Catholic News Service is running a piece about the new statue unveiled in Rome to commemorate Bl. John Paul II (statue pictured).
Wow is it ugly.
And inappropriate.
Even L’Osservatore Romano—the Vatican’s newspaper—has commented on how lame it is. (I guess that’s one fortunate thing about LOR‘s turn toward less anodyne commentary; if we’ve got to deal with with their less-than-helpful commentary about the Beatles, Michael Jackson, and The Simpsons, at least they now have the freedom to say when a pope statue is ugly.)
According to CNS:
Sculptor Oliviero Rainaldi intended to show the late pope with his cape billowing in the wind, as a symbolic image of welcome. The 16-foot-tall bronze sculpture was placed outside Rome’s main train station, where tens of thousands of visitors arrive daily.
But when unveiled May 18, it looked more like an open tent, or a sentry-box, or a bell, commented L’Osservatore Romano. The papal cape looks like it was split open by a bomb. More importantly, the newspaper said, it’s unrecognizable as John Paul II — the head is “excessively spherical.”
The newspaper credited the sculptor with trying to move beyond classic papal iconography and attempt something new and different.
“But overall, the result does not seem to have matched the intention, and in fact there has already been criticism,” it said.
In Rome newspaper polls, public opinion is running 9-1 against the statue.
Ya think?
The placement of the statue outside Rome’s main train station—the Termini—is particularly unfortunate, because it ensures a large number of people will see the thing. The Termini is a very important travel hub in Rome for locals and pilgrims alike.
I have to say that this statue is even worse than the one inside the entrance of the Vatican museums. That statue, titled “Varcare la soglia” (Crossing the Threshold), is a slab of marble with a bas relief of John Paul II on each side, apparently shoving a goofy-looking, modern, cell-phone clutching man out of the block of marble.
I was stunned when I first saw it.
Take a look see for yourself. Here’s one side of it:
And here’s the other:
(Sorry; couldn’t find larger images. Trust me, it’s even more hideous when you see it up close and larger than life.)
Some years ago, I visited a traveling exhibit of Vatican art treasures, with items spanning many centuries. I was struck by the quality of the older material and how the quality of the art suddenly fell off a cliff in the mid-20th century.
I can only imagine art historians in the year 2525 (if man is still alive; if woman can survive) looking back on this period and struggling to explain the sudden, appalling lack of taste and artistic sensibility.
Of course, neither the new JP2 statue or the “Crossing the Threshold” statue is the worst 20th century artistic atrocity passed off as something deeply spiritual, but I’ll tell you about that one another time.
In the meanwhile, what do you think the new statue of John Paul II looks like? A telephone booth? An agonizer booth? A bus stop?
What are your thoughts?
P.S. For extra points, how would you caption the photo of the new statue?
Comments
Post a Comment
“excessively spherical” bwhahahahaa. Oh. My. Bizarre! What were they thinking????
Jimmy, you are leading me into temptation here with that invitation to comment! And…I can’t resist…it looks like a porta-potty with a missing door. Listen now, don’t spread this around cause if it gets back to the professor of my Understanding Art class for this semester, it might not bode will for my grade. I repent of my lack of charity…but Jimmy made me do it!
I once had dinner with Michael Novak and his wife, an accomplished artist. Michael told a story about how they’d had an audience with JPII and she presented him with a gift, a crucifix that she’d created herself. Jesus was gasping for breath, his chest drawn up, abdomen pulled in.
The Pope looked at it, smiled and exclaimed, “At the moment of death!”
To which Mrs. Novak replied, “No—Crossing the Threshold of Life”!
John Paul smiled.
I don’t love the statue, either—but I have sympathy for the artist, who intended to create something wonderful and who is now subjected to worldwide scorn. Isn’t there room for modern art in the world today? It’s not like it’s Serrano’s “Piss Christ”!
It’s like an ice scoop standing on it’s end!
In an article I read about this ugly hunk of bronze a cleaning woman, who works in the area around the statue and definitely knows what she’s talking about, said that homeless people are going to be sleeping in it at night and litter will end up being thrown in it. I’ll add one more concern to the list—GRAFFITI. Of MANY kinds. I feel a little bad for the artist—this criticism has got to sting—but something must be done. Commission a new work immediately!!
