‘Haute Sphere’ Nativity artwork debuts at Cathedral Dec. 7

[incense]

I’m not exactly sure what a “pre-Vatican II chasuble” is.

I explained it in the sentence, the decorations are on the back. After Vatican II, the priests turned around to face the congregation and the decorations were put on the front of the chasuble.

I’m not trying to get into a fight on Vatican II, I was just pointing out that art for the church has always included symbolism. You’re just used to some of it, so it seems normal. Kind of like how people tend to have a hard time moving away from styles from their teen years. To them, that seems normal and good.

 

[LiveCatholic]

I explained it in the sentence, the decorations are on the back. After Vatican II, the priests turned around to face the congregation and the decorations were put on the front of the chasuble.

I’m not trying to get into a fight on Vatican II, I was just pointing out that art for the church has always included symbolism. You’re just used to some of it, so it seems normal. Kind of like how people tend to have a hard time moving away from styles from their teen years. To them, that seems normal and good.

How old are the symbols of ‘dove’ and ‘fleur-de-lis,’ pray tell?

 

[unafraid]

Some say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I believe that genuine beauty is universally recognized as such at first glance. If the innate beauty of a thing has to be sought out, or explained, then it becomes reduced to an object of interest rather than one of artistic beauty.

This object is neither beautiful, nor interesting, therefore I consider it a mistake, well intentioned, but poorly executed. The thing fails on all levels.

 

[LiveCatholic]

Some say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I believe that genuine beauty is universally recognized as such at first glance. If the innate beauty of a thing has to be sought out, or explained, then it becomes reduced to an object of interest rather than one of artistic beauty.

This object is neither beautiful, nor interesting, therefore I consider it a mistake, well intentioned, but poorly executed. The thing fails on all levels.

Fight the good fight.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

How old are the symbols of ‘dove’ and ‘fleur-de-lis,’ pray tell?

Right. Sure, as if age has a logical connection that makes imposed symbolism any less silly. That’s some fine logic for you.

Some say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I believe that genuine beauty is universally recognized as such at first glance. If the innate beauty of a thing has to be sought out, or explained, then it becomes reduced to an object of interest rather than one of artistic beauty.

Oh I see so ugly people and ugly objects should have little worth.
Thanks for proving another thing I hate about art absolutists. They justify human shallowness by trying to make it sound pretty and acceptable for Catholic morality.

 

[LiveCatholic]

Right. Sure, as if age has a logical connection that makes imposed symbolism any less silly. That’s some fine logic for you.

First of all, read the Bible before roving the internet searching for people to criticize. Matthew 3:16

Secondly, read the Bible even more:
Biblical Doves I
Biblical Doves II

Next, bother to understand what I’ve said. You’ve had this problem with me in other threads, too.

• The dove is a terrible symbol to use as an example of how symbolism in art is more prevalent than we traditionalists would care to consider. Even the lamb of the ‘Lamb of God’ symbol would be a better symbol, as Jesus does not actually physically appear as a sacrificial lamb in the Gospels (despite appearances as a lamb in Revelations, theology, and figurative language). God actually appeared as a ‘dove’ so it is simply a literal representation, rather than a symbol.
• *Antiquity of tradition, like antiquity of practice, in devotion, carries weight in the Church. * You may find this ‘silly,’ but you’d be differing with the Church on that one. Catholic Encyclopedia on ‘Tradition and the Living Magisterium’
• Simply because symbolism is used, doesn’t justify every use of it. What I mean to say is, simply because we rely on and are accustomed to symbolism throughout our religion, doesn’t mean new innovations cannot contain injurious perversions, contradictions, and sensationalism.

Finally, ruminate on it. Let it sink in.

Oh I see so ugly people and ugly objects should have** little worth**.
Thanks for proving another thing I hate about art absolutists. They justify human shallowness by trying to make it sound pretty and acceptable for Catholic morality.

That’s some pretty strong language there, bucko.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Next, bother to understand what I’ve said. You’ve had this problem with me in other threads, too.

That’s some pretty strong language there, bucko.

Struck a nerve didn’t I? I don’t see how your rabble even remotely justifies how symbolism in of itself is loose.

Finally, ruminate on it. Let it sink in.

