Vatican speaks out against modern Church art and architecture

  • Thread starter Thread starter KEP1983
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Kevin12 said:
Here’s the thing - if the Cardinal is saying modern Churches look like Museums - well, ancient Churches look like pagan temples, don’t they? Because architects of that time wanted to create in a vernacular that was relevant to them. No architect of any talent living today is going to want to make a recreation of a Baroque or Gothic Cathedral, because there are already loads of them, and the highest things that can be done in that style have already been done. Think about it this way - how many people are currently writing plays using the dialect of Shakespeare? Nobody, or at least nobody worthy of reading - why would you bother with a contemporary knockoff when you can have the real thing?

I’m sure that there are some Churches that go to far, but I think there are some “modernist” (though not in the theological sense) Churches that are very beautiful and not at all Protestant in mentality, like the Cathedral of Brasilia by Oscar Niemeyer,

http://en.wikiarquitectura.com/images/3/31/Catedralbrasilia25.jpg
Click to expand...
That is an ugly Church.

Ishii
 
Kevin12 said:
There is certainly a trend in contemporary architecture so be deliberately bizarre or even ugly, and that this is based on a philosophy that is incompatible with Christianity. But I don’t think this means that all cathedrals need to be slavish imitations of Gothic or Baroque cathedrals. And I do think there is a sense in which people do viscerally react against anything new or different from the past, and that the fact that aesthetic sensibilities change is relevant.
Click to expand...
I don’t think we need to have churches that imitate the Gothic or Baroque Cathedrals. Being either an imitator of the past or producing ugly “modern” churches would seem like a false choice.

One other point I’d make is, the more ugly and modern a Church is on the outside and inside, the fewer beautiful statues, stained glass windows, etc. it has. All around the modern architecture churches are stark and spiritually sterile. I realize that its not all about the statues but about the mass, but when you are praying and reflecting on a mystery of the rosary, the crucifiction, etc. it helps to have some tangible reminders to look up at occasionally.

Ishii
 
ishii said:
That is an ugly Church.

Ishii
Click to expand...
You know I find it DISTURBING. When I walk into a beautiful church with the traditional features, the statues and candles and altar, I feel a sense of peace and inspiration.

If I walked into that church I’d feel like one of those flying angels was going to swoop down and whack me upside of the head. The ceiling and color are striking but again in a sort of disturbing way. The altar and the tabernacle are not a focus.

I THINK the architect was trying to “raise up” thoughts and prayers with the ceiling but I have a hard time liking this design.

Lisa
 
LisaA said:
You know I find it DISTURBING. When I walk into a beautiful church with the traditional features, the statues and candles and altar, I feel a sense of peace and inspiration.

If I walked into that church I’d feel like one of those flying angels was going to swoop down and whack me upside of the head. The ceiling and color are striking but again in a sort of disturbing way. The altar and the tabernacle are not a focus.

I THINK the architect was trying to “raise up” thoughts and prayers with the ceiling but I have a hard time liking this design.

Lisa
Click to expand...
Right. No doubt the architect had good intentions I guess. The chapel at Seattle University is also pretty ugly. However, the sacraments are the same and I’m grateful that there is a chapel available to use there.

Ishii
 
ishii said:
That is an ugly Church.

Ishii
Click to expand...
A cool parish hall for broom ball and such though – with a little imagination.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

http://en.wikiarquitectura.com/images/3/31/Catedralbrasilia25.jpg

Circle the pews and VOILA! Is the tabernacle already gone? They could leave the cross.
For tradition’s sake - it might remind some of the fresco of Jesus on the gymnasium wall in the opening scene of the movie “Rocky” :rolleyes:🤷



What’s scary is … even with the boxing ring in the middle of the bottom building It looks like its closer to having a reverent mass said inside of it than the sterile hospital cafeteria with a cross (to my eyes) Church.

One can turn his eyes to Christ anywhere (and should), but I’m glad the Vatican is looking into this after looking away for so long (or delegating out to Bishops all such decisions without any oversight up until now).
 
LisaA said:
You know I find it DISTURBING. When I walk into a beautiful church with the traditional features, the statues and candles and altar, I feel a sense of peace and inspiration.

If I walked into that church I’d feel like one of those flying angels was going to swoop down and whack me upside of the head. The ceiling and color are striking but again in a sort of disturbing way. The altar and the tabernacle are not a focus.

I THINK the architect was trying to “raise up” thoughts and prayers with the ceiling but I have a hard time liking this design.

Lisa
Click to expand...
Maybe it’s because I grew up on the Great Plains, but the pattern in the ceiling feels like it’s starting to spin towards the central peak so it makes me think of the sky right before a tornado forms. Even some of the colors are slightly reminiscent of the unusual colors right before a storm. I want to get to heaven, but through Christ; not a funnel cloud.
 
J_Peterson said:
Ugly churches have no place in Catholicism :rolleyes:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ld2HZzmhh...s400/catacomb-sabina-chapel-cc-santagnese.jpg
Click to expand...
You find that ugly??? I find it simple, and beautiful. The entire focus is on the altar, with the bodies of the saints right next to you to remind you of the communion of the saints.

