Hey, Tim Jones, here. The following is a post I just put up at my blog, but I thought Jimmy’s readers might find of interest;
I’m going to hurriedly try to respond to some recent art posts over at
The Aesthetic Elevator, even though I can’t give them the time and
thought they deserve, right now.
First, on the art of Guy Kemper
(pictured); Here’s the long and short, for me; this represents
precisely the problem with a lot of contemporary Catholic liturgical
art, and more broadly with non-representational art… the question is
this; where couldn’t this art function just as well as it does
here (the Catholic Memorial at Ground Zero)? It would be as much at
home in the entryway to a shopping mall, or a high school, or in one of
our new, featureless contemporary church buildings. It is art devoid of
communication. It’s called "Rise". It could be called anything.
It does do one thing admirably well; it breaks up the enervating
monotony of rectangles that make up the space. It beats looking out on
the parking lot. Let’s be honest, modern architecture doesn’t make use
of repeated rectangles because the rectangle is a shape the meaning of
which we just never get tired of exploring. Rectangles are cheap and
plentiful, and curves cost money. Look at the granite slab tub at the
left. A baptismal font, or a water feature with coi fish? Generic
acoustic ceiling tiles (how daring!) and floor tiles just like I have
in my bathroom. Look, I know the architect is dealing with a limited
budget, as well as building codes, so a lot of this is simply
fore-ordained and out of his/her control. Our culture just makes dull
buildings, that’s all. In this context, the artwork is a
welcome relief from the assembly-line blankness of the space. It is
aesthetically pleasing (competently composed and harmonious) and gives
the eye something to do for a few seconds. In that sense, it performs a
function. That’s setting the bar awfully low, but there you go. Kemper
doesn’t need me to like his art… he is successful and there are
plenty of people who love this sort of thing. It functions as a
placeholder for the idea of a piece of art, and it offends (could
offend) no one.
This is the kind of art that I hope the Vatican’s Council for
Catholic Culture studiously avoids in it’s search for new talent, which
TAE notes here.
Moving on…
TAE has some thoughts
on the Catholic League’s Bill Donahue having some thoughts about the
art of some college student, who further has some novel thoughts
regarding the proper use of rosaries and other devotional items…
"Whoa, lad! That crucifix doesn’t go there!" (think Robert Mapplethorpe).
TAE makes one good point; nine times out of ten, pounding the table
about stuff like this only draws attention to it. In that sense, I
would rather that "Shoutin’ Bill" would just let things be. His heart
is in the right place, but I look forward to seeing him on the news
probably about as much as thoughtful evangelicals look forward to
seeing Jerry Falwell.
That said, how anyone could mistake the art for anything but plain,
bigoted hate speech is beyond me. The paintings are calculated to
disgust and offend, and yet TAE manages only;
"I can’t help but think he could have approached his canvases in a more deft manner."
Deft manner? Does anyone really hold out the possibility that the
artist has some genuine, thoughtful critique of the Catholic Church,
but (poor boy) chose an unfortunate way to express it? Is anyone naive
enough to suppose that the artist seethes with loathing for Catholics,
but generally thinks highly of other Christians? Do you figure that he
quite approves of Pentecostals, for instance? Yeah, and rosaries might
fly out my butt.
Let’s imagine a college art exhibit critical of gay marriage that
made it’s point by pornographically lampooning Matthew Shepard and
Harvey Milk. How many hours would it be be open before someone was
fired? Yet, this art is no different. Some adolescent wanted attention,
and his fawning professors (with the help of the Catholic League) have
obliged.
Finally, in his post on Donahue, TAE says;
Referring back to Donahue’s criticisms, perhaps he believes his own
denomination to be Divine and infallible as an institution. I’ve known
of Catholics with this attitude, although I don’t sense it’s a
prevailing conviction. If I may be so bold, this would in fact be a
naive belief, and I don’t understand how anyone could presently think
so highly of the Catholic Church in light of the recent scandals that —
unfortunately — plagued this enduring institution. No part of the Body
of Christ can say with a straight face that they or their particular
congregation has not made certain gross missteps along the way…"
This
will require another post to address, but in brief, it (unsurprisingly)
reflects what seems to be an incomplete and overly simplistic view of
what the Catholic Church believes on the subject(s)… very similar to
what I thought Catholics believed… before I became one!
Our parish looks like a gym from both the inside and the outside. It was built in the early 1970’s when, I guess, art took a vacation. How I long for sacred art like stained glass windows and statues!
Wow, I’ve got to say that I really like the Guy Kemper piece…
…of course, it doesn’t really belong in a Catholic anything. Seems more suited for a Japanese or garden tea room.
Hey, we should count our blessings, though! In the 70’s they would have tried covering the windows with felt banners 🙂 What’s pictured is definitely a step up!
“I can’t help but think he could have approached his canvases in a more deft manner.”
“If I may be so bold, this would in fact be a naive belief, and I don’t understand how anyone could presently think so highly of the Catholic Church in light of the recent scandals that — unfortunately — plagued this enduring institution.”
Wow. Intellectual dishonesty AND embarrassing ignorance. What a combo.
On the Guy Kemper, my immediate first impression was “Canadian flag”.
