I just finished reading Icons of American Protestantism: The Art of Warner Sallman by David Morgan. Warner Sallman is the artist who painted the once ubiquitous Head of Christ. Over 500 million reproductions printed of this painting. Over 1 billion reproductions of his entire body of work.



Sallman worked as a commercial artist and was a member of the Evangelical Covenant Church. In 1923 he was given the assignment to draw the cover for a Christian magazine. He ran into an artist block until the night before the assignment was due he prayed for help and went to bed. He was awakened by a "visual picturization" of the head of Christ. He went up to his studio and did a thumbnail sketch and went back to bed. The next day he completed a charcoal drawing that was used on the cover of the magazine.

He would travel around giving chalk talks reproducing the head of Christ in pastel. Finally he was urged in 1941 to do a color painting based on the charcoal drawing. This is the famous image that was reproduced 500 million times.

It was initially reproduced as a wallet sized card and distributed to service men in WWII.

My mother-in-law, who is 87, was given a reproduction of the painting as a wedding present. My wife remembers gazing at it in her grandmother's house where it used to hang.

While the image was embraced by the evangelical churches, liberal protestant churches under the leadership of Paul Tillich and others aligned themselves with current strains of modern art in the 50s such as abstract expressionism and castigated art such as Sallman's as sentimental and kitsch. The image was deemed inauthentic, drawing too much from the world of commercial art.

Many Christians though, reported profound and life changing experiences upon interacting with this image, sustenance during suffering, relief from loneliness and even physical healings according to David Morgan.

What do you think of this image? Do you have a history of seeing it? Are you embarrassed by it? Is there anything comparable in contemporary Christian art that you know of?

What an odd criticism. I see a very Caucasian-looking Jesus that I'm sure bears very little resemblance to the man, but that was, of course, brought to my attention during the 1980s, when multiculturalism was all the rage.



I guess that's fine, but I'm more interested in the piece as an objective painting rather than a subjective experience (not minimizing the latter, but it's hard to have a conversation about painting when the people in the discussion boil everything down to, "To me, it means...")



Comparable in what sense? In its subjective effect upon people? The only thing that comes to mind are Catholic expressions of wonderment and spiritual "healing" whenever they go to supposedly Holy Places, touch Holy Objects, that sort of thing. In those cases, though, I think the RC church provides validation, or encourages such responses. My interest in such phenomena waxes and wanes. As you can probably tell, it's very much in the "waning" mode right now.

Comparable in popularity, in the ability to visually represent something in the collective Christian imagination that could sell 500 million copies. The point I was making is that this image which, I think I can safely say, does not move most contemporary evangelical Christians, did once upon a time.

I read beliefblog the other day; the author complains about using a renaissance image on the USPS Christmas stamp. She wondered why not commission a modern artist to paint a madonna and child. Something that would visually represent contemporary Christianity. Who would you choose?

I'm not trying to be flip in my responses, Jim. Your questions are good ones. But if we're thinking in terms of images of Jesus that moved millions of people, I guess I'd say they should put a still of Jesus from The Passion of the Christ on the next stamp (Easter, probably; not Christmas). Those images of Christ apparently affected people deeply.

The answer is easy: The class stamp is not merely a representation of Christianity, but a "safe", classical, aesthetic, cultural image. (If you want Jesus on stamp, make your own!)

I'm inclined to be a bit embarrased by the Sallman image, but there are worse ones. It does remind me of the Christopher Plummer scene in Malcolm X..."Isn't it obvious? Jesus was WHITE."

Compare the two images:



The lighting is similar but that's where the similarity ends. I think the thing about Sallman's image that is lacking in authenticity is the absence of suffering. That is what the Gibson image is all about. A good choice, Christian! It is curious that the image comes from film not visual art. But it is the primary medium for America now so I am not surprised.

The more I have thought about Sallman's painting I am struck by the absence of suffering. Even in another painting of his that is traditionally all about Christ suffering , Christ in the Garden, there is not much hint of discomfort.


Perhaps that is why his work was so popular in the 40's and 50's with all of the suffering brought on by WWII the lack of suffering in these paintings was a relief. Dishonest perhaps, but comforting in the same way Thomas Kincaid is today. I understand the appeal. The work is not demanding and is easily understood. But it does not encompass all of life as we experience it. It is nostalgic for something that never existed. We all know suffering and sorrow in one way or another and good art helps us come to terms with that part of life as well as the joyful, comforting parts.

