The Idolatry of Modern Art
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 сен 2024
- Music written and generously provided by Paul Jernberg. Find out more about his work as a composer here: pauljernberg.com
If you’re Catholic then it isn’t news to you that many in roles of authority within the Church have fully embraced modern and post modern art movements as perfectly appropriate for the use of sacred art.
Even though the intellectual and philosophical movements that animated this cultural shift feature a lot of agnostic and atheistic tendencies and even though, if you connect it to modernism itself, you may, or may not know, that Pope Pius X condemned it as a heresy.
But so what? Maybe, as many will insist, we need to embrace new and innovative ways of expressing the faith. We need to ensure that the gospel doesn’t grow stale and irrelevant. And I agree with that if it means we should continue to build upon what came before and steadily improve as we strive to communicate beauty and the story of salvation history.
But modernist movements did not do that. They discarded what came before them and held them in contempt. This was, in many cases, literally done as Church sanctuaries that were masterpieces of religious art and craftsmanship were the victims of enthusiastic church professionals who were all to happy to embrace these new trends.
The reason I think modern art is intrinsically incompatible with Christian worship isn’t because I don’t like it, although I don’t, and it isn’t because it lacks universal appeal, which it does, and it isn’t because it violently clashes with it’s surroundings, which it does.
It’s because it doesn’t meet what I believe to be an essential criterion for sacred art according to Christian doctrine and to explain what I mean, I think we need to revisit what has been a seemingly timeless controversy in the Church which is whether or not using images in worship is idolatrous.
Protestants took up this controversy in the 16th century when they began smashing stained glass windows and beheading statues but these iconoclastic tendencies have been with us since at least the 8th century when the Eastern Church had to confront the exact same speculation.
And of course, the reason this controversy and confusion exists is because of the 1st commandment in the decalogue which says that we shalt not have any strange gods before the true God of Israel and that it forbids making images to worship.
But iconoclasts took this to mean that all imagery was forbidden lest we fall into idolatry. After all, it says right there in scripture, “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.”
But does that mean all imagery is idolatrous? Well, it can’t mean that because just a few chapters later in the book of Exodus, God sanctions the use of carved images for religious piety by telling the Israelites how they are to fashion the tabernacle with two carved angels on each side of the cover.
And this is tricky for Christians because our faith is a sacramental faith in which the invisible is made visible. In which matter, space and time, and sound are employed to communicate the reality of the spiritual life and there is no better example of this than the incarnation of Jesus in which the invisible God becomes human so that we can meet him face to face, hear his voice, and know him like we know most other things that we can see and touch.
And so, it is our instinct to follow that pattern and to make visible that which is invisible through art that can clarify what might otherwise be difficult to understand and visualize.
When we talk about God’s interactions with us through the stories we find in scripture, we refer to it as revelation. God’s work since our estrangement with him has been to reveal himself to us as a prerequisite to relationship with him. He wants to make himself MORE explicitly known to us.
And that is the principle that sacred art should follow. It should be used to make spiritual realities or the stories in the Bible less ambiguous than they might otherwise be if they were just left to our imagination.
And this is exactly what Christians aspired to do by telling the stories of the Bible through representative imagery. It was used to enhance our prayers, help us feel closer to God as we worshipped him, and to teach and catechize the faithful, especially in places and times where literacy was low.
But that’s not what modern art does. It embraces the abstract and the novel and abstraction is the opposite of revelation.
They portray the stories of scripture as something more incorporeal when that is the exact opposite of how God chose to reveal himself, in unmistakable and material presence available to our senses.
Abstraction doesn't reveal the reality of salvation history - it obscures it. And when revelation is obscured, it leads to confusion, and when you’re praying in a state of confusion, you can easily be led from that disorientation into idolatry.
Lots of people have been making the same comment about my encouragement for a more historically accurate portrayal of biblical stories so I thought I'd reply here. They point out that there are examples, like Our Lady of Guadalupe which portray our Blessed Mother as a different ethnicity and that's acceptable. Some have also raised the complaint that classical sacred art often portrays biblical characters as "Caucasian" so why is that OK?
My comment had more to do with depictions of stories from the Bible which do have a historical context that we shouldn't stray too much on, but I do think some flexibility can be forgiven there, within reason. If we're talking about apparitions or visions of Heaven, then I think that's different, because that doesn't have a historical context in the same way. If the BVM appears to St. Juan Diego in a way that compliments the ethnicity of the people there, then that was her choice and we should honor it. What we shouldn't do is make depictions of Our Lady of Guadalupe as an Asian, European, or an African woman because that's not how she appeared.
Regarding the complaint about artwork that portrays biblical characters as "Caucasian", I think this complaint is often over stated but maybe I'm not sensitive enough to it. There are examples, and I think my criticism would apply, but I don't think they are as widespread as the complaint seems to suggest. Caucasian means, from Caucasia which is in the near east or middle-east (ie. very close to where Jesus lived). Ancient Jews were a Mediterranean people like Northern Africans or Southern Europeans. They weren't, as some think, something closer to Arabs. They wouldn't have been any darker skinned than a Greek or an Italian. They were Semitic which has often been classified as a subset of Caucasian. That said, they wouldn't have had blonde hair and blue eyes, so I would complain about those kinds of depictions as well. But, I also appreciate that much of the best sacred art comes from a time in which the artists lived in a locale that they would have had limited opportunities to travel outside of. A 14th century Englishman would have no way of knowing what an indigenous Middle-Easterner would look like outside of descriptions. So, they had to rely on models which were people who lived in their area. They couldn't Google pictures of Middle Eastern Jews to find out what would be more accurate. And all things considered, I'd say a lot of the artwork from that period did a good job of balancing those difficulties.
My commentary had more to do with artwork that is created today because we don't have those same excuses, but yet, we seem to be neglecting the potential of what could be created with all of our technological advantages and education.
Ok, I thought I would comment on your video since there are no other comments on you comment.
I have been a fan of your channel for a year or two, and I am blown away by your way of explaining the teachings of the Catholic Church, its engaging and insightful. I do have one request, can you please make a video that tackles the subject of the word "Believe" and its definition, the official one and your own. As a Catholic this is the most prominent stumbling block for me, what does it mean to believe in God?
What's Catholic's obsession with Mary?
@@jamesmassingale8512 They're obsessed less with Mary, and more with her virginity.
Your comment opens up a pandora box and underscores the wisdom of biblical injunction of why not to engage in such art. You have given an explanation dealing with races, subsets of a race, ethnicity, complexion, geographical regions just about everything except God. In fact if u read ur very articulate comment, God is not mentioned one time. So in essence, that what art that is not specifically dictated by God is namely a distraction and as the depictions u mentioned above tend to man making God and sacred things in their own image, which is idolatry
@tkwtg Dude just go look at pictures of Greeks, Berbers, Syrians and Lebanese. They resemble each other and would be called "white" in the 21st century. A historically accurate depiction of Mary would probably look like them but not like Germanic or Slavic white people.
We modern people don't have to make the same mistake as medieval Europeans by depicting historical, religious figures like Mary as contemporary coethnics. You can look up Agamemnon or Achilles on manuscript miniatures to see that they did it in all of their art. Amazonians aren't backwards and can find out what Mary would have looked like so there's no reason to make exceptions for them. Further more 'localisation' removes the historicity of what's being depicted as though it's just another story and it allows the art to be politicised like the Pachamama was. That isn't appropriate for religious art.
I visited a art museum in Chicago recently. The Modern Art section literally had a blank canvas on display😐🖼
yes!!! I was there and I took a picture of it. Like it’s just a joke now.
A blank canvas...exactly what I saw at someone's house on their dining room wall and I enquired if someone was going to be painting on it; the reply was that it was supposed to be like that. A totally blank canvas and that is...Art! I can have many such art pieces in my home too. 😂😂😂
@@r.m5883 I swear, modern art is THE greatest con anyone every pulled to cheat the wealthy out of their money.
Laura Bellamy 1000 Holy Places Kind of, you definitely have to be silly to spend money on that but I think it also speaks to a culturally messed up society that’s all about cultural relativism; nothing means anything anymore and that shows up in the art. Sad!
