Vatican Getting Back Into the Art Business

[Kanastrous]

When Renzo Piano sketched his initial plans for the church of San Padre Pio in Puglia, Italy, in 1993, he envisioned a contemporary space decorated with modern interpretations of Roman Catholic symbolism. Sure, he included plenty of traditional mainstays in church design like nooks for fonts, crucifixes and statues of Jesus, the Virgin Mary and Padre Pio himself. But he also incorporated a 150-square-foot sunshade printed with what he refers to as a mirthful interpretation of the apocalypse by Roy Lichtenstein. Back then, the Vatican was warming to the idea of stark modern structures instead of baroque palaces for its new churches—which is why Piano got the job—but it wasn't yet willing to compromise on how to decorate them. "Our feet echoed in the giant halls inside the Vatican as we walked in with 30 fragments of our happy apocalypse," Piano told NEWSWEEK, describing the day he presented the avant-garde idea to the Holy See. "But they simply wouldn't have it. They loved the church design, and they had no problem with the sunshade, but in the end I had to use a solemn 12th-century apocalypse interpretation from a book that was Vatican-approved."

The Catholic Church was once the world's most important art patron—or "Client No. 1," as Piano calls it. But it has not had any real influence on art since the mid-18th century. For the last hundred years, the church has simply played the role of collector, acquiring antique religious art but commissioning very few pieces. This fall, though, the Holy See hopes to revive its cultural side by searching for artists willing to create new interpretations of tired spiritual art. The Vatican campaign is nothing short of a genius hunt for a modern-day Michelangelo or Raphael. "We have made great progress with innovative church designs by top architects," says Monsignor Gianfranco Ravasi, who heads the Pontifical Council for Culture, which is spearheading the project. "Now we need artwork of the level we inspired centuries ago. We need to return to the spirit of the 1500s."

The artists will be chosen by a commission made up of art critics and art-savvy clergy. Ravasi suggests the artists might be given a theme—such as light, suffering or death—or they could be given a figure such as David or one of the saints as a starting point. Once these artists have completed their work, the Vatican will send the best forward, perhaps even to the Venice Biennale, a competition for contemporary artists the Vatican once dismissed as "the breakdown of art in modern times." By channeling the competition through the Biennale, Ravasi admits, the Vatican is hoping to be perceived as embracing the concept of modern art, not just changing its art-collection criteria, though the Vatican has no preferential treatment with Biennale organizers, which could ultimately snub the church.

Even before the artist hunt commences, the Vatican is diligently working to find sponsors or, more aptly, wealthy Medici-style patrons who would be willing to commission artists like British sculptor Anish Kapoor or American artist Bill Viola for a themed competition. The Vatican is already speaking to one potential British-based sponsor about pledging around $1 million for the project. Since Italy's old churches overflow with masterpieces, the concentration will be on new churches—which in Italy means those built in the past century. Eventually, the worthy artists will be commissioned to create sculptures, paintings, mosaics and even ceiling frescoes for churches such as Richard Meier's Jubilee church in Rome. "We are trying to reignite the dialogue between the church and artists," says Ravasi. "For the last few hundred years the church and art have been moving in different directions."

To get in sync with the times, the Vatican will have to redefine its beliefs about modern art. The Vatican Museums have only a small section dedicated to modern artists like Giorgio de Chirico and Henri Matisse, and contemporary spiritual art is obviously absent from dioceses across the world. Instead, replicas of sculptures and reproductions of paintings dominate modern church décor. The Holy See tried to incorporate contemporary art into its spiritual repertoire once before, during Vatican II in the 1960s. Pope Paul VI tried to embrace contemporary art and its place in the liturgy. Then dioceses refused to abandon their dependence on what the church calls "figuration"—a definitive model that gives worshipers clear-cut images to use for meditation and prayer rather than abstraction, which would force followers to search their own souls for the greater meaning. Back then a Roman bishop explained that his parishioners could not possibly interpret modern art. "The church, in general, is for simple people," he said. "They must be able to understand what they are seeing."

