• Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.

Bobnearled = Bobinder

Go to CruxDreams.com
Crux Fashion 2

Traditionally a crucifixion illustration had a number of basic components including nails, a halo and a crown of thorns. These were used to identify Jesus from the two thieves who were usually roped to their crosses on either side of the figure on centre stage. A further component was the titulus proclaiming in latin, Greek and Hebrew, 'Iesvs Nasoreanvs Rex Ivdaeorvm' (popularly abbreviated to 'INRI') - thus named and shamed, we can be in no doubt as to the victim's identity. The 'INRI' titulus and crown of thorns have been perpetuated in recent crux art where the subject is not otherwise recognisably a messianic pretender (e.g. a female.) Also traditional in art was the loin cloth worn by each victim during execution and this often makes an appearance in wider modern crux art. Only the 'INRI' titulus and crown of thorns are unique as references to Jesus. Thousands of others died roped or nailed to crosses, including the saints who qualify for the halos. The loin cloth is a timeless piece of apparently simple apparel featuring in images of Jesus, the ancient Egyptians, Mahatma Gandhi and prisoners of war working on the Burma-Siam Railway (some of whom were also co-incidentally crucified).

When the Romans reduced a human being to a bloody, tormented, shameful public spectacle in the name of justice and deterrence, they were not generally sensitive about the modesty of the victim. Of all their conquered territories, only in Judaea were they confronted by a nation who would rather die for their God than submit to the Emperor. Consequently, only in Judaea did the Romans exercise toleration for the local religion and make some allowances for Jewish religious law, although this was by no means universal. In a flogging, the Romans might limit the number of lashes to thirty nine because Jewish law said it should not exceed forty. In the matter of executions, Jewish law required death to occur on the same day the sentence was passed if possible, and executed corpses were not to be left on display during the hours of darkness. During the uneasy peace of the occupation, the Romans accommodated this by breaking the legs of the crucified before sunset to hasten death and allowed the bodies to be removed before nightfall.

There is much literary speculation about what else the Romans may have accommodated, usually by Christian writers, especially in view of the execution of Jewish women under Roman law and by the Roman method. If the Romans were going to make an example of someone, concessions to modesty were low on their list of considerations. If they were going to execute a person decently, they wouldn't employ crucifixion, which was abhorrent to the Jews. But because it was abhorrent and indecent, they did employ it. And because the Jews would rather die, the employment was extensive, widespread and numerically awesome. Ultimately the number of loin cloths worn at those events must remain a matter for conjecture.

I think it's an incredibly arousing pic with or without the loincloth ... and I like the fact that the loincloth is not the usual white. It's also not hard to believe that the Romans cared at all about the modesty of the condemned. Very interesting post!
 
I think it's an incredibly arousing pic with or without the loincloth ... and I like the fact that the loincloth is not the usual white. It's also not hard to believe that the Romans cared at all about the modesty of the condemned. Very interesting post!
Thanks. I'll move on to a discussion about the authenticity of clean white loin cloths eventually, plus more in detail about the Irina image. Suffice to say she was not provided with fresh, clean, high quality apparel for the occasion!
 
Thanks. I'll move on to a discussion about the authenticity of clean white loin cloths eventually, plus more in detail about the Irina image. Suffice to say she was not provided with fresh, clean, high quality apparel for the occasion!

Oh good, loin cloths always intrigue me ... nothing is more humiliating than losing mine ... but its color, quality and size is of interest too. If I were a noble woman, I would expect it to be thin and perfectly cut, and perhaps my crest embroidered on the triangular front panel. A common slave girl, on the other hand ... well ... you can imagine the differences.
 
Oh good, loin cloths always intrigue me ... nothing is more humiliating than losing mine ... but its color, quality and size is of interest too. If I were a noble woman, I would expect it to be thin and perfectly cut, and perhaps my crest embroidered on the triangular front panel. A common slave girl, on the other hand ... well ... you can imagine the differences.
You want a monogrammed loincloth? :rolleyes: Perhaps with the Lacoste alligator on it?
 
Crux Fashion 2

Traditionally a crucifixion illustration had a number of basic components including nails, a halo and a crown of thorns. These were used to identify Jesus from the two thieves who were usually roped to their crosses on either side of the figure on centre stage. A further component was the titulus proclaiming in latin, Greek and Hebrew, 'Iesvs Nasoreanvs Rex Ivdaeorvm' (popularly abbreviated to 'INRI') - thus named and shamed, we can be in no doubt as to the victim's identity. The 'INRI' titulus and crown of thorns have been perpetuated in recent crux art where the subject is not otherwise recognisably a messianic pretender (e.g. a female.) Also traditional in art was the loin cloth worn by each victim during execution and this often makes an appearance in wider modern crux art. Only the 'INRI' titulus and crown of thorns are unique as references to Jesus. Thousands of others died roped or nailed to crosses, including the saints who qualify for the halos. The loin cloth is a timeless piece of apparently simple apparel featuring in images of Jesus, the ancient Egyptians, Mahatma Gandhi and prisoners of war working on the Burma-Siam Railway (some of whom were also co-incidentally crucified).

