I came across this quote by our recently deceased Pope John Paul II writing in 1999



There are several things I like:

1. Purpose: In order to communicate the message entrusted to her by Christ, the Church needs art.
2. Method: Art makes perceptible, and as far as possible attractive, the world of the spirit, of the invisible of God.
3. Translate: Art must therefore translate into meaningful term that which is itself ineffable.
4. Capacity: Art has a unique capacity to take one or other facet of the message and translate it into colours, shapes and sounds which NOURISH THE INTUITION [I love that phrase] of those who look or listen
5. Limitation: Art does so without emptying the message itself of its transcendent value and its aura of mystery.

I read from this that art is a NECESSARY part of the church if we are to communicate the message. I also read that art has boundaries to its methods – that it cannot empty itself of its transcendent value or aura of mystery. This is where many discussions could be held. What exactly does it look like when a work of art “empties itself of its transcendent value?” Perhaps that is the best definition of “pornography” of whatever sort – sexual, emotional, relational, political, etc.

Denny

Fascinating. Truly.

What's interesting is that this is what I've personally been trying to do with my own artwork — as I've had the rare opportunity — since graduating in '01. In my own words (and this isn't exactly what the Pope was driving at, but nearly), I was trying to put into a physical form (via painting or sculpture) the invisible, particularly certain character traits of God (such as holiness) and certain aspects of our relationship with God (such as praise). These ideas don't really have palpable presence in the physical realm, yet have a lot of influence. You could do the same thing with with ideas not explicity Xian as well, such as justice.

Thanks for sharing. I'm going to add that to my collection . . .

I went to your website and found your sculptures fascinating. I think it is a helpful thing to try to portray character traits in any art form - but your freestyle of sculpting would be the most difficult - and in that way you keep the Pope's call to not empty the art from its "aura of mystery."

Denny

I have not read the whole article, but I do find potential concern on a couple of points and wouldn't mind other's personal perspectives until I get an opportunity to read the whole thing for myself.

First is the whole point of "Purpose". Is he asking art/artists to help in communicating, but not neessarily saying art _must_ do this? I feel this sounds like crossing over into the propoganda aspects of art. One of my gripes with some of the church today is that they say they embrace the arts/artists, but they really only mean in as much as they can add their skills to either the service or as an evangelistic/religious tool.



Or even kitsch, which seems to pervade much of the church (and culture) today.

Joe Futral

Had a similar thought, as I recall, when I read it. But for some reason it didn't in the end come across that way to me. I'll have to think on it.



Thanks for looking at my stuff. You can see some more of it at www.MissionaryArts.com (artist Paul Nielsen). I actually feel as though most of what I've done lately, what is on my website and MArts.com, are only fledgling examples of what I described. Partly, I'm switching mediums (not necessarily by choice) from clay to wood (although always, still, "mixed media") and I'm also lacking some necessary tools to actually make what's in my head and sketchbook.

Ascension I may be the best example of where I'd like to go. But it's still a little bit too stiff, not organic enough, compared to where I'd like to go.

but what's wrong with propaganda (information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause or Propaganda is a specific type of message presentation aimed at serving an agenda. At its root, the denotation of propaganda is 'to propagate (actively spread) a philosophy or point of view' or Any ...ext which seeks openly to persuade an audience of the validity of particular beliefs or whatever)? are we not trying to convince someone of a message?

what i have a problem with is the heavy-handed and simplistic and flat presentations of any message, including that of christ. then again, i think art's purpose is to communicate something. and this is to distinguish it from simply expressing (which is not the same thing) oneself, which is think is more therapy than art.

i once attended an arts in healthcare conference and one of the fascinating things was the very clear point (made repeatedly in a number of seminars) that art as therapy and the therapeutic effects of art were two very different things. in some ways i would say that the ideas of art as communication (or, better, communion a la eugene peterson) and art as self-expression are two very different things.

anyway, getting back to the original post, i'm still trying to figure out what What exactly does it look like when a work of art “empties itself of its transcendent value?” means...

it connects in some ways to another post by chashab on the sublime (transcendent?) in art. what does that mean? what may it contain/ involve? what will it address? what is its purpose?

I think the concern is taking this to an extreme, and ending up with something that is just trying to be pious. Francis Schaeffer called this "reducing art to a tract," which is more or less what most Christians have done, at least in America.

Art has always had social and political implicationsa and agendas, although it doesn't have to have these to be art. Modern artists, aspiring to "art for art's sake" or some other self-centered, artist-is-genius ideal will probably scoff at the idea of intentionally making art as propoganda, only as propoganda. I don't agree with the above ideals, but if a person's intent is just to convey information to further a cause I'm not sure, off hand, if I like that idea either.

Yes, that is what caught my mind and why I posted this. It sounds so impressive but what does it mean?

If we reverse it we could say that art which is "full of descendent" values lowers us into a subhuman place - and art that is "transcendent" lifts us into a truly human place - image of God place - where we are better for having engaged the art.

But I know that many artists see art as the question and we have to bring our own answers to the experience. I disagree with that, similar to what Techne was saying. I think art can also pose answers. How it does that while keeping the mystery which invites participation is the "art-form."

Denny

Hmm, great thoughts. I'm on my way out the door for vacation, so I may or may not be able to reply in the next week.

I particularly like your second paragraph though Denny, the subhuman/truly human bit . . . have to think on that some more.

Before you brush me or my post off too lightly, understand I think my question is very relevant. If one is only looking to create propaganda that communicates one thing, then that is not art that is transcendent. Kitsch is not transcendent. It is about one thing and one thing only. Art encumbered as a tool to communicate only one message or agenda, no matter how valuable that message, is not art. It may be artfully or skillfully done, but it ain't art.

As I think about it, this point is actually the counter to my concern. I think he is asking for art that does not simply provide a visual image to the scriptures. There is so much kitsch (or art that is expected and expecting to communicate only one message) in the Church, and culture at large, that subtexts and underlying ideas in art are not the standard. There is no requirement to think about what is being communicated because the picture tells it all. Sometimes the picture really is only worth one or two words.

