Unclothed Christ draws protest

Stuff ^ | February 16, 2005 | Louise Bleakly

[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.

[dsc]

”The artist who was commisioned is Llew Summers..."

...a no-talent homo.

Those who allowed this sacrilege should be severely disciplined.

[Aquinasfan]

I'm not a fan of modern art but there is a time and a place for it.

Yes, the toilet.

Modern "art" is simply the longest running hoax in history.

[Aquinasfan]

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.

That may or may not be so. But there is an issue of modesty here. Notice that Christ's genitals are not visible in the image on the Shroud of Turin. If someone stripped me and killed me, I wouldn't want a sculpture of my naked body preserved for posterity.

I can understand leaving the statue of David naked since it doesn't represent any known person in particular, but not an image of our Savior.

[Aquinasfan]

I don't blame the artiste. He is probably just an ignorant elitist homosexual snob. I blame every single person who approved of hiring an ignorant elitist homosexual snob in the first place, as well as every single parishioner who approves of the asinine result of the ignorant elitist homosexual snob's demented vision, and also every member of the Catholic hierarchy who hesitates for a single second to demand the immediate destruction of asinine result of the ignorant elitist homosexual snob's demented vision.

Nail on the head.

[dagoofyfoot]

My friend and business partner is an artist


I'll Say!

What an awesome painting! Does he have more?

[Calpernia]

Oh yes.

This is one of my favorites.

[Calpernia]

::Now I'm showing him off, sorry::

[Calpernia]

[Dominick]

These sculptures, as a work of art, lack a great deal. The forms and the craftsmanship are substandard. I would expect better from a second rate university MFA grad student than what I saw here.

As art these are crude and lack expression of the subject, Jesus. He often looks like a caveman, and his poses look stilted and unnatural. It irritated me to see some decent stations that could have been done well, like Veronica's Veil (Station 6), where the hands were pretty good; but they were masculine hands, and they framed a comical impression of Jesus. It appears Veronica wiped the face of Al Jolson, rather than Jesus.

Especially laughable to me was station two where a flying cross in bad perspective was going to crush caveman Jesus. The naked Jesus has a particularly baffling pose, he looked like he was doing an impression of a F-111 swing wing jet, ready to fly around cavalry before the crucifixion.

I accused the Artist of the equivalent of heresy in the art world. He was "phoning it in". I can make no other conclusion except lack of talent, lack of skill, and lack of motivation to do a decent job. I know artists in Florida who do better concrete bas relief on the side of condos or make lawn jockeys better than this person has done.

As liturgical elements they lack a cross, every station must have a cross with it, looks like only station 8 has one. They all need one. It doesn't matter how good (or bad) the art is, without that Cross it isn't the Via Crucis.

I would have to say, I would pull out a copy of the stations, in a different part of the Church, and say them quietly.

[Calpernia]

[dagoofyfoot]

Definitely an extremely talented individual!

[Calpernia]

Thanks :)

I think it offsets the topic of this thread nicely ;)

[HarleyD]

Honestly. Just because our Lord Jesus hung naked on the cross doesn't mean it has to be depicted. I wonder if a fully exposed bare-breasted Mary suckling the baby Jesus isn't next in the offering. I wonder if that will be consider a "great work of art".

Fortunately us Protestants show a empty cross.

[Romulus]

I can understand leaving the statue of David naked since it doesn't represent any known person in particular, but not an image of our Savior.

But it is! Our Lord is the son of David, is he not? And the Bible suggests (and tradition teaches) that David's batle with Goliath was a prophetic prefiguring of our Lord's crucified triumph over death, the enemy of the New Israel, and was fought in the nude. It was not some random accident that scripture relates the decision of David (the YOUNGER brother!) to strip off Saul's armor.

Annalex: thanks for the plug!

[Jaded]

My 7th grade CCE class could do better than this. IMO, it's weird, mocking and (nudity aside) vulgar trying to pass itself off as 'modern art'.

[eastsider]

If nothing else, I hope this sets to rest the question of the maleness of the priesthood ...

On a more serious note, I really like the cross on the bias, looking like a Greek chi. Nice touch.

[Dominick]

I wonder if a fully exposed bare-breasted Mary suckling the baby Jesus isn't next in the offering. I wonder if that will be consider a "great work of art".

Actually, There is an 14th Century painting of just such an image. There is a 6th Century example of an Icon of the Maria Lactans.

There are also nude, or nearly nude crucifixion depictions.

The objections are soley the nudity, the objection is the prurient interest in that depiction. To mask the crude workmanship, and generally bad art, the artist used a picture of a "hootie" to deflect attention.

During inspections, a enterprising soldier would leave something amiss for the Sargent to find, so he would leave, rather than search until he found something more picayune. This person took very bad bas relief sculpture, and added something to make people talk. He is a poor artist, but a good publicity person. All too often, successful bad artists are excellent publicity "whores".

[Aquinasfan]

But it is!

True, but he didn't model for it, which is the point I didn't make very well.

It also doesn't seem to me to be appropriate for a church. OTOH, the pope removed the fig leaves from the Last Judgement, which I can't really argue with. Still, I'll go with the Shroud on this one. Keep it covered.

[NYer]

What ... no contribution to the 'art gallery'?

[ArrogantBustard]

The absolutely horrible quality of most church art in the past 400 years or so

You have one too many zeros there ... and there are exceptions. Other than that, I agree. Most of what is billed as 'modern' art, whether sacred or profane, is dreck.