Angels

[poliphilo]

"What sex is an angel?" asks pondhopper. Well, neither, obviously. An angel is a spirit and spirits are genderless. For the purpose of communicating with humankind they may assume a gender- or allow us to impose one on them- but in their own element they're neither one thing nor the other.

I went looking for pictures of angels. Most artists get it. Most pictures of angels- from medieval wall paintings to renaissance altarpieces to Russian icons- have angels who are superbly androgyne. Only in the 20th century- with the tradition broken and artists all at sea- do you get the odd, obviously gendered angel- either curvaceously feminine, or rippingly male. I don't like these gendered angels. They're wrong. There are things higher and holier than sex- and angels, dropping down into this lower realm to the sound of rebecks and viols, remind us of this. Their beauty- as the best artists have laboured to realise- is a beauty of the beyond. 



The Archangel Michael: Rogier Van Der Weyden.

Comments

[haikujaguar.livejournal.com]

Agreed, on all counts.

[pondhopper.livejournal.com]

My question was more rhetorical than anything and was in reference to the fact that arguing the sex of angels is a useless discussion. There is a saying in Spanish that refers to that, in fact. "Es como discutir el sexo de los angeles" referring to a pointless argument. I was more amused by the fact that there were obvious gender traits assigned to some of those figures present in our Holy Week celebration, especially amongst the cherubs (or baby angels as we call them in Spanish). You are right, of course, and I, too, went looking for angels in art and until the 19th century they are quite androgynous. It was during Victorian times that a feminization occurred in many instances, especially in Victorian Christmas greetings.

The angels in my post are 19th century carvings, by the way. I think I will be on the lookout next year during Holy Week and document all the angel figures, and embroideries I see. I've only now, after 30 years, begun to see some of the details in the Seville Holy Week art.

Marvelous painting, isn't it.
:)

[wolfshift.livejournal.com]

I'm curious: On what basis do you label this angel (for example) androgynous? Did the artist provide additional information that makes it explicit?

To me, this angel looks just as male as any human subject in paintings from the same period. What "looks male" or "looks female" is different today (and also differs from one culture to another). By today's standards (or maybe just my perception of those standards), I've seen many pre-modern paintings of humans that I've initially been 100% certain represent women and then quite surprised to discover that they're supposed to be men. I don't see this painting as androgynous.

[mummm.livejournal.com]

I believe that in the distant past almost every spiritual figure was portrayed as male. The name Michael is certainly male, yes?
God= male, Christ= (logically) male, Angels= male. Female spiritual figures were very limited except for Mary and Mary Magdalene, and a (very) few others. I attribute that to the attitude about females during those times, and the male writers of biblical items. It is only much more recently that angels are portrayed as female.

[sculptruth.livejournal.com]

Beautiful.

The most gorgeous angel I've seen portrayed was in Angels in America. She was powerful, androgynous, and hit that note of sublimity (the Edmund Burke definition of the word) so perfectly, I was transfixed. I imagined her to be what all angels should be; beautiful, terrifying, and (near) tantamount to God.

I wonder about the gender of ancient Hebrew names? I know that Michael and Gabriel have consistently been girl's names in contemporary times, but I have no idea of the past, or of the use of those names in the Hebrew language.

[aerodrome1.livejournal.com]

Would that apply to warrior angel images from the Middle Ages, too?