I saw once a blank canvas (OK, it looked more of a tan-light khaki tone than gleaming white, but you get the idea) that was cut in the middle. Just that. If I remember correctly, it was in the Museum of Modern Art in London. They also had all kinds of weird stuff there.
When a culture no longer aspires to the beautiful, excellent and transcendent but instead makes oneself as his own god, then morality declines along with art, music, language along with the culture itself.
Ramir Reyes, well said.
But modernist art is one of the most beautiful and furtive art periods in the history of art
Case in point: everything about American culture in the last 20 years
@@internetenjoyer1044 Not even close.
Laura Bellamy 1000 Holy Places what about surrealism?
Catholicism alone has contributed more for the arts, music, architecture and science than any other religion. You can't change my mind.
I've been through 2 art history courses and it's not even a contest. Medieval, Gothic, Italian High Renaissance, Baroque, they all have tons of church patroned works and it's all fantastic stuff.
Its foolish to say nobody cant chane your mind, but ofcourse, statement is correct
The problem is in the past 50 years.
The hospital in my town was literally founded by Catholic nuns
@@graceafeuchtart same here. Penrose Hospital in Colorado Springs CO and in many places practically too numerous to count.
We won’t attract people to the faith by following trends, but by following beauty and truth. Fundamentally, that is what people are searching for when they seek God.
Gotta love ending the work week with a winner of an essay like this.
The Gospel can't grow "stale". As long as Jesus is alive, His power will continue to save souls regardless of human work. People who deny that deny Christ. Period.
At 7:50, I wonder your thoughts on Mary presenting herself as a native in Our Lady of Guadalupe. Or the traditional European art that presents Jesus as a European.
I appreciate the art depicting Jesus as various ethnicities because it shows how he came for all of us, but I do dislike the modern church empty of art and the modern art style. Therefore I'm not fully convinced you've got the nail on the head but I appreciate the direction of, and hearing, your thoughts.
On this point, I may feel him to be a little off base, but 1) Guadalupe’s depiction still communicates a spiritual truth: that she is mother of the indigenous Americans and not merely the Jews or the Europeans, and 2) depicting her as a Meztica still is referencing something concrete and doesn’t leave much to an imaginative interpretation.
Our Blessed Mother uses different appearances like a woman picks an appropriate dress out of her closet. In Rawanda, an African, in Akita, a Japanese, in Mexico, a Nahuatl.
The art and architecture of the modern world is replacing all variety of cultural heritage. New buildings look the same across the continents for the most part...
From my understanding, Our blessed mother Virgin Mary appeared to these people in each specific way to show she is also their mother too. It’s beautiful really when you think about it. She humbly matches in appearance to those she appeared to so they can relate to her and be comforted by her.
I do feel lucky to live in the "old world" where most churches were constructed before the modern era. I do agree that most modern art, whether it be in architecture, painting, or even music is not suited for religion. This probably has to do with the fact that most of the modern art movements concentrate on the individual and not the transcendent.
As for interpreting the Virgin Mary or Jesus to our likes and tastes, I'd say that has been going on since the beginning. How many paintings of biblical scenes were transposed in the Europe of the time of the painter. The clothes and even the beauty standards of the time were attributed to historical biblical figures, as the objective was to make the scene more comprehensible, more approchable to common people and a means to identify to the characters. The equivalent today would be to represent the apostles with jeans and tshirts.
Which actually prompts the question: what does it say about our society that we might find it shocking and/or not at all appropriate to have a religious scene depicted with figures wearing contemporary clothes, when in the Middle Ages or the Renaissance they found this normal? Should we find it irreverent, after all the message is timeless and universal? Yet, I'm not certain I would be comfortable with this.
Perhaps certain folk art, like ex votos or retablos found in Mexico translate better the contemporary with the transcendent?
I go to a Polish Czech parish in Texas that built the church in the 1800's by deeply devoted immigrants. It's a small but BEAUTIFUL chapel and the people of that parish are still deeply devoted and reverent. We have a Polish priest and every Christmas sing carols in Polish as well as German and English. It's lovely!
Jeans and t-shirts - definitely not. I don't think it's about the fashion of the day, but rather the modesty of it. Notice how Our Lady appeared in Guadalupe and in Akita. Very different but always with modesty. Even in the Renaissance the fashion was still to present yourselves at your best before the Lord with women covering their heads. Would it be shocking for them to be depicted in jeans and t-shirts - of course it would, but what about modest dress? Our Lady depicted in a long modest dress with her head covered in a mantilla or scarf would not be shocking. As a convert to the Catholic faith growing in my relationship to Our Lord and Lady, I wanted more and more to emulate Our Lady. I wanted to cover my head because she always covered hers. I always wear long flowing dresses that cover everything because she does. Anyway, I think it's about losing our worldly selves and embracing the Sacred. I think that's the difference. You said it already; the best art is transcendent. Peace Be With You!! : )
The ethnicity isn't a detracting element in art that is intended to be sacred. Fashion can detract if it's the focus, rather than the message of the icon. There are rules in iconography, and iconographers speak of writing icons, not creating them as works of art. An icon is a window to heaven. The theologians of the Eastern Churches teach that when we look at icons, the person that is represented in the icon is returning our gaze from heaven. Therefore sacred art must draw our hearts to heaven, not to this world. Sacred art must draw our thoughts to transcendance as we seek our theosis, our becoming like God. Our Lady of Kibeho appeared to the schoolgirls in Rwanda as an African woman wearing the traditional fashion of First Century Palestine. As far as I know, Our Blessed Mother has never appeared wearing blue jeans.
Overstylized modern art doesn't draw the mind to heaven, either. Stick figures and twisted forms don't inspire us to theosis. If anything, modern art styles focus attention on the cleverness of the artist, and on the hip cool groovy things of this world.
The interesting thing is that on many of these old works of art, clothing takes a back seat and often only the timeless face with the expressions of humility, joy, patience, etc. comes to the fore. Modern pictures often focus on the actual event and not on what the believer feels.
Old church buildings vs new buildings-> the acoustics in old churches is often much better without added technology than in new buildings that rely almost exclusively on technology.
* why the wonderful murals often disappear in old churches is largely due to the fact that neither the parish nor the diocese can bear the immense costs for a professional restoration. When my old church was renovated in the 1970s, that was exactly why the pictures disappeared behind white walls. You could just afford professional coverage. The images were only specially protected.
@@kimfleury Ha! Our Lady appearing with jeans on... After all, it's blue...
Or with a short skirt and sleeveless top. To match the "apostles in T-shirt" theme.
Thank you, Brian. You are an excellent witness for Our Lord Jesus Christ within our culture. And i feel that modern art is a poor expression of beauty, in comparison with the old masters.
That statue was undeniably Pachamama. Those who say otherwise are either sinful idolators or too lazy too look into the obvious. What happened there was far more than devotion, and there was never out Lady of the Amazon. Vatican literally MADE THAT UP!! why can't we even trust our own patriarchs and Cardinals?? What has Caused the church to decline so much that the lay faithful are in opposition to them, yet are correct??
They are more concerned with being popular and pleasing the world than being devout and pleasing God. In Christ, Andrew
It's the zeitgeist.
Look it up.
I mean, even the pope referred to them as Pachamama. What that “priest” said at that press conference about the two pregnant statues being Mary and Elizabeth was a LIE. He was obfuscating and distracting. Not to mention they would’ve been blasphemous depictions of Our Lady and St. Elizabeth anyways: nude and blood-red bellies.
It was idolatry. Full stop.
@@jefffinkbonner9551 - idolatry, Indeed. Very obvious. And people simply forget about it
Me: There...
*333 likes and 3 dislikes*
Me: Perfectly balanced, as all things should be.
Whether the statues were pachamama or the blessed virgin Mary, we should not be bowing down to the ground in front of statues of her. That is forbidden and is deifying Mary. She is to receive high honour, but not worship. Bowing before statues of her is crossing the line. I say this as a catholic.