Great art is always more than what it is. The Mona Lisa is more than a good portrait. Bach writes more than technically challenging music. The Sistene Chapel's art has more to it than simple visual aids to scripture. Kitsch, however, is exactly as it seems and no more. Even in acting, a kitschy performace hug is only a hug. A good actor and script conveys a subtext to the hug.

So as I think more about this point, I think the Pope is asking for more than propoganda. And I think he inviting the artist to help the church; not encumbering artists with requirements, but simply asking them to participate.

I do disagree that art's _purpose_ is to communicate. Can and does art communicate? Most often, yes. Is it required to? No. Great art certainly conveys something. But that was in another thread.

I have heard of this letter before and still want to read more of it. Any links to the full text?

Joe Futral

I asked my wife about this, too. Very smart women, marriage to me not-withstanding. She thinks this is actually that elusive "it" that all artists to some degree struggle to achieve--capturing more than just a sunset, writing more than beautiful poetry, etc. She struggled a little bit with the wording, which does seem to connote a bit of self-awareness of the artwork. "Empties itself"?

Joe

Before going any further, link to the full text of JP2's Letter to Artists at the Vatican website.

I may be missing something, but it seems to me that a lot of discussion here has centered around a phrase that doesn't appear in the Letter, and seems to be based on a misunderstanding of his point. JP2 doesn't say anything about art "emptying itself of transcendent value," either as something it does not, cannot, or should not do.

Rather, he says that when art translates "the world of the spirit, of the invisible, of God" (or rather "one or other facet of the message," since of course no work of art could capture the entire message) "into colours, shapes and sounds which nourish the intuition of those who look or listen," this process does not "empt[y] the message itself of its transcendent value and its aura of mystery."

In other words, the Holy Father affirms the "unique capacity" of art to capture, reflect or communicate the transcendent value and aura of mystery of the world of the spirit, of the invisible, of God. His point is: When an artist translates some aspect of the world of the spirit into something concrete that you can see or hear or touch, this process doesn't automatically flatten it out into something banal or devoid of transcendence and msytery.

The ceiling of the Sistine Chapel is not merely so much plaster and paint. Andrei Rublev's Trinity shows us more than three winged figures. Handel's Messiah is not merely a tour of certain Old and New Testament passages that happens to be sung instead of recited.

Art can open a doorway for the spirit, or at least a window, into the realm of mystery and the divine. Somehow, a particular arrangement of physical media or aural tones (or for that matter of projected imagery and/or synchronized sound) becomes more than so much sensory or noetic input, and invites us to precincts of awe and reverence, of holy fear and divine joy.

As for the Pope's comments about what art "must" do, note that these are preceded by the assertion that "The Church needs art" in order to "communicate the message entrusted to her by Christ." Thus, when he says "art must" do this and that, what he means is, this is what the Church needs art to do. He isn't saying this is the only thing that art can ever do, or that all art must do this.

He certainly doesn't reduce art to "propaganda," i.e., propose that art be used only for its persuasive value, or that all other considerations be subordinated to the need to propogate a particular meme or memeplex, as will easily be seen by reading the letter in full.

Thanks SDG. That helps a lot. And thanks for the link. I have only just recently heard of the letter on another forum and had not had a chance to hunt it down. I look forward to reading more!

Joe

Well, something strikes me, apart from other considerations or even the context of the John Paul's remarks - and that is being caught up in capturing the transcendent.

it's easy to get stuck there and not realize the value of the everyday, also the more light-hearted parts of life.

I have other thoughts on this, but will hold off for now, as I'm not quite sure how to put them into words.

Edit: well... the incarnation is God living with men as one of them. Though the mundane details of Jesus' life aren't recorded in scripture, the very fact that he lived with and as us (and died for and as us) means that life is holy/hallowed.

It's easy for us to see "The Transcendent" in a magnificent sunrise or sunset, or in landscapes like that of Yosemite or the Grand Canyon. But it's equaly there in the work of some of the best genre and still life painters, like - for example - Vermeer and [blanking on names for Dutch still-life painters of the same era, though i can "see" some of the paintings in my head]. And often something that looks like a routine still life to us had very a different meaning when it was painted. To us, it can be just the beautifully-painted remains of a meal. To the people for whom the painting was made, it also was a memento mori - a clear remembrance that we all must die, and should be aware of life's brevity as well as its beauty. That means that seemingly innocuous still life paintings are pointing toward God Himself, in many respects. These works can be appreciated on multiple levels, but one thing their original audiences *didn't* do: see them as pretty pictures that decorated a room but "said" nothing.

Hmm.... must let this all sit on the back burner for a while and hope that the result is something worth writing about. ;-)

If you are right in interpretting his words this way - then I have far less interest in his statement. I am not an expert in Catholic thought as you are, but I have never read any assertion that art, by itself, automatically flattens the message of God and so the Pope has to counter that idea.

I think it is far better to interpret his words as a caution about using art to harm us rather than help us.

Denny

Really, Denny? You've never heard of anyone claiming that since no visual representation can capture the mystery of God it is better not to try to represent him at all? You've never heard of anyone arguing that we don't know what Jesus looked like anyway, and even if we did no painting or statue could represent his divinity as well as his humanity, so any such representation necessarily falsifies its subject? You've never heard of anyone viewing art solely or primarily in terms of what it tells us about the artist, or about the culture in which he lives and his relationship to it, rather than anything it could communicate to us about eternal mysteries or divine reality?

Well, that's certainly a valid subject, just not what he happens to be talking about here.

The Letter has a few words of caution -- the Pope notes that artists must "labour without allowing themselves to be driven by the search for empty glory or the craving for cheap popularity, and still less by the calculation of some possible profit for themselves," and warns, "What an impoverishment it would be for art to abandon the inexhaustible mine of the Gospel!"

But for the most part the Pope accentuates the positive in this letter. Whether or not that makes it less interesting to you, that's his approach, though I'd recommend reading the whole letter before concluding that it lacks interest.