When the Romans reduced a human being to a bloody, tormented, shameful public spectacle in the name of justice and deterrence, they were not generally sensitive about the modesty of the victim. Of all their conquered territories, only in Judaea were they confronted by a nation who would rather die for their God than submit to the Emperor. Consequently, only in Judaea did the Romans exercise toleration for the local religion and make some allowances for Jewish religious law, although this was by no means universal. In a flogging, the Romans might limit the number of lashes to thirty nine because Jewish law said it should not exceed forty. In the matter of executions, Jewish law required death to occur on the same day the sentence was passed if possible, and executed corpses were not to be left on display during the hours of darkness. During the uneasy peace of the occupation, the Romans accommodated this by breaking the legs of the crucified before sunset to hasten death and allowed the bodies to be removed before nightfall.

There is much literary speculation about what else the Romans may have accommodated, usually by Christian writers, especially in view of the execution of Jewish women under Roman law and by the Roman method. If the Romans were going to make an example of someone, concessions to modesty were low on their list of considerations. If they were going to execute a person decently, they wouldn't employ crucifixion, which was abhorrent to the Jews. But because it was abhorrent and indecent, they did employ it. And because the Jews would rather die, the employment was extensive, widespread and numerically awesome. Ultimately the number of loin cloths worn at those events must remain a matter for conjecture.
Very good explanation of the Roman crucifixion methods Bobinder. I am not much of a fan of loincloths, I prefer my victims nude:devil:. Image #2 is fantastic, I like the way her legs are nailed, one bent, one straight. I also like her body, very voluptuous, with just the right amount of bush;)
 
if there was a loincloth at all, the one colour it certainly wasn't was white!
Oh good, loin cloths always intrigue me ... nothing is more humiliating than losing mine

I imagine that if anything was provided it would be a scrap piece with an unknown history. What an insult and indignity especially to a high-born lady to get a second-hand, soiled undergarment?

This reminds me of the idea in Eulalia's story Interrogation & Punishment Centre for Girls where the girl gets a 'uniform' for her free time, but removes it for work. She does alternate shifts with another girl and they just swap the knickers at the end of the shift. Emphasising that you have nothing, your clothes are temporary, your life is temporary.
 
Oh good, loin cloths always intrigue me ... nothing is more humiliating than losing mine ... but its color, quality and size is of interest too. If I were a noble woman, I would expect it to be thin and perfectly cut, and perhaps my crest embroidered on the triangular front panel. A common slave girl, on the other hand ... well ... you can imagine the differences.
We may be in danger of getting into haute crux couture here...
 
Very good explanation of the Roman crucifixion methods Bobinder. I am not much of a fan of loincloths, I prefer my victims nude:devil:. Image #2 is fantastic, I like the way her legs are nailed, one bent, one straight. I also like her body, very voluptuous, with just the right amount of bush;)
Thanks. Irina has her origins in a poor reproduction of a bather modelling a bikini, so the breasts and genital region are purely from my imagination, rendered in Paint.
 
Crux Fashion 3

Some art historians view the loin cloth as a device employed by Christian Renaissance artists to disguise the fact that Jesus was a circumcised Jew. The Gospels merely indicate that he was stripped, the implication being completely. Crucifixion was associated with Christian martyrdom, and so the Jews crucified on either side also received loin cloths. Thus began a monopoly on the iconography of crucifixion by the Christian religion to the exclusion of thousands of non-Christian victims, despite the fact that all three victims celebrated in countless altarpieces are non-Christian.

Very few of my crux models wear loin cloths and they usually only appear in the 'Ivdaea Capta' series. Whatever the complexities of drawing or painting the nude, depicting the various textures, fabrics and folds convincingly in clothing can be challenging. Whilst drawing clothing over a nude figure is the best way to proceed, it is frustrating to conceal the best parts of an illustration. Fortunately photo-manipulation preserves both clothed and unclothed versions. All the clothing in 'Via Appia 9' was created directly in Paint, using the mouse as a brush. It was time-consuming. My use of the loin cloth follows the Renaissance tradition, which only covers the genital region. As my girls are getting the same treatment as any self-respecting male crucifix, the breasts remain bare.

