Y
yankeesouth
Guest
I look at this piece of ‘art’ and see attendance at the Traditional Latin Mass growing.
The Vatican Nativity scene, revealed last night. Its creators say it’s meant to have a contemporary and unconventional look influenced by ancient Gree
- Status
W
Wampa
Guest
As someone who typically only appreciates more traditional art, I’m surprised that I rather like it (specifically the Sumerian elements). But I have to admit that this is clever:
R
Raxus
Guest
Not a fan, myself. I’ve always thought that the point of sacred art was to bring your mind and heart to a place closer to God; this nativity certainly doesn’t, at least not for me.
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
I’m sorry but all the mental gymnastics is not going to save this disaster.
I have grown accomplished at defending art in my time. I remember the furor on another Catholic forum at the time the artist Thomas Kinkade died about 10 years ago. He was roundly lambasted by many Catholics for not doing ‘ugly’ enough art. Shying away from the ugliness of life, they said.
"His paintings are intended to show an idealized version of the world. He never shows anything ugly, and he never shows anything unadorned. There is nothing wrong with this, and I fully understand that people need something beautiful to look at, especially if they are surrounded by ugliness in real life. Beauty is a true and necessary refuge.
But again, let’s look at that light. Let’s consider its source.
By showing light in the form of exaggerated highlights, fuzzy halos, and a hyperluminescent shine on everything, regardless of where they are in the composition, he isn’t revealing the true nature of—anything. It’s a bafflingly incoherent mish-mosh of light: an orange sunset here, a pearly mid-morning sheen there, a crystal-clear reflection in one spot, a hazy mist in the other—all impossibly coexisting in the same scene. "
The author rounds out by stating…
“His vision of the world isn’t just tacky, it’s anti-Incarnational.” (Emphasis mine)
His art was too beautiful to be valid. This art is too ugly to be valid. All are demonic according to the Catholic ‘experts’.
The ‘too awful’ art of Thomas Kinkade.
P
pnewton
Guest
You know what would have made in more bizarre?
A biblical accurate angel.
A biblical accurate angel.
M
MNathaniel
Guest
Honestly, I think a fairly reliable heuristic is that if art needs defending, then no amount of defending will make up for what it lacks.
One might somewhat minimize or teach oneself to suppress the automatic negative response; one might even learn how to hold in one’s mind an intellectual rationalization for how there is somehow an interpretation of the art that has goodness in it.
But if a person has to suppress or rationalize, there’s something wrong.
Last edited:
…said the iconoclasts of every era of Church history.
M
MNathaniel
Guest
False.MNathaniel:
…said the iconoclasts of every era of Church history.
The difference between rejecting an image for an intellectual religious/political reason, and rejecting an image because of finding it ugly instead of beautiful, is obvious.
Last edited:
R
Raxus
Guest
“Disaster” might be a bit too far for me. I think they’re pretty dumb, but I wouldn’t call them a disaster.
R
Raxus
Guest
A wheel of fire, eyes and gold sitting atop the fresco would be pretty metal.
Last edited:
But I believe I am on solid ground in believing astronauts should not be part of the nativity scene.
I would reserve “disaster” for pachamama.
This is just weird.
And given the state of politics around the world, there are far worse things than weird.
P
pnewton
Guest
Something to consider about this nativity is that it might be seen different in Italy.
S
stpurl
Guest
Yes, they might be even more appalled.
After all, we have some pretty shocking artists in the US and a much shorter national history outside Native American art. US history in the sense we have for the “United States” at the earliest dates back to the beginning of the 17th century colonial period, and strictly speaking the origin of the ‘U.S.” in the original 13 states to the end of the 18th century, whereas the many regions of the territory we know as Italy starting from prehistoric times into the mists of antiquity, influenced by the earlier great Mediterranean cultures and later city-state art from places like Rome, Florence, Venice, Naples, Milano, has a much much ‘longer’ history.
A land with centuries and centuries of beautiful —and also thought-provoking since the two are not mutually exclusive- arts of all types, sculpture, paintings, architecture, etc— would, one might think, have a greater appreciation for a more sophisticated and ancient heritage overall as opposed to a rather cheap, modern, shock-art designed (no pun intended) to go AGAINST every tenet of artistic merit and thought in a 1984ish kind of way, slapping down Keats’ “Beauty is truth, truth beauty’ philosophy. Our US heritage being so much shorter and itself reflecting for much of society a utilitarian point of view would be far more likely to explore a kind of ‘devolution’ of art, a rather rebellious, ‘teen-age’ view, “I reject everything” attitude. Of course that attitude itself was a worldwide phenomenon of the 1960s and even the countries which hated the US then strove to imitate us. We were, at that point, the ‘winners’ of the civilized world, we had the material goods, we had the technology, we were the ‘leaders of the pack’. And as with the prideful ‘winners’, how the mighty have fallen/are falling.
