Artless Absurdity

An art critic for The Guardian provides proof (unwittingly, of course) that it takes neither talent or brains to write about the intersection of Catholicism and art, just a keyboard and an obstinate disregard for fact, logic, and beauty.

Comments

[Jackson]

Wow. A 5th grader could have done a better job. Seriously.

[Augustine]

Indeed, a 5th grader wouldn't write in one paragraph that the Church takes images seriously and in the other that it's just an image. Pitiful...

[Dan]

He compares the crucified frog to the cieling of the Sistine Chapel!!! This guy should be fired for that alone. One must be radically devoid of any aesthetic sense to fail to see that the crucified frog is simply a piece of trash. But what is even worse is the suggestion that the Vatican should be taken to task for distinguishing between art that celebrates and glorifies the faith and art that mocks the faith. The scandal here is not the Vatican but, rather, the "art critic" who can't see or understand the difference.

[Stohn]

I thought these types believed that the definition of art is 'relative.' I guess the Vatican's point of view is excepted from this non-rule rule.

[Brian Cook]

Let's put that mockery of a crucifix through the "Beavis and Butthead Test". If the item looks like it could have been hand-crafted by Beavis and Butthead, then we can safely assume that it has no beauty, no wonder, and no reverence. In other words, Carl, I completely agree with your basic point. However, I still think that you should address the notion that the Sistine Chapel is a "a powerful piece of homo-erotica" and "that masterpiece of wilful self-expression and rampant nudity". We really should do everything possible to protect the Church from looking stupid and worse.

[Brian Cook]

P.S. I haven't posted here for a while and I didn't see any messages about my post going through. If I sent it repeatedly, I apologize.