UFOs and ancient artwork

[CFLarsen]

So the answer is it is a depiction of the shephards being informed of the nativity. The angel looks so indistinct due to its great distance, and therefore lack of detail. A couple of careless strokes, and to the uneducated eye it looks like a flying saucer.

CASE CLOSED

King of the Americas will be crushed!

 

[Ed]

Using art as an accurate record of anything has it's pitfalls. I give you this as an example

Now, what would a woo say about it? Birds ate people back then? It was common for people to play the Ano-flute(tm)? If one picture is authoratative and can be viewed with a 21 cent. perspective, why not this one?

The woo might say "Yes, but this picture uses arcane symbolism and, anyway, the artist was a nut". To which the clever sceptic replies "annnnnnnnndddddd ........"

It has long been a contention of mine (I'm sure others, too) that a 21st c. person cannot apprehend medieval/renaissance art for the simple reason that religion informed everything back then and people really believed it. The would look at the same painting as you and see 3 more levels of meaning.

Though it was absurd in the extreme, the book The Da Vinci Code illustrates how arcane some of this symbolism is.

All of that said, a non-specialists interpretation of religious art of this period is worthless and dismissable on the face of it and, yes, this is an appeal to authority but not of the logical error flavor.

 

[Reaver]

...and this one time at band camp...

 

[Ed]

...and this one time at band camp...

?

 

[epepke]

Using art as an accurate record of anything has it's pitfalls. I give you this as an example

Now, what would a woo say about it? Birds ate people back then? It was common for people to play the Ano-flute(tm)?

Looks like a load of Bosch to me.

 

[Explorer]

Hand Bent Spoon said:

"So the answer is it is a depiction of the shephards being informed of the nativity. The angel looks so indistinct due to its great distance, and therefore lack of detail. A couple of careless strokes, and to the uneducated eye it looks like a flying saucer."

That explanation is not tenable I'm afraid.

Firstly, there were three shephards, not one as in the picture.

Secondly, the star of Bethlehem was a very bright astronomical event, not a dark object against the background of a lighter sky.

I dont think that renaissance artists were into "careless strokes". This is a religious painting and it all had to have a significance for the masses. It still doesn't make the object an alien craft, but it was almost certainly meant to look like it does.

 

[Marvel Frozen]

Hand Bent Spoon said:

"So the answer is it is a depiction of the shephards being informed of the nativity. The angel looks so indistinct due to its great distance, and therefore lack of detail. A couple of careless strokes, and to the uneducated eye it looks like a flying saucer."

That explanation is not tenable I'm afraid.

Firstly, there were three shephards, not one as in the picture.

Secondly, the star of Bethlehem was a very bright astronomical event, not a dark object against the background of a lighter sky.

I dont think that renaissance artists were into "careless strokes". This is a religious painting and it all had to have a significance for the masses. It still doesn't make the object an alien craft, but it was almost certainly meant to look like it does.

In almost all renaissance nativity paintings they showed a single shepherd looking up at the angels announcing the birth of Jesus. The shephered generally holds their hand to their forehead, and there is quite often a dog standing nearby as well. In many cases the Angel comes out of a cloud lined golden rays. The only thing special about this particular picture is that there are no angels, just the cloud with golden rays (which is unusual in such pictures but not unique), and the fact that the cloud is small and badly drawn.

Taken in context of other nativity paintings of the time it's pretty clear what the cloud represents.

 

[Ratman_tf]

Hand Bent Spoon said:
Secondly, the star of Bethlehem was a very bright astronomical event, not a dark object against the background of a lighter sky.

Yes, and it's represented in the left of the painting. With 3 flames below it. The 'blob' is on the right, and is supposed to be a luminous cloud.

 

[Explorer]

Marvel Frozen

I bow to your superior knowledge re the single shephard in other examples. You then went on to say:

"The only thing special about this particular picture is that there are no angels, just the cloud with golden rays (which is unusual in such pictures but not unique), and the fact that the cloud is small and badly drawn."

I have to say that if it is a luminous cloud it is indeed badly drawn, which is a strange inconsistency when compared to the rest of the well executed painting. I would have thought a cloud is a relatively easy thing to depict, after all school children have done a better job.

If you look very closely at the "cloud", it isn't luminous at all, but quite dark against the background of the lighter sky. There appears to be points of yellowish light around the circumference of the object in addition to the obvious light rays. I have yet to be convinced that it is either an alien craft or indeed a luminous cloud.

 

[Ratman_tf]

If you look very closely at the "cloud", it isn't luminous at all, but quite dark against the background of the lighter sky. There appears to be points of yellowish light around the circumference of the object in addition to the obvious light rays. I have yet to be convinced that it is either an alien craft or indeed a luminous cloud.

Follow the link to 'Art or UFO?' and check out the other examples. The cloud itself isn't glowing, it's often depicted as a dark storm cloud. The luminosity seems to be coming from inside the cloud, where I assume the angel is emerging from.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Firstly, there were three shephards, not one as in the picture.

{pedant}

The number of shepards who were present (if any) is never specified. Three was the number of Magi.

{/pedant}

 

[Mr Sagan]

The first thing that comes to mind is a cloud with the sun behind it.

Still, it's interesting. Thanks for bringing it to our attention Patricio Elicer.

 

[Explorer]

The first thing that came to my mind was how much it did look like a modern UFO image. An upturned piedish with some kind of galleried section on the top. It looks nothing at all like a cloud but an object with a distinct and hard outline. That surely is why we are having this debate.

 

[ASRomatifoso]

I agree that it is folly to try to extrapolate meaning from the symbols in ancient or even "old" artworks (though many art historians make their living at it). Without the social context, the artist's own personal symbology, etc. we can only guess.

Da Vinci Code was absurd but pretty fun to read. Far better than Angels and Demons, with that ridiculous leap from the helicopter.

I have actually seen one of those paintings in the Museo Di Capodimonte in Naples and remember thinking at the time that it depicted flying saucers.

 

[LawnOven]

{pedant}

The number of shepards who were present (if any) is never specified. Three was the number of Magi.

{/pedant}

um...
{super-pendant} Actually nor is the number of magi specified. There could have been like a million of them. {/super-pendant}

 

[Tricky]

I believe it looks like a radiant taco.

 

[TechMage]

my guess is that it is Nyarlathotep, or maybe a very artistically liberal portrayel of a Byakhee.

Nah, it was the avatar of Azathoth.


I've noticed by the usernames, there seems to be alot of HPL fans here? Hey I will sell you all copies of the original, real, Necronomicon for only 1 billion U.S. Dollars! Sound like a deal? Oh and by the way, no returns. *grin*

 

[TechMage]

Oh and the first thing I thought when I looked at the up close picture of the "UFO," I honestly though that it looks like a sea ship. Like Noah's Ark. Why Noah's Ark would be sailing through the sky with beams of light coming out of it though, I have no clue.

 

[Checkmite]

A tall ship, and a star to steer her by?

 

[wayrad]

Oh and the first thing I thought when I looked at the up close picture of the "UFO," I honestly though that it looks like a sea ship. Like Noah's Ark. Why Noah's Ark would be sailing through the sky with beams of light coming out of it though, I have no clue.

Before I read the explanation, my guess was that the artist was depicting the Star of Bethlehem as a comet, and somehow had that confused with a meterorite!