What with some of the rubbish in the contemporary art world today, this article below gives food for thought.

Benedict XVI Calls Artists Back to Dialogue

Lights and shadows

Like the epic story of Michelangelo’s commission to fresco the vault of the Sistine Chapel, the valiant attempt to re-establish the dialogue between art and the Church last weekend had its moments of agony and ecstasy.

That artists found the initiative to ask to meet with the Holy Father brought a spirit of cooperation to the events, an openness on their part to seeing the Church with mature and appreciative eyes. 

The Pontifical Council for Culture responded by inviting artists of all types; architects, musicians, authors, filmmakers, installation artists as well as painters and sculptors. Art historians know we have an interdisciplinary field; literature, music and space play a large part in many works of art. The opportunity for these men and women from their varied disciplines to unite amid the art of Michelangelo was like scattering seeds on the most fertile of soil to see what might grow.

Furthermore, the artists visited the extensive collection of Modern Art held in the Vatican Museums. Hundreds upon hundreds of works testify to the popes' continued interest in their efforts while a few jewels by Van Gogh, Matisse and Chagall demonstrated that artists who had garnered fame and fortune in the secular realm had eventually confronted the tremendous legacy of sacred art.

The address of Benedict XVI evoked the spirit of patronage of old. The Holy Father praised the contribution of the arts to the Church’s “unvarying message of salvation." Emphasizing tradition and transcendence, the Pope described the true nature of “shock art” that “opens afresh the eyes of his heart and mind giving him wings, carrying him aloft." As the Sistine Chapel amazed and the Bernini’s Ecstasy of St. Teresa dazzled, viewers could glimpse the sublime of the supernatural, hidden just beyond their mortal eyes.

By contrast, the art that jolts people through say, a rotting cow’s head (Damian Hirst) or a porcelain effigy of Michael Jackson and his pet monkey Bubbles (Jeff Koons) offers nothing to bring man out of himself.

Pope Benedict warned of “seductive but hypocritical beauty that rekindles desire, the will to power, to possess and to dominate." Using no glossed-over terms, or popular political correctness, the Holy Father admonished an art which “takes on the guise of indecency, transgression or gratuitous provocation."

But as hope began to shine through the sturm und drang of contemporary art, a few dark clouds still weighed heavily on the horizon.

For one, the selection of artists weighed in as overwhelmingly heavy on Italians. While Italy did produce Michelangelo and Raphael, it might be wise to remember that they were foreign nationals who needed passports to enter the Eternal City. 

The lack of translations and the emphasis on things Italian gave the event a strangely provincial flavor. One of the artists present noticed that the first six rooms of the modern art gallery were dedicated to Italians, not exactly the forerunners of contemporary art. 

The artists were not given any opportunity to interact. No seminars or breakaway sessions for architects to converse or film makers to exchange ideas, so the vivacious interchange that inspired Dante and Giotto during their time in Padua had little opportunity of being repeated.

Particularly disappointing were the great absences from the English-speaking world. John David Mooney, whose monumental light sculptures have illuminated everything from Chicago skyscrapers to the Pontifical Villa at Castel Gandolfo and video wizard Bill Viola were both invited, but several others were overlooked.

Noticeably missing were the producers or stars of the Passion of the Christ, one of the most successful Catholic art works of our age, as well as Duncan Stroik, the leading architect of sacred structures in the United States. The United States funds the arts heavily and forms the backbone of the Patrons of the Arts in the Vatican Museums, who pay for the restoration and conservation of the collection. Despite the tremendous creative and economic energy that the Anglophone world infuses in the arts, Americans and Brits were a distinct minority.

The most jarring aspect of the event to the ears of this art historian was the repetition of the tired old mantra, “art must be free." Caravaggio was not free to do as he liked and when he did, his work was rejected. Bernini, Velasquez or Jan Van Eyck were not at liberty to execute any passing fancy. The idea that one might give a Gospel to an artist and then let his imagination run wild is very similar to suggesting that a theologian interpret the Bible in whatever way he feels is best.

But the excitement of anticipation has not deserted art completely. In a brilliant spirit of engagement, the Vatican has proposed to set up a pavilion at the Venice Biennale, one of the most important contemporary art shows in the world. The proposed project would be scenes from Genesis, given to different artists to engage not only with the Biblical text but with the greatest themes man can consider: creation, evil entering the world, the first murder, the origin of love etc.

This challenging commission, inviting artists to look outside of their own experience and think in terms of universality is a first, important step toward the reconciliation of art and the Church.

* * *

Elizabeth Lev teaches Christian art and architecture at Duquesne University’s Italian campus and University of St. Thomas’ Catholic studies program. She can be reached at lizlev@zenit.org 

I have a friend who is a baptised Catholic but who lost faith with God and the Church long ago, and is of the opinion that all the architecture and excesses in Rome is a reinforcement of a hypocrisy that further cements her distrust. It's a sensitive topic but certainly an interesting one.

Admittedly, in some quarters, the Church went to excess in the Middle Ages with the cathedral-building at the expense of social welfare and good - misplaced pride and use of scarce resources but cathedral-building had an economic and social function as well in providing employment, and acted as a gravitational social centre that rooted people to a community - I suppose we also have to bear in mind that in those days, the Christian worldview influenced every aspect of life - people generally saw a higher purpose in the things that they did or created, perhaps the communal spirit was stronger too.

