Thanks to Tom for sending a link to the Vienna Cardinal’s explanation as to why he approved the Hrdlicka exhibit at the Vienna Cathedral Museum with such “objectionable” material.
It is obvious that Cardinal Schonborn had no idea about any individual works to be displayed but generally, knew that Alfred Hrdlicka (80) was a well respected artist with some well known and praised pieces of art. The museum director was directly responsible for the pieces on display and I think, was responsible for selecting them in the first place as he was the curator of the show.
In any case, I found the Cardinal’s explanation, or if you prefer, his justification for the exhibit quite refreshing and oh so “enlightened”! Quite frankly, I was stunned.
He obviously rejected as inappropriate any works that “committed Christians” clearly viewed as blasphemous or pornographic but he held out his hand of encouragement to those artists that are not committed Christians but still feel the need to express themselves in their art on biblical issues. It’s as if the Cardinal welcomed a religious dialog with an unbeliever or a searcher, no matter how the subject was raised.
Number one, the Cardinal’s response was a huge antithesis to the response the Muslim clerics had to the Danish Muhammad cartoons. The Islamic clerics called for death and torture to the infidels that perpetrated this crime against Allah and his prophet, etc, etc……………..ad nauseam!
I swear it is like the clash of the Age of Enlightenment with the Dark Ages. On the one hand you have a cleric comfortable with his faith and his god and on the other, clerics that still treat their god as a puppet that needs to be dressed and fed daily and protected against people that may say bad things against him.
I hope my praise at the way this whole situation was handled is not premature. I am not sure if the same situation would have been handled with such civility in the United States. Remember the “Crucifix in a glass of Urine” debacle some years back; even some U.S. Congressmen threatened to remove all federal funding for the museum that displayed that piece of “art”.
I still have to examine my initial and probably lasting revulsion to the little I saw of the pieces. I can blame natural heterosexual revulsion instincts to homoerotic art even though I am in no way anti-gay. I can also blame no understanding for the artist’s message; maybe that will be explained to me.
Telling me that some of Hrdlicka’s works represent the “carnality of religion” does not really do much for my understanding of his message, if there is one but obviously, I will defend his right to express it – every time!
It is obvious that Cardinal Schonborn had no idea about any individual works to be displayed but generally, knew that Alfred Hrdlicka (80) was a well respected artist with some well known and praised pieces of art. The museum director was directly responsible for the pieces on display and I think, was responsible for selecting them in the first place as he was the curator of the show.
In any case, I found the Cardinal’s explanation, or if you prefer, his justification for the exhibit quite refreshing and oh so “enlightened”! Quite frankly, I was stunned.
He obviously rejected as inappropriate any works that “committed Christians” clearly viewed as blasphemous or pornographic but he held out his hand of encouragement to those artists that are not committed Christians but still feel the need to express themselves in their art on biblical issues. It’s as if the Cardinal welcomed a religious dialog with an unbeliever or a searcher, no matter how the subject was raised.
Number one, the Cardinal’s response was a huge antithesis to the response the Muslim clerics had to the Danish Muhammad cartoons. The Islamic clerics called for death and torture to the infidels that perpetrated this crime against Allah and his prophet, etc, etc……………..ad nauseam!
I swear it is like the clash of the Age of Enlightenment with the Dark Ages. On the one hand you have a cleric comfortable with his faith and his god and on the other, clerics that still treat their god as a puppet that needs to be dressed and fed daily and protected against people that may say bad things against him.
I hope my praise at the way this whole situation was handled is not premature. I am not sure if the same situation would have been handled with such civility in the United States. Remember the “Crucifix in a glass of Urine” debacle some years back; even some U.S. Congressmen threatened to remove all federal funding for the museum that displayed that piece of “art”.
I still have to examine my initial and probably lasting revulsion to the little I saw of the pieces. I can blame natural heterosexual revulsion instincts to homoerotic art even though I am in no way anti-gay. I can also blame no understanding for the artist’s message; maybe that will be explained to me.
Telling me that some of Hrdlicka’s works represent the “carnality of religion” does not really do much for my understanding of his message, if there is one but obviously, I will defend his right to express it – every time!
No comments:
Post a Comment