Perhaps you would be more interested in a more systematic treatment like Inter Mirifica, aka Decree on the Media of Social Communications, which focuses on the media, including movies as well as the press, television and radio, and touches on questions of art, culture and morality.

Some excerpts:

The Church recognizes that these media, if properly utilized, can be of great service to mankind, since they greatly contribute to men's entertainment and instruction as well as to the spread and support of the Kingdom of God. The Church recognizes, too, that men can employ these media contrary to the plan of the Creator and to their own loss. Indeed, the Church experiences maternal grief at the harm all too often done to society by their evil use.

Regarding "the relationship between the rights, as they are called, of art and the norms of morality":

Since the mounting controversies in this area frequently take their rise from false teachings about ethics and esthetics, the Council proclaims that all must hold to the absolute primacy of the objective moral order, that is, this order by itself surpasses and fittingly coordinates all other spheres of human affairs -- the arts not excepted -- even though they be endowed with notable dignity.
...
Those who make use of the media of communications, especially the young, should take steps to accustom themselves to moderation and self-control in their regard. They should, moreover, endeavor to deepen their understanding of what they see, hear or read. They should discuss these matters with their teachers and experts, and learn to pass sound judgements on them. Parents should remember that they have a most serious duty to guard carefully lest shows, publications and other things of this sort, which may be morally harmful, enter their homes or affect their children under other circumstances.

The principal moral responsibility for the proper use of the media of social communication falls on newsmen, writers, actors, designers, producers, displayers, distributors, operators and sellers, as well as critic and all others who play any part in the production and transmission of mass presentations. It is quite evident what gravely important responsibilities they have in the present day when they are in a position to lead the human race to good or to evil by informing or arousing mankind.
...
The production and showing of films that have value as decent entertainment, humane culture or art, especially when they are designed for young people, ought to be encouraged and assured by every effective means. This can be done particularly by supporting and joining in projects and enterprises for the production and distribution of decent films, by encouraging worthwhile films through critical approval and awards, by patronizing or jointly sponsoring theaters operated by Catholic and responsible managers.
...
Finally, care must be taken to prepare literary, film, radio, television and other critics, who will be equipped with the best skills in their own crafts and trained and encouraged to render judgments which always put moral issues in their proper light.

FWIW, I've discussed some of these issues at length in this essay; and you will remember, Denny, that we tried to pursue some of these lines of thought in this ill-fated thread, in which, amid much chaff of my own and others' making, I still think is a good deal of wheat to be found (and FWIW, Denny, I really appreciated your participation on that thread).

I have to say that I have heard of that kind of thinking but have not taken it seriously, therefore give it little thought and missed the fact that this was the topic the Pope was interested in.





I appreciate your perspective and find the rest of your post far more interesting as you quote the council. I especially liked the last paragraph - and helps me understand where you got your website name.

Having said that, I still like the direction the conversation was going. So let's leave the Pope's purpose out of it.

When a work of art, and lets focus just on film, when a film nourishes the intuition and helps us transcend to a higher level of life - then it is in service to God and the church. When a film mocks or confuses the intution and helps us to descend to a lower level of life then it is in service not to God or the church but to d-evils of various forms. I think that is why and where the Christian film critic speaks.

Denny

Well, FWIW, it's not like JP2 went on a major tangent against any particular line of thought. All he said was that art, and sacred art in particular, has the capacity for transcendence, or as I put it that physical media can become more than so much sensory input and can open a doorway for the spirit into the realm of mystery and the divine. That seems a point well worth attending to, even if there's no pressing need to rebut any particular denial of this point.

I agree wholeheartedly, with a caveat about what constitutes "higher" or "lower." These are terms that are used in various ways, and I think it's worth noting (not that you were suggesting otherwise, Denny) that not everything that is "higher" in any way whatsoever is automatically preferable to anything that is "lower" in any way whatsoever.

To quote from my first post in the earlier thread mentioned above:

It's easy to slap down a film like Constantine which bastardizes religious ideas in a loud, clumsy, stupid way -- but can we be similarly critical of a film that similarly perverts religious or moral ideas in a more aesthetically pleasing shape?

If a filmmaker eschews explosions, firearms, car chases, attractive women in tight clothing, and an over-the-top action-packed finale, focusing instead of nuanced character development and relationships, well-written dialogue, meticulously composed misc-en-scene, delicate homages to our favorite filmmakers, and so on, does that mean that that film does not offer a perspective of human nature or morality that is antithetical to true humanism, not to say the Gospel -- or even that it's somehow immune to criticism and disparagement along these lines?

In other words, a film can be artistically and philosophically "high" or "elevated" in some sense without necessarily lifting the soul toward God or truth -- in fact, it can do quite the opposite. Art of a creatively "high" order can nevertheless be decadent and hedonistic, or nihilistic and despairing, giving an aesthetically pleasing shape to an anti-humanistic perspective.

While I thoroughly reject the moralist approach to art, that approach which views art primarily through the lens of moral categories, I do believe that moral considerations can never be dispensed with, either in art or in any other area of human endeavor, and I believe that bringing moral and spiritual considerations to bear in watching and evaluating films is an important function of film criticism, one that critics who are Christians should undertake in the light of their Christian faith.

And yet, by including the "aesthetically pleasing shape," the nihilistic or anarchic artist (an oxymoron, in my opinion) loads his work with contradictory arguments, and stacks the deck against himself, increasing the possiblity that beauty will do its own work. There are many films that have moved me toward a greater apprehension of grace and design, in spite of their juvenile or misleading "messages," merely by exhibition of glory that lifts my attentions to higher things.

For all of the attention given to chance and "the power of nature" and "Mother Nature" in Richard Attenborough's The Life of Birds series, the astonishing wonders and glory on display there inspire all kinds of questions about "intelligent design," and the beauty and majesty of the birds captured by Attenborough's cameras bolster my faith.

As C.S. Lewis wrote:



This gives works of aesthetic beauty and excellence an advantage over the "low" works, no matter what its agenda. It gives God room to argue contrarily to (or, ideally, in collaboration with) the artist.

I agree with both of your posts.

Steven, I especially liked:


Let's bring it into a recent struggle we had with LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE.

