Aesthetic Escalator

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!

Comments

[The Aesthetic Elevator]

Wasn't my intent, but gotcha going, didn't I ;)

"It is art devoid of communication." Did we decide that art actually needs to communicate in an obvious or literal manner to be good art? I thought this was still up for debate . . .

With respect to abstract art and Guy Kemper: I've had to remind myself, lately, of the Biblical validity for abstraction, but it is there. No, it doesn't say "Thou shalt abstract," but it gives us examples (particularly related to the construction of the Tabernacle) which Francis Schaeffer reminds us of in his little treatise "Art and the Bible."

With respect to the student work: which you rightly identified as done by an adolescent wanting attention, was I being too tactful in my response? I mean, I didn't actually SEE the paintings (and made it clear I didn't WANT to see them), so I was hedging against too much criticism. And I actually would argue that the kid might have some valid criticism of the church, Catholic or otherwise. He just doesn't know how to express it as a sophomoric student pandering to the art world's PERCEIVED and inexplicable craving for sensationalism.

On Catholicism: I'm sure my observation was simplistic, which is why I included the disclaimers and qualifications in the writing. Let me be straight-up: I grew up in fundy churches that didn't like many, if any, of the older and more established denominations. Catholic, Methodist, Episcopalian and so on . . . they were too liberal, too rote in their liturgy, unspiritual and whatnot. While I may have thought these things "as a child," I quickly realized they were bunk, generalized stereotypes created by, well, people who didn't think things through.

[Tim J.]

"Did we decide that art actually needs to communicate in an obvious or literal manner to be good art?"

No. Good *fine* art is another question. A pattern on a clay pot need not intentionally communicate anything, though it may communicate something about the culture from which it springs (as the Kemper piece undoubtedly does). What it communicates about our culture may not be especially flattering, however.

My contention is not that this art communicates in a way too subtle or not-literal-enough... this art doesn't communicate intentionally in any way at all, which makes it decoration, which is great... but it should not be placed in the "fine art" category at all, IMO.

This is not to denigrate decorative art! I love decorative art. I just think we need to be clear that this is not in the same universe as the Isenheim Altarpiece or anything remotely like that.

I enjoy (really!) a good deal of abstract art, as long as there is none of this pretense about "stripping away cognitive barriers" or being some kind of gateway to a higher perception, or passing beyond mere actuality to a deeper spiritual mystery, bah, blah...

There's nothing wrong with what the Kemper piece does... there's just nothing especially profound about it either (he said, reaching for his helmet).

[The Aesthetic Elevator]

I agree that there may not be anything too profound or spiritually communicative about Kemper's work, but I would argue that his "decoration" does (for me) greatly enhance the regularly schedule worship experience. IMO, this is a very worthy thing.

I will have to contest, though, the implication (maybe you were only referring to Kemper's work?) that abstract art does not communicate at all. Although to further this point I think I'll need some time and more space than just a comment . . .

(No need for the helmet; I use a Nerf bat . . . )

And I would also ask, with respect to more classical or traditional works/techniques (the antithesis, as it were, of modern art) what is so much more engaging about a still life or landscape? Portraiture has the advantage of focusing our attention on a person, which is inherently engaging to observing persons. But I personally fail to see how fruit in a bowl is MORE engaging than certain abstract works.

Like you, though, I'm not opposed to still life or landscapes, not at all. I adore Keith Jacobshagen's paintings of the prairie, and have also seen inanimate objects painted in a very engaging manner — your own "Bleu Cheese and Beer" being one of them. Another is Severin Roesen's "Still Life with Fruit and Champagne Glass."

I've moved away from using the term "Fine art" in recent years when I can. It seems to me to be pretentious, whether this was intentional or not. But I suppose in our discussion here it could be useful.

[Tim J.]

"I would argue that his "decoration" does (for me) greatly enhance the regularly schedule worship experience. IMO, this is a very worthy thing."

Now, see? I agree! In context, and given that this is a well executed piece of abstract art, it does enhance rather than detract. I don't know how a person would go about really integrating large, traditional works into a space like that without a great deal of thought and probably some heavy and expensive remodeling.

Also, good work is always better than bad work, so a well done abstract piece will be preferable to a poorly done traditional piece. It doesn't matter that the artist's heart is in the right place... the actual work has to be able to support the weight of the themes.

An area parish that I sometimes visit has some large, fairly traditional stained glass pieces, which I support in spirit, but which are just not that well designed. It would be better for them to install simple abstract pieces (some beautiful patterns).

