Many persons suppose he was on horseback, and painters thus represent him; but this is utterly without foundation. Painters are, in almost every case, wretched commentators.
~ Clarke*
He's right - but I do try very hard not to do this.
But at the end of the day, you have to draw something. And unless the Bible spells it out, your choice does say something. If you draw him on a horse, you're saying he was on a horse. But if, because it doesn't say so, you don't draw a horse, you're not leaving it open to interpretation - you are saying that he was not on a horse.
Actually, in this case, the fact that Paul was later led by the hand suggests to me that he was not on a horse - and personally I avoid drawing horses whenever possible anyway!
But there's so many things: was the person old or young? fat or thin? tall or short? brown or black or white**? And if we avoid any of these extremes, are we saying that the Bible is about boring, characterless people instead of real-life people like us?
What colour were Adam & Eve? Did Mary & Joseph ride a donkey? Were there three wise men? Was Mary Magdalene the same person as Mary of Bethany? Was she the sinful woman who anointed Jesus' feet? Was 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' John? Do angels have wings? ***
Every picture you draw makes a statement.
* Sorry, I have no idea this guy's full name - it was a quote in the commentary on my Bible app
** Not such an issue in the OT (though there certainly was more racial diversity than we tend to imagine or draw - which is also saying something). But by the NT - especially Acts - with the racial mix of the Roman empire...
*** My decisions for illustrations:
- Adam & Eve were mid brown, with all the genes necessary for the whole human race
- No
- Not necessarily, but three is a nice number, so I often draw three
- Yes
- No
- Yes
- Probably not - I tend to draw them glowing instead. But I have no objection to including wings, and I have done so if needed to make it clear these are angels
No comments:
Post a Comment