I'm increasingly impressed by just how many things Brian doesn't like and his certainty that nobody else should like them either.
yes, arrogance is his strong point
This reminds me why I have strong objections to The Last Temptation of Christ, whether it's the original book by Nikos Kazantzakis or the film adaptation directed by Martin Scorsese (and its screenplay written by Paul Schrader). If it were just a thought experiment or a personal expression, fine. But it was meant to be a kind of modernist Gospel. Kazantzakis had even said once he wanted "Christ without the Church". And thus, he portrayed Him as what I've come to call a "selfish neurotic" (and by extension, God is an obscure and uncommunicative a-hole; humanity are even worse a-holes than God). And while I definitely understand the general "spiritual struggle" if you like, it does not mean that Christ had that. In fact, if anything, Christ is the one who *resolves* it in His Incarnation, Life, Death to Resurrection. And if He couldn't do it, then the rest of us are totally screwed.
I bring this up because the one silver lining to this was the score Peter Gabriel made for the film. (And yes, it's a delicious irony that both of his names denote the key apostle of the faith and the angel who brought the first bit of "evangelos" to the Theotokos or BVM.). A lot of it has to do with drawing on tried and true music traditions from all over the world (mainly from North Africa and western Asia). But in the music, you can hear that spiritual struggle of the soul that is common to all of us and thus is relatable in that way. Granted it remains in abstraction at best and is associated with blasphemous heresy at worst (by associating with the film). However, I would say for modern art, it is the closest it gets to something like the sacred art because it does acknowledge the truth that we as human beings are always on the line between the sacred and the profane. This is way better than most of the modern art in general and, yes, this is the exception that proves a rule that modern art is antithetical (not in that stupid Hegelian way of doing it) to the Christian credo where it proclaims and affirms that God created the heavens and the earth and called it good and created Man and called Man very good.
I also bring this up because TLT is seen as an "important spiritual work" and only because it deals with spiritual themes. But that doesn't make it automatically right. If anything, it's heretical and blasphemous compared to Christian dogma and it should be called out as such. I think this book gets excused by Christian pastors and priests because it deals with relatable struggles. But while I do empathize with the struggle, I think it's the wrong story to tell. The life of any saint? Perfect (and there's a slew of them that really do have compelling and relatable stories). But a retelling of the Gospel where God and humanity are a-holes and the "best hope for all of this" is found in a selfish neurotic? Ahhh, no. That may be relatable, but that really doesn't make me want to be better. I would never want to work on my prayer rule or fasting or make any effort to be a better human being if the end result is "Pffft. Doesn't matter anyway".
Yeah, there's a lot more I can say about this and other related topics but this is good for now. Thank you again for this =]
Don't forget to pray so that those tasked with repairs of Notre Dame are wise enough to restore it to its original state. Some people want to rebuilt the cathedral in a modern way. No modern architectonical experiments on this beautiful work of our ancestors!
Funny you should mention Notre Dame. It struck me that the old structure might be safer with a lightweight roof instead of the original lead. Glasgow Cathedral has a copper roof.
@@henrybn14ar there's always ways to technologically update the inside of the roof for it to be safer and lighter while still preserving the historical look on the surface
@@littledrummergirl_19 Yeah that's the trick. Obviously it won't be built with the medieval techniques, but it should look the same. Some of the ideas of modernist architects are very strange and ugly.
I just wanted to add one of the strange examples of modern churches from my country. Try searching "Church Brno Lesna".
I’ve been trying so long to find a way to express to my liberally minded co-religionists why this more modern & abstract approach to sacred art /objectively/ doesn’t communicate the transcendent and the nature of the faith like classical and medieval art does.
You finally provided an answer, and I’m grateful.
Throughout history the Church has always incorporated art from each period, be it Gregorian chant, renaissance painting or baroque music. Modern art is no different, but it requires choosing appropriately and choosing the best. There is something called the survivor bias, where we trick ourselves into thinking that all art created in the past was of such a high standard. In reality there has always been a lot of bad art that has been forgotten and we only remember the good. Modern religious art is no different, the mediocre art will fall away and the best will be added to the Church's repertoire.
Also, I love the little mini-rant about the RUclips algo in the latest version of the closing bit
oy vey, tis another levi
Modern art is such a vast concept. To which school are you referring to? I have seen several modern churches. Some are beautiful and call to prayer and reflexion. Some are horrible. Others are just insignificant. The same can be said of any church built in any period of time. At the back of Notre-Dame Basilica in Montréal, there is the Chapel of the Sacred-Heart. It burned in 1978. It was rebuilt in a modern fashion. It kept some elements of the original, but the main altar, the roof, the organ, all had to be replaced. And it's one of my favorite chapel in Québec. The bronze altarpiece was made by the great quebecois abstract artist Charles Daudelin.
This young man does not know what he is talking about. He is a curmudgeonly young traditionalist who has the curse of literal interpretation. No creative imagination, and no appreciation for the realm of creative ideas, which is Gods gift to us. He does not understand that metaphors can be interpreted in terms of their connotation as well as their denotation, because he is unlearned in theological aesthetics or even the artistic history of the Catholic Church. He simply passes off his own tastes as objective examples, ignoring the vast successful examples in the last 100 years in the arts of modern architecture, furniture, design, painting, mosaic, tapestry, stained glass, sculpture, or illustration that do not fit into his narrow Trad viewpoint. Does he mention Gaudi’s La Sagrada Familia cathedral in Barcelona? Or Christ the Light Cathedral in Oakland CA? Or the stained glass windows of Marc Chagall? ....He picks particularly egregious examples of bad modern architecture or bad semi abstract painting to illustrate his point, but one could easily find thousands of examples of amazing and sublime examples by truly masters to counter these. He does admit his own bias, But his problem is basically his complete lack of education. Admittedly the Church could do a better job of promoting the Arts, and of employing the best artists to design their churches, but that’s not what this young man is getting at. He is equating modern art with a certain level of formal abstraction, and abstraction with modernism, and modernism with heresy that is antithetical to Catholic teaching. Because he does not understand poetry, he cannot understand art that is evocative. He needs everything spelled out for him.
What he also fails to understand is that every single symbol, icon, and representation used in the liturgy or in a Catholic setting contains a certain level of abstraction. Every depiction of an angel or a demon is an imaginative interpretation by an artist. Every depiction of heaven or hell or a point in sacred history, every choice of garment, setting, hair style, facial expression is a creative choice by the artist, more or less detailed. The murals and frescoes of early christian churches are highly stylized and non-realistic, as is the entire continuing tradition of icons of the eastern church. The medieval artists wove abstraction and geometry into their stained glass and images, right up to the Renaissance. The whole sweep of Catholic art is not frozen in the Latin Mass, Italian Baroque. Yet this man is passing off his Trad opinion as knowledge, completely ignorant of the rich history of out Tradition.
Great explanation Brian. Also I loved the last line about how when we’re in a state of confusion we can easily be led into idolatry.
Hi Brian don't you think categorizing modern art as one phenomenon is a vast overgeneralization? Gaudi for instance was an artist who tried to engage and develop the existing tradition for ecclesial art. I think it's also a fallacy to equate realism in art with orthodox theology. The tradition of iconography was intentionally somewhat abstract in order to symbolize spiritual realities.
Your views are not those of a Catholic. It's worth bringing to mind that we Catholics have a teaching Tradition, in the form of the Magisterium, and a Catechism. We have criteria as how scared images are portrayed and how they illuminate our Faith. Of equal importance is the fact that being able to read, and access scripture, is a fairly recent phenomenon. Prior to the arrival of the printing press, it cost on average three years salary to procure a bible and a further three years for it to be written. Christian art, sculpture, stained glass, music, therefore is treated with great reverence and for us illuminates the divine essence. Ne timeas.
It took way too much scrolling to find a good comment on this. This video and this concept is flawed. As you say, modern art is not a monolith. It would be interesting to see a committee at the Vatican tasked with judging what level of abstraction had crossed the line. Sounds like a Monty Python Sketch. :)
I think that Brian was reffering to Modernism, not the Modern style. It is kind of confusing but Modern style is reffering to Art Nouveau (often known as Secession) which is still quite decorated and full of details as you can tell from Gaudi's architecture or Klimt's paintings. On the other hand, Modernism was a counterbalance that was against the decorative nature of secession and is represented by architects as Le Corbusier or different art movements as the Russian Supermatism.
