EPPH - Every Painter Paints Himself

The peculiar, flowing loincloth appears to be an attempt at virtuosity on the part of the artist. Ornate drapery offered sensuality and dynamism in the otherwise static compositions of the era. Richly realized drapery was a specialty of the Northern Renaissance, where the tradition emerged from manuscript illumination and was less influenced by Italian optical perspective. The unusual loincloth, clearly the centerpiece of the painting, was likely the artist’s attempt to showcase his skill with the notoriously challenging subject. It reads as awkward because our modern eyes are familiar with still photography; no one in the 16th century could have seen cloth unfurl except in motion, and capturing the likeness would take as much imagination as observation. Why the loincloth appears to be an enormous phallus is an interpretation best left to Freud.

That’s good, Brad. I like the idea that people didn’t know how cloth unfurled. It’s a reasonable explanation. Any others?

Concerning the loincloth worn by the figure of christ, notice that it is tied in the shape of a bow. That is indicative of a gift, which in this case from a religious point of view would refer to the gift of life given for the salvation of humanity. The way that the loincloth is tied and embellished, shows a sharp contrast to the figure on the left which shows no embellishment whatsoever.

Garry, that’s an excellent point. The difference in their “underwear” must be significant, not only in how Christ’s differs from the Bad Thief opposite but how the latter is also different to the Good Thief and the Calvin Klein-like-thong he seems to be wearing.

Does anyone have any thoughts on the shape of the Crosses?

Jesus and both Thieves are shown by Cranach crusified on the Tau crosses, which is quite common depiction of the execution tool among German and other Northern painters. Italians more often painted the Latin cross with an upper end protruded above the titulus, the board for Christ’s title, INRI. Tau cross is also known as Egiptian or Coptic cross and means immortality. Probably, the use of a cross to execute the Thieves means that the both poor sods are only remembered till this day because they accomanied Jesus on his last day.

Well the crosses are not crosses but easels and the naked bodies are works of art. Androgynous mind represented by male female are in between the three works of art and the crown of thorns is lush green for the fertile imagination. The thief I guess in the Calvin Klein is the painter… And his hand is of scene painting with green behind his side of the painting for imagination. I suppose that is painter wearing briefs in his studio? Leaving the elaborate loin clothe to be the bow on the work of art we are seeing. Am I on the right track? What would the clouds behind Jesus represent? What does this painting mean is it equating the creation of the painting to Jesus dying for the sins of the thief or the thiefs sins contributing to the crucifixion in a generalist sense?

Very good indeed! Have you learnt that knowledge from EPPH or come to it by yourself? Yes, crosses are his “easels” and bodies his “paintings”. I’ve never thought of artists in their underwear in the studio but you may be right. They certainly are dressed like models in surviving drawings of Renaissance studios. The Good Thief and Bad Thief represent the duality of our physical world vs. the unity in Christ (as always). No-one has yet noticed that all three crosses are shaped into an L for Lucas (Cranach).

I might as well explain what else I suspect and it is, as always, conjecture based on experience. Some might call it insanity. I have a strong suspicion that the clouds represent his own distorted head with the moon (symbolizing imagination) above his eyes. The line between the “lips” appears to have the same distortion as his do with an evident “nasal bone” between the “eyes”, just two dark hollows. One eye (for insight) is the spot where Christ’s Cross intersects. The other for exterior vision is cropped at the edge of the image so that it is partially out of it, in our world. The nose is quite different to his own (looks like Bob Hope’s) but may just represent its tip. It is a mental image ( a proto-Cubist portrait) inside the artist’s head.

To the right of Christ’s feet in the mounatin face is a small face-shape in profile looking to the left with a vast egg-shaped brain above with green trees growing out of it. The river below is shaped like the flying serpent of his monograph.

The bow at the top of Christ’s giant “phallus” (creative fertility) form two eyes, one open and one closed for insight and out-sight. (Not sure if they had carved bows on frames yet. Probably not.) The mental image of Lucas’ “painting”, Christ, is above the “eyes”.

The chopped tree trunk at the lower edge with the dated cartellino coming out of it is another symbol for a route to wisdom, the world-tree (origin of the Cross) whose roots are deep down. Circular, it is again the eye of insight (a pupil) with a grassy, ocular oval shape around it. It is however the principal eye of insight because all else blossoms above it.

The linked hands of Mary and John probably represent how the two sexes, each within the duality of this world, become an androgynous whole, something like 2+2=1.

