Controversial Art - Protest or Engagement?
The engagement of the Church with contemporary art, from Post-Impressionism to the present day, has often been contentious and contested but has nevertheless been a continuing relationship.
Fuelled by post-War repair and rebuilding, the modern period has witnessed a renaissance of commissioned art for churches and cathedrals. Significant thematic developments within this period include: commissions by secular artists or artists of other faiths who have brought alternative perspectives to Christian imagery, beliefs and themes; images of the crucifixion which viewed Christ’s sacrifice as emblematic of human suffering in conflict and persecution; church commissions which gave émigré artists the opportunity to build new careers; and a move from storytelling in stained glass by means of narrative figuration to the creation of spiritual space using abstract colour.
Key figures in initiating and then sustaining aspects of this renaissance in its initial phases included the artists Maurice Denis and Albert Gleizes, the philosopher Jacques Maritain, and clergy including Bishop George Bell, Canon Walter Hussey and the Dominican Friars Marie-Alain Couturier and Pie-Raymond Régamey.
This story is not one which has been well told, either by the Church or the mainstream art world. There are many reasons for this on both sides. The Church has often not valued sufficiently the artworks it has commissioned; at times their significance has not been understood or shared, at other times the works have been controversial and may have been banned or not publicized as a result. Often the artworks have been regarded as subsidiary to the liturgy and have not been publicized in order that the focus of the faithful would not be deflected. ‘Christian Art’ has become a contested term and the Church has been unsure whether to continue to use it and, if not, how else to speak of its commissions. There has also been significant debate about the relative values of commissioning artists who are Christians and contemporary ‘masters’ who may not be Christians.
In terms of the mainstream art world, the beginning of the modern period saw art and artists firmly and finally separating from dependence on Church patronage and wishing to maintain that independence. In addition, the speed with which new movements formed within modernism meant that artists engaging with church commissions in their later career could be portrayed as no longer being cutting edge and as having declined in the quality of their work. Many of the media used for Church commissions have not been central to modernism’s movements while the ‘alternative world’ of artists for whom Church commissions are a significant part of their practice tend not to feature on the radar of the mainstream art world.
Controversy of the sort encountered in relation to Art Below’s Stations of the Cross exhibitions, i.e. attempts to ban, remove or censor artworks thought to be in some way blasphemous or challenging, is also a part of this story.
When on sabbatical in 2014 I visited churches linked to three significant controversies over the commissioning of modern art:
(i) a set of Stations of the Cross and an altarpiece, The Death of St Teresa, commissioned from the Flemish artist Albert Servaes for the church of the Discalced Carmelites in Luithagen, a suburb of Antwerp led, in 1921, to a decree from the Holy Office based on Canon 1399.12, which states that images may not be ‘unusual’, resulting in first the Stations and then the altarpiece being removed from the chapel;
(ii) the publication of a 'Manifesto of Futurist Sacred Art' in 1931 led to a censure from Pope Pius XI in a speech given in October 1932 at the inauguration of a new Vatican Art Gallery and the rationalist design by Alberto Sartoris (who had strong links to the Futurists) for Notre-Dame du Bon Conseil in the Swiss Alps at Lourtier also created a scandal in the Swiss press in the same year;
(iii) Germaine Richier’s Crucifix was removed from Notre-Dame de Toute Grâce at Assy and a subsequent instruction on sacred art issued by the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office in 1952 was the beginning of two year initiative by the Vatican which severely constrained the modernizing programme of the French Dominicans and represented a victory for the traditionalists within the Church.
Many church commissions are controversial because they introduce something different and therefore dissonant into a familiar building. That was the case with images of the crucifixion by, for example, Servaes, Richier and Graham Sutherland (at St Matthew’s Northampton and St Alban East Acton) which viewed Christ’s sacrifice as emblematic of human suffering in conflict and persecution. These were often controversial as they challenged sentimental images of Christ and deliberately introduced ugliness into beautiful buildings. I spoke to parishioners in both Northampton and East Acton who stated that they did not like Sutherland’s Crucifixions but who also appreciated why the paintings were as they were and the challenge that they provided as a result.
I was particularly moved to find on entering Sint Martinuskerk in Latem that the baptistery contains a Passion charcoal by Servaes. Servaes and Richier were both affected by decrees from the holy office which led to the removal of their artworks from the churches for which they had been commissioned. Servaes, with his Stations of the Cross and altarpiece for the Carmelite Chapel in Luithagen and Richier, with her crucifix for the church at Assy.
Given all that Servaes experienced in the controversy over the Luithagen Stations, including the removal of work which was a genuine expression of his faith by the Church of which he was part, I found it profoundly moving that a work of his, in the same vein as the Luithagen Stations, should be displayed in the church and area where his faith and art first fused. Similarly, Richier’s crucifix has been returned to its place in the sanctuary at Assy and the church, like many other art sacré churches, is classed by the Government as a national monument and has become a significant tourist location.
It seems, therefore, that scandals of modern art, whether the reception of the works themselves or that of their challenging content, are, with time, resolved as congregations live with the works and learn to value the challenge of what initially seems to be scandalous. Controversy can also generate valuable debate. Artists, in their work, are seeking to explore the big philosophical questions in life. Questions like, who am I, where am I, why am I here and is there a God? The Church is also exploring those same questions and, therefore, there is potential for real connection between the Church, artists and those viewing the art in exploring those questions together.
The Church needs to develop a more nuanced and less defensive approach to artwork of the kind that has been included in Art Below’s Stations of the Cross. Several years ago I was involved with colleagues in running courses exploring faith and popular culture. In one session we considered the pros and cons of Christian protest or engagement in relation to controversial portrayals of Christ. In the 1970’s and 80’s, films like Monty Python’s Life of Brian and Martin Scorcese’s The Last Temptation of Christ resulted in thousands of Christians demonstrating outside cinema’s while Christian organisation’s like the National Viewer’s and Listener’s Association headed by Mary Whitehouse lobbied for these films to be banned. However, the release of The Da Vinci Code in 2006, although it dealt with similarly controversial material for Christians, did not result in mass protests. Instead, through seeker events, bible studies, websites and booklets Churches encouraged discussion of the issues raised by the film while clearly contesting the claims made about Christ and the Church.
We noted that the protests often did not tally with the content of the films and displayed a lack of understanding of the films, their stories and meaning. As Richard Burridge, Dean of King’s College London, said of the reaction to Life of Brian, 'those who called for the satire to be banned after its release in 1979 were “embarrassingly” ill-informed and missed a major opportunity to promote the Christian message.' Life of Brian portrayed the followers of religions as unthinking and gullible and the response of Christians to that film reinforced that stereotype.
The Church had to learn that the way to counter criticism is not to try to ban or censor it but to engage with it, understand it and accurately counter it. The Da Vinci Code events, bible studies, websites etc. that the Church used to counter the claims made in The Da Vinci Code featured reasoned arguments based on a real understanding of the issues raised which made use of genuine historical findings and opinion to counter those claims.
The reaction from some within the Church to Art Below’s Stations of the Cross exhibitions suggest that we still need to learn that it is far better to engage with art and artists by discussing and debating the questions they raise, instead of seeking to suppress or censor.
Written by: Revd Jonathan Evens
St Martin-in-the-Fields
Trafalgar Square
London