I dont agree with his view on modernism and abstract art either. Modernism is heretic, there is no way around that. But not everything produced during the modern times is inherently heretic. What he calls abstract art is actually more expressionist, abstract art is that which is devoid of form. The statue with the mom and the baby I found incredibly beautiful, expressing emotions a fully carved statue never could.
I strongly disagree with your statement, although I do see where you're coming from. The problem is that the notion that ' something is abstract' has everything to do with the persons perception, and nothing with the imagery itself. It's just like how the liturgy was abstract to the illiterate and the church's responsibility was to explain. The tables have turned in our intellectual society, where the imagery is abstract and the word gives clarification. I see this as evolved, not heresy.
To put this in a different way: if imagery has to be hyper realistic before it can be used in the context of worship, then the focus of the worship is off. The imagery has to lead to God, not to replace God. And I think that the question 'what is this what I percieve?' is the perfect way to lead people to experiencing and worshipping God. This way of using the abstract has been the most effective way in our faith, most strongly noticable in Catholic churches that were literally designed to embody the heavens as if they could be contained on earth: from the height to the light, from the light, marble collums to the echos that went through the entire building: there is nothing hyper realistic about it and yet we celebrate it until this day. This way of looking at experiencing God and holiness through this method shows how not only the abstract shows pure holiness, but it's attempt to reveal that which is hidden could very well be the best way.
Just some food for thought here.
The liturgy is an attempt to express what cannot be put into words. Being literate or not makes little difference since it does not operate at the intellectual level. It cannot be explained. We can only really say what God is not - that is the principle of apophatic theology.
There is no greater scholar of the motives underlying modern art and architecture than E. Michael Jones
I don't think you're very well educated about visual art. In the first place, the word "Modernism" does not mean the same thing when applied to visual art as it does when applied to the philosophical movement condemned by the pope. Modern art largely arose when artists' role of recording visual reality was eclipsed by photography, so painters and sculptors had to find a different reason for being. The focus came to be on the material properties of the work, and not on pictorial image. The problem with modernist-derived art in church -- both visual art and music -- is that you have poorly trained artists trying to ape modern art and apply it to religious imagery. They place the material properties above the representational properties, and this is why you get driftwood turned into an image of the risen Lord looking like a dried fish, or the sanctuary of a church that looks like the scary inside of a grain silo. (It is also why you get hymns that cannot be followed or remembered.) What you're showing in the video reflects not a problem with modern art (there are some very simple, awe-inspiring churches designed on modern art principles), but artists and architects with bad taste imposing their ego on the assignment. The problem today is that the artists calling for traditional representational art to be restored are also usually poorly skilled and produce some really cringe-worthy work.
I’m having trouble figuring out what kind of art to make because some of the themes that I’m interested in making art about could be interpreted as sinful. For example, I want to make art about warriors who go to battle, but is it sinful to depict violence?
My hot take on this is that you give modern art (the genre) too much credit. At best it’s just bad art. I argue it’s not art at all.
Well Said.
Exactly. It's visual diarrhoea passed off as 'creative.'
(In posh voice) It’s so... hrrng... PROVOCATIVE-eh. Hm-yeassss.
I'm of the "it's not art" persuasion myself. I think you actually have to develop SKILL before you can claim to be an artist. I could create a "modern art" piece in five minutes and no one would be able to tell the difference between my nonsense and that of a so-called "modern art genius." It really is a joke.
What a great channel! I'm an Orthodox myself, but it's always good to hear voice of real reason. There is a real treasure in icon if you want to explore it. There is no line between icon and reality. No wall between you and the space of icon.
Thank you for your work!
+1
I work in the education department of a museum, and my coworkers constantly regurgitate the axiom that the purpose of art is to challenge you. I get a kick out of replying that it's not, and when they ask what art's purpose is, say "To glorify God, of course." The speechlessness that follows is extremely satisfying. It's the best I can do when I otherwise get in trouble for not thinking that Very Important Artists saying Very Important Things are really very good at what they do.
Sacred art certainly challenges viewers more than a urinal or splatters of paint.
Also, Patrick Coffin’s podcast interview with Dr E Michael Jones on architecture is a worthwhile listen.
That vile wood carving was not a depiction of the Blessed Virgin. Don't even entertain that nonsense
Vatican literally made up our Lady of the Amazon. It doesn't exist. Why do our Bishops betray us so??
My lamentation is that Alexander Tschuggle did not destroy the idols as he threw them to the Tiber. Because of it they were found again and stored even more securely. As soon asFrancis passes, I expect the next pope to immediately Destroy them
@@УрошКалиниченко please God may a holy pope do so and soon
It's unfortunate that modern art somewhat contributes to iconoclast sensibilities instead of iconophiliac ones. Great video.
Btw that’s the Ark if the Covenant, not the Tabernacle
The Philistine has spoken. I am open for a discussion and/or debate about your contempt, distain, and paranoia surrounding modern art. We can also include a discussion about contemporary classical music.
For more on that Pachamama scam, see Dr. Taylor Marshall's video with Bernardo Kuster, a Brazilian Catholic who has gained over 860,000 followers on his channel in just a few years. He explains that Brazil's devotion is to Our Lady of Nazareth, which they adopted from Portugal when they were evangelized by them. Most of the Amazon is in Brazil. There are no Pachamama statues for sale in stores for people to buy and have in their homes as devotionals. It's all a big lie.
If anything.. modern art communicates the heart of modern mankind. It's a window into the psyche. There is some value in seeing it for what it is in all of its distortions, weirdness and sinful out growths. As a Christian, I understand the idolatry and often times blasphemy of modern art. Much of it is garbage or not worth dwelling too much time in understanding it. I can appreciate modern art in that it is the expression of an individual who has been made by the Creator in His image. So the creative act itself is an expression of God's character and I can value that, but it basically stops there when it comes to a lot of modern art. The irony of this is that when an individual deliberately makes art to blaspheme God, they can't escape the fact that the mere making of it still glorifies the Creator because the Creator created them to create in the first place. Most modern artists completely miss this fact. When I look at modern art I think about this and the incredible patience and love of God.
Many Protestants, including many of us Calvinists, don't have a problem with images per se, just not in our places of worship to prevent their becoming objects of worship. We find the arguments of "absolutist iconoclasts" to be effectively denials of the incarnation. We never reads stories, including the gospel narratives without forming images in our minds of the people in the narratives.
Anyway, I for one argue the position that all art is iconic, which makes my fellow Calvinists bristle, especially the ones who really enjoy painters like Rembrandt.
I love your work.
Your points against abstraction run hollow to me. Christianity deals with many doctrines and concepts that elude our reason and exist far beyond the limits of our conscious reality. Angels I believe are a prime example of such “abstraction” in Christian ideals. Historically, images and descriptions of angels have always been fantastical, mind-boggling, and other-worldly mainly due to the fact that their existence is one that can only be understood from our perspective in the abstract.
I personally prefer traditional sacred art, but I disagree with your logic. I think the reason traditional art helps us feel the divine is do to the history and feeling connected to the centuries of saints that paved the way. Angels and saints and historical architecture act as a bridge to god.
But, I think we can agree on the idea that being in a building that looks like your average biz con center does not feel sacred.
Additionally, I am a pagan and I can tell you that my kind love catholic shops for Mary statues and other items that will represent our gods and goddesses. Mary has represented the mother goddess for centuries of colonized pagans. I understand what your saying about obscuring images, but from my perspective its not that simple.
In art over the last 200 years there's been a trend from portraying things as they are to absolute abstraction and uncoordinated splatters of paint. What we should do is put together classes that teach how to paint and draw with some realism and look back to the Renaissance as a guide.
I'm pretty sure you are alluding to contemporary art and not modern art. Modern art begins around the time of Monet and includes Picasso and Van Gogh, etc.. Contemporary art is more about abstraction. The irony here is that you paint abstraction as anathema to your god as if your god can be located or produced in a non-abstract dimension - when your god is wholly abstract because it doesn't exist and can't be pointed to in any tangible way. Maybe if you had less hair your brain might cool a little and begin to function.
I think it's important to distinguish between modernism and abstraction. Chagall and Matisse were both modernists and their contributions to church art are sublime. Check out the Rosary Chapel. Messiaen was a modernist composer but his music is profoundly contemplative and explicitly Catholic.
I always get something insightful out of your videos.
