A disclaimer, this post is not intended to be an affront to Catholics. Please keep this in mind while reading the following entry which does discuss the denomination, as evidenced by the title above, and feel free to correct me on any points where I may have misrepresented any related doctrine or theology espoused by the Catholic Church.

A story via ArtsJournal reports the Catholic League’s Bill Donahue is at it again. I mentioned him last year when he raised Cain over Cosimo Cavallaro’s Sweet Jesus.

Donahue and the League are upset about a series of paintings by one Felipe Baeza, a student at the private Cooper Union. Baeza’s offending works combine erotic images with traditionally Catholic symbols such as rosary beads and a Crucifix. I haven’t seen the paintings in question, and by their description have no desire to see them, but I don’t agree with the Catholic League’s approach to these exhibits. Donahue also lead other recent protests against questionable art, such as Brooklyn Museum’s Sensation exhibit and Andres Serrano’s Piss Christ.

By no means do I condone the way the assumed subject matter in works such as Baeza’s — based on description alone, mind you — is presented. I did a Google search for some images of the paintings but, thankfully, didn’t come up with anything. I did find his Facebook profile, and the following painting which seems to be by the same man:

[Per a comment from a friend of Baeza's on another site — which I've added to this post — I removed the image after receiving clarification that it was not done by this particular Felipe Baeza.]

I’m not a fan of censorship, but there is a balance to be struck between an artist’s exploration in subject and media, and resulting useful (read in part, “tactful”) artwork. It’s not too difficult to think of the messages Baeza might be trying to get across when reading slightly more elaborate descriptions of these paintings than I’ve posted here, but I can’t help but think he could have approached his canvases in a more deft manner. I’m not suggesting here that an artist change their intent, merely that they rework their presentation. Difficult (but still valid) subjects aren’t easy or fun to look at either way; works that come across as overtly sensational probably won’t garner enough respect to communicate to the generally hoped-for broad audience.

Regardless, I don’t think people in the Church, Catholic or otherwise, have much right to complain about works of art that don’t exactly put the best face on this fallible institution. The manner in which such artistic commentary is crafted might be worth noting, but not necessarily making public statements about — which I’ll get into shortly.

Referring back to Donahue’s criticisms, perhaps he believes his own denomination to be Divine and therefore infallible. I’ve known of Catholics with this attitude, although I don’t sense it’s a prevailing conviction. If I may be so bold, this would in fact be a naive belief, and I don’t understand how anyone could presently think so highly of the Catholic Church in light of the recent scandals that — unfortunately — plagued this enduring institution. No part of the Body of Christ can say with a straight face that they or their particular congregation has not made certain gross missteps along the way. I’ve grown up in, and still attend, non-denominational churches where scandals also mar the image of the Body. All such circumstances do harm to the name of our Holy God, which goes without saying. We are all guilty. We are all human.

However, this naive understanding is the only way I can validate The Catholic League’s public criticisms of such “ugly” paintings. Making formal statements against these exhibits only heightens awareness of them. This creates more publicity for the artist, which aids his or her career — unless they only intend to market themselves to a very narrow group of people — likely encouraging them to create additional similar pieces. With few exceptions, all publicity is good publicity. It seems to me that Donahue and the League are inadvertently doing themselves and their cause a disservice. Were they to keep quiet about the artworks, or keep their discussion and disgust internal, it’s much more likely such shows will go unnoticed. I’d never heard of Cooper Union before today, and were it not for the fuss raised by Donahue I would probably still be ignorant.

Art has historically addressed social and political ideas. It will likely continue to do so within its cycles. The Church’s past and recent Faux pas will remain potential targets, so to speak, for paintings and sculptures, just like war, politics and other cultural ills. Artists have every right to broach these subjects. The ones that do so in a respectable way will likely be the ones named in history books.

I’ve never quite felt the supposed inherent ownership of my artwork that artists are “supposed” to feel. My mother hassled me for years to actually sign my paintings that hang in her living room, something that I’ve only recently begun attempting on a regular basis with marketing in mind.

Thus I’m interested in the implications technology has on the arts, even though my own three-dimensional works aren’t much effected by this. The ease with which information is printed, uploaded and shared on the internet presents a complicated new problem for copyright law. I was reminded of this today when TechCrunch posted an entry talking about a photographer — Lane Hartwell — who got her feelings hurt by not being cited in a video spoofing Silicon Valley. She subsequently hired a lawyer, and the video’s creators removed the spoof from the internet instead of dealing with a lawsuit. TechCrunch comments on the scenario:

“Societal ideals around what constitutes ownership over art are changing. People who try to protect and silo off their work are simply being ignored. Those that embrace the community, and give back to it not only allowing but asking for their work to be mashed up, re-used and otherwise embraced are being rewarded with attention. At the core is a basic implicit understanding - if you want to be part of the community, you have to give back to it, too.”