It is a well-done film and has some excellent character development and humorous moments. We ended up giving it 3 stars - Thought Provoking. However, we struggled with whether to give it only 1 star - Empty. It was offensive, harmful and debasing of an innocent child. And yet it lifted the value of family and the emptiness of the various paths the family members were treading. But overall I think it was the quality of the filmmaking that caused us difficulty.

We struggled in the same way with AMERICAN BEAUTY. Well done film yet debasing as it centered on a middle-aged man's obsession on his daughter's cheerleading friend. (Something one well-known reviewer says every middle-aged man does - an admission that says far more about him than others).

The part that makes "Christian Criticism" so much more difficult is that we do infact bring concern for the human beings either fictionally portrayed or viewing these works of art. That is where I like the language of the Pope as he gives us a way to describe our task.

Denny

I just want to know what one means here when speaking of "higher" or "lower" levels of life and how subjective can that become? Why would I want to "nourish the intuition"? (And why only focus on film?)

Joe Futral

Well, I might be more inclined to say "imagination" than "intuition," with the caveat that by "imagination" I don't mean only flights of whimsy and fancy, but the whole inner world, the inner life of man.

That said, why would one not want to nourish every aspect of one's being? Why would the nourishment of any facet of one's nature be a matter of indifference?

I think that various forms of art, culture and entertainment, including stories, images, and the hybrid that is cinema, can be nourishing to the imagination; conversely, they can also be harmful.

The metaphor of nourishment suggests for me some helpful parallels. Like food, art, culture and entertainment may be wholesome or unwholesome in varying degrees, or even both at the same time -- like a decent steak with some inedible gristle, or a nice souffle with unfortunate bits of eggshell.

The most morally nourishing films -- I suppose the focus is on film because we happen to be film writers writing in a film criticism forum -- can be a feast for the spirit; the most harmful may be the equivalent of pure poison.

In this light, I think that part of the critical endeavor is to rightly appreciate and benefit from what is good (morally and otherwise) in any dish, to be aware of and on guard against what is problematic or potentially harmful, to help one's readers find worthwhile films, avoid unworthy or harmful ones, and to help equip them to make sound judgments for themselves.

Not sure if that helps answer your first question or not?

Well, there be a few (or, at least one!) dissidents among ye who are NOT film writers, but instead those insterested in other forms of the arts in a critical manner. Myself, the tactile arts, per se. Not that I'm uninterested in film . . . just that I'm more interested in sculpture and painting.

I've begun to read the entirety of the Pope's letter . . . which means I'm now partially started into about 5 different papers (maybe more), not including books I'm partially through, at the present time. This ain't good!

I'm with chashab here (nothing against you film people! ), as my academic training is in the visual arts/art history, though I'm really more of a music person.

I've been looking at this topic through the "lens" of visual art, and would like to see this be as diverse a discussion as possible - or perhaps some of it might be split into another thread, depending on where things go?

Separate question: I wonder how a version of this statement written specifically to address*literature* would work? Words are very different from the visual/tactile arts...

I would not back off from the Pope's word of intuition. My experience is that every person has a "natural sense" or "intuitive sense" of God and God's truth. The fact that good cinema (or literature or visual art or whatever) nourishes that intuition is invaluable. To nourish our imagination seems to imply more a nourishing of our creativity - which is fine, just different. If you translate imagination as the inner world, then that is not usually how I think of the word. (But I don't mean to be arguing over definitions.)

I did not mean to limit this thread to film, just that film is my own personal interest and I can speak more specifically in that area. I think the principles are the same, though the application or criticism may vary based on the various art forms. For example, I would think the free style of sculpting would have less of an opportunity to harm the viewer since so much of the viewing is a projection of ourselves onto the work. I don't think that is as true of film since it has more ability to impose itself upon the viewer.

Denny

That's an interesting statement because how you compare sculpture vs film is _almost_ word for word how I've heard painting and scupture compared, i.e. sculpture imposes itself into the viewer's world, something the critic I was reading didn't think painting could do in a similar fashion. Funny.

I like the anology with food. I like it mainly because it does leave the idea open that how each will respond to the same "dish" will vary! For instance, one could argue that peanuts are nutritious, but for some people they can be fatal! And not just because of the fat content!

So likewise a painting, sculpture, or film of nudity can be safely viewed by some, it may send others into a place where they have been struggling.

Or... I cannot eat kimchi (I'm a very bad example of a Korean!), so I tend to avoid spicy dishes. Free Jazz is something I still cannot fathom.

But I am a very typical Korean (apparently) as I do suffer somewhat from a mild lactose intolerance. So I can handle small doses of Monet and under the right circumstances. But too much makes me sick.

I have finished the Pope's letter and I find it very inviting! I am very glad of this. The only place I started to get a little ancy was when he was talking about the arts needing the church. But I did like how he processed that out.

I do think his talk about transcendent quality covers most of what we have talked about here. I don't think he is asking for "three crosses on a hill" or even something with John 3:16 hidden throughout. I don't think he is looking for anything simply literal or can otherwise only be viewed on one level. I think he asks for more than that. And I think he also _challenges_ the "Christian artist" to produce more than that, but he does so without discouraging such an artist, imo.

Quite frankly I got a strong sense that abstract art or artist is not without his invitation, which is quite refreshing! One of my favourites had issues with abstract art (Francis Schaeffer). But as I recently heard Mako Fujimura quoted, "How do you paint Glory?"

I think "harm" is not so obvious. What looks harmful about a peanut and to whom? Or what separates a nourishing mushroom from a fatal one? I guess intent can play a part of that, but even then the viewer has the final "say" of how the art affects them--sometimes intentionally, sometimes not so much.

That said, I do think the Pope IS addressing intent of the _artist_. And while specifically inviting a certain intent he does not seem to invlidate others. Of course creating transcendent art is part of the artist's struggle, n'est pas? The struggle to invoke/evoke or otherwise stir the intuition of another person?

Joe

Not only in your experience, but also in Scripture: We have not been left without witness (I forget the reference to this paraphrase).