Brian, I love your videos. I just want to point out that the chapel you show at 1:25 is actually not the result of liturgical renovation but rather water damage. This is St. Turbius Chapel in the Pontifical College Joesphinum, and I have a friend who's going there as a seminarian. The beautiful chapel artwork was damaged by water in between it and the wall, and had to be removed. Fortunately, they restored the artwork only a few years ago, and now it looks just as it did in the before photo :)
I'm so sick of churches that look like commercial real estate
But didn’t the philosophical and intellectual movements that animated classic culture and art have a lot of pagan and secular tendencies? They did. And wasn’t the Renaissance a general reimagining of that classic culture and art? It was.
To say that communicative form, subject to the changing of everything, is only now intrinsically incompatible with sacred worship, and inferring that medieval art, developed much out of the necessity to communicate stories to an illiterate laity, is the only suitable means to that end, is akin to an application of that logic in any other discipline. It’s unnecessarily restrictive and clearly wrong.
I understand and sympathize with the impulse caused by the destruction of historic works of art, but a cumulative take on human history and even theological development will demonstrate a constant change in style and even substance, insofar as it harmonizes with dogma. This style change is, and always has been, influenced by virtually every aspect of civilization. The Church in turn sanctifies that style, if you will, and purposes it for appropriate use.
Modern and postmodern art is no more or less intrinsically anything than classic, medieval or renaissance art is. They all simply are; and I don’t think it “relativism” (which is the essence of what Pope Pius X really went after) or iconoclastic to argue for a nuanced take on this subject. That is, an appreciation and use of modern and postmodern art isn’t to say “well anything goes”.
Art is ultimately a communicative form, and I personally find some modern and postmodern art to be absolutely beautiful and capable of communicating a transcendent truth, oftentimes in a simple or peaceful manner that is utterly contrasted by the busyness of the secular things around it.
And to deduce modern art to abstraction and hold that abstract in opposition to revelation as a kind of greater theological point isss... idk man lol and believe me, I absolutely LOVE your work, but please consider my rebuttal above.
If you are going to make this argument at least use the proper terminology. What you are calling “modern art” is contemporary art. This video is primarily based on your personal taste in art. You admitted that you do not like “modern” art, therefore, you have a skewed opinion and a preconceived notion about its validity. Abstracted art makes (forces) the viewer to dive deeper into meaning, story, and context.
Devin Mitchell Exactly. There were a few pieces he showed I wasn’t particularly fond of just from an aesthetic take, but one of them was especially beautiful. (That neutral colored painting with Jesus preaching over the slightly blurred imagery.) Others, I think conveyed the souls reflection of the stories. Maybe that’s why there’s many turned off from them. Possibly not “Holy Spirit” led, but soul-led creations.
Excellent review brother! I don't know why or what put this on your heart to do now, but it's something that I wish God's churches would take to heart and seriously consider for themselves.
I recently relocated but before I did, I traveled my state for almost two years checking out different areas and the churches within them. I saw a lot of very strange and disturbing things when it came to artwork in our churches.
I even saw a bronze relief of Jesus behind the alter that made it look like He had a pointed tail. It was only after much closer inspection that I realized it was supposed to be the bottom of His robe.
Conflicting imagery like that is not something that any of us should be subjected to, especially highly impressionable children.
Thank you for the video. In Christ, Andrew
I sub to you mostly because I enjoy popping metaphysical balloons and watching nothing but hot air escape. Sometimes you do provoke a thought, and this is the case here. You say that religious art should be tethered to the true form because Biblical characters were real. The big problem with this thesis is that no one knows what they actually looked like Religious art always goes through various stylistic changes over time. What's interesting, is that one can usually tell who is being depicted. I'm not a fan of most modern art. It can be successful if it provokes interest, but at the heart of all art is that is reveals our humanity and our individuality. I think the fact that 20 different people will draw something 20 different ways is a beautiful thing. 20 different digital cameras will all come out pretty much the same.
Well said
More importantly, let's discuss postmodernism. It embraces incomplete asymmetry. It's a proponent of ontological ideology; the materialistic idea that things are to be accepted just as they appear.
We need new ways to make sure the Gospel is not stale or old-fashioned? Visiting the elderly, the ill, those without family; sitting next to those who are suffering and being with them, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, getting those without housing a place to live; looking at the morning dawn or unfolding flower bud or germinating seed and feeling peace and joy in the wonder of it... not putting ourselves first, not counting every last penny of cost, being kind to others, giving thanks for the miracles of God... THESE are integral parts to the Gospel, and even the parts of it that have existed from before the stone age aren't "stale" and never can be. Art can be abstract, but faith and the Gospel are specific and real... Good talk, thank you!
With a comment section like this and a video like this, it is obvious why so many artist feel that the Catholic church feels like a parent saying "I know what's best for you, do what I tell you" and not actually "tell me your experience, lend me your stories." It is tiring to make images of only white saints and privileged religious experiences.
yes, Brian likes telling people what to do and he is ALWAYS right. According to Brian at least
Idolatry can come in many forms.
The worship of immovable tradition is also a form of idolatry that Jesus Christ fought against. Follow the spirit and not the exclusive letter of the law (which was tradition).
Jesus, Paul and the Apostles defied the strict traditions of their age.
The Word is key.
There are many ways to demonstrate the beauty and truth of the Word, not just in the exclusivity of traditions.
Jesus synthesised tradition and the new. Do not forget that.
I'm not trying to speak authoritatively, butI think Jesus did the opposite of synthesis. He separated the man made traditions from the Word, and better explained the latter, showing the spirit of the word rather than simply the letter. He made statements like "You have heard... but I say..." and "Have you not read...?"
There are specific problems in strands of modern art, but as a category and undefined it's too broad to criticize as such. Especially because the problems with many schools under the "modern art" umbrella are the opposite of others: Abstract expressionism is too esoteric and cerebral, whereas pop art is too shallow and commercial. In many respects I admire the aesthetic traditionalist, because to me it is self-evident that the great works of the Renaissance and antiquity are more appealing than the status quo. Not that there haven't been great works of modernism: Even brutalist cathedrals, I believe, are part of a very specific historical circumstance which suits them perfectly. The brutalist Tokyo Cathedral is the perfect, stark, terrifying response to a nuclear age, but I wouldn't wish for it to become a new norm.
You also have to be conscious of the tackiness of being purely derivative of the past artistic traditions. Consider the art of the Soviet Union: While the West continued to innovate, for better or for worse, much of the art coming out of the U.S.S.R. was stuck in the stodgy traditionalism and sentimentalty of Soviet realism. Not that the West had it right either-untethered from the call of true beauty, they pursued only success within the art market. Great art can only be redeemed by a third way-neither capitalist nor Communist, neither restricted to the tyranny of the old ways nor the pretensions of the new.
There are some precedents for this in modernism which are worth considering. The modernist poets, T.S. Eliot and Ezra Pound, created astonishing works which were both innovative and held to strongly traditional notions of beauty and goodness. Recently I have been obsessed with Phillip Glass' soundtrack for Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters. It's not sophisticated like the great works of Bach, but it is genuinely beautiful and works within a distinctly modernist paradigm.
There is nothing tacky about the new art which is being placed in the reinstated churches in the former Soviet Union. It is solidly traditional and devotional.
"Mary was an actual person, who lived in an actual place, in an actual space in time. We can't make her in our own image"
This is a profound statement. The problem is most sacred art was painted during the Renaissance and she is always painted as a Renaissance Italian woman. While we all know she was a sementic woman, a descendent of the ancient Hebrews, a Jew. She never looks like this and neither does the Lord Jesus.
What is your take on this
Because ethnicity is an accidental property and does not effect our nature. Our Lady can indeed take an the appearance of Italian woman, as well as a Japanese woman, a Swedish woman, a French woman, or yes, a Mestiza Mexican woman like She did on Tepeyac Hill.
See the ikons made in the East
Yours is a clever objection. I would answer this way: since sacred History is History, that is it took place in a precise spot of space and time, art should convey this aspect in its representation. However, art by itself is not History, so that it hasn't the same strict rules of veridicity. Actually art has its own rules of communication and effectiveness. To convey the historical setting of sacred History, it is a legitimate artistic strategy to present it as contemporary to the spectator: presenting Jesus and Mary as I Century Jews would have had an exotic, distancing and unreal effect on a Renaissance man. On the contrary, presenting them as contemporaries stresses the reality and relevance of the Events portrayed, while at the same time making them more comprehensible and subtly highlighting their eternal value.
