So, today I received an email from "America Needs Fatima"
regarding the blasphemous sculpture Feet First by Martin Kippenberger which is on display at a museum in Portland, OR:
Doing a bit of research I find that the Vatican, as in the Secretary of State, did log a protest of the and claim it was offensive to the faithful and I find a lot of citations that say the Vatican declared it blasphemous, though I can find no official or original document to confirm this assertion. Even if I could, it appears that at best it is just an arm of the Vatican political organization and not the teaching authority of the Church (Pope speaking ex cathedra or the The Magesterium) that has made a statement on this work.
Now, don't get me wrong, when I first read the description of the art and saw it I was a bit disgusted. But as I read more and contemplated more I started to question my response and since there doesn't appear to be an authoritative decree that consideration of this work for the possibility of it contain value is a mortal sin, I continued to contemplate it. And here's some thoughts I've had:
Certainly, I see what it would offend fellow Catholics and Christians. At first viewing it is a goofy looking frog crucified and for us, the Cross and Crucifixion is an icon of Christ's Holy Sacrifice. It is symbolic of the greatest act of love ever and is central to our faith and understanding of God. It's not the punchline of a joke.
However...
Clearly I have no idea, nor does anyone else seem to know, what the intent of the artist was. And, even if someone did know, art, icons, and symbolism are far less about the artists intent than the viewer's understanding, interpretation and response. Not that the crucifix was a common fixture in art 2000 years ago, but I think it's worth considering the crucifix and its meaning 2000 years ago, prior to it becoming the symbol of our faith. 2000 years ago it was a symbol of terror, or oppression, of pain and torture. It was a weapon used by Rome to control conquered people. Even after Christ's crucifixion and resurrection, to non-believers it remained that symbol of torture, violence and coercion.
But, today, it is almost universally equated with something positive, with great sacrifice and a symbol of enduring, all encompassing love. It's not an intrinsic characteristic of the Cross to inspire terror or love, it's what we make of it...
2000 years ago and for a couple generations after Christ's crucifixion the Romans continued to use the Cross and to them it was a weapon for suppressing opposition to their rule. But at the same time when Peter, Paul, Andrew, Thomas, John or any of the disciples of that generation or subsequent saw the Romans using the Cross, they didn't see it as the Roman's intended them to view it, they saw it as inspiring, as a reminder of what Christ made it for them. A covenant, a reminder, a symbol of redemption, sacrifice and love. The Roman's intent in presenting the Cross had a completely different effect on the mind of the Apostles, disciples and martyrs...
So... What did the artist mean when he made Feet First? I don't care. What does it mean to me? It reminds me of the soldiers crowning Christ with thorns and Pilate posting INRI above Christ's head on the Cross. How difficult it can be for some to recognize or accept that presence of God before them. It reminds me that even I can be a hypocrit at times proclaiming to be a disciple of Christ yet falling to temptation and sin, failing to see God and his will and instead creating my own god...
There's a Cross there in that art. That Cross reminds me of Christ's sacrifice. There's a ridiculous frog there in place of Christ, which reminds me that sometimes I put myself up there like I can be God, like I can save myself. Is the way I choose my will over God's, the way I make myself or money or the flesh my god any more foolish than putting a bug-eyed frog on the Cross?
Sure, I'm not going to equate this to some truly inspiring beautiful work of art like The Pieta, The Last Supper, or the work on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. I'll take my Christ the Pantocrater or painting of The Sacred Heart over this any day. And I fully recognize the danger of art like this when viewed by someone not well versed in their faith, without a strong belief and developed relationship with God. But, what isn't a danger to faith? Even the Bible separated from proper teach authority leads people far astray and to grave sin and blasphemy...
But, I'm a bit leery of suppressing art that reminds us of our fallen nature, of our tendency to create our own gods. I think there's any interesting contrast going on right now... We can look to the HHS debate and see that many Catholics don't have a good understanding of their faith and so willfully or ignorantly sin against God's plan for life. There we make no concession that just because people misunderstand it we should change our beliefs. Now, contraception is intrinsically evil so it's easy to see that the problem lies in the teaching and not in the trying to adhere to teaching the principle. In this case, the art isn't intrinsically good or evil. It's all in the perspective and teaching...
There seem to be three primary approaches to art like this:
1. Ignore it.
2. Protest it.
3. Learn from it.
Ignoring it is a bad idea. While it won't give it any undue attention and might allow it to go unnoticed, someone is bound to notice it and let it have an evil effect.
Protesting it seems to miss an opportunity. It also seems to teach something dangerous, that neutral actions and things can have intrinsic evil or good, instead of neutral matter's value and worth being determined by the intent and use.
Learning from it seems to be the best approach. Certainly, part of teaching is warning about the danger it may represent to a believer weaker in faith and understanding. But, it seems to me that this represents a very teachable opportunity...
And it all reminds me of a sermon by Father Larry Richards. A sermon about sin which you can find on You Tube, where he tells a story about a calf urinating on him and how that can be seen as symbolic of how what we do to God whenever we sin. A calf urinating on a priest in one context would be evil, in that context it is strong and fitting symbolism that leads to good. It's all in the context.
It doesn't matter what the cow intended the urine to mean, if he meant anything other than to relieve himself. What matters is how it is used for teaching.
Doesn't it?