Yes, that is true. In such texts as Acts 14:17 and Romans 1:18ff.

Joe, I like what you said - good insights.

When you said

I can agree with you about peanuts - and things that are not harmful to all but some have to avoid for personal reasons. Nudity may fit that, though being a counselor I would be leary of saying that.

However, I can think of many things that are toxic to all and to eat them would kill any of us. There harmful things include: vicarious violence that sets us up to hate and then satisfies that hated by a spree of vengeance; vicarious orgey that calls us to let go of our faithful thoughts to our spouses and entertain a fantasy that distorts our sexual desires; falsities, of any kind, that weave a pattern of lies but are not easily seen by the viewer who is caught up in the moment and the logic.

I think of this last one when I remember back in college where I learned how to sell GREAT BOOKS OF THE WESTERN WORLD door to door. We were taught how to actually take a persons thoughts with us rather than talk with them and honor their thoughts and help them make an independent decision. Since then I never allow a salesperson to give me their "shpeil" without interrupting and disrupting their verbal and logical cadence.

Denny

Err, not to be disputatious or divisive or anything, but the Roman Catholic church *does* have its own Sacred Congregation of Propaganda (aka "Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide," established in 1622). I don't have my lecture notes (from back when) available, but post-Council of Trent, there were official rules on how Mary should be portrayed (clothing, colors, setting, etc.). IIRC, this is true of other saints and Biblical characters.

I don't know that there's really any way to filter out the "propaganda'' element in the depiction of sacred subjects in Western Christian arts - most particularly when the pieces were created for public places (churches, for example) and were meant as teaching devices. That's one of the basic ideas behind propaganda of any kind.

Do you get the impression that the Pope is expecting this in his address? I can't say I do, but I could be wrong. I kind of took what he said at face value with no presuppositions implied. If there is more than meets the eye, he did an "artful" job of hiding it.


Well, regarding most of the 20th Century Christian arts that I've encountered, I'm not sure there was any intent or ability other than "propoganda" and evangelism. To me that is the problem with much Christian art.

But this is not to say that sacred depictions are only capable of propoganda. As someone who recently visited many old churches in Italy (including the Vatican), Belgium, Holland, and one or two in Switzerland (still the high points of my job with Pilobolus) the depictions evoked more than what was depicted, from my point of view. I would say much of the art found in such churches intended to do more than just depict Mary or the Apostles or even Jesus. We are meant to sense the emotion or pain or other essence of the moment captured. I don't think it was meant to be merely illustrations of scripture. I think this speaks of the artistry the Pope was speaking of.

And speaks highly of the artistry involved. So even if illustration was all they we commissioned for, the artist accomplished much more. [edited: I also don't think ALL of the work accomplished this. Some pieces were pretty much what you saw and no more.]

Again, though, I could be wrong. I'm not all that educated on the history. I can only relate how the works affected me. And I do have the habit of letting the history of a place envelop me. So maybe I was feeling more enamoured with the locale than the work. But I don't think so.

Joe

Is this really art? I suppose it is in that the intent is to evoke something within the viewer. If so, then, yes, this is malnutrition.

To be tempted is not a sin. And if such work tempts one, then one should not expose oneself to such work! I remember hearing Glenn Kaiser talking about his early days with Rez Band and someone coming up to him after a concert and talking about how Glenn's music makes him stumble. Essentially, IIRC, Glenn asked forgiveness and then asked what the brother was doing there to begin with??? Not that your examples reflect Glenn's work or anything like that. Only that sometimes we need to take responsibility for ourselves.

I think your examples are more illustrative of artist intent. I would label this more manipulation than art. Again more propoganda-esque, or at least something that can only be viewed or is expected to be viewed on one level. And if the intent of the artist is to take a viewer to this place and LEAVE them there and not do more, as in maybe to show the derpavation of such behaviour, AND then bring them back, that speaks more of the artist than the art.

But that's just my opinion.



I love playing around with sales people! As a Christian, I know I shouldn't, but they are such easy targets! Especially after travelling around as tech support for several sales instructors. I have learned a lot. I can pretty well stop a sale person dead in their tracks or run them in circles. Talk about being manipulative! Father forgive me! Especially as I DO know what I do!

Your approach is definietly more Christian than mine.

Mea culpa!
Joe Futral

Um, not quite.

First, "Sacred Congregation of Propaganda" is a mistranslation of "Congregatio de propaganda fide," which is correctly rendered "Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith" (the "official title" of "Sacra congregatio christiano nomini propagando" means "Sacred Congregation for the Propogation of the Name of Christ").

In fact, it would appear that "Sacred Congregation of Propaganda" couldn't possibly be correct, as this would seem to be an etymological fallacy. The word "propaganda" is actually derived from the Latin name of this very curial office. In other words, the congregation was not set up to do "propaganda," "propaganda" (in the non-pejorative, pre-WWI sense) was named that after the work of the congregation vis-a-vis propagating the faith.

Thirdly, when using the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, remember that while it is an excellent resource in many respects, it does have the disadvantage of having been compiled in 1917... before, for example, the word "propaganda" took on negative connotations in the first two World Wars... and the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples acquired its newer, more contemporary name.

Incidentally, the official website.

Suffice to say, I have seen so many things misrepresented as "official rules of the Church" (see here for a recent example of official Vatican rules on dramatic portrayals of the Passion... oops, I mean USCCB rules... oops, I mean a subcommittee draft document) that I tend to be very, very skeptical of these sorts of claims. (Remember how the Catholic Church labeled the saxophone the "devil's horn"? Oops, maybe not.)

Yes, but did you check the link? that's how the Catholic Encylopedia has it, and much that's in that entry hasn't changed. history is history.

jfutral, I'm not suggesting that the art you're talking about doesn't go beyond "illustration" in some form or other - lots of it clearly does. But it's also literally meant to teach all - those who can read, those who can't, and those of other faiths. If it's in a public place (church, civic buildings, etc.) it's probably meant to be more than decorative. My gosh, Washington, D.C. is *full* of art that's primarily propaganda! (Architecture, too.) If you start studying art that's meant (in the broadest sense) as propaganda, you'd have to include things related to Mother's Day and most every cover Norman Rockwell did for the Saturday Evening Post.