I have previously described the loin cloth as 'apparently simple apparel' which it is if you consider it as one or two lengths of plain fabric. Anyone who has tried to construct one will understand the vexed complexities of the thing. A single piece providing a turn around the hips plus a turn through the crotch and sufficient ends to tie a knot to prevent a wardrobe malfunction on a victim writhing in agony, needs to be at least seven feet long and wide enough to be effective - not quite enough fabric to make a toga! Something more closely resembling traditional artistic depictions actually requires two pieces of fabric, albeit relatively short - one tied round the hips and one through the crotch with the ends tucked into the first. If you're still trying to put one on single-handed, this is the point at which you wonder whether the patience of the executioners has been exceeded!
 

Attachments

  • bbcf3-1 Via Appia 9c.jpg
    3.8 MB · Views: 306
  • bbcf3-2 Ivdaea Capta 11a rt g0.80 450pc sn.jpg
    4.8 MB · Views: 285
  • bbcf3-3 Ivdaea Capta 11a q g0.80 450pc sn.jpg
    4.6 MB · Views: 268
  • bbcf3-3 Ivdaea Capta 11a q g0.80 450pc sn.jpg
    4.6 MB · Views: 272
I'm having some problems uploading the files at the moment and the last one went through twice. Meanwhile, my explanatory narrative for 'Ivdaea Capta 11' accounts for the garb illustrated here:- Gabriella was caught wearing a legionary's cloak - a gift from a rebel, spoils of war and that sort of thing - pretty damning evidence at the best of times, to say nothing of the worst. So they tore her off a strip, took her name, mistranscribed it and inflicted the usual penalty. And as a concession to Judaic law concerning modesty, they tore the cloak off a strip too so that, like the scapegoat in the desert, she might wear the emblem of guilt. Ironia Romana.

Ironia Romana = Roman irony. Jewish religious law provides for the collective burden of guilt to be imposed upon a goat, with a coloured cloth, symbolising that guilt, wound around its horns. It is then banished into the wilderness, where after wandering aimlessly, it dies abandoned in the desert. Since it bears the human attribute of sin, some suggest this as the origin of the mythical wandering jew. The scapegoat was made famous by Holman Hunt's painting of the subject, and has come to mean anyone who carries the burden of another's guilt. The most famous scapegoat was a jew named Jesus, who instead of a coloured cloth around his head wore a bloody crown of thorns. The irony is in the Romans' unwitting parody of a symbolic Jewish ceremony.

And of course, 'Capella' is latin for a she-goat.
 

Attachments

  • bbcf3-2 Ivdaea Capta 11a rt g0.80 450pc sn.jpg
    4.8 MB · Views: 247
  • bbcf3-4 William_Holman_Hunt_-_The_Scapegoat.jpg
    bbcf3-4 William_Holman_Hunt_-_The_Scapegoat.jpg
    2.8 MB · Views: 189
Crux Fashion 3

Some art historians view the loin cloth as a device employed by Christian Renaissance artists to disguise the fact that Jesus was a circumcised Jew. The Gospels merely indicate that he was stripped, the implication being completely. Crucifixion was associated with Christian martyrdom, and so the Jews crucified on either side also received loin cloths. Thus began a monopoly on the iconography of crucifixion by the Christian religion to the exclusion of thousands of non-Christian victims, despite the fact that all three victims celebrated in countless altarpieces are non-Christian.

Very few of my crux models wear loin cloths and they usually only appear in the 'Ivdaea Capta' series. Whatever the complexities of drawing or painting the nude, depicting the various textures, fabrics and folds convincingly in clothing can be challenging. Whilst drawing clothing over a nude figure is the best way to proceed, it is frustrating to conceal the best parts of an illustration. Fortunately photo-manipulation preserves both clothed and unclothed versions. All the clothing in 'Via Appia 9' was created directly in Paint, using the mouse as a brush. It was time-consuming. My use of the loin cloth follows the Renaissance tradition, which only covers the genital region. As my girls are getting the same treatment as any self-respecting male crucifix, the breasts remain bare.

I have previously described the loin cloth as 'apparently simple apparel' which it is if you consider it as one or two lengths of plain fabric. Anyone who has tried to construct one will understand the vexed complexities of the thing. A single piece providing a turn around the hips plus a turn through the crotch and sufficient ends to tie a knot to prevent a wardrobe malfunction on a victim writhing in agony, needs to be at least seven feet long and wide enough to be effective - not quite enough fabric to make a toga! Something more closely resembling traditional artistic depictions actually requires two pieces of fabric, albeit relatively short - one tied round the hips and one through the crotch with the ends tucked into the first. If you're still trying to put one on single-handed, this is the point at which you wonder whether the patience of the executioners has been exceeded!
I do like the red "skirt" version in #2 ,,, ahhh ,,, I see now ... made from a Roman cloak ...cool
 
I have read that loincloths were used in Judea to cater to the sensibilities of the Jews who objected to people hanging in public totally naked. I think this is unlikely, given that the source of that idea is a Christian publication, and likely biased, and given the fact that the Romans stripped people for crucifixion precisely because it offended standards of modesty. I think it much more likely that the church prescribed loincloths to retrofit its own standard of modesty.
 
