Print Blog
Email a FriendOh, I could go on and on! (But I’ll try not to…) I think it was Anthony Esolen who had a recent article on Inside Catholic about the need for church beauty; most people are surrounded by ugliness - in architecture, behavior, beliefs, drudgery - and need the gift of beauty at least on Sundays as we are starved for it elsewhere. I visited one parish recently that looked like a standard office cubicle, just bigger. Bad enough to work in each day, but then to worship in on Sunday too? Our own parish, recently renovated, does have some good points with lighting and a couple statues, but is mostly very bland (but at least they got rid of the orange carpet and seats!)
The worst I’ve seen are:
A cross in a local parish that apparently disbelieves in the resurrection. It’s sort of a risen Christ look, but it trails off into a legless, footless gown that looks very ghost-like, not a real, corporeal resurrected-body look.
The other least favorite of mine (don’t hate me!) is that awful sculpture in the papal audience hall. It’s just all spiky and Jesus looks kind of wind-blown and surfer-like and the expression on his face reminds me of that scene in Toy Story where Woody and Buzz are flying along behind the car and their faces are all distorted in the wind…
Sacred Art Gone Wrong
Posted by Lisa Hendey in Faith on Monday, May 23, 2011 10:00 AM
On the heels of my recent trip to Rome, I have been interested in the recent coverage of a cultural mishap in Rome—the recent unveiling of a new statue of Blessed John Paul II by Oliviero Rainaldi.
In theory, the 16 foot bronze work is meant to pay tribute to the recently beatified and much beloved pontiff. In reality, a lot of folks are up in arms, stating that the statue bears no resemblance to the man and that its structure may even become fodder for encamped homeless and empty beer bottles.
You can read more about the statue mishap here at the Washington Post, but today I’d really love to open a discussion about sacred art, artistic interpretation and the impact it has upon our faith.
The recent statue flap reminds me a lot of the swirl of criticism surrounding the statue of Our Lady of the Angels at the Cathedral in Los Angeles. Sometimes art critics and the faithful have different ideas about artistic interpretation and it boils over into vitriolic debate rather than heavenly inspiration.
I recently had a discussion with an acquaintance about the art and the decor of my own home parish. At the risk of upsetting my pastor, I will admit that I worship each Sunday at my faith home despite the fact that I find our parish building itself to be pretty ugly. It has some lovely works of art and a cupola that often captures the sun in just such a way so as to lift my heart and prayers soaring to heaven. But it also has unpainted and unfinished concrete walls, bright red carpeting, and some very unremarkable solid colored windows. Despite outward appearances, I love my church home and wouldn’t trade it for the world.
How about you? Does “ugly” church art draw your ire or are you able to overlook stylistic differences and find inspiration in the artist’s intentions? What do you think of Blessed John Paul II’s new statue? What is the ugliest or most beautiful work of sacred art you’ve ever seen?
Comments
Page 1 of 1 pages
My husband teaches art and art history at a Catholic university (I’m at home now with the family) and we both teach online AP Studio Art courses. We talk about these art related issues all of the time, regarding both secular and sacred art. Our focus with the young AP high school homeschoolers that we work with is ideation and narration. The art, no matter what kind must tell a story, and the students must work to make sure that the story is clear and what they intended. The first story that a portrait must tell is “this person is ....”. There are many nuanced levels of storytelling that can be added to a portrait, but when the portrait is of a well known figure from history the identity should be unquestionable. This piece obviously fails that first criteria. If it were a piece in a larger show in a gallery no one would know it was the Blessed John Paul II. I am not even sure they would know it was any Pope or a religious of any kind. It could be the phantom of the opera.
In our idea of a perfect world there would be some sort of Liturgical Art Director that makes sure that all sacred art in churches, on church property, and certainly at the Vatican would be theologically sound, and see that it’s form would follow the required function. We have always thought that one per state (diocese would even be better) would be fabulous. Imagine if your church had a renovation to do, and you knew there was someone trained in the liturgy, sacred architecture, sacred art, general art and design and the history, and art history of the church that would make sure that whatever was done, in whatever style it was, was done well, and in a way that did not take away from the sacred function of the space, and the faithful.