Sorry, in your own words: Been there, done that.
I’ve long analyzed and meditated on the supposed significance you trads hold to traditional art. The end result was me laughing like this upon realizing how you guys are no more opinionated than the ‘modernists’ you scorn.

 

[unafraid]

Right. Sure, as if age has a logical connection that makes imposed symbolism any less silly. That’s some fine logic for you.

Oh I see so ugly people and ugly objects should have little worth.
Thanks for proving another thing I hate about art absolutists. They justify human shallowness by trying to make it sound pretty and acceptable for Catholic morality.

Wanderer, I think you misunderstand my meaning. I am not qualifying beauty, or the grotesque, I am only pointing out that they are easily discerned, and not controversial.

And, when an artist’s rendering of the Nativity fails both aesthetically and symbolically, it is not inappropriate to simply point this out. Artistic license is no excuse for iconic defamation, which I consider this to be. The Nativity is a familial representation, and for an artist to miss this fact is egregious…almost blasphemous.

 

[LiveCatholic]

Struck a nerve didn’t I? I don’t see how your rabble even remotely justifies how symbolism in of itself is loose.

1rab·ble
noun \ˈra-bəl
Definition of RABBLE
1
: a disorganized or confused collection of things
2
a : a disorganized or disorderly crowd of people : mob b : the lowest class of people

 

[saraih]

Some of the art we consider traditional was once so radical as to be considered ‘almost blasphemous’ at the time it was made. God was never represented as a human before, the holy spirit was represented as actual flames, angels weren’t cheesy fat kids with wings…

The purpose of religious art is to help people consider the truth. This piece is unusual and helps us to think about the meaning behind the symbols, much more than tired and often cliched nativity scenes that don’t go far beyond ‘oh, another White baby Jesus and no animal poop, huh’.

Besides, a lot of older art is as inaccessible to the audience as any modern stuff. Before you learn that one saint always has a rose, one has boobs on a plate, one wears blue, doves mean X, etc. they might as well be drawn in a foreign language. You get to appreciate it more as you learn a little about it. Like how you can come to your own conclusions about modern art, but the artists video helps a lot.

Have to say I love good traditional church art but these things can be equally as beautiful, very thought provoking and often they’re a breath of fresh air compared to the bad traditional art people never seem to complain about.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Wanderer, I think you misunderstand my meaning. I am not qualifying beauty, or the grotesque, I am only pointing out that they are easily discerned, and not controversial.

First, review the phrase which you personally claim to be in bold disagreement with: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

The core reasoning of that phrase is that beauty is a matter of perspective. And because it is such, you can’t rely on it to measure the worth of anything. You cannot easily discern something that is relative to begin with and cannot be qualified via absolutes.

The Nativity is a familial representation, and for an artist to miss this fact is egregious…almost blasphemous.

That’s only because you have a preference for the traditional. Forget imperatives or charges of blasphemy. You don’t like it because you don’t like it. Period. No matter how many justifications you come up with, I can peel them off one by one till we reach back to the core that is your personal preferences.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Uh, there’s only one of me. Since the rest of the sentence–that is, what ‘we’ … uh … ‘rabble’ is/are trying to 'justify–doesn’t make sense, I’ll leave that back to you for clarification…

Typo. I meant ramble. Sorry.

I don’t remember saying this, but it disturbs me that you somehow do.

My apologies, I suppose I confused you with someone else I was simultaneously arguing with. Had similar tastes though.

Actually, I was just pointing out that the person used a literal manifestation of God as an example of a symbol for God, in order to argue that taste is relative. I don’t know what ideological clash you’re seeing in this, but one side of the argument is telling you in no certain terms that what you see isn’t there.

So? God literally manifested himself in other forms (both in New and Old testament). That doesn’t mean we should believe in the myth of symbolic absolutes. What just because my comic book club uses a bat for a mascot, it means that bats stand for geeks now?

 

[LiveCatholic]

Typo. I meant ramble. Sorry.

My apologies, I suppose I confused you with someone else I was simultaneously arguing with. Had similar tastes though.

I don’t think that’s likely, and you know little of either of our tastes. I hope.

So? God literally manifested himself in other forms (both in New and Old testament). That doesn’t mean we should believe in the myth of symbolic absolutes. What just because my comic book club uses a bat for a mascot, it means that bats stand for geeks now?