Today’s “art” is intentional in its attempt to tear down everything, and to make beautiful things ugly. Catholics should reject this nonsense and break free it.
 
zz912 said:
Reminds me of the Jawa’s transport vehicle from Star Wars.

Truly awful cathedral, looks like an ugly museum of modern “art”.
Click to expand...
Makes you realize that the architects worship the god of myself rather than having any real understanding much less respect for God and the Church.

I agree, it looks like Legos for giants. Really quite an unattractive building. I hope that the interior is more worship oriented…but afraid to find out :eek:

Does anyone know about the purchase of the Chrystal Cathedral? How is that working out?

Lisa
 
gracepoole said:
On the other hand, it doesn’t mean that catacombs and fencerows are less holy places to worship. And if a worship space is holy, doesn’t that in and of itself make it beautiful? Maybe beauty is also defined by what takes place in a church, rather than simply how it appears.
Click to expand...
To an extent that’s true, and certainly when necessity so dictates. But do we really want to accept the idea of, say, having Mass in parking garages or on airport tarmacs when we really aren’t forced to do so?

Beauty is not something the mind imposes on the object. It’s the impression of the object on the mind. We’re not pure spirits to whom the physical world is irrelevant. We are spiritual and physical beings. As such, physical things do affect us because that’s part of our nature. Combining the aesthetically unappealing with something otherwise good is an unncessary impediment to what could otherwise be a “unified” experience. No one would think it wise, for instance, to serve one’s guests chicken cordon bleu designed to look as much like a toad or spider as possible, assuming the guests were normal people.
 
KEP1983 said:
Incorrect. I put the Vatican II document above which clearly states that Sacred Art should be in all Churches and that visual beauty is essential to public worship. The document also states that every diocese should commission Sacred Art. This document is from an Ecumenical Council, so therefore it is infallible.

Again, the following is from Vatican II, and is infallible:

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

“Very rightly the fine arts are considered to rank among the noblest activities of man’s genius, and this applies especially to religious art and to its highest achievement, which is sacred art. These arts, by their very nature, are oriented toward the infinite beauty of God which they attempt in some way to portray by the work of human hands; they achieve their purpose of redounding to God’s praise and glory in proportion as they are directed the more exclusively to the single aim of turning men’s minds devoutly toward God.”

“Bishops should have a special concern for artists, so as to imbue them with the spirit of sacred art and of the sacred liturgy.”

“Besides the commission on the sacred liturgy, every diocese, as far as possible, should have commissions for sacred music and sacred art.”

“Let bishops carefully remove from the house of God and from other sacred places those works of artists which are repugnant to faith, morals, and Christian piety, and which offend true religious sense either by depraved forms or by lack of artistic worth, mediocrity and pretense.”

Again, this is an infallible document. So yes, art and beauty are important to Catholic Churches. Vatican II clearly states it.
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting this. Sacred art and architecture are not about popular, or personal taste, especially regarding Church architecture. I’ve seen ridiculous, it looks like it’s about to fall over, modern buildings, but such thinking is not allowed for the sacred. Why some insist otherwise is beyond me. The Church teaches and instructs and safeguards, not some guy who had a modern (as opposed to two weeks ago) idea.

Ed
 
KEP1983 said:
Very good point about La Sagrada Familia in Barcelona. It’s not a “traditional” Church in that it’s not Gothic, Byzantine, Neo-Classical, etc. I’m going there in August and really look forward to it.

So yes, Gaudi DID create a non-traditional more “modern” Church, but Gaudi DID try to keep the Church beautiful.

I think what a lot of people here don’t realize is that modern art philosophy purposely set its mind against beauty. Just read the writings of Clement Greenburg and other important modern art theorists.
Click to expand...
When I took art classes, it was worse than being in a Communist reeducation camp. Scraps, bits of paving asphalt, you name it, were elevated to art by the priest class of the art world who claimed to see not broken glass of different colors but “a man’s life.” No, I found that in an alley and put it on the floor at school, an art critic walked by, laid his hands on it and confirmed it! How irrational is that? So I decided to leave the Cult of the Ugly and the Irrational and return to a world where art actually communicates to the viewer the message the artist intended, even though evil may be depicted, it is clearly evil, or ugly, or both. Beauty needs a return to the arts, not, oh look, a few sections of pipe, a light bulb, and a pot with some dirt in it. Untitled number 84.

“important” – that sacred word that if you are a modern artist and if it appears near your name in an article written by an important art critic, automatically elevates you and your work to near mythic status. You have become crowned as the herald of a new wave of art. That and a few bucks will get you a decent cup of coffee.

Ed
 
gracepoole said:
But the question is how we define beauty, not its requirement in Catholic churches.
Click to expand...
There are clear definitions of beauty. Very clear. The ugly and the vague need to fade into the background since the mind and spirit are not lifted up by them. And the Vatican has the final say regarding Catholic Churches, nobody else.