Knowing TAE as I do, I don’t think he has been intellectually dishonest. It could be that, being an artist and in trying to distance himself somewhat from the chorus of knee-jerk, mouth foaming social critics that make up so much of the public image of Christianity in America, he has just bent over too far in the opposite direction… seeking always to accommodate the point of view of the artist, to appease, to see things in the best light possible, even when they are (to me) manifest hate speech, publicity stunts or just plain nonsense.
In this last case, his muted critique seemed to me like saying that, on the whole, Stalin was a bit heavy handed and could have done more to promote human rights.
I know from experience that ignorance of Church teaching is both forgivable and curable. Go easy on those who have simply not had access to all the information, or seen it presented in an intelligible way.
On one hand, the Catholic League’s reaction draws attention to the works in question.
On the other hand, “all it takes for evil to flourish is for men of good conscience to do nothing”.
Of course, it would help if I could get the quotation right.
Dear Dean
Apparently, that quotation is right regardless of the way one writes it.
I thought it was a shopping mall.
Thanks for the defense Tim! You may be right about being too far in the other direction, but I do honestly try and avoid the equally ignorant and silly knee-jerk crowd.
I’ll only add to these comments what I said in my original post, I didn’t actually SEE the works in question, which is why it may have sounded like I himmed and hawwed my way around the offending pieces. I did make it clear, though, more than once in the OP, that I had no desire to see the posts. It’s clear that I’m not Catholic (to everyone here), though I’m not ashamed of it either (is this surprising, disappointing to this crowd?) This also may cause me to look differently at such things than people tied to the church. For instance, rosary beads mean nothing to me (I assume they are just a type of phylactery?).
Being ignorant isn’t something I’m exactly proud of, but we can’t all have knowledge of everything. If anyone wants to send me an email about why I SHOULD be Catholic — instead of *merely* referring to myself as a “Christ-follower” and attending just any old Bible preaching church — I will give you a SINCERE listen. Email me at TheAestheticElevator(at)gmail(dot)com if there are any takers.
Lastly (and, yes, I know I said I was only going to say one thing), can I, dare I suggest in this forum that part of the reason for my own ignorance (and the ignorance of others like me) lies with the Catholic church itself?
Or will I lose my head for suggesting such a heretical thing . . .
AestheticElevator, I appreciate the tone of your post.
A couple of quick notes. You write:
Many of us (including Tim J, I believe) have been non-ashamed non-Catholic Christians before becoming convinced Catholics… and even as a convinced Catholic, I couldn’t say I’m ashamed of my non-Catholic past. As a non-Catholic Christian, I did my best by God’s grace to follow Jesus as honestly and faithfully as I could. In the course of doing so, I found myself ultimately led to follow Him in the Catholic Church.
I could never be surprised or disappointed to meet people who follow Jesus, in or out of the Church, however acutely I feel the wound of the divisions between us, and believe it should not be so. Are you surprised or disappointed to learn that Tim J, I and many others do believe the Catholic Church to be divinely instituted and infallible in her solemn teaching, and that this belief is in no way imperiled by the tragic and scandalous recent events to which you allude?
Phylacteries mean nothing to me; Jesus’ passing reference aside, I know next to nothing of their larger significance in the Second Temple Judaism of Jesus’ day, so I couldn’t compare or contrast them in a very meaningful way.
What I can probably say is that Jesus’ criticism of the ostentatious use of phylacteries to make an outward show of great piety seems on the whole inapplicable to the use of rosaries. Few Catholics proclaim their great faith publicly by flaunting large rosaries — and, the culture currently being what it is, if they were to do so, it would hardly be likely to win general admiration and approval.
One might more plausibly connect phylactery-like public displays of piety to such tokens as Christian bumper stickers or T-shirts, such as are popular in many Evangelical circles; but, again, in the culture at large this is unlikely to win general admiration, so Jesus’ criticism would not seem to directly apply (unless one happened to live in a particularly Christian area, such as a small-town Bible belt community).
Very true! Which is why the wisdom of learning not to speak where one is ignorant is such a valuable lesson. (Alas, I have not learned that lesson as effectively as I might have, and have had to repeat it numerous times.)
You may get some takers on that. For myself, I might invite you to begin with this post of mine (which begins with the subject of the ordination of women, but expands to consider larger issues).
Indeed you may, and no you will not, in that order, if we can understand “lies with the Catholic Church itself” to mean “lies with actions or inaction on the part of many within the Catholic Church.” Not the complete reason, but part of the reason, certainly.
SDG, am I glad to see you!
I’d like to – would ordinarily be eager to – hang around and do some constructive back-and-forth with TAE (a genuinely nice guy), but I’m going to be WAY out of pocket the next few days… going to the annual G.K. Chesterton Conference (Yessss!!!).
TAE has even made a rash and intemperate request (via e-mail) for the outlines of my own conversion story… I’m really afraid he may have just tossed out the idea in a distracted moment, without thinking, and may repent later, when he will be more or less honor-bound to read the thing (or at least skim it).
I’ve been asked by a few others how I came to be loitering about the hallways of the Catholic Church… have been asked to present my hall pass, as it were. I can’t blame them for that… I have a somewhat checkered past. My religious pedigree is as hazy and mixed up as my family ancestry. I am a religious mutt who found my way home by blind luck.
Well, that’s not true. I was led a good bit of the way, but that’s for later.