Steve, what is clear to me is this: the Roman Catholic church (and other churches, too) have indeed used art as propaganda, in the modern sense. Why else would there have been such tight strictures on the way many people and events were suposed to be portrayed - for several hundred years? The Council of Trent was very focused on turning people away from what is now called Protestantism, and art was one of the crucial tools in this fight.

I'm not saying this to criticize anyone - or anything - but if you start studying the history, you're going to run into a lot of things that are pretty unpleasant. It's true of all Christian communities, not just the Roman Catholic church.

I spent a lot of time and effort working to get my art historian's bona fides, and when you do that, you end up learning much that's difficult to stomach. I think I mentioned this on another thread, but I know someone who found herself in a moral and spiritual crisis once she started studying for an undergrad art history degree. She was raised Catholic. The church has historically been one of the biggest patrons of art in Western history - and when you study this, you find out plenty about sin and corruption in the church. there's no way around it.

For me, this wasn't disillusioning, because I'd studied much history already, also because i expect to run across plenty of unsavory things when studying what we humans have done (good and bad alike). But that doesn't change the fact that they happened, and that even in sacred art, there can be real problems re. inhumanity and sin. The way Jewish people have been portrayed in Western art is one very painful example - even in churches, BTW. I'm not suggesting that anyone should remove those pieces or in some way censor them, but we can learn from them - to not follow that particular path.

Edit: one common theme in earlier centuries was Ecclesia contrasted with Synagoga. here's a good analysis of it: http://www.flholocaustmuseum.org/history_w...ia_synagoga.cfm

More example (lots of pics): http://www.sprezzatura.it/Arte/Ecclesia_Sy...ga/res/art1.htm

Edit: note also the way the word "propaganda" is handled in the American Heritage Dictionary. The 1st entry is what I'm mainly talking about, although the other definitions apply, too.

Good grief! I HOPE it isn't just decorative! Otherwise it will just end up on HGTV.

Disregarding that propaganda can also intend "biased" or "misleading" information, of course this is what I mean by great art NOT being propaganda. I could be wrong but I think I did try to make sure that I didn't say art cannot be propaganda, only that great art isn't. I have to be more conscious about that. I can easily find myself saying propaganda is not art. Mostly I mean great, even good, art is not propaganda or maybe it isn't _only_ propaganda. I like what I said earlier in the thread. Whatever that was go with it!

Since there are certain givens these days regarding propaganda, as mentioned above, I also don't think teaching is a bad thing for art, unlike propaganda. From a complete point of ignorance regarding the discussed document, I would take something as the Catholic arts S. and P. manual as a means to also be sure Mary is depicted as more than human, a way to ensure her (arguable) transcendent nature is conveyed. So again, we find art is _expected_ to do more than teach the literal, regardless of one's view on Mary.

Now does every work of art in churches accomplish this? Hardly. But some of the commisioned work exceeds expectations.

For instance I just came across Makoto Fujimura's blog. His latest entry has some insightful things to say about The Last Supper. Go here http://www.makotofujimura.com/. In this instance art has even transcended history. Regardless of the original intent of the commission, the artist did so much more and the work communicates more than a bible story, more than a teaching moment for the literate or illiterate. That is NOT art as propaganda, regardless of your definition. History may give us a context for the creation of the work, but it doesn't define what the work as art.

I particularly like the discussion and quote from C. S. Lewis:

" 'If you want to ‘understand’ something,' said my friend Bruce Herman, 'you have to be willing to ‘stand under’ it.' Bruce, an art professor, went on to cite C.S. Lewis’ essay 'Experiment in Criticism' in which Lewis, a medieval literature scholar at Oxford University, writes the following:

'We sit down before the picture in order to have something done to us, not that we may do things with it. The first demand any work of art makes upon us is surrender. Look. Listen. Receive. Get yourself out of the way.'

An Experiment in Criticism, pg. 18, 19 (Cambridge University Press)

In the essay Lewis makes a distinction between 'using' art and 'receiving' art. He argues quite persuasively that: '‘Using’ is inferior to ‘reception’ because art, if used rather than received, merely facilitates, brightens, relieves or palliates our life, and does not add to it.' "

(avoiding finishing cleaning our bedroom and good grief its late! Maybe I shouldn't post this! nah!)
Joe

Here's what i was trying to get at, from the American heritate Dictionary's definition of "propaganda":



that includes everything from harmless ideas (Mother's Day, for example) to far more insidious things.

Joe,

Thank you so much for referencing the Fujimura blog. That is an amazing analysis of de Vinci's LAST SUPPER and weaves together the power of true religious art with the Gospel story and experience. A great read!

Denny

Of course I checked the link, but it doesn't change the fact that "Sacred Congregation of Propaganda" is not a correct English translation of "Sacra congregatio de propaganda fide." It drops the crucial word "fide" (faith) and simply leaves "propaganda" untranslated.

Also, FWIW, you didn't limit yourself to a historical statement -- you wrote "the Roman Catholic church *does* have its own Sacred Congregation of Propaganda," with emphasis on the present tense verb "does." That wasn't the real name back then, and it's certainly not the name now.

Yes, including the third definition ("A division of the Roman Curia..."), which shows that the definition is a quarter century or so out of date. Having worked in educational publishing, I can't help wondering whether this kind of thing gets passed down from edition to edition without anyone bothering to check the currency of their facts?

Anyway, in technical usage, yes, it remains possible to use the word "propaganda" in a non-pejorative sense, one that is compatible with art being art and not being nefarious or distorting in a bad way. Practically speaking, I'm not sure how viable this usage is today in common discourse.

Since C. S. Lewis has been cited, consider this sentence from The Abolition of Man:

"In a word, the old [pedagogy] was a kind of propagation -- men transmitting manhood to men; the new is merely propaganda."

That Lewis -- a classicist fluent in Latin -- could so blithely contrast "propagation" and "propaganda" seems to me evidence that the English term "propaganda" has drifted too far from its eytmological roots to remain reliably useful in that sense.

