Go here to read the post if you must. A better question than whether Rupnik’s “art” should be removed, it should be, is why his drawings attained such prominence in the Church. Rupnik’s art is utter crap. How did a talentless hack like Rupnik, of the big eye kitsch school, get so many powerful men in the Church to sponsor and celebrate what is manifestly junk? This is the question that needs to be answered, a question carefully avoided by those who rule the Church.
PopeWatch: Rupnik
- Donald R. McClarey
Donald R. McClarey
Cradle Catholic. Active in the pro-life movement since 1973. Father of three, one in Heaven, and happily married for 43 years. Small town lawyer and amateur historian. Former president of the board of directors of the local crisis pregnancy center for a decade.
The art takes on the artist idenity, imo.
Not just is the art second rate, but with the gloomy accusations from so many a victim, his brand is gutter schlock. Personally, I can’t look upon it and feel elevated by the subject matter due to the artist’s probable piccadillos.
The art is cloaked in bile.
I’m for destroying it, not just removing it bc what he did opens it up to demonic forces.
And no, I’m not compromising on any of that – the fact that the pope hasn’t removed or covered his is telling
No artist is without sin, even if some are more notorious than others. Just like plumbers. A work of art stands alone. Richard Wagner was a despicable man, but it would be senseless to deprive humanity of his beautiful works.
So, by Mike Petrik’s logic, were Rupnik to have produced any beautiful art, we shouldn’t destroy it.
As luck would have it, Rupnik produced only trash art, easily disposed of. I would gladly donate the jackhammer.
Besides, I’m uninformed as to what made Wagner a despicable man, but unless he raped dozens of nuns and committed multiple sacrileges and blasphemies as inspiration for his works, I hardly think the comparison is applicable.
Mike Petrik, I agree that despicable men can produce tremendous art— and like you I’d consider Wagner ‘Exhibit #1’ to demonstrate the point.
But Rupnick’s art is not tremendous. It’s not even art. It’s cringey, repetitive kitsch. And I’d be saying that even if I didn’t know a thing about the man. Rupnick cribs elements of Byzantine/Orthodox iconographic tradition— but only succeeds in making a soulless pastiche. His understanding of that tradition appears to be superficial and careless. ‘Writing’ icons is inextricably linked to prayer— in fact, the creation of an icon is a form of prayer— and trying to paint an icon without prayer will inevitably result in something obviously lifeless, something soulless. That’s precisely why Rupnik’s stuff is such creepy, off-putting, inauthentic schlock. His work is objectively bad, and if his entire oeuvre were to disappear tomorrow, the world would not be one bit poorer for it.
Rupnicks art is similar to that of another leftist icon, Hunter Biden. How so, one must ask?
Well, it appears that both mediocre “artists” had their forgettable works elevated to stratospheric levels simply because of their creators political connections.
Well you could argue there are levels of “despicablility” (I know that’s not a word). Certain sins are worse than others. Paedophiles, murderers and serial rapists cannot possibly produce beautiful art. Those that seek to harm others cannot just turn off their evilness without being sociopaths. And if they manage to fake it ie. Rupnik then it’s fair to remove their works. You don’t deserve to have your art acknowledged if you deliberately harm others and deceive those around you.
On the other hand, if one was prone to addiction to say alcohol, drugs or even womanising then that is harming oneself and you could argue that a person could still produce beauty. Many artists have suffered from addiction but still produced beautiful art.
Destroying art for the sake of such destruction might be Islamic, but it certainly isn’t Catholic, including schlocky art, even if such destruction would not be an artistic deprivation. Trying to line draw between which artists are bad enough people to justify canceling their work regardless of the merits of such work is both impossible and silly. Don is right that it is worth exploring why the Church seems to be more amenable to hacks these days, especially if the connection is a nefarious one. But destroying art is not the answer.
His abusive behavior was central to his “art.” That is why it has to come down.
His oeuvre is as dated as shag carpet and bell-bottoms, and deserves the same fate. They are being defended because (1) the ruling regime lurrves these anti-icons and (2) replacement will be expensive. So.
The monstrous lengths to which people will blip over rape tells you everything you need to know about the leadership of the Church, and those who defend it.
“Destroying art for the sake of such destruction might be Islamic, but it certainly isn’t Catholic”
That’s not what is being discussed here. This “art” is the product of highly immoral, criminal, and probably even demonic activity.
To solemnly declare that art cannot be destroyed because it is “Art” is idolatry. Removing it is no more a desecration deserving of wails and handwringing than my parish’s removal of the graffiti left pn our church by a local “street artist”. Rupnik’s art is graffiti.
By the logic of Mr. Petrik, if Adolph Hitler produced a stunning and beautiful portrait of Christ, it should be displayed in our Churches and otherwise honored, and the factual information concerning the artist ignored. Surely, there is error in this standard.
Because it mirrors the Anime Look that is so popular now. The thinking it will connect with Gen Z, or what ever letter is hip now. Tells you all you need to know about Rupnik’s art and spirituality that his model is cartoon animation.
Subjectively, I find it hard to appreciate an immoral artist’s work within his lifetime. I give a pass to a 13th century scoundrel that I can’t give to a contemporary. That’s probably wrong on my part.
Rupnik’s art should be removed on the basis of its lack of artistic merit. Ditto the works produced by his Centro Aletti. The least bad of them can pass for Byzantine, or poor imitations of Byzantine. The average seems to distort the Byzantine approach into grotesqueness.
Donatism, the worthiness of the clergy, is a form of sacramental malpractice insurance to safeguard the sacraments. You only need it when dealing with defective clergy. The teaching about Donatism has been pushed to the limits in the clerical abuse scandal.
I still wonder how this fellow ever became so popular with Catholic institutions looking for art. What did people see in his work that I never did?
It is not like Caravaggio, who “lived like a devil, but painted like an angel,” as it is said.
Rupnik’s mosaics and logos are just plain ugly. The bug eyed cartoon characters and sloppy shapes I find repulsive, without even considering his moral behavior.
“Destroying art for the sake of such destruction might be Islamic, but it certainly isn’t Catholic”
It certainly is Catholic. The end doesn’t justify the means. If the means is evil, so is the end. You have no clue why Islam destroys art to be making that comparison. Enough with the PC crap.
“How did a talentless hack like Rupnik, of the big eye kitsch school, get so many powerful men in the Church to sponsor and celebrate what is manifestly junk?” Exactly. Rupnik’s work does not rise to the level of art.