… somewhere in Heaven Baby Jesus is weeping.
Hat Tip: Clayton Emmer.
I just can’t appreciate this. It makes me depressed about the direction of art – even as the Church is concerned. I’m pretty sure Lady Gaga beat this guy to the punch anyway.
I’m pretty sure that is a Bizarro World nativity brought to our world by Bizarro Superman.
….it’s kinda pretty, but not in any way I’d EVER consider religious.
Somebody needs a a** whippin’ for that.
The worst stink I have ever encountered is that of dead Japanese beetles (we had an infestation here this summer). This is worse.
I’m not an art critic, so I can’t say if it is hideous or not. Only one question: How am I supposed to use this to explain or convey any of the Catholic Mysteries?
Exactly, Adam! My column this Friday discusses this more in depth.
Yes. All religious art must be an apologetic tool or its a failure.
Just as I have always suspected. The cathedral in Los Angeles has been assimilated into the Borg.
I confess that I find the comments by the “Cathedral Pastor” more revolting than this piece of avant grade trash.
Sigh…. spell check needs to be upgraded to include French! Of course I typed “avant garde trash” before my iMac decided to “correct” me. Happy Advent everyone.
This is such a beautiful piece though. When you engage your full knowledge of the scriptures, with just a small bit of information from the artist, you have a view of the whole life of Christ.
Iconography was used, traditionally, to tell a story to illiterate masses. In the middle ages your typical church goer was illiterate, unable to read the scriptures or engage with them. The art built an understanding of the scripture that could not otherwise be gained. Today that is not the case. Modern art is built on that premise, that the viewer is literate and able to engage in a questioning manner.
All of this to say, though modern art is limited as a piece by itself, all you have to do is say: “This is a Nativity” and I understand the full implications of it. Modern art is not designed to tell a story, it is designed to connect us with the artist.
And isn’t that the real goal of the scriptures?
No. Your mistaken. Your projecting presumptions onto an object, nothing more.
And now Thomas, the illiterate masses are getting their revenge, read the comments.
Thank you, Vatican II! Thank you, Cardinal Mahoney! Thank you, Church of the Novus Ordo!
I can see a bunch of pant suit wearing Sisters of Saint Joseph swooning over this thing. Ditto for the Oatmeal Cookie Womenpriest crowd and Hans Kung, of course. “We must become more Protestant-friendly, my children, we must see the light of traditional iconography in the barest of images. Yes, yes my children.” Etc. Thank you, Vatican II.
The first creche of St. Francis establishes the childish and naif quality essential to the very idea. Abstraction (which in itself is the opposite of incarnation!) is sophistication and pride, the primacy of purely human ‘mind’ over God’s world. It is glorification of the ‘artist’ as Promethean uber-mensch.
Eh..correct, except instead of “sophistication” it should be [artistic] “sophistry”. “Sophistication” implies a nobility of an effort, and I see none. ..Pupil ‘poetcomic1’, you get A-
This looks like someone left a CD in a microwave. The Churches of days gone by had stain glass with not a word on it and one could look at it and understand what is was saying. Like the Nativity of Our Lord that St. Francis started all those years ago. This work of are is Sickening!
At a dinner party where Mary McCarthy was cooing about the “beautiful symbolism” of the Eucharist, O’Connor famously retorted, “Well, if it’s a symbol, to hell with it.” This ‘artwork’ degrades the Incarnation to a sophisticated and ‘adult’ sophistication and symbolism. There is no manger-sepulcher, no child, no Mary, no nothin’ except a warm sentimental glow in a geometric shell that glorifies the blind and inhuman chemical process of crystal-formation. It is literally a ‘heart of stone’.