Art that sets lofty goals and meets them is great art. Art that sets lofty goals and misses them is awkward and looks merely pretentious.

An artist needs to be aware of his/her limitations. Either keep things simple - OR - be ready to beat your body into ruins to achieve the perfection you seek. To make a half-hearted effort at what thematically requires a masterwork is to give birth to yet another mediocrity that the world doesn't need.

As to your other points, I do think there is a place for the term "fine art", properly defined.

One problem I see with the whole history of art in the twentieth century is the confusion about decorative art, to which I now firmly believe abstract art belongs. I think the problem is not that the abstractionists think too highly of decorative art, but that they think of it not near highly enough.

But more on that later.

[The Aesthetic Elevator]

"I think the problem is not that the abstractionists think too highly of decorative art, but that they think of it not near highly enough."

While I don't think I can agree completely with the implications of the sentence in the first half of your last paragraph, what I've quoted above is PRECISELY where I was headed as I continued to think about this conversation! I'm drafting some replies at TAE . . . we'll see if I can pull them together in a coherent manner (this being key) by the end of the day . . .

The Impossibility of Transubstantiation

Does the Bible teach that the bread and wine mysteriously turn into the real body and blood of Christ when the words ‘‘This is my body’’ are spoken? Consider; when the Lord Jesus spoke those words in Matt 26:26, His actual body was reclining at the table in the upper room. Clearly His body was either beside the table, or in the bread. It cannot have been in both places at once. This simple observation is enough to show that Christ at this point spoke in representative, not literal terms.

Misunderstanding the Lord Jesus when He speaks representatively or figuratively can lead to major problems. In Matt 16:6 the Lord warned His disciples to beware of ‘‘the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.’’ They took Him literally and began worrying about the fact that they had no bread with them. However the Lord was referring to false doctrine, not literal bread. Likewise, when the Lord said ‘‘I am the door’’ and ‘‘I am the true vine,’’ He was not speaking literally. If “this is My body” is taken literally, what is the Roman Catholic Mass if not some mysterious form of cannibalism? How could Peter have eaten the literal blood of Christ in the Upper Room, only to command a few years later that all Gentile Christians abstain from eating blood (Acts 15:29)?

[Tim J.]

"The Impossibility of Transubstantiation"

Of course it's impossible. So was the resurrection. That's why these things are called "miracles", and why atheists think believing in either one or the other is equally nuts.

"Does the Bible teach that the bread and wine mysteriously turn into the real body and blood of Christ..."

"Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord."

It doesn't say you will be guilty of sinning against bread and wine, or against the memory of Christ, it says that one sins against Christ's *body* by receiving in an unworthy manner.

"For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself."

That doesn't need any comment. How do you twist this phrase to make it mean something else?

"Consider; when the Lord Jesus spoke those words in Matt 26:26, His actual body was reclining at the table in the upper room. Clearly His body was either beside the table, or in the bread. It cannot have been in both places at once."

Because he's just God, you know, and God can't be in two places at once...

"This simple observation is enough to show that Christ at this point spoke in representative, not literal terms."

And somehow, the entire Christian Church - even those instructed by the Apostles themselves - got it completely wrong for what, seventeen, eighteen centuries? How silly of them to teach with unbroken consistency for two millenia that Jesus is really present in the Eucharist, when all along he was just using a very unfortunate and confusing figure of speech over and over again. You'd think this would be something the Apostles would have cleared up early on, but I guess they were busy.

"Misunderstanding the Lord Jesus when He speaks representatively or figuratively can lead to major problems."

Misunderstanding the Lord by spiritualizing when he speaks literally can lead to major problems, too. Like in John 20:23 when he says to the apostles "If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.". Or "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

"If 'this is My body' is taken literally, what is the Roman Catholic Mass if not some mysterious form of cannibalism?"

Christ's body is a resurrected, glorified, spiritual body, not like the meat and blood of our earthly bodies. You err because your thinking is earthly, and being a child of a materialistic age, you are suspicious of the miraculous, as your other comments show. Your objections are exactly the same objections that atheist/materialists have with the virgin birth or the resurrection, just repackaged.

"How could Peter have eaten the literal blood of Christ in the Upper Room, only to command a few years later that all Gentile Christians abstain from eating blood?"

See above... the blood of Christ is a spiritual substance, not the crude matter you are thinking of (interesting, though, that Peter could command the Gentile Christians to do anything).

"Jesus said to them, 'I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.' ".