Comments on: Infrequently Asked Questions

By: Rachelle

Rachelle — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 21:02:50 +0000

I attended the last Biennale after a 2 month tour of Italy and Sicily. After viewing a Pieta made of crash-test dummies, and a chapel buried in dirt, I noted how far contemporary art was from the divinization of man so evident in Churches such as Santa Maria del Populo in Rome. That religion is a pervasive theme in the Biennale is a given—but such a bleak, despairing, post-modern view.

It did rinse out the eye from too much baroque— enough to make one long for it again.

So, yes, there is definitely a place for the Church in the Biennale, if only to present a vision of hope, of love, of transcendence, of beauty, of what is good, to counter the bleak religion-in-decadence POV there already. The contrast, in modern idiom, would be well worth the effort.

By: Douglas Johnson

Douglas Johnson — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 10:49:18 +0000

“Looking for famous people” does sound bad. I wish it meant that the cardinal wants to evangelize the famous into repentance, but that doesn’t sound like what he has in mind. It sounds like “please, make the church more like you.”

By: Patrick

Patrick — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 01:08:16 +0000

Jessica, raising questions about what art can be and challenging people’s conceptions of that is sometimes interesting, I suppose. However, it seems like it could distract from actually making and appreciating art. While we shouldn’t naively assume that we know what art is, on the other hand, professional artists should at some point figure it out, don’t you think? Does thinking about what art is or could be have intrinsic value, or should people who want to call themselves artists eventually just get on with it and make some art? Is it wrong just to enjoy an artwork, without being “challenged” by it?

More to the point of this post, is there an evangelical purpose to be served by discussing the ontology of art? It does not even rise to the level of aesthetics because of course we can no longer talk about “good” or “bad” art, since we can not even finally answer the question, “what is art?”

By: Maureen Mullarkey

Maureen Mullarkey — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 20:57:30 +0000

Looking for world famous people indicates a susceptibility to brands, brand names, that
does, indeed, not bode well. It signals an institutional arrogance rather than an informed sensibility.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 20:24:35 +0000

While on the one hand I try to keep in mind that Jesus ate and drank with sinners and tax collectors, on the other hand we are reminded to be not only as innocent as doves but as cunning as serpents, as well, so the idea of “dialogue” with the art world does appear to be something of a dubious plan. In particular, the search for “world famous people” rather than artistically skilled and religiously devout people, does not bode well, although perhaps that’s reading too much into the cardinal’s words.

I suppose it’s possible for something like this to be successful, yet I find it difficult to envision how artists who have heretofore produced vapid, Dadaistic garbage are going to be brought to “our side,” as the cardinal hopes.

By: Maureen Mullarkey

Maureen Mullarkey — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 18:17:27 +0000

I think you just made my point for me, Jessica.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 18:11:28 +0000

The global art world is indeed a sad and despairing picture of commercialism, pretentiousness and vulgarity. Yet, we ought to avoid dismissing wholesale every work of art that hones certain “contemporary” attributes. The art of William Congdon is evidence that a genuine dialogue between sacred and contemporary secular art is possible. I trust, or at least hope, that this sort of dialogue, manifested in William Congdon’s later work, is what Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi had in mind.

Of course, William Congdon is no longer a contemporary in the art world and his art is considered irrelevant to “cultured” sensibilities. Indeed, the art world’s trivialization and ignorance of his work began while he was still their contemporary–his paintings remained stored away in the Met’s basement after his conversion.

During his consecration of the Antoni Gaudi designed Cathedral of the Sagrada Familia, Pope Benedict XVI called the split between Faith and life, the sacred and secular, Christ and culture, the great travail of our time. I trust that Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi is sincerely interested in bridging this split in a genuine dialogue. Yet, I hope that he is clear-sighted to recognize that the contemporary-art world is largely constituted by hollow deconstructionists rather than truly human builders as Gaudi and Congdon.

By: Jessica Ziakin Cook

Jessica Ziakin Cook — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 17:40:18 +0000

Although I am intrigued by what you outline as Contemporary Art’s development as a brand, and I do not argue about Saatchi’s influence or the unprecedented amounts of money in the global art market, I must take issue with your definition of Contemporary Art. Contemporary Art is not simply the art of our contemporaries. If this were true, the category would include many landscape painters, portraitists, and wanna-be Abstract Expressionists, which it doesn’t. Art that ‘makes the cut,’ if you will, as Contemporary Art raises questions about what art can be and draws viewer’s attention to their own assumptions about life and art.