The Soviets would have done a better job.
That is perhaps the singular most awful looking thing I’ve ever laid eyes on. Wow.
Kathy, I would have great sympathy for any artist who looked at that thing and thought he/she had created something wonderful. Ugly is not the new beauty.
My first reaction was remembering the tour of the Vatican museum -as you pointed out, centuries of beauty punctuated by the beginning and ending in the ugliness of 20th century art
Hey, someone already said part of mine, but I will post it anyway. “Pope-a-potty. Door not included.” (Please forgive me, beloved Blessed John Paul!)
Something tells me JPII wouldn’t have strenuously objected to homeless people sleeping in his statue…
It looks like one of these:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Clothpin.jpg
The statue isn’t of Pope John Paul II after all. See this link:
https://douglawrence.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/ugly-roman-jpii-statue-actually-turns-out-to-be-surprise-oprah/
For an interesting critique, read Art Historian Liz Lev’s comments on Zenit, May 26th edition. Liz is the daughter the former ambassador to the Vatican, and teaches art at Duquesne. She doean’t mince words!
“Excessively spherical” head? You folks don’t get it, this is the artist’s depiction of Charlie Brown as pope.
I don’t know what to think, is it Blessed Pope John Paul 11? If you had not told me, I would not have thought it was anything like him. Sorry modern Art, It’s not good enough for me. He is the Pope that took the Catholic Church to the world, YES and he came to little New Zealand down the bottom of the Pacific and there are millions of people throughout the world that would love to view the statue and say yes that is Pope John Paul 11 no doubt.
its UGLY…and evil because it is so ugly….even picturing it with pretty flowers can’t fix it.
http://www.artdaily.org/index.asp?int_sec=11&int_new=47554&int_modo=1
the Vatican should have done better due diligence…here is a better representation of his thought process and works: http://www.olivierorainaldi.net/works/gisant1.html
He has one collection he named
‘Malebolge’....and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to ‘get’ the symbolism of the pieces. Things like this really make me angry because I KNOW there are awesome good pure hearted artists out there who don’t have a prurient fascination with the ‘Malebolge’ and who are creating gorgeous artwork that really glorifies God and would have truly honored Blessed pope John Paul II.
Shame on who ever commissioned him.
Mary
U.G.L.Y. they ain’t got no alibi it’s ugly. I do think it looks like a box with a head on top, or a porta potti with a head and no door. I think the artist should have just been honest and stated that it did not come out the way it was intended. I don’t think that they could have wanted it to look like this. I do remember a few “art pieces” awhile back that were worse, but they were intended to be a slap in the face to Catholics and I am not sure that that was the intent here.
This person thinks he’s a artist??????
It looks for all the world like the scoop you’d find in a bin at the feed & grain store. It really redefines the term hideous. Did somebody pay this fella to craft this goofy thing?
A fitting representation of the man-saint, warts and all!
That artist is surely “on” something. Or he really hated John Paul.
It makes JP2 look like “Cloak” from Marvel Comics’ “Cloak & Dagger.” Like he’s an insubstantial wraith wrapped in a hollow shroud threatening to envelop you and swallow you up.
Must be the same guy that designed some of the churches in the 70’s & 80’s- or at least the artwork. Here’s a good caption.:“See Mr. Chick, nothing up my sleeve.”
Speaking of ugly religious-themed art, anyone ever see the statue of Mary that is in front of the LA Cathedral? She looks like a character from Star Trek.
Caption: JPII Telephone Booth
Who knew that Bl. John Paul II was actually a DALEK?
Where is the Doctor when you need him?
It looks empty, as though that was the point he was trying to make. And there is simply no way around that head.
I like the statue :)
Looks more like Marlon Brando than JPII.
...and old, overweight Marlon Brando.
http://tinyurl.com/3atkx7h
Reminds me of a statue unveiling at Stuebenville while I was a student there. They had a new statue commissioned for the grotto. When it was unveiled, all were shocked at how, um, how shall I say, well endowed, Our Lady appeared. After a few week of criticism, the statue was finally taken away and modified. I think the problem is that everyone thinks there is an expert for everything and if one claim expertise in thing artistic, then a few Cardinals, bishops or priests assume they have no place to say they know better. Let hope this statue is taken away and modified as well.
Just throwing a positive on a negative; you can call it a new age Holy of Holies with a traditional twist to it. Here’s how:
Add an alter in the status, where the priest faces East (assuming the back of the statue faces East—the priest’s back is to the people as he leads them in worship and offering the divine offering on their behalf) for a more traditional feel that keeps with the Apostolic Tradition.
For the New Agers they will see the face of Pope JPII during the Mass, so it is as if the Pope is doing the divine liturgy facing them.
The best thing about using it in this way, is that would give an opportunity to have open air Masses which can serve to indoctrinate people to the Catholic Faith.
As I said it is putting a positive on a negative, while at the same time hiding the unique look of the statue and making it fully functional.
“Sculptor Oliviero Rainaldi intended to show the late pope with his cape billowing in the wind, as a symbolic image of welcome.”
Then why didn’t he *do* that? I don’t get it. I see no wind-blown cape.
We might need to admit that a great deal of the problem is that many working artists simply are not competent in their chosen field, and have not mastered their materials… so they punt, they go for something supposedly deeper and more symbolic, yada, yada… and coincidentally, a lot quicker and easier to make.
Oh, you had to mention THAT.
This is not considered ugly.
This is the new art.
Expect more pieces to look like this.
The criterion for public art is that it be bomb proof, it can easily be covered with graffiti and not be noticed, and that it be impervious to urine. It has met these criterion.
It is ugly. Period. That is not my opinion, but an objective fact. As far as my opinion goes, its offensive and people should say so. I’m offended. If I was a Roman, I’d make it pretty clear.
All I can say is that it will make a nice shelter for the bums outside the train station. ;)
After looking up the images that Mary posted about the artist I’m more angry at the people who commissioned this. That “artist” is no Catholic, but a vulgar person. Why on earth would you hire anyone to do a statue of a beloved pope who is known for crud?
I’m not sure the artist is the one who hates JPII…
They dont hate Jpp2. but the only know Jpp2 full with heresy/heretic
dont you realise their followers also become heresy.
sorry about that,dear
James Akin: I was with you on a Catholic Answers cruise which had 3 days ahead in Rome. The hotel we first stayed in was attempting to be modern. It was so contrived and ugly, same thing I believe is occurring in this situation of attempting to be moderno and up to date.
Tradition that is all over Italy is sound enough and full of joyous stability and when someone attempts to push away from the sound experiences and proven history from the past it seems to be distorted, contorted, grotesque and repulsive.
So is this situation. When going through the Vatican Museum and coming to the contemporary part, same overall uncomfortable sense of disrespect and rebellion that is happening with the John Paul II statue probably located on the Plaza Republicano.There are some wonderful fountains around that most likely adds to the unhappy feeling.
“Next week, class, we’ll make ashtrays!”
Wow, that’s terrible. That looks like something I could put together with Silly Putty.
All of Modernism is ugly - from it’s “morals”, thoughts, actions, all the way down to its’ “art”.
Dreadful. But not surprising.
It would make a good ship’s anchor.It reminds me of the same type of artistic self indulgent “look-at-me-license” that created the grotesque monument to Canadian WWII Airmen in Toronto.It is known locally as Gumby Goes To Heaven.The Airmen were NOT pleased.
Behold Gumby:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jbjelloid/5165832427/
It’s a welcoming sculpture, one that will mantle arriving pilgrims to Rome for decades, perhaps centures to come, with the memory of his love, valour and compassion. Pope John Paul, with his unshaking avant garde sensibilities (witness the art collected and housed in the Vatican museum during his time), would approve.
I’ve seen his other work, this is just more of the same old crap.
It looks like Mussolini’s head on a bomb.
In ages of Faith we get The Sistine Chapel and The Basilica of St Peters and The Basilica of St Mark in Venice and in an age of indifference we get “art” of this nature.
When these statues are destroyed, hopefully by a young Christian Catholic male, that will be a real sign of Springtime in the Church
Will someone please notify the young man who destroyed “Piss Christ”
This is sad. So much money wasted. It could have been such a wonderful tribute. Why was there so little oversight? There ought to have been more Vatican decision-makers involved, for such an important & highly visible statue. Artists have their own style. So someone should have known something odd would be the result. What were they all thinking?
Shortly after the collapse of Soviet Empire that JPII helped to bring down, Moscovites found an empty lot and dumped much of their old Soviet era “art” on this patch. Talk about creating an environmental eyesore. If these hulking, albeit hollow, statues of Felix Dzerzshinsky, Lenin and the other “stars” of this evil empire, especially THE MAN of ‘em all Uncle Joe Stalin, if all these “monuments” to inhumanity, could bleed, that place would be forever drenched in blood, beyond any of the best environmental clean up crews and agencies best available tools and talents to mop up.
We have something similar for symbolic kitsch out in Las Vegas where all the past eye-popping glitz was unceremoniously given a retirement home away from the new temples of glitz, inanity, materialism ... take your pick of adjectives and add more if you want. (The days for these new temples is awaiting them, too. But who’s going to move the pyramind and will the FAA allow them since pilots arriving at night rely on the light emenating from its open top. (It’s the FAA’s latest “back up” for sleepy flight controllers.)
Nevertheless, Vegas’ Kitschy bone yard has become somewhat of a local “sight” to be seen. (Like the Moscow’s “Old Bolshieland ‘Art’ Museum.”)
It’s mystifying why anybody working in the Vatican, clerical or lay, would’ve ever approved, much less cut any check for that metallic monstrosity. Even Il Duce couldn’t be blamed for taking offense at this block of iron. Even to think the bureaucratic end of this crime against good taste originated from Vatican City, it nevertheless occured in the Eternal City, capitol of the most culturally blessed nations on the planet, Italy. Rome, Florence, Venice and Milan help to put it just ahead of Germany. (And to think of what the Germans lost, not just to the Nazi vulgarians, Allied Bombers ... but worst of all—East German Communists and West German modernists. The Wall couldn’t prevent the blight of blandness; but at least the West Germans made sure the old and historical buildings were rebuilt (PDQ! Schnell!) before the modernist vulgarians got their chance to make their presence known.
Guess which “facet of society” embraced this form of cultural Philistinism and Bolshevism in post-war Europe and the US? Well, yes, we have Madison Avenue and that’s no joy to marvel at. So are many blah, blah, blah and more blah academic buildings. During the late Sixties UMass/Amherst put up architecture worthy of Albert Speer’s signature with what looks like the world’s largest concrete tollgate for get this: the flagship’s Fine Arts Center. (Only thing missing were black uniformed guards and a couple of 88mm Ack Ack batteries on top.)
The top prize goes to Christianity. Small wonder so many Muslims in Europe would like to share our churches and cathedrals. They’ve already been spared the trouble of appearing unreasonable for having to ask the Catholics to cover all the “idolatrous” art. It’s been done long before the numbers of Muslims in Europe began to rise exponentially during the past several decades. (Well, give thanks to the Catholics living in Southern Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Poland, France, and Italy for making sure their Baroque churches would remain Baroque. They also had help from the EU and UNESCO, who at least recognized the true treasure of GENUINE Catholic art (if our clerics won’t bother to anymore.)
So! Somebody in the Vatican needs to wake up and remember we’re now living in the Age of Benedict, a Pope who hails from Bavaria. That’s going to be a stretch for our Northern European Catholics and especially our fellow Americans in charge of making sure the Church is (still) The Church on this side of the pond, too. Okay, so we don’t have the Vatican Museum, or Florence’s Uffizi Gallery or all the treasures of Asissi, etc. Nor do we have as many Baroque beauties, but we’ve been blessed to have had pioneering immigrant ancestors who saved their pennies and put them all together to make sure they had parish churches and not just churches, but buildings that glorified God and in that were living, breathing and teaching edifices.
So, should we be surprised at this Mussolini monstrosity? The more I think about it now: No. It’s just the latest insult to good taste and the many people who loved and revered the man.
What strikes me as (unpleasantly) surprising is that it’s taken this long for us to wake up.
Something about that JPII statue gives me an eerie feeling….
I reminds me of what I imagined in my mind when I read about the king of Saurons Nine Riders in “Return of the King”. I swear, it looks like a faceless crown-helmet with a skull on top; and i can feel the cold, unseeing and unseen eyes of the cloaked, wraith-like terror.
............burrrh….(shiver)
It looks like a little mini cave. Not sure how warm & dry I’d be in bad weather, but it’s at least a little bit of shelter.
The first time I saw the statue, I posted it was truly ugly…. now it is even more ugly. How could they pay someone for this statue, and how could they dishonor Blessed JPII with such a hideous thing? I heard some in Rome saying how wonderful it was, because of the “meaning” behind the sculpture. This “meaning” does nothing to lessen the ugliness. Very sad, and I pray some day soon it is whisked away, destroyed, and a new and beautiful statue appears.
The really sad thing is that someone approved it before the work began….
“the result does not seem to have matched the intention”
Ummmmm ... that’s the dictionary definition of “incompetence”
I am ashamed to admit it, but I think it looks like a portapotty ... wonder whether it will be used that way by some ... sigh ...
And after seeing the “artist’s” previous installation, I have to wonder who was responsible for this? Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice ... ya know?
Sick of using modern artists for our religious statues. We Have been too many times disapointed. where is the beauty in our days ??
What the statue needs is a bomb under it, to blow it to bits. ASAP. It’s hideous, a disgrace. I am absolutely no admirer of JP2 - but that statue is an insult to him. He deserves better. Church art these days is uniformly revolting, with its churches that look like public urinals: the Church of God the Merciful Father in Rome is a damining example of the type. Why has the Church embraced the cult of the soul-destroyingly ugly ? The Orthodox don’t perpetrate these abominations - so why do we ? The SSPX don’t either.
Everyone here has completely misses the truth of the piece: John Paul II’s eveloping caritas.
If you were ever to visit Casa Gandalfo you would see many other similiar modern works—-all commissioned by John Paul II himself during his many years as Pope.
NOw if some of you could be even as partially welcoming of these modern gestures!
You criticisms should not be simply reduced to a question of liking or not liking this wonderful sculpture. Art, regardless of how and by whom it’s created sholdn’t be judged by subjective parameters. By that measure an infinite number of works now considered to be masterpieces, like Michaelangelo’s “Last Judgement” would have been whitewashed or destroyed.
It is understandable how many may find this work hard to read, but, and I believe Blessed John Paul would be with us when I say, decisions should not be taken in haste.
If you were to witness it first hand, aas I did last week, taking time as you should with a work of art, meditating upon it, appreciation may be possible.
Such a poor rendition of a beautiful man and his great works. What were they thinking? There are so many wonderful photos of this Pope that could have been used as great inspiration - What was the artist thinking? So sad!
Everyone here has completely misses the truth of the piece: John Paul II’s eveloping caritas.
No we haven’t. Most people can allow that the artist intended to convey Bl. JPII’s embracing love. But good intentions aren’t enough. It’s ugly. You know it’s ugly, I know it’s ugly. A Hottentot in Africa would know it’s ugly. A four-year old would know it’s ugly. Stop lying to yourself.
It looks like a Tardis. The Doctor would get in and the head will start blinking and ZAP off they go to fight the Daleks.
Scott W. and others,
Perhaps you don’t know how art works. As you take it in, John Paul II’s caritas envelopes you again. That’s the way this piece works. It’s isn’t supposed to be a mere record of something past; by taking this piece in, what John Paul II stood for (salvation!)becomes a live event in a constant present.
You’re hung up on art on a statice Western model which really wasn’t the word for John Paul II. He believed, as did the martyr who bled warm blood and the Virgin who wept salt tears, in the power of objects to point to the miraculous. You look at this piece and it reflects who you are and whether you are ready to walk as John Paul did. You speak to his Lord and He will answer. With this great work, in transaction with it, belief runs deep and emotions run high. The gulf between who he was and who we can be dissolves.
And like the many other pieces of ecclesisatical art Blessed John Paul II personally commissioned for the Vatican and castel Gandalfo, its purpose is control, as it enhances and prtects the vitality and the mystery of our faith.
@ Trent: If the statue were ugly, how would you know? And how would we know you know? What would be different in your analysis? If the statue were ugly, would the martyr no longer bleed warm blood or the Virgin weep salt tears? Would objects no longer point to the miraculous? What does any of this have to do with your denial of the statue’s ugliness?
The stark depiction of Jesus crucified that Benedict XVI is ugly in its horrific depiction, but it contains a limitless wonder in its meaning for salvation. So, too, this depiction of Blessed John Paul II (so aptly situated in this particular location by the terminal), while in its outward appearance may appear “ugly” to some, it serves as a “vessel” which, if we choose to (because we have free will) enter, and, once within, we can begin to understand how one man opened and emptied himself by the grace of the self-serving God. Once we’ve understood that, we can understand (and never forget) that this mystery is destined for humanity as a whole. And, as we are reminded by this piece, the revealed mystery ofGod is fathomless.
@ Trent: Crucifixion is inherently a horrific subject, though of course Christian art varies greatly in its approach to depicting this horror. There is no reason for a statue meant to depict the Pope welcoming newcomers to be ugly.
Let’s use less ambiguous language: If the statue were bad (lame, infelicitous, inept, etc.) how would you know? What would be different about your analysis?
As a simple cartoonist who occasionally does some artwork, I can testify to the fact that rendering something truly beautiful takes more work than rendering something “average”.
Modern “art” is primarily used to “convey” something. It’s asthetics are a secondary concern or, as in this case, not a concern at all.
That’s what separates great artwork from that which qualifies, however minimally, as artwork. Great artists, like those from the past, could convey a message and at the same time do it beautifully.
Less ambiguous language? “The Last Jugement” and “Virgin of the Pilgrims” were both treated with your examples (and even more powerfully so) of less ambiguous language when they were created. Also, more recently, so was “Varcare la Soglia”. The less ambiguous language you refer to makes no attempt to understand the work.
If you were to write a review using these words you would in no real way be helping your audience to understand the how the novel, movie, performance art works. There would be no versteyen.
ugly =/= welcoming.
ugly =/= profound.
ugly = need talent and lessons.
Please stop trying to justify this. The artist makes his living obsessing about his body like a five year old. If someone wants to pay him to do a “pope statute” and put it in their basement, where they can think themselves enlightened and superior while contemplating its depth and meaning, so be it. But stop thrusting this trash on those of us with enough artistic sense to know it’s ugly.
@ Trent: Certainly, new art is not always immediately accepted in its time. But equally not all rejections of art are overturned in time. The style here is hardly radical—we’ve been living with this sort of thing for some time, and I see no sign that it’s aging well. As Christina just cogently pointed out, if most or many people find it ugly and off-putting, it’s hardly “welcoming.” The Last Judgment is not the same sort of subject and does not serve the same sort of function, and reluctance to accept it in its day is not the same sort of objection to that work.
Rainaldi’s work, like his subject, Blessed John Paul II, is more open to outlining the mystery that Chrst reveals to us in order to let us share in it, than those posting here.
All of this discussion belongs to a living faith that does not for the present see or understand it. It will, however, like its subject, be a work which will fill as well as surpass our power of sight.
Those who meditate as Christians will ultimately and repeatedly be led into our mystery.
@ Trent: Are you judging the openness to the mystery of Christ of those who disagree with you about this work of art? That is both flagrantly uncharitable and totally unacceptable.
I am not the closed one. Pinning me as such is just as uncharitable and as unacceptable.
I will always be open to the revealed mystery of God, as expressed faithfully by any of his creations. Profound and sorrowful regrets for the shortcomings of my explication. Following the example of Blessed John Paul II, I offer to the Heart of Jesus of the good accomplished.
I was heartened by the comment made by Rome’s mayor. He was frank in saying that if the “vox populi” came to a conclusion that the statue was an unwelcome presence there, the authorities would be open to taking measures to respond to that verdict, presumably meaning dumping the thing where it could no longer offend. I can’t imagine many American mayors being quite so ready to right this kind of wrong.