The part of this definition (and the one above, which seems to be identical) that strikes me is the phrase "reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine," especially the "interests" part.

This seems to me to hint at a view of "propaganda" that sees the propagation of doctrines and causes in a rather reductionistic light, not in terms of education in the classical liberating sense (e-ducare, to lead out, to liberate), but in political terms, having to do with maintaining power structures and serving established interests.

The Abolition of Man is essentially a critique of this reductionistic outlook, which reduces education to -- well, I was going to say "indoctrination," but come to think of it, that's another word that, like "propaganda," has a perfectly respectable etymology but has acquired a bad taste in the mouth because of the very reductionistic philosophical outlook critiqued in Men Without Chests. To be "indoctrinated" is now almost akin to having been brainwashed; it implies an uncritical incorporation into and subordination to a particular power structure and the interests thereof.

In a similar way, it seems to me that even when "propaganda" is used in an ostensibly non-pejorative sense, it may often be with the implication that what is being served here is the "interests" of a particular group, rather than anything like truth or beauty. To use another Lewisism, there is a whiff of Bulverism about the word, an unstated suggestion that "They [only] say [fill in the blank] because they're [fill in the blank]."

It's also worth noting that the definitions above specify that what propaganda promotes is "a doctrine or cause." By this definition, propagation of something else would not qualify as "propaganda." But sacred art is not ordered toward promoting only a doctrine or cause, but faith and devotion, which is something different. Faith and devotion are distinct from the whole sphere of politics and interests, which is where the weight of the word "propaganda" seems to lie. Also by this definition, "propaganda fide" -- propagation of the faith -- would not strictly count as "propaganda" by this definition.

Given that your usage of propaganda includes "things related to Mother's Day and most every cover Norman Rockwell did for the Saturday Evening Post," I have no problem with this, I guess. My only caveat would be the implicit philosophical implications and limitations of the word as suggested above.

I'm not saying this didn't happen, but again, I'd like to see documentation before accepting this claim. Here's where my skepticism kicks in: Those who hold reductionistic theories about other people's pedagogy often act on the same theories themselves, and claims like this often get made in the context of particular power structures, and reflect the interests thereof.

Of course if it happened, it happened. But I've seen too many similar claims collapse under cross-examination to accept them without question.

Sure, in a sense, especially since some segments of Protestantism were rather iconoclastic in disposition. But again, I'm not sure about the rather utilitarian implications of the word "tool," which seems to imply setting a value on something solely for pragmatic reasons, for its utility in manipulating objects to bring about a particular outcome.

I wouldn't call a sermon a "tool," even though it is intended to propagate particular ideas and could thus be called "propaganda" in the broadest sense. It is not a tool because the pastor is not trying to act mechanically on his congregation to bring about a particular outcome. He is trying to inspire, challenge, enlighten, educate, liberate. The same applies to sacred art. It's not a utilitarian thing.

Oh, absolutely. Believe me, I need no reminding on that score. I came into the Catholic Church under the pope of mea culpas. I'm more than ready to acknowledge the horror show that is (the dark side of) church history.

That is pretty dreadful, certainly. Incidentally, did you notice this sentence from the first link?

"A question that emerges from such images is how they affected everyday attitudes toward the Jews. Were they instrumental in a propagandistic way of maintaining hatred on a religious basis toward the Jews of that period?"

Note the clear negative connotations of the word "propagandistic."

Sheesh! You people must not have anything to get up for in the mornings



Just to say, and I don't think this is what you mean, there is nothing wrong with decoration. It, traditionally, is what a lot of people would put in the category of "craft" and not "art," but it's still valid in and of itself. It's particularly an important function in architecture, going all the way back to the chains and pomegranates in the temple (or was it the tabernacel? I get the two confused.). To our knowledge, these were purely decorative, but they were also still ordained by God.



What is "great art?" What is "good art?" Are you going off of historical precedent, as I assume? Otherwise this is pretty subjective.



I'll have to read this. Must be new. He doesn't post very often, and when he does they are usually very looooooong! and hard for to read, the white lettering on black background.

I'm intrigued by all of the dicscussion on propoganda, but for some reason don't feel like I can relate. It may just be that I haven't had the time to read the conversation well, and certainly haven't had the time to follow all of the given links.

Continue . . .

Considering historical precedent still doesn't seem to have really answered the question to many people's satisfaction, I've always kind of felt we are a bit on our own. The discussion STILL rages. Is Jackson Pollock's work art? Is Norman Rockwell's? Ornette Coleman? What does historical precedent say? Why doesn't everyone agree?

As for my own subjective conclusions, objective considerations aside (technique, composition, colour, lines, chord progression, etc.) the only thing I can consider great or good art is, as I've said here and elsewhere, art that is able to be more than the sum of its parts, essentially. I haven't put it that way yet, but it comes to mind the quickest and I think essentially says the same thing I've said before. It is the ellusive quality that artists always struggle for. What makes one melody seem to transcend the notes used and another melody sound sophomoric? What makes one portrait of a woman make people wonder for decades or centuries and another portrait simply a likeness of a young lady?

In and of itself, I don't find technical proficiency a good measure of art, though most good and great works demonstrate a high regard for technique. Nor is personal preference. Degas and Monets do little for me, but that doesn't mean they aren't good or even great works.

Does it communicate? I don't think O'Keefe's or Rothko's work communicates more than it conveys a sense or an image not really on the canvas. Maybe that is communication. But it is ambiguous communication at best. I still contend that communication as a requirement reduces art to utility. Maybe my definition of communication is too narrow.

Is there beauty? Giacometti or Poe is hardly beautiful. But I guess there is a certain beauty to sadness or horror, but not the glorious kind found in flowers or the clouds.

Me, I'm drawn to Pollock's work. I sense the urgency and turmoil in his strokes. I find myself thinking about him maybe in his barn, frantic about his canvas, dripping and splattering and wonder about those times I felt mad and wild and wished I could have done something to release that energy. To view his larger works is to feel infinity charging at you like a hurricane.