I could go on and on…. I have been so disheartened when I hear parishoners say that they don’t care what the church looks like. We are poor and at a poor parish but all of our visual training allows us to know that what you look at changes you! You are physically changed by what you see, how you see it, and how you learn to think about what you see! The visuals around you are a language. Artists have a very serious job, and a serious gift from God. If someone is hired to make the Church a piece of art they must be prepared spiritually, mentally, and physically to do their very best job possible. I would rather have a lovely plain wood or plaster wall than a poorly conceived painting. Of course what my heart longs for is a fresco to rival Giotto. That is not possible unless the faithful all want what is beautiful. Simple can be beautiful. Think of the beauty of a well cut, simple, but glamorous bridal gown. Fancy can be hideous. Think of the nightmare of the gaudiest of the bridesmaids gowns you may have seen!
Please parents train your children to know the beautiful in literature, all media, art and music. Today with the blessing of the internet this is easier than ever. My youngest can look at Leonardo’s notebooks online and listen to incredible music and books, for free!
If your child is trained in the visual language of art and design it makes them as smart as serpents when the exposed to the commercial marketing media. When you know the language you can see the real message.
I have looked at that statue a few times, in an effort to open my mind. I can’t. Instead of saying it is ugly, I’ll just say it is not my taste, at all. I like art that looks like what is supposed to be, I don’t want to have to ‘understand’ what the artist is trying to say, just say it please! We have a beautful statue of Blessed John Paul II in our parish meditation garden. We had it put in when we found out he was to become a blessed and then blessed it on May 1, to honor John Paul II.
http://stpeterfaith-devotion.blogspot.com/2011/05/tale-of-two-statues.html
The statue I refer to in my comment.
That’s quite a contrast. Seeing both alongside each other like that, my first impression is that the 2nd statue moves me to pray while the one in Rome simply causes me to stare and leaves me confused. In general that is how I feel about most modern design. I definitely lean more toward traditional interpretation and design.
Heartbreaking when the Creator God gifts people w/ artistic abilities that aren’t under the direction the Holy Spirit. If you ever come to Cape Cod, please visit my place of worship at the Community of Jesus. Join us for a Daily Office or Eucharist - we are ecumenical, so check w/ your priest. Local Catholics have been given the OK to receive with us and it’s a joy. In the meantime click on the link to visit us online.
http://www.churchofthetransfiguration.org/
When one church to which we belonged finally opened the doors to the new, larger worship space, they had to explain all the windows. It’s one thing to have to explain that a skull under the cross in ANY classical artwork represents Adam (just did this with my son today). It’s quite another to have to explain that the circles represent this and the squiggles represent that…but only in this window, because in that window, the circles are something else and the squiggles are quite another. Art/beauty speaks to our souls. Most people agree on what is beautiful. The fact that people can’t agree on if this statue is art or not means it isn’t.
I have to admit, ugly churches depress me. We have a parish close to our house, but we don’t go there. It’s one of those modern type places that is somewhat in the round, with a center section at alter level, and then the sides are stadium-style seating. If we happen to sit on the sides, I always feel like I am watching a performance rather than entering into worship. The artwork is all ultra-modern. The stations are probably the most hideous I have ever seen. I just don’t think I could worship there on a regular basis because the whole decor of the place is so dismaying.
Truthfully, I have never liked or gotten modern art. I guess I am just more pedestrian in my tastes.
I don’t mind art that is challenging or forces me to think to understand the symbolism or intended message. Reading the artist’s explanation of what he wanted to represent is helpful. This piece is certainly causing conversation and drawing attention to Blessed John Paul II, which cannot be bad. Whether Rome decides to remove it or keep it, I don’t think that universal acclaim should be a criteria for deciding whether art has value.
