This beautiful work of art was born from the hands of Sister Mercedes. In deciding on a name for this work of art, this sister kept it simple and direct, choosing a name that most Judeo-Christians are familiar with, Madonna and Child. While it would be interesting to see this image in three dimensions, we will have to settle for a two-dimensional painting of this simple but beautiful image. Although Madonna and Child is the name of the painting, it is actually a term for any portrait or painting depicting Mary with or without her son, Jesus Christ. This style of painting dates back to the nation of Byzantium otherwise known as the Roman Empire. These paintings however are not supposed to be anatomically accurate, rather an abstract form of Mary. Unfortunately, casein is a milk-based paint that can be diluted with water if you need to give your artwork a light touch. The different values ​​of the color blue really made my jaw drop at the painting - it's so simple yet so beautiful with the darker shades at the bottom and the lighter shades at the top where the white light would be present. The child of Jesus has in itself a pigment of absolute white or shades or light brown. I believe this was done to show the purity of Jesus. It really shows that its value and nuances come from casein. I believe this is what Sister Mercedes wanted us to do: look at the charming beauty of Mary and her son. But just like anything, this is just my opinion, others might say no because of the beautiful red, white and blue values ​​that flow like a river on this painting. As far as I know there are only three main colors in this portrait. If I don't include the different shades, I only see red, white and blue shades. Mary's blue robe is the color that most artists use when making Mary's clothes. The white I see on both Mary and her Child could represent youth as they both look so majestic. Unfortunately I don't quite understand why the red he incorporated into his work, as well as the history of the online painting, is a mystery. I must say that the painting is neither of these for two reasons. First, just like religion itself, you can't say it's real. But you can't even say it's fictional. So both the representative and the non-representative are out of the equation. The abstract itself cannot be because, although it is a deformed form of reality, it must still be real. The non-objective hits the same issue, it can't be said to be a fantasy based on the lack of knowledge we have. So he's not a distorted version of a fictitious person. Secondly, we don't know what Mary actually looked like. Just like Jesus himself, the image of Mary changes depending on culture and religion