbols in Christian Art. Oxford University Press, 1961.

Peers, Glenn. Subtle Bodies : Representing Angels in Byzantium. University of California Press, 2001, http://hdl.handle.net/2027/heb.08316.

I think it would be good to be open to the idea that the visual representation of angels has not always corresponded to the written descriptions of angels, even in biblical times. Meerkat77 (talk) 02:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I don't think angels are represented as genderless; and I do agree with Virginia's notes below largely. But the situation is a bit more complicated because in different eras, people saw all kinds of "visions" of angels and gendered lenses were not modern--angels could be conflated for instance, in visual art, with ancient Greek Hermaphrodite figures, or female figures of goddesses with wings like Nike (Victory) and Eos (Dawn). So, in the visual arts it is really not so clear what people thought their angels' genders were.

Here's another book that might have an interesting chapter or two on this: Classen, Constance. The Color of Angels : Cosmology, Gender, and the Aesthetic Imagination. Routledge, 1998. Meerkat77 (talk) 02:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Angels in art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENTS ON THE POSITION THAT ANGELS IN ART ARE GENDERLESS

The claim that angels are genderless or were until the 19th-century is, at the very least, inaccurate. My position is that it is incorrect. (re: “In fine art angels are usually depicted as having the shape of human beings of extraordinary beauty[4] but no gender (until the 19th century at least.") The gender of angels in sacred and secular Christian art from the surviving icons and archaeological finds that pre-date iconoclasm to the present, is represented as 1. ambiguous with the assumption being that the unmarked case represents the dominant group and is, hence, male, or 2. as male by name and symbolic content through association with relevant religious mythology as in the case of the well-known archangels such as Michael and Gabriel, or 3. as male by anatomy as in the case of cherubs (or puti) commonly depicted as young children with exposed male genitalia. If one clicks the link in the quoted claim to the Angels in Art page, the error is further compounded throughout the article. A simple examination of the holdings of museums in Egypt - e.g. the Coptic Museum or Egyptian Museum, and Italy, e.g. the Pinacoteca di Brera in Milan, or the Uffizi in Florence - will confirm that angel gender is either male and, if ambiguous, assumed to be male.

The unmarked case in any society is a representation of the dominant group. That can be seen everywhere in symbolic representations of human (always male and/or dominant group members) that have to be marked to represent female, for example, with the addition of clothing articles associated with females (eg. the symbols on bathroom doors globally), and, similarly, which must needs be marked to represent male or female minority status in kind or with a different skin color or an object or occupation associated with that minority group. Additionally, all languages mark words for gender. In English, for example, we have poet and poetess, actor and actress, and the one word marked female is widow, where to refer to a male one uses widower. If not marked for female gender in a male-dominated society the gender represented is assumed in intent to be male. The page Angels in Art makes further errors in claiming Greek Erotes are genderless. They are not - they are male. The art depicted is of male angels. An angel named Michael or Gabriel is male not ambiguous. Ambiguity is never genderless in any culture. A Catholic source or any source which makes this claim needs to be critically examined in light of the very evidence used in the discussion - the art, and in light of the tenets and beliefs of the religion especially Catholicism and most versions of Christianity which, outside Mary the mother of Jesus, are devoid of the feminine.

Additionally, when quoting Catholic sources one must note not only the contradictions of the position that angels are genderless but the foundation of the belief in a triune - all-male - godhead. Catholicism does not even reflect a stated belief that Mary is the 'biological' mother of Jesus, i.e. having contributed her essence or DNA to him. She is considered a vessel and the name Theotokos - used by Western and Eastern Christianity means 'God-bearer' not 'Mother of God' as is often incorrectly claimed. (One can ‘bear’ a child not one's own – surrogates do it all the time.) Angels are always male in sacred art, and if represented as female in modern art a definitive example has to be offered since to my knowledge there is no angel that is reflective of religious belief that is presented as female in art, and if no definitive representation as female is available then that further speaks to what is touted as ambiguity being male in actuality and intent.

In conclusion, in the art being discussed language reflects male dominance. Consider the (outdated) ‘inclusive’ pronouns and noun ‘man’ and ‘men’ and ‘mankind’ where female is subsumed and made invisible through these uses. Additionally, for example, with the exception of modern-day English, the languages of the cultures from which the examples of art are chosen have grammatical gender. Grammatical gender requires adjectives, adverbs, verbs, and articles be marked for gender. If a room is filled with a thousand women and one man walks in then all who are present are referred to with the masculine ending, e.g. Italian - Sono tutti presenti. Culture has no ambiguity in its symbolism unless gender ambiguity is a well-established aspect of that culture’s understanding of humanity. The art being discussed comes from cultures where that is not the case and where the religions are pure representations of patriarchal ideology – an ideology that is devoid of the sacred female and feminine and absent any female power. The helpmeets of the deity and of humanity in such religions would never and could never be female. They are only male – ambiguity means male. If all that exists in representation is male in name or anatomy (or action as in the wielding of a sword which is associated with male activity and occupations), or 'ambiguous' (for example, in the absence of 'protruding' breasts) then ambiguity does not exist - only maleness exists. Respectfully, Virginia Merlini Virginia Louise Merlini 19:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Humanities 2 1400-present

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2024 and 7 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BriRosario (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Kberberian (talk) 15:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from History of angels in art

I think it would be reasonable to merge History of angels in art into Angels in art. There's considerable overlap in the two topics so there's a high risk that History of angels in art becomes a content fork which is always confusing for readers. Pichpich (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]