Here’s a hilarious video of the Italian response. Even if you don’t know Italian, you can guess at what they are saying! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QPxfoLx1SQ&feature=player_embedded
Let’s just be honest, that statue is horrendous. Not to mention it is placed in front of the train station, Termini, where both metro lines meet and every train comes in and out of Rome. Talk about embarrassing!!!
One of my undergraduate majors was studio art and for my thesis I did a 15 piece work on the luminous mysteries. One of the things I was criticized for was that my work was too “catechetical” and that it was too telling and not artistic enough, not open to interpretation enough. During the same time I had also started a triptych of Jesus on the Cross, and one of the advisors for the thesis, in front of a critique group (of professors and peers) said “I hate this” It was more a self-reflection than actual artistic criticism. I never ended up finishing that piece, but in all of this conversation I just want to say two things. One is that artists are human and its not easy to satisfy everyone’s taste for beauty. And second, I’d like to point out the irony that Blessed John Paul II wrote a “Letter to Artists”. In this letter he noted that: “The theme of beauty is decisive for a discourse on art… ... In a certain sense, beauty is the visible form of the good, just as the good is the metaphysical condition of beauty.” I feel that this may be the real cause for the outcry against the statue- it is not beautiful enough to capture the goodness of our beloved pope.
I love the overall idea that I see in this statue, but I have to say that I find it to be hideous. Seen from afar it’s not bad. I see JPII, the shepherd of his flock, lovingly welcoming us into his arms. But, up close, I see a head that more resembles a helmet or a robot than our shepherd. It comes across as cold, shapeless, and severe. It really only bears a resemblance if you know who the statue is supposed to be before you look at it. What a shame. I’m a true lover of sacred art from all of our history, but I can’t love this even though I really want to.
If the said statue does become a place of refuge for “encamped homeless” and other lost souls, I can only imagine that this will bring joy to his blessed heart and comfort to them, on whatever level. And if it positioned so that commuters and travellers see it often, surely that’s a good thing.
The statue is not particularly to my taste, but the Catholic church is supposed to be just that - Catholic - an all inclusive Church that encompasses and supports all sorts of cultural diversity as it is offered sincerely to God. I find much of the imagery used in the Church saccharin and alienating but I defend the right of those who do like it to use such art to inspire them and draw them closer to God. And I defend the right of the artist and assistants who put body and soul into creating this work in loving appreciation of their pope to have their efforts greeted with respect and an open mind.
Artistic gifts, like all gifts of the Holy Spirit, are given to us to build up the Kingdom of God, not the artist’s ego. Art should serve the community of the faithful, given the general reaction to this statue, it is difficult to see how this has been accomplished. I recognize the artist’s intention but as my mother used to say, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
I do not find it hideous or inspiring. But, I would happily play hide and seek with my son around it. Perhaps, as someone noted above, that’s the point of public art? Besides, I am sure more inspiring statues of Blessed JPII are coming to Rome.
@Joyce Thanks for the Italian YouTube video. My main take-away: no young people commented. I wonder what the young of Italy think about this statue?
I actually find this inspiring. Perhaps I am of a different generation or not (just reached 30), but I see in it the mental pictures I have of Bl. John Paul II at the World Youth Days I attended where his cloak billowed (2000 & 2002). I always imagined in a way that it was a visual representation of his care for us; that we were in a sense also protected by his cloak just as we were in his prayers. This statues captures that mental image and the sense of his presence and affection for us (all of us remember the “John Paul loves you too” moment). I think that when art allows for you to fill in the details with your own images and memories, it becomes something more transcendental that a mere replica of a person or scene. It becomes alive in a sense.
Here is a link to an audio from a spiritual group which is getting a lot of attention right now, they say that Humanity needs to know the truth. I really liked this part and felt special energies like never before : And so it was that 6 years ago, just days before his mentor John Paul II’s death in April, 2005, during the Palm Sunday Mass, then Cardinal Ratzinger was prominently waiving olive branches instead of palm leaves, in order to meet the qualifications of the 111th and last elected pope in St. Malachy’s Prophecies, who is described as “The Glory of the Olive”.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give Faith And Family Magazine permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