Norman Rockwell, while having done some technically masterful work, strikes me a bit like kitsch. But I don't consider his work kitsch. Just the same, I can't escape the sentimentality of his work.

Does that help?
Joe

Yes, yes and yes. I agree with your sentiment; it just doesn't make for easy discussion Of course, once again, it's not an easy topic. Of course, that's why it's fun!



I would suggest that for our purposes in this conversation, your definition of communication probably is too narrow as you postulate. Personally, I would consider beauty communication, and conveyance a subset of communication — although they are not synonyms in a strict sense of the word. And you're right that much communication (not just artistic, but some things that need be clear, unfortunatately ) can be ambiguous. But, as I've already said in this post, much of art (and life, if we're honest) is not so clear as humans wish it (IMHO).



Mmmm, clouds. Thunderstorms on the prairie, to be specific. My greatest inspiration in nature, if not in all of creation. Personally, I think they best convey the character of God to us — within our earthly realm — in their beauty, power (lightening and tornado), life-giving (rain). I wouldn't every argue this point, though I might make my own case for it. It's merely "the rocks crying out" for me, personally.

Edit: grammar

Erks. I think Giacommetti's work is beautiful.

Steven, I can't give you sources right now for what I cited re. there being rules for depictions of people and narrative scenes, because over 90% of my references and texts are in storage. I'd have to either write to someone who teaches 17th c. (and later) art history. or else make a rather exhaustive study at the nearest universtity library, or both - this kind of info. isn't exactly in the fast lane of the "information highway." When I come up with sources, I'll post them, though they're likely to be books that you'd have to spend some time and effort to get. (Money as well, maybe ...)

What I do know: multiple profs. who specialized in this period mentioned the impact of the Council of Trent on imagery on a very regular basis. But (caveat) it's been a good while since I took those courses, and my notes aren't available to me.

Art history is by its nature also a study of cultural history - religious, economic, military, literary, etc ...... All of these things influence what's made, what's given precedence, what's put in public places, etc. Given that the Roman Catholic church was the single biggest patron of European visual artists for most of the past two millennia, there's no way anyone can study the history of art without running smack into all sorts of things relating to the church.

to help put this in context, there's a sub-discipline called "iconography." Iconography is, in large part, the study of/history of imagery - how subjects and ideas were and are portrayed; also why. Christian iconography is *very* complex, and there are clear traditions in how subjects are supposed to be depicted, in many cases. A lot of that is informal, but a lot of it isn't - the RC church did spell out how certain things were supposed to be depicted. This is true of depictions of Mary partly because (post-council of Trent), the folks who wanted to see the Immaculate Conception adopted as official church dogma used a visual agenda as a means of - apologies for the word, but there's no getting around it - propaganda.

But see, every painting and engraving and stamp of ours that shows a triumphant Columbus is also propaganda. It's really important to balance the negative connotations of the word with the more overarching aspects of what it means. In studying art, one *has* to learn how to do that.

I'm hoping this might clarify what I've been trying to say? if not, please let me know, and I'll try to come up with more substance. I'm thinking that I'm unintentionally leaving some of the less obvious things about this in the dust - and I debated for some time over whether to mention it at all, knowing that any discussion of "propaganda" would probably be upsetting to at least some of the folks here.

Apologies, all, for having taken this discussion on a major tangent....

I did stipulate that there is, or at least can be, a certain beauty in sadness, also pain and tragedy. So I did an about face in one paragraph of two sentences!



Don't blame yourself! I'm the dweeb who brought up propaganda to begin with!

Joe

Joe - I just like the way Giacommetti handled the materials he worked with. The surface texture, the composition.... That's apart from the subjects he depicted. (Though i'm sure not ignoring those, either.) It's certainly possible to say the same re. Poe and his command of language - as a prose stylist and master of suspense, he's terrific. It's his subject matter that's the breaking point for me - though you could make that case for some of Nathaniel Hawthorne's work, too.

Re. "propaganda": No need to apologize there, I think.

Steve, here's a précis from a an art history prof's web page - the art historian cited, Rudolf Wittkower, is one of *the* authorities on the period, and quite balanced (interestingly - like many great art historians who specialize in sacred art - he was Jewish).


he goes on from there, but the only way to get to the meat of it is to read Wittkower and others on the subject - this is the tip of the iceberg... (iI edited this quote a tiny bit due to the fact that the person who wrote the summary added some personal biases to his description - words that were his, not Wittkower's.)

Edit: I was wrong; there's more documentation online than I'd have expected, but still, to get to the meat of things, you have to read people like Wittkower.

here's an exceprt from the decrees on the Council of Trent, re. art (particularly art as a way of propagating the faith):

http://puffin.creighton.edu/fapa/aikin/Web...religious_a.htm

but you more or less have to read that side by side with things like the rules on prohibited books:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/trent-booksrules.html

Since the decrees of the Council of Trent are at the heart of the Counter-Reformation, it's important to understand that the RC church was using whatever it could to *counter* the opposition. People died for owning and reading prohibited books. I'm not saying any of this to convey an anti-Catholic attitude - it's part of the historical record and really can't be ignored when looking at the Catholic church's official stance (over time) on art. What's happening now is clearly preferable to what was happening in the 17th c.

For a translation of the primary source material, you can get this book - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/089555074...ce&n=283155 - though there's no analysis (or record of) the effect of the Council of Trent on artists, imagery, etc. Decrees are one thing, actual practice/application is something else again...

Ok, off the soapbox...

Edit: Just found this essay by Jacques Maritain - it's a definite must-read! - http://www2.nd.edu/Departments//Maritain/etext/artapp2.htm

here's a very brief quote, which doesn't do justice to Maritain and his expostion of the subject:



* Excerpted from Matiani's talk to the Journées d'Art religieux, February 23, 1924. he goes on to talk about the situation re. art and depiction of sacred subjects in the present tense - here's another exceprt:



See also this brief essay (especially the section titled "The Baroque," written by Benedict XVI before he became pope: http://www.adoremus.org/0302artliturgy.html