Pretend someone drew a cartoon of how you looked on Wednesday… is that a symbol of you or a depiction of you? Thank you, come again.

Its not rambling. I was clear as I could be, in as few words as possible.

There are three reasons I disagreed with Incense’s ‘chasuble argument’:

1. 
   *]God has appeared as a dove. A dove on a chasuble is not a symbol, but a literal representation. Therefore, your remarks are groundless and it was a poor choice to demonstrate the relativity of symbols in art.
   *]Even for the case of the ‘fleur-de-lis,’ unmentioned in the Bible, the Church still reserves an important place for traditions of representations that have come down to us from antiquity (c.f. the link I provided you).
   *]Simply because a thing can be symbolized, doesn’t mean its right. Symbolism can pervert, corrupt, and obscure the significance of the event/person/object described. In religion, this is especially relevant. Unfraid’s argument addresses this in part.
   
   So, you criticized me for objecting to Incense’s argument. Well, already (c.f. 1) 1/2 of the ‘symbols’ she cites is a direct, literal representation of God and therefore not a symol. The other ‘symbol’ cited is a cultural symbol for ‘purity’–matching Church and Biblical depictions of Mary as ‘pure’–and because of its long antiquity is supported by the Church’s explicit preference for representations with antiquity (c.f. 2).
   
   Finally, as if it wasn’t enough that my disagreement with Incense is totally justified (despite your snarky remarks), I point out in (3) that symbolism’s use isn’t value-neutral. Symbolism can pervert and undermine. If it does this in the case of theology and religious art, it can be injurious to faith.
   
   Can I have a Christ-less nativity? etc

 

[unafraid]

First, review the phrase which you personally claim to be in bold disagreement with: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

The core reasoning of that phrase is that beauty is a matter of perspective. And because it is such, you can’t rely on it to measure the worth of anything. You cannot easily discern something that is relative to begin with and cannot be qualified via absolutes.

That’s only because you have a preference for the traditional. Forget imperatives or charges of blasphemy. You don’t like it because you don’t like it. Period. No matter how many justifications you come up with, I can peel them off one by one till we reach back to the core that is your personal preferences.

You use words to confound, because you cannot argue against truth. For example: take a four year old, from any culture, or background, and set them before a dungheap, and a field of lillies, and universally they will be drawn toward the beauty of the lillies of the field.

However, perspective is a subject for another topic. We discuss a specific Nativity scene depicted here, which disregards the Holy Family. Let the artist JUSTIFY himself in his peeling away from the scene of our Lord’s birth, and his elimination of the Our Lady and Saint Joseph as participants in this great event. What is at the core of his motivation?

And, as far as absolutes go, the Nativity scene is the representation of the consumate absolute: God come to dwell among His people. Any depiction which denies this has the foul stench of Maplethorpe upon it. Frankly, if it had not been pointed out, I would have never guessed that this thing was a depiction of the Nativity…Never!

 

[Sonic]

Symbols are within the domain of philosophy (both theological and natural) and not art. Any attempt to discredit art by first discrediting symbolism is like trying to disprove mathematics with literary criticism.

 

[LiveCatholic]

Symbols are within the domain of philosophy (both theological and natural) and not art. Any attempt to discredit art by first discrediting symbolism is like trying to disprove mathematics with literary criticism.

So far as I can tell, no one is trying to ‘discredit’ symbolism wholesale.

Ironically you’ve used a metaphor… I will also make use of it: like algebra or logic attempts to preserve values while working out mathematical/logical processes on them, symbolism can also preserve values.

However, in some attempts at symbolism, there can be a degradation, perversion, or obscuration of the original values. This is the sort of symbolism being railed against here.

 

[Sonic]

So far as I can tell, no one is trying to ‘discredit’ symbolism wholesale.

Ironically you’ve used a metaphor… I will also make use of it: like algebra or logic attempts to preserve values while working out mathematical/logical processes on them, symbolism can also preserve values.

However, in some attempts at symbolism, there can be a degradation, perversion, or obscuration of the original values. This is the sort of symbolism being railed against here.