There is also, possibly, a vagina-shape in the red cloth of John’s robe to the right and below his elbow. It drops down at a diagonal in front of Christ’s “phallus”. However, Mary is somewhat phallic herself, her head wrapped in the same color cloth as Christ’s phallus and the dark pattern of fabric touching the ground again recalls Christ’s phallus in the other direction. If I’m right, then the male has a “vagina” and the female a “phallus”.

I could go on but enough’s enough. There is no end to what is hidden in art.

Yes definitely a feminine shape in Joseph’s red clothe and the opposite in Mary’s! Great further insight, into the bow, and backgrounds! Thank you!

The amazing thing is even with all that’s explained there is definitely so much more to be interpreted just as in any artwork masterpiece, there is no end! The amount of knowledge and synced hints etc within any art work is truly incredible. The artist definitely must be a vessel of divine work creating multiple meanings and synchronicity throughout the smallest brush stroke but yet all tied into the secret of the universe!
The knowledge of deciphering art from the perspective of hidden and golden knowledge has mostly come through reading your groundbreaking descriptions. Synchronicity has a very weird way of working! The works of Basquiat have put me on a self taught art history crash course journey for the past few years! Learning everything about art and artists ranging from the from aboriginal to Renaissance to modern art. Something has been pulling me to understand the hidden mysteries of it, as I just knew there was more. I stumbled upon this site by complete accident while looking for art work through google images. After reading a few descriptions,, I couldn’t stop it was as if a light turned on in my head, an explosion of knowledge. It synchronized with all my previous knowledge of the hidden mysteries, esoteric knowledge, enlightenment, androgynous mind etc etc. I immediately understood it and appreciated art more as a true expression of the divine force that is us all! This site I can truly say has given me a new found appreciation for this knowledge and art, art has become an obsession with this new found perspective as I hungrily try to decipher what I can from geniuses Monet, Manet, Raphael, Rockwell, Van Gogh, Gaugin, Basquiat, and more and more. I must admit I am quite the novice in breaking down a majority of whats hidden but thats all the fun as recognizing the staple themes and trying to find them in the art is like a high in itself.
Thanks for the insight once again! Definitely appreciated!
As for your critics, the amazing thing about even that debate is that art can be deciphered and analyzed on multiple levels , spiritual, political, philosophical, esoteric, technical etc yet still all be correct and true such as the divine nature of it has allowed it to be truth on all levels it is perceived on.

What is your insight on deciphering works of Rothko, Mondrian etc where the typical representations of our reality are not portrayed?

Thank you, Classic, for the compliments. A very welcome birthday present. As for Rothko and Mondrian, I must withold comment. It’s a very good question but I haven’t figured them out yet. It may take some time.

Thanks for all this work.

Here is a thought/question—

Note that there are 3 crosses and 3 crucified men, but each is shown from a different angle. 

The one on the far left shows only the right side of the crucified man. 
The one on the right shows only the left side of the crucified man. The one in the middle shows the front-on view.

The one on the right shows just the right hand, and no arm. 
The one on the far left shows just the right arm, but no hand. 
The one in the middle shows neither the right hand nor the right arm.

The one on the right shows a clear face, but only the left side. 
The one in the middle shows an out-of-focus face full-on.
The one on the far left shows little if any face, from the right side.

To see a complete crucified man, one would need to compose all three images. 

This makes me wonder if perhaps all three of them are the same person, somehow fragmented and seen, discomposed, from three different points of view simultaneously. 

What would that mean? 

Here’s a tentative thought: Normally when we see something, we see it from only one angle at a time.  We cannot see anything from multiple angles simultaneously. 

But with the aid of the painter, we can see something—someone—in a way we normally couldn’t: as if we were seeing him from three different angles at once.

Any other ideas about this?

Thanks again.

Michael,
I think that’s brilliant! A really good insight. And you are definitely correct because Cranach clearly thought it all out meticulously. If you read my post “Cubism Explained”, you’ll see that mental images, unlike in normal vision, can be seen from all sides simultaneously. I haven’t written much about it yet but this aspect of mental images has been very widely used in art, long before Cubism. Your analysis fits into that theory perfectly. In addition, there is only “one man” depicted in any work of art because they either all represent the artist as an individual or the Universal Self (ie God/Christ/Atman) that we all share. Thus your idea that they are all “one person” makes sense too. I’m very impressed because I didn’t think of any of this.
Keep at it!
Simon