Ravasi admits the church will have to educate the faithful to have an open mind and accept contemporary religious art in the same way they trust traditional works. The church's struggle with how best to represent its beliefs visually has been made more difficult by the fact that many of today's artists rely heavily on religious symbolism to provoke rather than inspire. Last year, German artist Gerhard Richter was commissioned to design a modern stained-glass window in Cologne's grand cathedral, replacing a window that was destroyed in World War II. But his computer-generated design was condemned by the church as bizarre and inappropriate. Richter claimed his picture depicted the divine spirit within the chaos of 11,200 colored pieces of glass. But the Cardinal of Cologne, Joachim Meisner, called for the window's removal. "If we are to have a new window," he said, "then it should clearly reflect our beliefs, not just any old beliefs."

Balancing contemporary expression with ancient beliefs is not a new challenge. When Michelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel 500 years ago, Ravasi says, he constantly argued with Pope Julius II and others about the interpretations and representations in his intricate ceiling work. The recent book "The Sistine Secrets: Michelangelo's Forbidden Messages in the Heart of the Vatican" claims that even the Renaissance artist couldn't resist taking a certain amount of liberty. The authors say Michelangelo hid secret messages in the ceiling that actually insult the pope and Catholicism. Ravasi dismisses the book as preposterous propaganda, likening it to Dan Brown's accounts of the Vatican's secret societies. "This was the Sistine Chapel," Ravasi says, laughing. "You don't think they were watching his every stroke? They were watching him so closely there is no way he could have slipped in any hidden messages." This time around, the Vatican promises to keep an open mind to whatever the artists come up with—as long as they retain the integrity of the church's beliefs, Ravasi says. "I am happy they are searching," says Piano. "And I think the project is a superb idea, but they have to give freedom or the project will never work." Patience, Renzo. Remember, Rome wasn't redecorated in a day.

© 2008

---

Guess there aren't any poor, hungry or uneducated people left in the world, if the Church can afford to raise and spend huge money for new interior decorating.

[Kanastrous]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/158580


...and the link, if'n anybody wants it.

[Thanas]

I am not so sure what is so reprehensible about that - any state spends a fair portion of the budget on representative things like art, parades etc.

[Themightytom]

I am not so sure what is so reprehensible about that - any state spends a fair portion of the budget on representative things like art, parades etc.

Mt. Rushmore was donated right?

[Melchior]

Guess there aren't any poor, hungry or uneducated people left in the world, if the Church can afford to raise and spend huge money for new interior decorating.

I find investing resources in art preferable to inventing resourced in spreading disinformation about condoms.

[Melchior]

I find investing resources in art preferable to inventing resourced in spreading disinformation about condoms.

I'm sorry, it should read:
"I find investing resources in art preferable to investing resources in spreading disinformation about condoms."

[Kanastrous]

I am not so sure what is so reprehensible about that - any state spends a fair portion of the budget on representative things like art, parades etc.

The Vatican is not just any state.

It's a parasitic theocracy that whines about being too short on resources to properly compensate the victims of the pedophile priests it shelters, and supposedly focuses on charitable acts - which can always be better-funded - but somehow has the $$$ just lying around, to add more art, more glitz, more bling, to what must already be the world's largest and most spectacular collection.

[Themightytom]

It's a parasitic theocracy that whines about being too short on resources to properly compensate the victims of the pedophile priests it shelters, and supposedly focuses on charitable acts - which can always be better-funded - but somehow has the $$$ just lying around, to add more art, more glitz, more bling, to what must already be the world's largest and most spectacular collection.

Shouldn't this be in religion and morality? It DOES seem you are debating the morality of the church buying art

[Siege]

The Vatican is not just any state.

It's a parasitic theocracy that whines about being too short on resources to properly compensate the victims of the pedophile priests it shelters, and supposedly focuses on charitable acts - which can always be better-funded - but somehow has the $$$ just lying around, to add more art, more glitz, more bling, to what must already be the world's largest and most spectacular collection.