I agree… and I wasn’t debating with you. I just thought I’d throw out the reference since the definition of art is not expressly dependent on (or the same as) the definition of symbolism.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

God has appeared as a dove. A dove on a chasuble is not a symbol, but a literal representation. Therefore, your remarks are groundless and it was a poor choice to demonstrate the relativity of symbols in art.

Again, so what? Just because God appeared in the form of a dove doesn’t mean that the dove is the only symbol fit to represent God or that the dove is fit only to represent God, peace, purity etc. God appeared as a burning bush but that doesn’t mean a burning bush can’t be used to symbolize something else. You keep sounding of the same ‘argument’ over and over but it doesn’t even address the point.

Even for the case of the ‘fleur-de-lis,’ unmentioned in the Bible, the Church still reserves an important place for traditions of representations that have come down to us from antiquity (c.f. the link I provided you).

The Church is only an authority on morals and spirituality. I hardly think highly of it when it comes to art. You don’t seriously believe that crosses and halos have magical powers do you?

Simply because a thing can be symbolized, doesn’t mean its right. Symbolism can pervert, corrupt, and obscure the significance of the event/person/object described. In religion, this is especially relevant. Unfraid’s argument addresses this in part.

Following your argument, you might as well agree with the fundamentalists and agree that all attempts in capturing God or even the angels and the saints are attempts to pervert, corrupt, and obscure the significance of the event/person/object described. This not only includes modern art but classical and even ancient.

And frankly, the only ‘argument’ I see in Unafraid’s posts is a justification for human shallowness when it comes to evaluating beauty. (Which I shall demonstrate further below.)

You use words to confound, because you cannot argue against truth. For example: take a four year old, from any culture, or background, and set them before a dungheap, and a field of lillies, and universally they will be drawn toward the beauty of the lillies of the field.

Obviously you need to see the street urchins in this country. Give them a choice between a nice, round piece of bread and a rusted 5 peso coin, they’d go for the coin (or if you’re a Richie-Rich, a filthy 500 peso bill).

And field of lilies? gags Give a burning battlefield any day.

However, perspective is a subject for another topic. We discuss a specific Nativity scene depicted here, which disregards the Holy Family. Let the artist JUSTIFY himself in his peeling away from the scene of our Lord’s birth, and his elimination of the Our Lady and Saint Joseph as participants in this great event. What is at the core of his motivation

Did you even read the explanation? The piece itself is abstract. I don’t see why you have such a problem with the way a person adopts a different style of representation. Frankly, I’ve watched art documentaries on classical Renaissance pieces. You wouldn’t believe how many different meanings people insert to the religious works of Michaelangelo and Da Vinci. At the very least, this artist orients the explanation towards religious concepts and not anything that could be potentially against it.

And, as far as absolutes go, the Nativity scene is the representation of the consumate absolute: God come to dwell among His people. Any depiction which denies this has the foul stench of Maplethorpe upon it. Frankly, if it had not been pointed out, I would have never guessed that this thing was a depiction of the Nativity…Never!

Really? That’s funny cuz I had the same reaction but when I learned of the style being used, you can already tell from my initial reply on this thread. Just seeing it under the label of modern art is self-explanatory. Granted I’ve always found the movement funky and strange but then again, art ultimately never makes much sense. Classical art pretty much justified human shallowness as well so it’s not like the old days had it better.

Some try to rationalize but in the end, it can all be summed up in the following structure: “I like this piece because <insert list of critic’s rationalized personal preferences>.”

And Maplethorpe? Whose using words to confuse, really? I can’t even google that.

 

[aicirt]

Don’t think we have to be concerned about this nativity scene being mass marketed.

 

[Dale_M]

Don’t think we have to be concerned about this nativity scene being mass marketed.

No, I don’t think that is something we have to worry about.

Honestly, I am surprised the cathedral in Los Angeles asked to host it (and presumably paid for the privilege.) While it does work as art, I am not sure it works on a pastoral level. No one on first seeing it would identify it as a nativity scene unless they had been informed of it before hand. While it is possible to appreciate the piece as a nativity scene, doing so takes work… work which may provide intellectual satisfaction for some, but I am not sure it provides spiritual nourishment for most.

The installation may have been appropriate for the Church of the Madeleine, given its artistic and highly educated audience. But I am not sure the same can be said for most churches.