"Mary was an actual person,....We can't make her in our own image" I was reminded of a nativity play that some of my siblings were in. I was not able to say any positive thing about the play; they portrayed Mary as impatient and snarky and Joseph as bumbling along. They used modern stereotypes of clever woman stupid man to tell the story of the Holy Family. I am inclined to think this is more of a problem then modern clothes as such. I think we do have a bigger problem today with the modern clothes approach, simply because a lot of modern clothing is intrinsically immodest.
@@agentbflinn1222 Wow, disgusting...
It is worth pointing out that, while Our Lady is often depicted as wearing queenly clothes, She is still, with a few exceptions often depicted wearing the same middle-eastern style clothing, namely a gown and mantle, or cape and head-covering; very rarely do we see Our Lady depicted wearing European style clothing in Traditional Catholic art.
Check out Jonathan Pageau he talks about a lot this stuff In great detail
Based on your idea that religious figures should always be portayed accurately, pretty much all of western religious art is wrong.
Almost all christian art portays the biblical characters as white, and often clad in beautiful and expensive looking clothes, even though Jesus and his family were poor palestinians.
If we should always portray saintly figures accurately, instead of in our own image or how we’d like them to be, modern art is the least of your worries.
The depiction of the Saints in beautiful and luxurious clothing, is meant to emphasize that they are in Heaven and enjoying the Eternal rewards of Heaven; and for Jesus and Mary in particular, it is meant to emphasize that They are King of Kings and Queen of Queens respectively.
In regards to biblical characters' ethnicities, Catholic philosophy teaches that ethnicity is an accidental property and doesn't effect a human person's nature, all human beings are equal in nature, regardless of their ethnicity; this why in Marian apparitions, Our Lady will sometimes appear in a different ethnicity, such as Hispanic, African, and yes, Caucasian, Her Immaculate Human nature is always the same and is not effected by Her ethnicity.
You are referring to the art of the Western church since the middle ages. Greek, Coptic and Ethiopian depictions do not show them as you describe.
I was a silversmith for over 30 years … and looking back I can honestly say the more and more I got into the art world the further I got from Christ .. I got MS and I had to give it up… what seemed like my world falling apart , actually brought me closer to the Lord. I’m no longer me the silversmith, I’m just a simple child of God. God really does work in the most mysterious ways. The art world steeped in paganism.
I love the old art, the sculptures and gorgeous cathedrals. I miss that in today's society. Those churches set it apart from other buildings and you knew what they were. This past Christmas I had agreed to attend a church service with my nephew. I drove past the church 4 times thinking it was a factory. Finally, seeing lots of cars, I turned in and it was indeed a church. That looked like a factory. One thing I am concerned with is like media art....for example The Chosen. The man who portrays Jesus is Jonathan Roumie. And it troubles him so much that people come up to him and ask him to heal them. He is constantly telling people, I portray Jesus. I'm NOT Jesus. Would this be considered idolatry? To look at another human being and consider them Jesus to the point of asking him to heal them? Some of them say, when I close my eyes and pray, I picture him in my mind. To me this is very troubling.
Having abandoned organized religion about half a century ago, the closest I have come to seeing any value might be in the Gnostic tenets, seeking godliness as an aspirational goal within each of us individually. Overtly denominational "Art" to me is often worse than intentionally vulgar or ugly Modern works, because such efforts are intentionally manipulative, for some purpose purveyors mistake for "holy." Art can elevate and edify, without pontificating or preaching in a patronizing manner. It can communicate on emotional levels without words, in either lofty or mundane ways, and can also be as petty, immature, and insulting as the person who created it.
Well said. Keep up the good work.
Thank you for covering this topic- it's an important one. I'd like to respond with some counterpoints if anyone is interested in further discussion. I apologize in advance for my long-windedness and hope that my words convey respect and charity, not malice.
Firstly, I will concede that the spirit behind much of modern art was largely agnostic with some atheism mixed in as well. But this is largely the case with the entire history of art- even with the artists that painted beautiful sacred imagery. Most of our most cherished artworks likely came from soft deists at best (albeit ones more steeped in Christian tradition, certainly.)
Secondly, regarding the role of an artist- I agree wholeheartedly that an artist should render what is invisible visible through an act of revealing. I don't think any artist would have a problem with this definition- including the major artists behind what we consider to be the Modern Art movement. On the agnostic side of things, Malevich and many of his contemporaries thought that through reduction of form, they could peer behind the veil and capture some sort of divine truth no one had quite been able to render fully before using crude pictorial analogs from the real world alone (crude in relation to the holy, infiniteness of the divine.) On the atheistic side, most chose to see the movement more as an exercise in trial and experiment- with the goal being to draw renewed interest/attention to the actual "making" process of art rather than just the end result. This was a response to, for example, hundreds of years of boilerplate (albeit very technically well-executed) landscapes and portraits. In both cases, there was a sense of "dead end" that was being responded to in hopes of enlivening and refreshing creative possibilities. Every movement in art history does this- Caravaggio's work was seen as scandalous in his time, for example- something we often forget to consider...
Now, how one should go about rendering the invisible visible is the real question at hand. The crux of your argument, in my understanding, lies in an appeal to Christ's incarnation and a brief nod to some of the imagery on the ark of the covenant. Clearly, there is great value in representing the natural world in art as a way of revealing, but while we do see very representational imagery in things like the instructions for the ark of the covenant, we also see, for example, in the instructions for the priestly vestments, directives to render imaginary fruit and colored gems in alternating patterns. Clearly, God has an understanding and appreciation for abstraction if he felt it was enough to use symbolism and imaginary imagery so liberally. Of course, pomegranates and gems are naturally occurring things, but blue pomegranates aren't, and gems arranged in alternating patterns are not a naturally occurring phenomenon either. Even the way God speaks repeatedly about the color choice of the yarns speaks volumes to his intent. Are they Rothko colorfields? no, but they do seem to have been imbued or acknowledged as having some sort of intrinsic, symbolic meaning and value in and of themselves even before they're woven together with the embroidered elements. I bring attention to these things because it's a wonderful example of how limited and narrow our conception of "abstraction" is at times- largely because we associate "abstraction" with very specific examples in our mind of abstract geometric art from the modernist movement. Simply put, abstraction in art is simply the act of taking creative license with reality- it acknowledges and references that reality, while also subverting or changing its context in order to communicate something. Even the act of framing/cropping part of a landscape photograph "abstracts" the reality of the scene as it would have been viewed in its original context.
Yes, Jesus came down in the flesh- but we do ourselves a great injustice if we pretend that removed all the mystery from the equation. Even his disciples, who spent the most time with him, were often confused by what to think about him and the implications of his incarnation. The early church had many a debate on the matter as well. The fact is, God has revealed much of himself in physical, tangible ways- but he has also done so in more mysterious, intangible ways such as the written word and visions. In some areas, he's even chosen to reveal very little to anything (and even if he did reveal them, our human limitations would likely make us unable to fully grasp them in any meaningful way.) Faith is mysterious- the incarnation and resurrection even more so. We create a false sense of certitude (at best) and a lack of need for true faith (at worst) if we gloss over a reality that is both colored with clear truths and also still left open to the imagination in many respects. The Israelites sure knew a thing or two about that...
So then what does that mean for the artist? I think it means that there is room for both approaches depending on the goal of the artwork. How could one possibly representationally paint a concept/truth like The Trinity? Even a cursory understanding of semiotics will show that assigning theological words to divine mysteries isn't the same thing as fully capturing/understanding it. In reality, no words or even images can ever fully capture *anything.* That's why there is always a need and impetus for the artist to keep creating new representations of old ideas and truths. Sometimes, a wonderful visual analogy using only what can be found in nature might be just the right thing to communicate something. Other times, it might woefully fall short of the real grandeur being tackled unless some additional artistic license is used. Abstraction is not foreign to God- it is a necessary truth of him that we wrestle with every time we read a theological treatise or fumble to understand what words to pray. Christ was both fully man (like us and our physical reality) and fully God (not like us and outside of our reality.)