I'm not gonna argue about the parasitic theocracy bit or that this money couldn't arguably be better spent, but... The Vatican doesn't compensate the victims of pedophile priests at all -- it's up to local dioceses and archdioceses to do that, because they are responsible for child-molester priests in their parishes, not the Vatican. Unlike a multinational where if you successfully sue a local branch the owning corporation would have to pony up the cash you can't insofar as I know sue the Vatican or even the RC-Church as a single cohesive whole for anything: you can only sue local dioceses.

(I'm not exactly sure of the reason why, but I bet it has something to do with the status of the Holy See as a sovereign entity.)

Bottom line is, that's why American dioceses having to very nearly file for bankruptcy don't directly affect Vatican finances, and that's why the Vatican can (apparently) afford to play patron of the arts whilst some of its dioceses are in dire financial straits.

(Although I still find it a bit odd, because as I recall the Vatican actually turned a loss last fiscal year.)

[Kanastrous]

It's a parasitic theocracy that whines about being too short on resources to properly compensate the victims of the pedophile priests it shelters, and supposedly focuses on charitable acts - which can always be better-funded - but somehow has the $$$ just lying around, to add more art, more glitz, more bling, to what must already be the world's largest and most spectacular collection.

Shouldn't this be in religion and morality? It DOES seem you are debating the morality of the church buying art

It's news that concerns the morality of a religious institution.

If a mod feels it belongs in another forum, far be it from me to object.

The Vatican doesn't compensate the victims of pedophile priests at all -- it's up to local dioceses and archdioceses to do that, because they are responsible for child-molester priests in their parishes, not the Vatican. Unlike a multinational where if you successfully sue a local branch the owning corporation would have to pony up the cash you can't insofar as I know sue the Vatican or even the RC-Church as a single cohesive whole for anything: you can only sue local dioceses.

The fact that the Vatican can legally dodge paying for the misdeeds of their priests, does not mean that they can be held morally harmless, since policies made in Rome perpetuated the abuse and still underwrite cover for the guilty.

[Ghost Rider]

Moved, because it's news is "Old men buy art...because they have money.". The morality behind said choices have fuck all with the story at hand.

[Thanas]

The fact that the Vatican can legally dodge paying for the misdeeds of their priests, does not mean that they can be held morally harmless, since policies made in Rome perpetuated the abuse and still underwrite cover for the guilty.

True. I do however fail to see why that has anything to do with how a state spends its money. Is the Vatican spending an outrageous portion of the budget on this project? If so, and if that would be to the detriment of other people in the world, I would agree. Yet I fail to see how outrageous the sums supposedly are....heck, for all we know, the Vatican spends less money on this than the US spends on Inauguration Day.

Also, it is not like the money is spend just for the Vatican. Many art pieces or architectural wonders the church has commissioned are huge tourist attractions, bringing in a lot of money for local business and the country itself. Just how many people visit the Sistine Chapel a year and inject their money into the Italian economy?

[Kanastrous]

The fact that the Vatican can legally dodge paying for the misdeeds of their priests, does not mean that they can be held morally harmless, since policies made in Rome perpetuated the abuse and still underwrite cover for the guilty.

True. I do however fail to see why that has anything to do with how a state spends its money.

Again, the Vatican is a unique state, which claims to be on a mission to - among other things - perform works of charity, and stand as a moral exemplar for others. It's difficult to see what moral aura attaches to an organization that claims to be devoted to charitable works, while enriching itself with art and architecture using funds that could underwrite a great deal more charitable work, than is currently being performed.

[Thanas]

The fact that the Vatican can legally dodge paying for the misdeeds of their priests, does not mean that they can be held morally harmless, since policies made in Rome perpetuated the abuse and still underwrite cover for the guilty.

True. I do however fail to see why that has anything to do with how a state spends its money.