Recently, the well-known band Radiohead ditched its label and began selling its new album on its own, allowing listeners to set the price. Other big-name bands followed suit by breaking from their record labels, labels that are quickly dying by ignoring online potential. A friend of mine in the Northwest runs a photography business taking pictures of newborns and children; she retains no rights the product, but gives ownership over her clients. This is in stark contrast to friends of mine here in Northwest Arkansas who feel it is their responsibility to archive the memories of their clientele — which, I must admit, is a noble way to look at retaining ownership, but it’s also becoming an archaic way of doing business in the digital world.

One of the first posts I made on this blog used an image from the website of an artistic photographer. My post was about a local exhibit of this person’s photographs, mostly of Hurricane Katrina’s gulf-coast devastation. The photographer saw that I’d used one of the photos from his website and complained to me, saying he keeps “a tight rein” on where his images end up. Not wanting any confrontation (and being quite new to the blogosphere) I removed the the picture. In retrospect, from what I now understand of blogs and images on the internet, I was not in the wrong. In fact, this was free publicity for this artist; he should have thanked me and offered me the use of any image from his website for review on The Aesthetic Elevator.

This photographer’s mindset represents the mentality of the old guard. If he doesn’t want his images used by other people on the internet, he’d best not post them at all. It’s worth noting that this is the only occasion where I’ve been asked to remove an image; most of the time I figure it’s easier to ask for forgiveness than ask for permission, although once in a while I do ask for permission depending on the type of photo.

Adding: I added a link above to Lane Hartwell’s blog discussing her frustration with having her work stolen. She has some legitimate complaints not related to the video referred to by TechCrunch, but at the same time she seems to lack a bit of business savvy — these comments based on her blog entry — suffering from the same naivety of the old guard when it comes to images online.

This is an off-topic rant, except for the fact that it deals with blogging.

NPR just talked to their sports guy, Stephan Pastis, who reported that a reporter at the College World Series was kicked out of the press box for blogging during the game. He had been warned, before and during the game, that this was a violation of the broadcasting company’s media rights. This may not have bothered me so much had I not just read up on the Net Neutrality website about how the big communication companies feel such a need to get a return on their investment in their “pipes.”

It must be said that I’m not fond of big companies, in general. This sentiment, in part, stems from a learned hatred for inept bureaucracy. But what I don’t understand is why these companies seem solely interested in their bottom line, the happiness of their stock holders, the salary of the CEO. Increasing their market share seems more important than the desires of their customers, in the case of so many companies.

And how bad would it be for companies like the communication giants to give something back. I know that my generation, in part, is more interested in the good they can do for society, for improving culture, in comparison to most 40 year old businessmen. And my working for a non-profit may also color my idea of big business. What if Verizon and AT&T just rolled with the idea of the internet and allowed anyone to use their pipes? What if reporters were allowed to blog from stadiums? Would the corporate world come crashing to a halt.

I doubt it.

And allowing such things would be great PR for these behemoths. Especially for the first one to do it. Bring back service; bring back “the customer is always right.”

Wonderfully articulate defense of the sculpture from the rejesus blog:

. . . “Incredibly the gallery has claimed that the timing of this exhibition is just a coincidence. It’s unfortunate because the timing of this exhibition gives the piece real power. Easter, a festival previously associated with Jesus’ death and resurrection has been largely overtaken by the chocolate industry. Seeing this sculpture at this time of year gives it a real edge.”

And an equally well-spoken counterpoint from Arts & Faith:

“The cross is bitter. It represents death. It is a horror, and, if it is by grace the instrument of our salvation, it is grace at its most severe and excruciating.

Two hundred pounds of chocolate connotes decadence, indulgence, delectation, surfeit. At best, it is the stuff of Easter, not Good Friday. The contradiction of medium and message is as jarring as a Good Friday Mass set to carnival music. (I’m ever so slightly reminded of the scene in Flags of Our Fathers in which vanilla ice cream sculptures representing the flag-raising of Iwo Jima are set before the ‘Iwo Jima heroes’ at a gala function — and then drenched in a blood-red cherry sauce.)”

Other comments from the blogosphere:

Gustav Vigeland’s sculptures in Oslo’s Vigeland Park awoke Thusday, to their surprise, wearing clothes — well, black squares anyway. As reported by CBC.ca, a person or group of people covered the statues genitals and breasts, leaving a note that talked about how Norwegian newspapers showed too much nudity. The note was signed F.M.N.H.

Boing-boing referred to the perpetrators as “prudes” — a bit hasty judgment on their part, methinks. The spot goes on to rightly say, “You know, the insidious thing about nudity is that not one of us is safe. Beneath our clothes, deep down, we are all, every one of us, nude.” The CBC article reports some feel the incident is a prank, while others call it vandalism. A comment on Art Threat says it was a prank by students of Westerdal.

It’s hard for me to call it vandalism as no permanent damage was done to the sculptures. Why not call it performance art? Were I the sculptor (and still alive) I would laugh!

European sentiments about nudity are very different — usually more liberal — than American. Just ask friends of mine who put up a German student in between apartments. He would come out of the bathroom from showering in the buff with no reservations. My friends (female) were, needless to say, very surprised.

How do we (Can we?) strike a balance between the God-endowed beauty of the human body and the mystery of our sexuality? The cynic in me knows it’s a lost cause. The optimist in me can’t help but try.

Digg this!