International, vast and well-networked right wing conspiracy objected to blasphemous art in Linz Cathedral

Today, art in church spaces is more in tune with the times than it has been in a long time, says Linz art historian Ilaria Hoppe. Yet some points of contention remain relevant even after centuries.

What art is acceptable in a church—and what is inappropriate or "unworthy"? This debate has existed for centuries. Ilaria Hoppe experienced it firsthand through a sensational artwork just around the corner. She is a professor of art in contemporary contexts and media at the Catholic Private University of Linz and co-editor of the journal "kunst und kirche" (art and church). In this interview, she discusses long-standing debates and the latest developments in church art.

Question: Ms. Hoppe, in June 2024, the sculpture "crowning" by the artist Esther Strauß was installed in the art space of Linz Cathedral. The sculpture depicts the Virgin Mary giving birth, seated on a rock. Just four days later, the head of the controversial artwork was sawn off. Is this symptomatic of the role of art in the Church?

From other angles the statue is not only blasphemous but also obscene.

Hoppe: This case has deeply affected all of us here. However, I wouldn't say that this case is symptomatic; there are too many positive examples of productive exchange. Rather, it reflects the general polarization of society, which is also mirrored in the Church. Apparently, there are also fundamentalists here in Linz who are well-connected internationally. It even went so far that the artist received death threats. 

NB Cathcon does not in any way support death threats

Beyond that, it reveals a struggle over the decorum of sacred spaces, which we find in all religions and cultures. This is connected to the question of how holy persons or the sacred itself should be depicted. This has been a point of contention throughout history; one need only think of iconoclasm or the destruction of images.

Question: Were there as frequent or less frequent disputes about the question of representation in past centuries?

Hoppe: Perhaps not always, but there were recurring ones. The first dispute about images in Christianity took place in the eighth and ninth centuries. During the Baroque period, for example, some of Caravaggio's depictions of saints were highly controversial. A particularly striking example is the Reformation, where, especially in Protestant and Calvinist circles, a hostility towards icons took hold, leading to iconoclasm. Here, too, there was this aggressive behavior, with religious figures being attacked with weapons. So, none of this is new, but it has certainly diminished in the modern era.

Question: Is this also related to the fact that society, and consequently the art world, has become more secular?

Hoppe: You can't generalize like that. Even after major upheavals for the Church, such as the French Revolution, there have always been movements that consciously turned back to the Church – for example, the Nazarenes or the Beuron artists. The real break came with the beginning of secular modernism after the First World War, with the definitive separation of church and state. Nevertheless, even then, artists like Wassily Kandinsky and Marc Chagall continued to engage intensively with religion. In addition, there are reform movements within the Church, such as the Second Vatican Council, which also brought a new, simpler spirit to the churches.

Question: In an increasingly secular society, does art for sacred spaces require more explanation?

Hoppe: I don't see that yet, or rather, a complex theological program from the Baroque period has always required explanation. The same is perhaps true for contemporary art in general, regardless of where it is exhibited. The Church in Europe has always been very quick to adopt the latest artistic trends; this is often overlooked. Modern architecture, for example, was almost immediately present in church construction, and that has nothing to do with secularization. Often it is rather the members of the congregations who are not so quick to embrace contemporary art. However, we also know this phenomenon from the Renaissance, where a congregation successfully petitioned to have a monochrome altarpiece by Tilmann Riemenschneider painted because they felt the figures weren't realistic enough. Ultimately, the final design always depends on the specific patrons in the church.

Question: The constitution "Gaudium et spes" of the Second Vatican Council (1962–65) states that works of art take many forms, but: "They should be admitted to the sanctuary if they express themselves in a manner appropriate to the liturgy and lift the spirit to God." (GS 62) Are there therefore guidelines for art in the church?

Hoppe: Yes, they exist, but in my estimation, the needs of the liturgy are often the focus of discussion. Besides, this statement is so general that it can be interpreted in any number of ways for any work. Practice is more revealing: If you look, for example, at the new altar in Linz Cathedral or the renovation of St. Hedwig's Cathedral in Berlin, both are works at the intersection of architecture and art that are completely contemporary. In each case, a modern concept of central space is implemented in an old building, which, however, has an impact on the liturgy. In such cases, the question of where the line is drawn for art is always debated – but the result shows that even in an old church, radically minimalist modern art can work very well.

Question: So there is no difference between contemporary art in church spaces and contemporary art in general?

Hoppe: A lot has changed. After the Second Vatican Council, there were artists who specialized in church art and thus gave this field its own distinctive character. In recent years, however, the points of contact between contemporary art and the Church have increased significantly. This has led to many interesting and valuable perspectives, both on art and on faith. Overall, the Church has never completely relinquished its role as a patron, as faith has always been mediated through the media; and many artists greatly appreciate this, or rather, the church space itself offers many interesting themes that transcend everyday life. On the other hand, there are artists who, due to the numerous abuse cases, do not want to collaborate with the Church. But this has less to do with faith.

"In the long term, I don't believe that the Catholic world will be able to do without images." — Quote: Ilaria Hoppe

Question: Is there art that is more prevalent than others, for example, more representational art than abstract art?

Hoppe: In the contemporary art scene, I would say that abstract art is far more widespread in the Church than representational art, which includes temporary installations or performances. Just look at Jakob Kirchmayr's Lenten veil for Innsbruck Cathedral, "Traces of Fire," for which he assembled fabrics treated with fire. Overall, I've been seeing a significant increase in painting in art for quite some time now, painting that oscillates between figurative and abstract; Wolfgang Grinschgl's "Ash Men" would be a good example. Formal constraints and the free play of associations are kept in balance. But of course, there are still representational works, of which Michael Triegel's altarpiece "Sacra Conversazione" for Naumburg Cathedral, for example, has achieved particular renown.

Question: Is there art that is simply unacceptable?

Hoppe: There's an example that illustrates this boundary: "Feet First" by Martin Kippenberger, a frog nailed to a cross. Some believers who have little contact with modern art feel offended by it because they don't understand it. In my opinion, one should be considerate on the one hand, but on the other hand, convey such a work in a truly profound way. Kippenberger's sculpture is extremely multifaceted, but one could also simply see it as a parody. However, this sculpture was never exhibited in a church; the symbol of the cross was enough to stir up strong emotions. Here, one can draw a parallel to the Marian statue in Linz: both are works that provoked controversy precisely because of their representational nature and realism. At the same time, they bear witness to the power of images and art.

See  Bishop also thinks that a crucified frog is art and defends a pig's heart hanging in Church

Question: What is the next movement? You just spoke of iconoclasm.

Hoppe: Well, I hope we continue to be spared such incidents, because to me, attacking a painting is like burning a book. These are simply further steps in an escalation that I think is currently causing many people anxiety. That said, there are many parishes that are heavily involved in the arts to make the church interior more appealing and/or to attract new audiences. In this regard, I see a trend towards minimalism. Here, too, it is worth taking a look at St Hedwig’s Cathedral in Berlin, where only one sculpture can be seen in each niche of the main nave, and white is the dominant colour. In the long term, I do not believe that the Catholic world will manage without images. They will simply be presented differently: when a Catholic church interior is designed today, there may be fewer figures, but these are then staged very effectively with pedestals and lighting, almost as in a gallery. This is not a rejection of art, but an emphasis: art is no longer merely functional, but is deliberately highlighted.

Source

Cathcon: On this argument, anything that people call art becomes acceptable in churches.  Modernists once even erected two golden calves before the altar of God in a Catholic Church in the name of their art and also the unforgettable Shrine to St Judas, also in Linz   Totally unacceptable.