Again, the Vatican is a unique state, which claims to be on a mission to - among other things - perform works of charity, and stand as a moral exemplar for others. It's difficult to see what moral aura attaches to an organization that claims to be devoted to charitable works, while enriching itself with art and architecture using funds that could underwrite a great deal more charitable work, than is currently being performed.

Isn't the advancement of the arts a moral purpose in itself? Even if you discount that possibility, you still have to answer as to why this is an outrageous thing - to what degree are you the arbiter of how much representation a state needs?

Also, I see you failed to address the benefits of such a move which I raised in my earlier post.

[Thanas]

Ghetto edit:
I agree that this has nothing to do with charitable work. Yet the church is not focused on charity alone - a great deal of the prestige it has is directly related to the representation the church has due to the buildings, arts etc.

Anyway, you have to show me some numbers first. For all we know they can spend some millions or some billions on those things. If it is the first, I fail to see how this even matters.

[Kanastrous]

Isn't the advancement of the arts a moral purpose in itself?

No.

Even if you discount that possibility, you still have to answer as to why this is an outrageous thing - to what degree are you the arbiter of how much representation a state needs?

I'm not specially qualified as an arbiter on the matter of roasting and eating babies either, but I'm still willing to oppose the practice...

An institution which constantly harps on its moral authority to lecture others on how to live their lives, has to underwrite that moral authority. Claims to to goody-goodies with a hotline to God, and the right to, well, pontificate on morals for others, lose a great deal of their weight when the claimants are observed urging charity out of one side of their institutional mouth while simultaneously offering $$$ commissions for decorative artwork whose sole purpose is to showcase the Chruch's wealth and power.

Also, I see you failed to address the benefits of such a move which I raised in my earlier post.[/quote]

[Kanastrous]

and - ghetto edit - if the Vatican's purpose is to clothe the naked and feed the poor - which they stridently claim - that's one thing.

If their purpose is to inject $$$ into the Italian tourist economy - not a mission that I believe they have ever advertised - I think that Italy gets plenty of revenue off the city of Rome itself, the Amalfi coast, Venice, Florence, etc, etc, etc, etc.

Anyway, I don't know that a penny of the revenues collected by Vatican City from tourists, makes its way to the Italian government - why would it, since the Vatican is sovereign territory?

[Thanas]

Isn't the advancement of the arts a moral purpose in itself?

No.

Why not? It has always been one of the duties of the sovereign. Art, at its best, inspires people. Was the church wrong for sponsering the arists of the past like Michelangelo?

An institution which constantly harps on its moral authority to lecture others on how to live their lives, has to underwrite that moral authority. Claims to to goody-goodies with a hotline to God, and the right to, well, pontificate on morals for others, lose a great deal of their weight when the claimants are observed urging charity out of one side of their institutional mouth while simultaneously offering $$$ commissions for decorative artwork whose sole purpose is to showcase the Chruch's wealth and power.

Then show me: How much money for this is the church taking away from aid? Can you even show that the money would have gone to charity work otherwise? Heck, can you even show me how much money they are spending on it? For all we know, this is a pipe dream, a simple survey for future projects.

I'd reserve my right to bitch about it in the future when you can actually show me some numbers.

If their purpose is to inject $$$ into the Italian tourist economy - not a mission that I believe they have ever advertised - I think that Italy gets plenty of revenue off the city of Rome itself, the Amalfi coast, Venice, Florence, etc, etc, etc, etc.

It is not a mission, it is a byproduct of them sponsoring the arts. Also, many of the tourist attractions in Rome were church-built. Heck, I am willing to bet that the biggest attractions in Italy are almost all church-built, discounting the colosseum.

Anyway, I don't know that a penny of the revenues collected by Vatican City from tourists, makes its way to the Italian government - why would it, since the Vatican is sovereign territory?

These people have to eat, sleep and use means of transportation. All which stimulates the Italian economy.

