Statues of the Virgin and

¶ … statues of the Virgin and her Child. Photo 2 shows a Mary that from the stance and image of her and Child seem to date from a classical, likely Medieval period. The Child, as is typical of that time, has the features and pose of an adult. Both look the viewer direct in the face and both seem rigid and inflexible. Mary has a quiet smile playing on her placid features. Both are erect; the child perched on the mother's knee.

Both also project an aristocratic, authoritative pose and are dressed in royal garb. Mary has a crown on her head and a robe wound around her shoulder (the garb too indicates 13th-15th century origin). The Infant has garb that drapes him from shoulder to ankle. Only his hands and feet are showing. Another impression of the art that indicates its classical dating is the fact that both statues are carved in an unrealistic, almost naive manner. Both images are elongated; both are severe.

The images seem to be carved from ebony marble with pink showing through in spots. Mary's hands and arms aren't seen; they seem to be resting on the sides of her throne. The drapery of her garment reinforces the rigidity of her figure, being twisted around her neck as a scarf, falling down her chest in quiet almost indiscernible lines before cascading down her legs.

The statue too is carved in such a way that Mary does not seem to be sitting on the throne but rather to be propped against it; this may be part of the unrealistic carving of the figure where the lower part of the body is out of balance to the upper. Then again, the Infant too is out of balance with the same drawn solemn face as the mother; a miniature adult in his mother's arms. In total, the image gives me the feeling of authority judging subject.

A quiet accepting smile plays on the Lady's face, but one almost feels as though one were in some medieval court being greeted by her ladyship and by her unrealistically adult child before being invited to dinner. There is both solemnity and serenity in the image. Photo 3 shows Virgin and Child before removal of whitewash in 1942. This is rather a different image to the preceding one.

This seems to be of approximately the same period with Virgin and Child gazing diametrically away from the viewer seeming to be absorbed in their own thoughts. The same reflective smile plays on Mary's lips, and she is dressed in similar royal garb. This time her hands are peeking out from her cascading robe, her face and figure is fuller, and the Child, still solemn, seems slightly more infant-like. In both pictures, he seems more earnest than the mother.

Mary is still erect, though slightly more bent by the shoulders than the other. She has the same regal pose, although this position has been slightly relaxed in both images. The throne in the last image too has been replaced in this one by a bench that is decorated with insignias. The Child, here too is perched on Mary's knee. Both Infant and mother seem to have their hands extended.

The gesture may mean various things from inviting the viewer to look at them to inviting a connection between viewer and themselves. I certainly feel an abridgement of distance between this image and that of the other. The other seemed more distancing and authoritarian. This one seems more welcoming and inviting. Photo 5 (Virgin and Child about 1210-25) was originally a decorated altar and radiates calm and serenity. The virgin, crowned as the other two images, may have likely held a scepter.