What happened to Catholic art?

[Pai_Nosso]

interesting, I see architecture as art. Buildings like the Sydney Opera House are really just very large sculptures.

Some buildings definitely have more artistic inspiration than others.
Here is an interesting question. What is the difference between design and art?
There is no right or wrong answer, only theories, perceptions and opinions really

 

[PetraG]

There is the question of whether the art is good from a professional standpoint or not, but then there is the question of whether or not it is elevating or edifying or supports the emotions of liturgical worship.

I think that church fails on the latter question. A person could pray there or worship there and I wouldn’t be surprised if all the art in it fetched a high price at an art auction, but I don’t think the art would be much of a help to praying and worshiping. In other words, it may be art and it may even be technically very good art, but I give it a thumbs-down as sacred art.

 

[goout]

You have to be careful not to fall in love with your own preferences, because your own preferences might not be shared by others.

 

[vsedriver]

the question of whether or not it is elevating or edifying or supports the emotions of liturgical worship

again this is a subjective opinion. Sometimes the art just needs interpretation/education. Interestingly enough, once one has heard an explanation of a piece of art, it is next to impossible to not see it reflecting that idea each time you see it.

 

[PetraG]

again this is a subjective opinion. Sometimes the art just needs interpretation/education. Interestingly enough, once one has heard an explanation of a piece of art, it is next to impossible to not see it reflecting that idea each time you see it.

It isn’t subjective to the point of utter relativity, such that it is impossible to predict what people will experience. It is also not as if we don’t have 50 years experience with this particular genre of sacred art.

I’m not saying we have to go full-on baroque to be beautiful, either. I’m not saying there are no beautiful churches that have a “modern” look. I’m saying that you can explain all day and a writhing snake next to the front doir is still going to have a certain effect, an effect more like creepy than edifying. The overall effect of the art depicted (and I can’t speak to the overall effect, because I haven’t been inside the church) is more like disturbing than ethereal or uplifting, even in the depiction of angels. That is felt. It isn’t explained away. (I mean really: do explanations of art ever really replace the gut-level feeling the art elicits?)

I think the intent may have been “awesome,” but I think it is a swing and a miss. You might feel differently, but frankly, I think I see more positive in it than most Catholics I know would see.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

In the end, this whole thread is just another “let’s all give our opinions about how a church looks.”

It’s always interesting to see how somebody who is disturbed by a piece of art just assumes huge numbers of people must certainly agree with them.

 

[Anna12]

That looks ugly and demonic.