Ed
 
livingwordunity said:
Modernism itself is ugly, and it was condemned by Saint Pope Pius X in his encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis. Here’s a sample of it:

Source:
Pascendi Dominici Gregis
Click to expand...
Thank you, very much, for this wonderful quotation. It is in answer to things I knew and felt and now put into words by the Church herself. That which I learned and comprehended is now fully comprehensible, complete with the full knowledge of the Church’s efforts to deal with this. I hope all artists come to the understanding of the amount of effort put into deforming art into something ugly, incomprehensible and even profane. And inspire them to depict beauty in the visual and other arts.

Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Thank you, very much, for this wonderful quotation. It is in answer to things I knew and felt and now put into words by the Church herself. That which I learned and comprehended is now fully comprehensible, complete with the full knowledge of the Church’s efforts to deal with this. I hope all artists come to the understanding of the amount of effort put into deforming art into something ugly, incomprehensible and even profane. And inspire them to depict beauty in the visual and other arts.

Ed
Click to expand...
Ed, thank you for the interesting perspective and your experience. It certainly mirrors my own thoughts regarding “modern” art. It’s ugly and disturbing.

Do you think it’s any coincidence that once art was no longer focused on worship of God that it became self worship by the artist instead of seeking the highest and greatest levels of creativity, and a celebration of beauty? I suspect those who produced the hideous but prize winning “art” are not people of faith.

Also as you said in a previous post, we are hard wired to think of certain elements in God’s creation as beautiful. Even beauty of the human being is relatively consistent. I remember looking at ancient statuary in both the Vatican and Cairo Museum and thinking that aside from certain cultural differences, a beautiful woman in Ancient Greece or Cairo would be considered beautiful today just as the Parthenon is considered beautiful now as it was then.

I think much modern art is a fraud perpetuated by those who are embarrassed to admit they think it’s ugly too.

Lisa
 
It’s ironic that supporters of modern architecture tend to be of the liberal persuasion; people who are also haters of Ayn Rand who, among her other philosophical errors was absolutely wedded to “modern” architecture, and for the same reasons. Anybody who ever read “The Fountainhead” would know that.
 
LisaA said:
Ed, thank you for the interesting perspective and your experience. It certainly mirrors my own thoughts regarding “modern” art. It’s ugly and disturbing.

Do you think it’s any coincidence that once art was no longer focused on worship of God that it became self worship by the artist instead of seeking the highest and greatest levels of creativity, and a celebration of beauty? I suspect those who produced the hideous but prize winning “art” are not people of faith.

Also as you said in a previous post, we are hard wired to think of certain elements in God’s creation as beautiful. Even beauty of the human being is relatively consistent. I remember looking at ancient statuary in both the Vatican and Cairo Museum and thinking that aside from certain cultural differences, a beautiful woman in Ancient Greece or Cairo would be considered beautiful today just as the Parthenon is considered beautiful now as it was then.

I think much modern art is a fraud perpetuated by those who are embarrassed to admit they think it’s ugly too.

Lisa
Click to expand...
Lisa,

Abandoning the truth about beauty, which we are hard-wired to recognize, leaves only a few options: the ugly and the incomprehensible, and the profane. In the last half of the previous century, a kind of priesthood existed in the “new” fine arts world. They are called art critics. They filter out the good and beautiful, and embrace the only other choices. There was a desire (calling it a philosophy is OK, but people decided on the philosophy - it doesn’t just spring forth on its own) to destroy beauty by not depicting it, or depicting the ugly or disturbing or the incomprehensible. And presenting it for our approval - or so they tried. I still look at fine art today and see the same things repeated over and over. The same philosophy is still in place.

I think it was this rejection of truth that drove some, even to the point of mocking religion. While others, claiming to be dissatisfied with creating ‘the same old thing’ in art, worshipped the god Change. And Change desires regular sacrifices. Only the new, new new would create the illusion of progress, or ‘being modern.’ But that is no excuse to ignore the beautiful.

So yes, I believe leaving God, and the great works of art that have stood the test of time, out of the equation, mirrors the distorted truths being fed to us in most media about various issues of our times. We are being told the dysfunctional is good, that wrong is right, and God? Out of sight, out of mind. Dwell on this, they tell us. Let distortions be your entertainment and even a part of your life.

As the Vatican announced, the true, the truly sacred will be returning to Church art and architecture, and there are great artists and architects out there. This, I hope, will also encourage a return to beauty and truth in non-religious art as well, which should be built on the same foundation. Truth is truth.

Ed
 
Ridgerunner said:
It’s ironic that supporters of modern architecture tend to be of the liberal persuasion; people who are also haters of Ayn Rand who, among her other philosophical errors was absolutely wedded to “modern” architecture, and for the same reasons. Anybody who ever read “The Fountainhead” would know that.
Click to expand...
Ayn Rand’s philosophy was certainly not a good set of ideas. I saw her in an old interview with Mike Wallace. I was never inclined to read her books.

Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top