After all, we have some pretty shocking artists in the US and a much shorter national history outside Native American art. US history in the sense we have for the “United States” at the earliest dates back to the beginning of the 17th century colonial period, and strictly speaking the origin of the ‘U.S.” in the original 13 states to the end of the 18th century, whereas the many regions of the territory we know as Italy starting from prehistoric times into the mists of antiquity, influenced by the earlier great Mediterranean cultures and later city-state art from places like Rome, Florence, Venice, Naples, Milano, has a much much ‘longer’ history.
A land with centuries and centuries of beautiful —and also thought-provoking since the two are not mutually exclusive- arts of all types, sculpture, paintings, architecture, etc— would, one might think, have a greater appreciation for a more sophisticated and ancient heritage overall as opposed to a rather cheap, modern, shock-art designed (no pun intended) to go AGAINST every tenet of artistic merit and thought in a 1984ish kind of way, slapping down Keats’ “Beauty is truth, truth beauty’ philosophy. Our US heritage being so much shorter and itself reflecting for much of society a utilitarian point of view would be far more likely to explore a kind of ‘devolution’ of art, a rather rebellious, ‘teen-age’ view, “I reject everything” attitude. Of course that attitude itself was a worldwide phenomenon of the 1960s and even the countries which hated the US then strove to imitate us. We were, at that point, the ‘winners’ of the civilized world, we had the material goods, we had the technology, we were the ‘leaders of the pack’. And as with the prideful ‘winners’, how the mighty have fallen/are falling.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
You are quite correct.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
No.
We are most assuredly not “appalled”.
It happens to have a very significant history…both in terms of its coming into being and in terms of why it was chosen to be displayed presently.
Last edited:
S
stpurl
Guest
Thank you for the information, Father. It is not an anti-intellectual reaction on my part, I can assure you. While my personal preferences with regard to art do tend more to the classics there are many modern artists I admire, particularly Ida O’Keefe whose exhibit I enjoyed at the Clark last year. As far as antiquity goes, I am as moved by the primitive ‘Venus’ statues as I am by the cave art paintings in Lascaux.
However there is certainly a trend at least here in the US for a kind of ‘provocative’ art that is meant to be unsettling. I can’t type it out but there are relatively recent (last 20 years or so) examples of ‘blasphemy as art” such as the P*** Christ. A more or less steady dose of this for those of us who do have an interest in the arts and follow along leads many to a state of ‘shellshock’. This Nativity is certainly not blasphemous in any way and, as noted, has many interesting elements.
There are, also, praise God, still many works of great beauty along with other artistic facets from contemporary modern artists in all fields. While beauty is only ‘one’ facet of any art, my own personal feeling is that much of the world has been STARVED for beauty for quite some time now. I am not stating, or asking for, art that is ‘older’ or ‘traditional’, I’m not determined to ‘go back’ instead of going forward.
I just believe that especially with the year we have had, for a great many Catholics, a contemporary nativity that brings us forward but gives “Comfort to My people” would have been much appreciated.
However there is certainly a trend at least here in the US for a kind of ‘provocative’ art that is meant to be unsettling. I can’t type it out but there are relatively recent (last 20 years or so) examples of ‘blasphemy as art” such as the P*** Christ. A more or less steady dose of this for those of us who do have an interest in the arts and follow along leads many to a state of ‘shellshock’. This Nativity is certainly not blasphemous in any way and, as noted, has many interesting elements.
There are, also, praise God, still many works of great beauty along with other artistic facets from contemporary modern artists in all fields. While beauty is only ‘one’ facet of any art, my own personal feeling is that much of the world has been STARVED for beauty for quite some time now. I am not stating, or asking for, art that is ‘older’ or ‘traditional’, I’m not determined to ‘go back’ instead of going forward.
I just believe that especially with the year we have had, for a great many Catholics, a contemporary nativity that brings us forward but gives “Comfort to My people” would have been much appreciated.
G
Genesis315
Guest
Ugly art like this is basically an emperor’s new clothes type thing. It is a kind of clericalism when promoted by the clergy.
Last edited:
- Status