I remember going with my family to a small baptist church when I was a kid. They held their services in one of those only-used-for-funerals type chapels with a dreary graveyard behind it. We didn't attend very long, but the two things I remember most vividly about it are the pastor, who's favorite phrase was, "well duh" (as in, "Are we a bunch of sinners going to Hell? Well duh!"), which he spoke with a very thick country twang; and then a copy of the Warner Sallman picture in the corner on top of an ancient upright piano. I think even then, as a kid, I had some vague sense of dislike about the photo.

I don't know if I'd say that I was (or am now) embarrassed by it; more that I find it a rudimentary element of early evangelical Christianity in the States, which has since grown, matured and expanded to understand historical, cultural and physiological contexts. In other words, if someone painted a face of Christ today, it would more likely look like someone from the middle east than someone from Minnesota. I think that given the cultural progression of evangelical Christianity, the Sallman picture was appropriate for the it's time and setting; however, as we are now a more mature and knowledgeable community, I'd expect something of higher quality and cultural accuracy from Christian artists in the modern church.

The Sallman was ubiquitous in my childhood, so it is like wallpaper in my consciousness. However, the painting as shown in the first post to this thread appears to my eye, looking at it for the first time in maybe two decades or more, gives the impression of high Disney animation of the mid-thirties to early forties, Fantasia era. As if Disney would have done an animated Life of Christ film with all the sentimentality and aura of the popular depiction of private holiness/faith of that time.

Did Sallman do other paintings, or was his "bust" plagiarized? We see essentially the same headshot in "The Garden of Gathsemane" depicted above. The First Baptist Church of Bloomfield, NJ had (still does?) a stained glass rendition of that behind the pulpit near the baptismal pool when I was little. That church is the first one I remember. "Jesus Knocking at the Door" uses that headshot, as does "Jesus Knocking at the Door of the U.N." (similar to the other "Knocking", but with Jesus equal in height to the U.N.'s office tower on Riverside Dr.).

My brother, the Episcopal priest, once referred to the Sallman's Head of Christ as the BLC - Bearded Lady Christ, because of its effeminate appearance.

He is not alone in his response that the image is effeminate. It is ironic that we perceive this painting as being less than masculine as Sallman's goal was to portray a more masculine Jesus. Compared to the Victorian portrayals of Jesus, such as Holman Hunt, I guess Sallman's is a bit more masculine depiction.


Detail of Holman Hunt's The Shadow of Death

During the 60's there were many reasons to reject the image: too effeminate, too anglo saxon, too kitsch.


Sallman did use the same head of Jesus over and over in his various paintings. He was encouraged to do this by his publishers.

I'm new on the forum and recognize that this is an old topic. However, it did bring to mind a responce I thought I would share.

In response to: "Many Christians though, reported profound and life changing experiences upon interacting with this image..."

Using mainstream modern art language, I believe that the work of Mark Rothko has sparked profound religious experiences to viewers. As he said, "The fact that people break down and cry when confronted with my pictures shows that I can communicate those basic human emotions... the people who weep before my pictures are having the same religious experience I had when painting them. And if you say you are moved only by their color relationships then you miss the point."

Have you been to the Rothko Chapel in Houston Tx? What was your experience there? Or other Rothkos?

There is an excellent segment of Simon Schama's PBS series, The Power of Art, about Rothko. Have you seen it? What did you think?

Sometime back in the 80's I was at a workshop and we were asked to visualize christ. The Sallman images were what appeared. They were at my church growing up, they were at my grandmothers house they were at other churches I visited. Until I went to mass.

I worked pretty hard to visualize a new image. I kept an image of a Yemenese man carrying a refrigerator on his back for a number of years. there were a number of years that my Jesus looked like Howlin Wolf in overhauls and driving a tractor. My faith has become far more abstract and my Jesus looks more like Mark Rothko #14.Click to view attachment

And Jesus thinks you look like a big eyed kid holding a kitty:

and frequently I do but I no longer have pigtails.

Jim and group, I have not been to the Rothko Chapel. I have studied it and hope to get there before too long. I have seen several of his printings and found them moving. Thanks for mentioning Simon Schama's PBS Series, The Power of Art featuring Rothko. I'll try to get a copy of it.

It sounds like you appreciation of Rothko is from reading about him and from reproductions. If you are so fond of him in reproductions you will be blown away when you finally get to see his paintings in person. The scale of his paintings are very significant. When you stand in front of one at normal viewing range the painting takes in your entire field of vision, including your peripheral vision, which is what Rothko wanted. You are literally enveloped in the painting. And there is no way even the best reproductions can capture the subtlety of his color. I hope you get to see some of his paintings soon!

I agree there is nothing like seeing the real painting. I have seen many Rothko paintings in museums and find them very moving. Reproductions don't do them justice.