Bishop defends indefensible modern art. Theologian who objects concerned he is branded as an extremist.
PRO
Liveliness instead of a special church world
Bishop Hermann Glettler
Bishop of the Diocese of Innsbruck, people's missionary, art educator and artist
Many more stories on Bishop Glettler.
What's the matter? Provocation is not the criterion. It's about liveliness, depth, breadth and existential relevance. I know that high-quality art always creates frictional energy - but also that provocation for its own sake is ridiculous. Equally unfavorable is the knee-jerk judgment that everything that does not correspond to one's own taste is provocative or even blasphemous. Yes, contemporary art can disturb – and even hurt. But is there life and real faith in the absence of interference?
Not boring
The widow of Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny was a guest at the EU Parliament in Strasbourg. In her speech, Yulia Navalnaya explained how her ruthlessly murdered husband had managed, despite the regime's repression, to use his creativity to become the most important opposition politician in Russia. “He was the exact opposite of boring. If you want to defeat Putin, you have to be inventive and stop being a bore,” she said. So maybe more Easter creativity? And a fresh impulse through contemporary art?
We have to learn to look again - and to be amazed. Also the healing fright. Christianity's first depiction of the cross is a mocking graffiti from the 3rd century. It shows the crucified man with a donkey's head and underneath it says: "Alexamenos pays homage to God". That says it all. People made fun of this crazy religion that worships a man hanged on a cross. We have become accustomed to the depictions of the cross – unfortunately. We also often no longer see the sophisticated nature of the old church art.
A healing process
Art interventions can initiate a healing dialogue. It's not so much about individual artifacts, but about a process. About compassion and openness to diverse life experiences. Last year, Christian Eisenberger showed haunting images of lament in Innsbruck's Servitenkirche. The great wounds of our time were visible. Shocking for many. It was only over the course of 40 days that people started to get involved. Praying became more solidarity. Church must not be sufficient for itself.
At the Mass on Good Friday, I was touched by the complaint about the false prophets who talk to the people. They are accused of not having persuaded people to repent. Literally: “ad paenitentiam provocarent” (Lamentations 2:14), translated: “not having provoked to repentance”. I see that art occasionally has to do this job. The Latin “provocare” has an important field of association – to evoke, to awaken, to cause to grow, to stimulate, to challenge to fight.
Protection from feel-good spirituality
I don't want to canonise contemporary art. There is something just as unfathomable in it as in any human communication. But occasionally we need it – at least temporarily. Above all as protection against a special church world or feel-good spirituality that has little to do with the Gospel of Jesus.
CONTRA
Provocative art belongs in a museum
Jan-Heiner Tück
Head of the Department of Dogmatics and History of Dogma at the Institute for Systematic Theology and Ethics at the Faculty of Catholic Theology in Vienna
The Gospel provokes. Anyone who hears it cannot stay the way they are. Art also provokes. It shows what has been overlooked, shows off wounds – or is simply beautiful. The church has always supported art. Since art has emancipated itself from religious requirements, it has been free. Artistic freedom is a valuable asset; to domesticate it religiously would be wrong.
A question of conversation culture
The relationship between church and art is prone to disruption. Recently, Gottfried Helnwein's Lenten hanging in St. Stephen's Cathedral in Vienna was provocative. There were reservations among parts of the church population, some of which were expressed aggressively. Cathedral priests and artists found themselves pilloried. This is bad. At the same time, there were reflexes that dismissed any criticism as anti-art or “right-wing Catholic”. That's bad too. A synodal culture of conversation that seeks to hear others looks different.
But what gave the impetus? Helnwein's installation shows oversized skulls on the right and left. In doing so, he holds up a mirror of memento mori to a world that wants to be young and beautiful. Hanging in the middle – upside down! – the Christ of the Shroud of Turin. Some thought this was a successful illustration of alienation, others saw a “blasphemous distortion” at work. The first lesson in the reservations is that the awarding of the Lenten cloth is not going ideally. Wouldn't it make sense to form a committee in which theologians, art experts and practicing members of the cathedral parish decide on the award?
Is the work of art theologically consistent?
One would also have to ask about the theological fit of art. Helnwein wanted to use his Lenten cloth to illustrate Christ's descent into the realm of the dead. The question of whether his image captured the meaning of the article of faith was not even asked. In the icons of the Eastern Church, Christ's descent into hell is an act of solidarity with the dead. The upright (!) Christ figures here as the paschal victor over death; he extends his hand to Adam as the representative of fallen humanity to pull him out of the abyss of darkness. The descent is a symbol of hope. There is no sign of this at Helnwein. But: Why shouldn't contemporary art be allowed to question articles of faith? Persiflage, reversal and alienation are common stylistic devices in contemporary art. Of course, I like to subject myself to bold provocations in the museum. But does Helnwein's cloth belong in St. Stephen's Cathedral?
Don't feel like risking violence
Now the Cathedral Chapter has canceled the Helnwein Easter cloth. It was supposed to show the resurrected man as a boy with stigmata. Children, blood, violence – that suits an artist who knows the mechanisms of creating scandal. His image oscillates. Does it only make suffering visible? Or doesn't it subliminally serve the desire for violence? Psychologists warn against “retraumatization” of those affected by abuse. I think it's good that the Easter picture isn't shown. I don't think it's good that I'm being associated with “right-wing Catholics”. It shows that the Catholic culture of discussion is not in very good shape.
.jpeg)
Comments