NAKED VULNERABILITY: Sculptor Llew Summers with one of his new works in the Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament.
Posted on 02/17/2005 7:41:15 PM PST by NYer
Bold naked images of Jesus in new relief sculptures installed in Christchurch's Catholic Cathedral have attracted angry protests from parishioners.
About 20 parishioners holding placards reading "ugly" and "pornographic" protested outside the Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament on the weekend.
The sculptures, by Christchurch artist Llew Summers, mark the 14 stations of the cross and were dedicated to celebrate the cathedral's 100th anniversary.
The stations of the cross depict the last hours of Jesus Christ's life.
Parishioner Monica Reedy said there was a groundswell of concerned parishioners who felt the art depicting a naked Jesus was "inappropriate".
"I don't think the committee understands the passion we have as parishioners and as art critics in our own right. We should have been involved (in the decision) step by step." said Reedy. "(The works) look like Neanderthal man."
Modern art was inappropriate in a neo-classical building, Reedy said. She described the new stations of the cross as a sad milestone in the church's history which damaged the essence of the church.
"Can you imagine that they would be allowed to do that in any sophisticated and intact building in Europe?"
Summers, who is not a Catholic, welcomed the protests, saying they encouraged discussion around the artwork.
"There is almost no naked Christs in the world. It's a truth that you are bringing to it," he said.
There was a lot of celebration of the female body, but very little of the male body, he said. "I'm interested in the glorification of humanity, not the evilness of humanity."
Cathedral Trust committee member Professor John Simpson said the committee had carefully considered the selection of Summers for the difficult task of exploring "the drama, the poetry and the absolute pathos" of the last few hours of Christ's life.
It was too soon to condemn the value of the artwork, he said.
"There are bound to be some who are uplifted by the work and some who consider it unworthy. We believed that his understanding of the matter of the passion of Christ was such that we would end up with something unique," Simpson said.
Michelangelo's sculpture of David was attacked and damaged in its early days but now it was considered a great work, he said.
He was upset that people were unhappy with the stations of the cross and would be happy to speak to them about his own understanding of the sculptures.
Christchurch poet Bernadette Hall said the artwork was historically accurate because crucifixion was traditionally reserved for slaves who were stripped to humiliate them.
"They really bring out the humanity of Jesus Christ. For me, personally, it is quite a relief to see the human figure of Christ. It was very brave and extraordinarily honest."
Reedy understood the intention of the artist was to emphasise Christ's naked vulnerability but even so, she said, it was not necessary.
The committee did not consult widely enough within the diocese, she said. "I wonder who they have their mandate from."
Cathedral administrator Monsignor Barry Jones said the protesters were a minority in the parish.
"They (the sculptures) are just so unusual. When I first saw them I did not know what to make of them.
"The more I see them the more they grow on me. I think we need to spend time with them," he said.
And Christ was whipped unmercifully to humiliate Him ... what's her point? She and the artiste both neglected the historical accuracy of His stripes. Where are they?
The previous Stations of the Cross were oleographs of paintings in the traditional style (circa 1890). They were Displayed in a wooden neo-gothic surround, which was felt to not be in keeping with the classical style of the Cathedral.
Each of Mr Summers' pieces cost $3000 New Zealand dollars.
" Summers, who is not a Catholic, welcomed the protests, saying they encouraged discussion around the artwork. "
No, if he were Catholic, he would be distraught that there is a distraction from worship, whether he is to blame, or the protesters.
The Gospels support this theory:
MT 27:35 And when they had crucified him, they divided his clothes among themselves by casting lots.
MK 15:24 And they crucified him, and divided his clothes among them, casting lots to decide what each should take.
LK 23:34 Then Jesus said, "Father forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing." And they cast lots to divide his clothing.
JN 19:23 When the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they took his clothes and divided them into four parts, one for each soldier. They also took his tunic; now the tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from the top. So they said to one another, "Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it to see who will get it."
Note: Quotes from the NRSV of the Bible
I know this doesn't necessarily mean that Jesus was left with NO clothes, but it gives credence to the possibility that it is so.
This is for carvings representing Jesus Christ entirely nude. Very affronting for the parishioners ... but the artist doesn't care about them.
Shaggy - what is it about the news today - nudity and New Zealand in one story after another?
"Can you imagine that they would be allowed to do that in any sophisticated and intact building in Europe?"
Ms Reedy doesn't get out much. At least not in Europe at any rate. I'm not a fan of modern art but there is a time and a place for it.
The 'artiste' is not only a non-catholic, it is doubtful he ever read the Bible, much less any of the scriptural references you so graciously provided. Thank you for supporting the modicum of 'decency', albeit carved in stone.
Agreed! I have toured some of the most famous cathedrals in France and Italy. Never once did I come across anything of this 'genre'. Ms. Reedy needs to hop a plane or book a cabin on a ship and visit Europe. Better yet, she should stop in the Holy Lands for a heavy dose of religious art.
It is in bad taste regardless of theological theory.
The nudity is not offensive. The sheer horrible quality is what is offensive.
No she's right. It's a conflict of style. A neo-classical building with primitive modern art is like a striped tie with a paisley shirt. It's ugly.
Romulus,
I am remembering the Michelangelo Christ you once showed me.
NYer,
There is truth in that Christ should appear in the nude during His passion. The sensibilities of the parishioners, who, after all, do not come to church to look at art or to study history, and the questionable quality of this particular art, are another matter altogether.
The absolutely horrible quality of most church art in the past 400 years or so make me feel supportive of any deviation from today's accepted norm, as long as it is done in piety. I cannot say with certainty if the relief in the photograph, at a sharp aspect ratio and only one of 14, lacks in piety. I definitely don't think that nudity per se is incompatible with piety.
Fer cryin out loud.........
You all are correct, it does not look like much.
Just posting to offset the Left Junk.
The whole lot of them are caught up in secular group-think unbecoming of devout Christians.
This is disgusting.
Ugly, If I were a parishioner my money would stop until these monstrosities were takene down.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.