Crux Fashion 3

Some art historians view the loin cloth as a device employed by Christian Renaissance artists to disguise the fact that Jesus was a circumcised Jew. The Gospels merely indicate that he was stripped, the implication being completely. Crucifixion was associated with Christian martyrdom, and so the Jews crucified on either side also received loin cloths. Thus began a monopoly on the iconography of crucifixion by the Christian religion to the exclusion of thousands of non-Christian victims, despite the fact that all three victims celebrated in countless altarpieces are non-Christian.

Very few of my crux models wear loin cloths and they usually only appear in the 'Ivdaea Capta' series. Whatever the complexities of drawing or painting the nude, depicting the various textures, fabrics and folds convincingly in clothing can be challenging. Whilst drawing clothing over a nude figure is the best way to proceed, it is frustrating to conceal the best parts of an illustration. Fortunately photo-manipulation preserves both clothed and unclothed versions. All the clothing in 'Via Appia 9' was created directly in Paint, using the mouse as a brush. It was time-consuming. My use of the loin cloth follows the Renaissance tradition, which only covers the genital region. As my girls are getting the same treatment as any self-respecting male crucifix, the breasts remain bare.

I have previously described the loin cloth as 'apparently simple apparel' which it is if you consider it as one or two lengths of plain fabric. Anyone who has tried to construct one will understand the vexed complexities of the thing. A single piece providing a turn around the hips plus a turn through the crotch and sufficient ends to tie a knot to prevent a wardrobe malfunction on a victim writhing in agony, needs to be at least seven feet long and wide enough to be effective - not quite enough fabric to make a toga! Something more closely resembling traditional artistic depictions actually requires two pieces of fabric, albeit relatively short - one tied round the hips and one through the crotch with the ends tucked into the first. If you're still trying to put one on single-handed, this is the point at which you wonder whether the patience of the executioners has been exceeded!
I simply find it amazing how you create your art Bobinder, using a mouse as a brush. I bet it is time consuming, and I thank you for taking the time to produce such great work. This first image is very interesting, it allows my imagination to run wild with possible storylines. I like the way the other women are leading the condemmed woman, some of them seem to be overly excited, and they should be:devil:;)
 

Attachments

  • image.jpeg
    3.8 MB · Views: 238
I have read that loincloths were used in Judea to cater to the sensibilities of the Jews who objected to people hanging in public totally naked. I think this is unlikely, given that the source of that idea is a Christian publication, and likely biased, and given the fact that the Romans stripped people for crucifixion precisely because it offended standards of modesty. I think it much more likely that the church prescribed loincloths to retrofit its own standard of modesty.

There was a profound change in outlook in the late Empire, it came with the adoption of Christianity as the Imperial religion,
but it may not have been simply a matter of the Church influencing the Empire, both institutions seem to have reacted against
the 'decadence' of the preceding era. And influence from the East - Jewish, Arab, Persian attitudes - was a part of it too.
An example I've quoted elsewhere on CF, I'd need to track down the source, was of an executioner in the 4th century
who was himself executed because he'd executed a naked woman.

Portrayals of Christ on the cross, in both the Eastern and Western churches, in the first millennium,
typically made him a grand, kingly figure, fully robed. The suffering, near-naked Christ in a loincloth
is really only typical of later Gothic and Renaissance art.

All the same, Jewish attitudes to nudity at the time of Jesus were much more puritanical than the Romans,
if he had been crucified naked, it would have been done to insult and show contempt not so much for him
as for the religion of the Jews and their religious leaders.
 
I simply find it amazing how you create your art Bobinder, using a mouse as a brush. I bet it is time consuming, and I thank you for taking the time to produce such great work. This first image is very interesting, it allows my imagination to run wild with possible storylines. I like the way the other women are leading the condemmed woman, some of them seem to be overly excited, and they should be:devil:;)

Yes, I've said before how much I love that first picture, the group of women each so different yet with a common purpose. The casual look to the guards, the practical clothing, the different characters coming through. I would love to see more in this series but I know that unlike 3d art each pic is a separate work and it can be hard to get the models right in more than one frame. It is a picture that inspires the imagination.

Like this study that you posted recently, Bob. I look forward to seeing where it finishes up :)
ivdaea_capta_18_etude_2_sepia__3_7_15_s5_g0_90_by_bobnearled-da5q2p7.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom