I’ve blogged before about the UGLY John Paul II statue outside Rome’s main train terminal.
Now Catholic New Agency is reporting that an effort is underway to fix it:
“I made a design for the sculpture that wasn’t executed well in the foundry,” explained the creator of the artwork, Italian sculptor Oliviero Rainaldi.
“It is not that we have come up with a new statue,” he told CNA on Jan. 10. “We’re correcting those details that weren’t executed well” so that “it will be more faithful to my original idea.”
The redesign will involve replacing the head, modifying the Pope’s cape and touching up the outer coating of paint, since the bronze has oxidized to a light shade of green. The statue will also be raised 15 inches on a new platform, and its lighting will be improved.
. . .
Rainaldi told CNA in a June 2011 interview that his avant garde design is intended to manifest the inner-life of Pope John Paul II, instead of presenting a life-like photographic image.
“The man within was more interesting to me than the man outside,” he said, describing a man who was “lacerated” inside “not only by his infirmity but also by his mission,” the sculptor said. Rainaldi added, “this man showed he was beautiful for others reasons beyond his appearance.”
Color me skeptical, but it doesn’t sound to me like Rainaldi “gets it.”
If you want to make a John Paul II memorial homeless person shelter then make a homeless person shelter and slap a sign on it. Don’t make something that positively invites an internet caption contest.
Speaking of which . . . how would you caption this monstrosity?
Comments
Post a Comment
The only way to “fix it” is to melt it down, and make a few benches. It is so ugly, and ruins the surroundings.
The only captions I can think of are pedophile-related, unfortunately. Such as, “Hey boys and girls, come look under my cape!” or “You want inside me?” I wonder if this artist is secretly anti-Catholic?
Yeah - I’m sure all those hard working guys at the FOUNDRY got it wrong. Yeah that’s the ticket. It had nothing to do with the actual work of the “arteest.” Next he’ll blame the setting or the angle of the sunlight.
Short of the TNT solution by authorities, I think the only viable alternative is to set it next to something of even greater and more profound and wasteful ugliness thanks to the Italian Episcopal Conference: Renzo Piano’s design of the new Padre Pio Roman Catholic Church/Shrine in San Giovanni Rotondo, Italy.
http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2004/08/19/arts/19CHUR.650.jpg
Perhaps in this setting, Arteest Oliviero Rainaldi’s true and truly misunderstood genius can shine. In fact, maybe all of the ugly sacrilegious “art” that has adorned Western Catholic Churches throughout the world for the past 60 years should be shipped over to the Padre Pio Shrine. It could be like a land of misfit toys, or better yet a liturgical Island of Doctor Moreau…
It’s supposed to be a shelter? For whom? One person? Who doesn’t want to sit? It looks like a phone booth. I think JPII would have rather had something that HELPED people built in his honor. Why does the article say the lighting was an issue? It’s outside. It looks like a cave with the pope’s head stuck on top. Is it the pope-cave? Maybe a secret entrance to the actual lair where they keep the pope mobile? We have lost sight of the goal. Too is spent on junk like this that could be spent helping people. (See the last few scenes of Schindler’s List if you don’t get my point.)
Maybe as Christians, we should give him a break and not automatically assume the artist has anti-Christian intentions. Yes, you can say it’s bad, and you can even say it should be removed, but don’t jump on the bandwagon and see who can outdo the other in saying how horrible it is. Just my two cents.
What part of “ugly” do they not understand?
I think they could easily turn it into a JPII Phone Booth.
Judy is right - melt it down, there is no fixing this monstrosity.
Surely the person who perpetrated this monstrosity submitted sketches to the people who commissioned the work? If so and they accepted the sketches without modification then they are at fault.
This is not art, this is just plain ugly.It is insulting to Pope JP II. If it is meant to be a shelter it should be melted down and something like a bus shelter constructed with maybe a plaque honouring Pope JP II,
Tell the news without harassing an artist who’s trying to honor our beloved JP2.
It might not be very good work but I doubt out Lord or JP2 would want you to be tearing into this man.
I love the professionalism of the Register and endorsing a piece attacking some artist is damaging to it’s reputation.
Let’s hope they never bring it back, once they take it to “fix” it.
A phone booth…? Maybe the artist meant this to be a tardis?
Someone approved this design before it was ever made. Who? Why blame the artist? If this “Hollow Man” what he thinks represents JP2 who agreed with him??
“...his avant garde design is intended to manifest the inner-life of Pope John Paul II…”
So his inner life was empty?
Apparently, his inner life was empty and rectangular. chew on that.
As for a caption, I disagree: I think the statue itself possesses an ugliness thattranscends description. Any attempt to put it into words would fail to capture how ridiculous it is.
I agree with linebyline. It does transcend any description. It would be,in my view, disrespectful given who it is supposed to represent to suggest any use for this monstrosity.Very sad. I hope the Cardinal can get his money back.Pax
He looks like he is hiking his skirt to molest some minors.
the whole point oif the interior life is that it is enclosed architecture encloses space so should this sculpture
I think it is a statement that John Paul II was really a hollow person. It makes sense to me.
Don’t change a thing about that statue:
We are in the presence of an extraordinary man, it is obvious. A rapid career without the slightest hitch. And yet, the Servant of God has been a poet, an actor, a student, a writer and journalist, a manual worker, a skier, a kayaker, a swimmer, an ice skater, an alpine climber, a footballer, a theologian and brilliant philosopher, a priest, lecturer, professor, bishop, archbishop, cardinal and to top them all, Pope – he was even the Pope. Just try it yourself. I have not remarked in him anything particularly outstanding: no conflict with the world, no persecution, no service of the poor or of the sick, no preaching to the wicked followed by astounding conversions. Have you heard of foundations of works, of fruitful religious orders? No, absolutely nothing! Then when we are informed of the Servant of God’s activity, they can be reduced to his philosophical works and the memorable holiday camps of a restricted group of boys and girls gathered around him. What is Karol Wojtyla other than a mixture of modern phenomenology, existentialism, and personalism, that have been exclusively fed by experiences of and reflections on love, meaning sexual love, with the aim of teaching human beings to be happy through this love and to renew all their social relationships by substituting friendship for authority. Then the Servant of God turned away from the first object of his study, which was that of love, in order to focus and lock himself more and more into self-contemplation, exaltation of man, of his incommensurable dignity, his transcendence over all things and all others, and over the world. I see nothing that could convince you that the virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity were practiced by the Servant of God in a heroic manner.
http://www.crc-internet.org/CCR/2009/85-Karol-Wojtyla.php
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.