Corruption was prevalent no doubt, making a travesty out of faith, leading Luther to do what he did. But in rejecting one extreme of excess and intemperance (and I don't think Luther called for a total rejection, things went beyond his own control too once a wider community took up his cause), it led instead to a movement to the other extreme - a Puritanism that was fierce, austere, unyielding, almost cold, with little appreciation for beauty in its material form - the work of human hands. Out went sculpture, depictions of human figures, saints among others.

But within the human is an intrinsic desire for the divine - in whatever revelation or form that may take - and when we see art that transcends our imagination, invariably, we see the divine in it whilst acknowledging the human instrument by which it was created - and perhaps also, that in the creative process, it was more than human effort involved in its completion.

So the mistakes of the past/present/future have cost and will cost the Church to some degree but that does not detract from the significant role that art (or beauty) continues to play in individual lives in the real and broken world. I guess these things also have to be seen in perspective, over the long trajectory of time. To jump to conclusions and dismiss the Church as a hopeless, bureacratic hypocrisy (as some might view it), then cutting oneself off further might not do justice to the heart of the matter.

For every one who has been turned away by excess in the past, there have also been others drawn back to God because the sublime has restored their vision of beauty and hope in the world again. Intrinsic to the nature of art is that striving for betterment, which parallels the striving to reach the divine. In the presence of the divine therefore, it only makes sense that one would give of his/her best....

No excusing the mistakes and excesses of the past - it's a question of moderation but in that moderation, if the sense of beauty is lost forever, then we deprive ourselves and God of the wonders that we can do in our already limited capacity.

....

Our group was a picture of indignation, and exasperation this afternoon when we gave our presentation to the ministry's senior management regarding the arts and culture and what we viewed as the role of the ministry. Questions such as ''why do people need to be involved in the arts and culture'' came as devil's advocate questions etc etc.

Soul, mind, heart - in the end, senior management had to go back to our first principles, where our group had started off. It's about not being apologetic about the enabling role that the arts and culture play in determining the direction of society...uplifting it not just in the economic sense, which then influences social and economic outcomes.

Most of the time, you find yourself looking at or surrounded by vanity art or art that doesn't move you in any way or arouse some kind of interest. But when you do encounter good art, boy does it jump out at you, with its ability to stimulate curiosity. Very few experiences thus far for me....some of my favourite artists so far are Robert Pruitt whose work I saw in Venice, and Su-Mei Tse, whose work is informed by her musical background and classical training as a cellist.

Link to her work here is here.

The Most Fascinating Way to Reach God

Benedict XVI Draws Lessons From Gothic Architecture

Heaven on Earth

It's a cool night, which is most welcome. After several weeks of absence, we resumed our regular RCIA sessions again which have become something to look forward to. Fr. Damien covered the Liturgy today, and indubitably someone asked about the difference between the Catholic and Protestant understanding of the Eucharist. Then Fr. Damien responded simply that the difference was that it involved a personal experience with the Real Presence. What touched me was how the full sincerity of his words came across when he said that he was a convert himself from being a Protestant, and that whenever he consecrated the bread and wine, it was very clear to himself why and what he was doing. It was the way he said it, something else beyond him conveyed the full import. And yes....strange as it may seem to the uninitiated or those of other faiths, there is a difference....which only you yourself would know when you experience it. I guess He manifests himself in different ways to different people. Miracles do take place, however long they may take.

And I discovered this website: http://ninevehscrossing.com/Order-CommonGround.html

Common Ground - What Protestants and Catholics can learn from each other

The ZENIT news articles today in particular touched on several interesting issues, especially the articles on Vittorio Messori, also known as the secular reporter who interviewed Pope John Paul II, and wrote the book Crossing the Threshold of Hope:

Vittorio Messori on his conversion Part 1: http://www.zenit.org/article-27530?l=english

Vittorio Messori on his conversion Part 2: http://www.zenit.org/article-27536?l=english

As Benedict XVI says, I believe that we Christians must discover our own vocation.

ZENIT: Very many of your answers end by making a defense of "et-et" (this and that), in contrast to "aut-aut" (either this or that), as an essential characteristic of Catholicism; it is the idea that "everything fits" in the Church, an explanation of its unfathomable richness. However, where is the limit between what fits within the Church in some interpretation, and what doesn't fit because it is contrary to it?

Messori: The fundamental principle of Catholicism, to say it in Latin, is the "et-et," as opposed to the principle of heresy "aut-aut." 

Let us think of Protestantism, which is an "aut-aut": Either the Bible or Tradition. Either Jesus Christ or the Virgin and the saints. Either grace or free will. Either Christ or the Pope. The heresy of Protestantism chooses either this or that. 

Whereas the motto of the Catholic is "I want all": the Pope and the Bible, Jesus and his Mother, divine grace and man's liberty, the Gospel and the Church.

Now, I believe that a Catholic must discover this synthesis, of accepting everything that is good. This is very important because today there is much Catholicism subscribing to "aut-aut." The title of my next book will be "We Want All."

ZENIT: You are a defender of the rationality of the faith, of the existence of solid, almost scientific reasons for credibility of the Church, and at the same time a defender of miracles, a promoter of the Virgin's apparitions. A Catholic understands this well, but how do you explain it to an atheist?

Messori: There is no contradiction between faith and reason. There isn't a battle. 

Faith is the point of arrival of reason used to the end.

In Life's Defence, Church goes to the Max: http://www.zenit.org/article-27531?l=english