To say nothing of the fact that art can also be made to respond to other art- a conversation of sorts, in which the subject is less about conveying a particular message and more about being a "proof of concept" that something perhaps can and/or should be tried differently or seen through a different lens; much like a philosopher or writer might hope to do in their particular sphere of academia. This is more meta in scope, but still of great importance- as the larger art world always needs critique/feedback from within its own community to stay honest and salient.
I think we have a great tendency to create strawmen for what "abstraction" in art really is, while also weaponizing our own narrow or not-fully fleshed-out theological ideas against it. Why do we do this? Probably for many different reasons. It could be that we simply fear what we have a hard time understanding or assigning tidy rational explanations to (and truly "abstract" art often tries to confront us with this reality.) It could be a knee-jerk reaction to the perceived rise of humanism (though truthfully humanism has always been present in large quantities throughout the history of art.) It could even just be an understandable reaction to the ludicrous monetization of the high-end art world (because it certainly seems quite silly to attach such a large price tag to something that seems to have been so easily or lazily made, one might argue.) In any of these cases though, I think we should exhibit more caution than we do in how speak about the arts. God has given artists a great canvas with which to paint- and if the sublime "otherness" and sheer variety of creation doesn't demonstrate God's desire to create boldly and in countless different ways, then I don't know what does. We would be wise to have a more open mind around the wonders of possibility; the possibility to be confused, challenged, astonished, and ultimately- to be made new, day by day, until the day finally comes when we "see face to face."
As a lifelong Protestant, I always saw religious artwork as a vane waste of money. I have been blessed to live in Europe for the last several years and have been exposed to the very best religious artwork and architecture. I now understand how art can be that bridge to the divine. However it saddens me to go into a beautiful medieval church only to find the inside redesigned in a modern style and with modern artwork.
Excellent!
Thank you for making this video, very well spoken. Everything you said made sense until you spoke on Mary and not depicting her in our image. She logically wouldn’t have been fair skinned, nor Jesus as depicted in many religious artworks. So is this not considered idolatry?
God bless 🙏🏾
One main element of traditional art was that it was a Marraige of multi facetted spiritual values & Art. Whereas modernist art is limited to its visual appeal & physical worldly existence.
Calvinists Be Like: That’s ironic coming from a Catholic!
The "sacred" modern art is horrible.
I think the biggest issue with Christian art as a whole is the fact that it reduces holy scripture and the perfect nature of God into a series of concrete images, films, etc. Thats not to say this is a zero-sum arguement because the examples you gave with the Tabernacle and the Ark certainly dont apply to my claim due to the fact that these were God breathed and thats made very clear in the Bible. All im saying is, who are we to determine the visual nature of God and his works wheather it be through classical or modern art. I believe it is possible to worship God through ones art, I just think it needs to be approached with far more nuance and deliberation. Deliberate expression that seeks to instruct and glorify, not to reduce and mystify or to turn into some sort of visual interpretation.
I thought it was just me...... I can't stand modern art AT ALL!!! I don't understand it, it looks like garbage to me
I love the reverence that Catholic churches inspire. That everything is crafted with care and that the building itself is meant to bring the church together in submission to God. I wonder though how you feel about the book of revelation and the prophetic books before Jesus's incarnation. Those do point to meaning, but they're often done so poetically. Its not a simple story or telling. Its often obfuscated. Is this, in your view, only appropriate for inspired works of prophecy? If I wanted to write a poem that touched on God's mystery and relayed the awe I feel, that might also be unclear to others who weren't prepared to interpret it. Is art always meant to be interpreted to be valid? Thanks ♡ - Kira
But we don’t live by the law we live under a new covenant of the spirit. So the graven image law and Idolatry things truly are irrelevant. We have no law to break, we please god by putting faith in Jesus, producing fruit of the spirit, & loving each other. We don’t have to obey the mosaic law and when we are trying to keep the law to please God we’ve lost sight of grace and Jesus’s death and resurrection. So now you’ve stepped away from Grace when trying to keep the mosaic law.
Whats happens if you have mini statues etc but you don't worship them? What I mean is I have Buddha statues given as gifts, I don't worship them, there chunks of stone, I believe in God and have been moving toward Jesus for awhile being a recovering addict. I know I'm not homeless using drugs because of God, no doubt about that. But I got a tranquil thing going in place, I love history and have lots of different stuff around but when I pray I'm on my knees, eyes closed 🙏♥ mind ,body,soul towards God, in Jesus name. My life, my experience of it has changed drastically and I have got this feeling of well being I never had as I have gotten closer to God(reading daily,videos like your,conversation in the last 16 months) and made time in my life to help others. I'm just confused as to how having chunks of rock, fabric on the walls etc is bad if I'm not worshipping them? They look cool, like a vase might look for someone or an acorn collection for another. Thanks I love your videos, or to anyone else who may respond.
The problem I have with this take, is that the only distinction in art you make is “modernist” and everything else that came before. I see no consideration for the extremely nuanced artistic conventions and arguments that have happened since the crucifixion. I get that you don’t like it. But even some of the artworks you use as examples of ugly modern art have extremely spiritually sound and relevant doctrine. The idea that art should be exclusively of the sublime is no longer held because the global art conversation has discussed the overt sanitization of the Catholic Church. I would have more appreciation for your stance if you claimed that no images of holy figures should be made. We have no idea what Jesus looked like yet we represent him in every single artwork sanctioned by the Catholic Church.
From a biblical stance, I think every piece of art whether modern, abstract, classic, traditional, etc. is an expression of the self. A form of worship. Thus being said, if the self is one with God AND the expression is led by the Holy Spirit - it WILL in SOME way shape or form reflect love, peace, joy, chastity, long-suffering, kindness and/or self-control. If not, it will still be an expression of the self (or soul)... and depending on that, our own souls in conjunction with the Holy Spirit’s leading will discern if it an expression of God or not. To whom the photo worships (God or not) is dependent on discernment.
... and then there was Caravaggio, the zenith of representational art, who painted marvelous works of St Paul, John the Baptist, St Matthew and even the Resurrected Christ in “The Supper at Emmaus”. Many of Caravaggio’s great works hang in Catholic Churches yet Caravaggio murdered a man. I think this discussion is more nuanced than representational art good, abstract art/modern art bad. Look at photos of nebulas is space and tell me God doesn’t dabble in abstraction. They are absolutely stunning and they speak of the creatively, intelligence and beauty of God.
And you may not be saying that there are no merits to modern art, but I AM saying that there are no merits to modern art. It's disgusting and depraved and should be treated as such. I think modern Christians take the whole "do not judge lest ye be judged" WAY too far, we absolutely SHOULD judge, we just shouldn't judge the souls of people, only their actions. Judgement in fact is required of us, otherwise we cannot steer away from unholy garbage. If we do not judge idolatry, how can we keep away from it? If we do not judge depravity, how can we keep away from it?
Islam says Christianity is idolatrous because of its art - even the baroque art presented in this video - which depicts graven images. To them, there is no difference in the moral depravity inherent in baroque and modern art. That extremism, and the extremism presented in this video, has historical context. Turns out a lot of Catholic theology is a product of its time. A female deity is demanded by people who need to be converted? Mary is made available. Polytheism is a thing in a big population to be brought into the fold? Presto! We now have a triune god! Let’s not be so intellectually certain about things that are based in faith. Theological ambiguity in an ever-changing world is why Jesus gave one commandment.
I want to start this off saying I don't really care for modern art either, especially when it comes to churches and cathedrals. This is just my point on the validity of artform in the nonmaterial sphere.
While modern art may have begun in the rejection of the "old," I do feel that it does have merit in capturing abstract thoughts and emotions that cannot be perfectly expressed through material imagery, in the same way that words are valid for some instances of communication while imagery is better in other. For example, the depictions of hell in religious art are still valid religious arts, but they tend to revel in the foreign and uncomfortable. Perhaps modern art isn't meant for a church setting, but I do believe that it is a powerful tool for connecting to other humans regardless of faith. And when you can connect to a nonbeliever, you can also show them why you believe ie JRR Tolkien and CS Lewis
Oh. Okay. You mean in the context of religion and worship. Yeah. Makes sense.