[Themightytom]

The Vatican doesn't compensate the victims of pedophile priests at all -- it's up to local dioceses and archdioceses to do that, because they are responsible for child-molester priests in their parishes, not the Vatican. Unlike a multinational where if you successfully sue a local branch the owning corporation would have to pony up the cash you can't insofar as I know sue the Vatican or even the RC-Church as a single cohesive whole for anything: you can only sue local dioceses.

The fact that the Vatican can legally dodge paying for the misdeeds of their priests, does not mean that they can be held morally harmless, since policies made in Rome perpetuated the abuse and still underwrite cover for the guilty.

What the fuck? Way to misquote

[Akhlut]

Plus, there is the fact that the Catholic Church does want its churches to inspire people to convert or become better Catholics. The Catholic Church is trying to become halfway modern and relevant to attract younger members and continue to maintain a grip on lapsing Catholics in order to have more regular members and to extract donations from them. This is sort of a business deal for them: if they put a $1 million into art, they hope to get a few thousand converts or happier Catholics who will put more cash into the donation plates and come up with more cash than the million already put in.

There's also the fact that it is also part of the Church's mission to provide patronage for art and science; they are deciding to put more work toward art this time around instead of focusing a lot on science.

And to preempt talk about science, remember that there are a lot of prestigious Catholic universities doing a lot of important and high grade science.

[Themightytom]

Plus, there is the fact that the Catholic Church does want its churches to inspire people to convert or become better Catholics. The Catholic Church is trying to become halfway modern and relevant to attract younger members and continue to maintain a grip on lapsing Catholics in order to have more regular members and to extract donations from them. This is sort of a business deal for them: if they put a $1 million into art, they hope to get a few thousand converts or happier Catholics who will put more cash into the donation plates and come up with more cash than the million already put in.

There's also the fact that it is also part of the Church's mission to provide patronage for art and science; they are deciding to put more work toward art this time around instead of focusing a lot on science.

And to preempt talk about science, remember that there are a lot of prestigious Catholic universities doing a lot of important and high grade science.

This pope is on the other side of the worship vs works debate, he has said as much and has made it a policy to move catholis away from the outreach and activism towards a more introspective reflection. his goal isn't to "Feed the hungry and clothe the naked" as much as it is to support a deeper desire to worship. I don't really see why the extension of the Pope's doctrine upsets you, its not like he's infallible.

[Akhlut]

This pope is on the other side of the worship vs works debate, he has said as much and has made it a policy to move catholis away from the outreach and activism towards a more introspective reflection. his goal isn't to "Feed the hungry and clothe the naked" as much as it is to support a deeper desire to worship. I don't really see why the extension of the Pope's doctrine upsets you, its not like he's infallible.

Eh, I was basing things more on JPII-style operations. I used to be a Catholic, but I really stopped believing well before the switch over. Plus, the Church does still consider defrauding workers' wages and oppressing the poor to be "sins crying to heaven for vengeance," as well as the seven works of corporal mercy and all that sort of thing. Plus, even if the Pope is talking about being more about worship, the official teaching of the Church and a great deal of Church tradition are still focused on doing good works.

[Themightytom]

Eh, I was basing things more on JPII-style operations. I used to be a Catholic, but I really stopped believing well before the switch over.

JP2 had drastically different perspectives on things, JP2 would ahve invited the youth of the world to submit their works or something.

Plus, the Church does still consider defrauding workers' wages and oppressing the poor to be "sins crying to heaven for vengeance," as well as the seven works of corporal mercy and all that sort of thing.

That doesn't mean they have to do anything about them besides protest them ideologically. The argument could be made that the church should get its own house in order before tackling global issues again.

Plus, even if the Pope is talking about being more about worship, the official teaching of the Church and a great deal of Church tradition are still focused on doing good works.

even if the Pope is talking about being more about worship, the official teaching of the Church and a great deal of Church tradition are still focused on doing good works.

yeah you would think that wouldn't you, but the Pope doesn't, I compare it to instances where the constitution protects the freedoms of individuals but president Bush seems to feel that is not really important in light of national security. Bush's policies still dominate even if its a different interpretation than may have been intended.