This is just a terrible shame. With so many ionic photographic images of Blessed John Paul II, one laments the fact that this was formed in bronze…So sad.
I think that our hearts yearn for something that reminds us of our beloved Holy Father, of his likeness. Some have posted good interpretations of meanings this can represent,and although I did post earlier that I think it is ugly, it is certainly not offensive, and I appreciate being enlightened as to possible interpretations. Recall that the Impressionists created scandal when they showed their art, but now most of us do enjoy Monet and Manet, etc. This statue is just not emotionally fulfilling to those of us who yearn more for a simple connection to our personal memories of Blessed John Paul II rather than trying to figure out a deeper meaning of what the artist meant.
It is truly ugly. Unfortunately, it might be the *best* that modern artists can do. Think about it. Jesus told us that what is in the heart comes out in our words.. or in this case our art. Modern art seems to reflect the absence of soul, the depth of heart, that true devotion to God speaks of.
The only cure for this kind of production is repentance, on a worldwide level.
@Brenda: Brenda, I agree with nearly everything you’ve written above. But I’m not quite ready to go along with “...repentance, on a worldwide level.” It’s best left for the “artist” and the people who signed off on accepting this, this, this .... arghhhh, I’ll refrain ... to do the repentin’. Lord knows they have plenty of it to do. After all, even the good Pope in Heaven must be shaking his head in sorrow, and muttering to himself, “How many Catholic youth organizations, maternity wards, pre-school centers, kids health clinics or even informal soccer leagues for kids could they have founded with the money they wasted on this so-called ‘tribute’ to me?”
How’s this idea: We’ll do the regretting and let the bureaucrats and artsy folks responsible for this double insult to John Paul II’s memory and good art for its own sake to do the repenting. (If any doggone cultural relativists want to question me on what I consider “good art” I give them the High Renaissance period for starters.
Porta Potty comes to mind!
“Unfortunately, it might be the *best* that modern artists can do.”
I disagree. Even if the arts are at their nadir (and I’m sure that if they aren’t, they are close to it), then the least bad thing to do would be to copy something else already in our tradition. There are dozens of statues of Popes that might be emulated. Or one could take an iconic picture of the late Pope and make a statue from that.
That thing is a complete travesty. Tear it down, rebuild, and this time around make sure the artist is a Christian rather than a homosexual on drugs. I’m not Catholic but I feel for you guys. If it was a statue of me I would be rolling in my grave, laughing, at how ridiculous it is.
why does nearly everything terrible in the Church these days date back to the mid-20th century?? Scrap Vatican II!!
It’s time for another renaissance for Christian art. All this hokey modern stuff is useless and doesnt’ really teach anything other than an idea of the grotesque vaguaries and ‘you interpret it’ mentality that has eroded the faithful. If art is an outward expression of what we inwardly believe, then oh boy are we in a lot of trouble!
There is some really great Christian art and sculpture out there that is beautiful while being modern. I’ve always been interested in starting an underground movement of young catholic artists who are familiar with modern art from comic books, video games and concept material, both digital and traditional. Both classical, mainstream and urban. Anyone here interested? Let’s get together and talk!
I…
I…
Words cannot describe…
I want to unsee this!
Trent’s definitions of art are entirely correct. He believes in “the power of objects to point to the miraculous” and that art is “no mere record of the past”, but “becomes a live event in a constant present”. That is precisely what art is to be and no one here argues with these truths. The question is, does this piece accomplish the aims of art. Any mildly reflective person can take the time to contemplate a tree, or a newt, and see God’s beauty therein. Beauty does not reside solely in the eye of the beholder: that which reflects the eternal, timeless must, by definition, have some recognizable continuity with the that reality. If the statue’s face does not represent the reality’s face, it is a poor statue.
Okay, it IS ugly, but it really reminds me of the Medieval depictions of the Virgin Mary with all the people under her mantle. If it could have been done a different and BETTER way, it would really be saying something I think.
The idea of it reminds of that, that is. The statue itself doesn’t remind me of it. Though, to be fair, some of that Medieval art is pretty ugly, too.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register 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.