Sorry Brian, you can't make artistic development conform to your conservative, linear preferences. Sometimes art bursts out of that stiffling model. It just does. Arguably the fruit of that process is, to a greater extent, forgettable, but the process will continue and occasionally new, vibrant and enduring art forms will emerge. Art producers and art consumers respond to their time and place. All art is capable of becoming idolotry.
Great art 'breaks through' the boundaries and this is as much a part of the tradition as conformity. To deny this is a form of idolatry which makes static 'tradition' a god.
Great art challenges us even when (especially when) we don't like it. Deo Gratias!
Yes, we must pray! BUT WE MUST ALSO SEEK THE TRUTH and pray for the evil doers, for their conversion. See who the evil doers are. Watch a great film for free at (close the gaps) c o m m u ni s m by t h e ba c k door. tv . In convenient 15 minute chapters.
For those of you bringing up images of Our Lady depicted as a European woman in luxurious clothes, here's my response to that:
Catholic philosophy teaches that ethnicity is an accidental property and does not effect our human nature, everyone is equally human in nature, regardless of their ethnicity. Thus Our Lady is always the same Immaculately Conceived New Eve, regardless of whether She is depicted, or actually appears in an apparition as an African woman, a Mexican Mestiza woman, or yes, a blonde-hair blue-eyed Northern European woman.
In regards to depictions of Our Lady in richly-dressed clothes, these are simply meant to show that Our Lady is Queen of All Creation; but more importantly, one should notice that Our Lady almost always appears depicted with the same style of clothes, namely a gown, and a mantle, or cape and head-covering. These clothes, especially the mantle or head-covering, aren't European-style clothing, they're Middle-Eastern-style clothing; yes European queens and noble women wore head-coverings, but they were quite different in style from the ones Our Lady is depicted as wearing. I cannot recall anywhere, any depiction of Our Lady depicted as a European Queen, the only time I can recall Our Lady appearing in any European garb is the apparition of Our Lady of La Salette where she appears as a French Shepherdess.
Interesting video. I do not completely agree that abstraction is opposed to the goal of religious art. There are many more abstract representations of Christ, which remain impactful emotionally, in a manner which is seems quite conducive to inspiring prayer, etc. I have also seen traditional art that is quite bad, and uninspiring, or is realistic, but rather mundane.
The problem is that instances of modern art have rarely been Christianized in and of themselves. Rather, the Christian aspect of attempts at Christian modern Art have usually been allusions to previous Christianized arts. The fad of abstract stained glass, for instance, depends entirely upon its allusion to the explicitly Christian stained glass of tradition. Without that allusion to the explicitly Christian, there would be nothing Christian about abstract stained glass. It would just be random patterns of colorful glass.
What do you think of the Dominican chapel designed by Matisse ? It is modern and yet very warm and inviting , to the faithful inChrist.
Modern art, including modern Catholic and Protestant art, is by and large inspired by Talmudic Judaism, which involves rejection of not only Christ but of Logos in all its manifestations: order, reason, truth, beauty, the moral order. Judaizing involves more than just religious heresy, it includes hostility to what is true, good, and beautiful.
Great ideas here. But I am curious. Since you seemed to be well-educated, and even know about St. Pius X, how is it that you do not know that the See of Peter cannot be occupied by a heretic? And since there have been heretics there since John XXIII, it had been sedevacante for near seventy years.
I agree with the basic conclusions of Brian Holdsworth in this video, but I don't agree that "idolatry" is the full issue with art, music, and everything related. One of the strongest arguments for God in my own life (not THE strongest), is that it seems easy to see the constant battle, currently and throughout history, between ETERNAL values (God), and NO values (modernity, existentialism, subjectivity, self worship). In art, as well as music, the great creators of the past (and present) connected with eternal values in beauty, color theory, musical harmony, commitment to the development of a high level skill, symbolic presentation, and a deep need to create art, often for no worldly reason except the deep need. Whether a painting of Christ is depicted, or a self portrait, I believe the long devotion to eternal values in art is inherently Godly, and does not represent idolatry. On the other hand, modern art seems deliberately designed to reject eternal values and embrace NO values. Low skill levels are celebrated, atonal music, art without subtlety or nuance, a rejection of beauty, indecipherable and nonexistent symbolism, and empty, almost apathetic representation. I believe the rejection of eternal values is so deliberate in modern art, that the MORE modern art rejects any eternal values, the MORE it is celebrated in a worldly way, especially within the exclusive art "community". The obvious and omnipresent struggle between eternal values and no values indicates that some people seem highly motivated to reject Godly values, which is difficult to explain in itself, and it makes me think about God a lot.
Imagine if Jesus in stained glass windows/European paintings etc was always depicted as swarthy, with black hair and brown eyes, and wearing a yarmulke and with peyote (long locks in front of the ears) and wearing a tallit. I have never seen a picture of Jesus that even remotely looks like how he'd have actually looked. Even in Jerusalem, he, and John The Baptist etc. are depicted as Nordic looking with bright blond hair.
All Christians Catholic or Protestant should know enough about their religion , it’s historical context, the meaning of the Incarnation by 18-25 or so. Based on this and one’s own life experience, a resilience and a wisdom is gained to overcome and understand any artistic or cultural oddity in the religious sphere. If not, then it’s just too bad... some folks will always hostile or dumb as brick about anything.
I don't agree with you on Christianity and religion in general, but I think what you said about conserving the old art styles when it comes to worship is paramount. Because corrupting religious art is like corrupting scripture, and one day might come when the myth has accrued enough mutations that any remote resemblance to the original is lost and thus the "word of god" is lost. Religion draws its power from past events so authenticity should be prioritized, and mutations should occur naturally and incrementally if at all, not be enforced by art enthusiasts. Even as an atheist I recognize the importance of religion in staying impartial and unbiased no matter the circumstances(I was disappointed when the pope started acknowledging lgbt rights, he is a clergy man not a politician), so that when the time comes and all beauty is lost, only religion may put us back on the right path, a reset to something we know it works, a backup system.
So many ugly building churches and funky art styles for school houses. Just horrible! Never have liked modern art it is just ugly.
God has always sought to make Himself accessible. In Eden, He walked in the garden and clearly expressed Himself in what had been made (Paul's argument in Romans 1). In Israel, He does something similar but more explicit (regarding His redemptive nature) in the adorning of the tabernacle and the temple, and, ultimately, He does so in the Incarnation and then amongst the church, so the richness of what is good can clearly be expressed in art, if it is helping to point to the panentheistic truth evidenced throughout His work amongst us.
"Art" is a big subject. "Modern art" is a smaller subject, but still large. What art is useful in church is another large subject. "Abstract art" is another big subject. Mr. Holdsworth's video has some good observations, but he barely acknowledges the enormity of the subjects he is addressing. He speaks against modern art, especially abstract act, as not being proper in church, but this is a huge assumption based on the thinnest understanding of these subject, at least as revealed by this video. The Cathedral in Los Angeles is a modern church whose walls are adorned with tapestries of the saints. These are modern works done in a modern style, showing the procession of saints throughout time. They are an imaginative addition to that church. They are an outstanding addition to that space. I would encourage Mr. Holdsworth to have a look at them to see modern art at home in a modern church.
The awa Church Art is to give praise to God through Jesus Christ.
If one puts up Church Art in a mall and the public does not recognize as such, to give praise to God through Jesus Christ.
It just bleeds Christianity from its meaning and traditions.
Modern art is the embodiment of narcissism.
I I was raised in the Baptist church. And though our opinions may differ on iconography, I've never before heard such an intelligently reasoned case.
relax people, he is not talking about modern art in general here, he is talking about modern abstract art creeping in our Faith..something that was not acceptable for 2000 years somehow we accept today...lets wake up. no generation is entitled to be somekind of gamechanger in Catholicism..thnx Brian
Although I am quite a fan of all types of art and its "prophets", such as Michelangelo or Roden, I would disagree with his contention of modern art being incompatible with the religious world. Since both religion and modern art are driven by the same idea of subsisting on the bear minimum to survive, thus liberating the soul from all that is regarded as materialistic or decorative details.