Katie Beaumont left this comment on a previous blog message. I thought it deserved its own article.
"A little off the topic but....I noticed that current liturgical illustrations tend to look like a bunch of distorted caricatures with oversized heads and huge hands. Does anyone know from where this hand fetish comes? Why the obsession with hands regarding current liturgical illustrations. What is the reason proponents of this caricature-like art form seem to dogmatically connect it to liturgy. It seems to be a complete rupture from traditional Catholic art pertaining to liturgy. Has traditional expressions of art been banned from current liturgical publications? It just seems a little wierd."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
here is the answer to your question, katie:
http://www.sagecraft.com/puppetry/papers/Schumann.html
The Bread and Puppet Theatre as the forerunner of the current liturgical art????
Interesting...
I was in NYC in 1982 as one of the 750,000 people protesting nukes. The Bread and Puppet Theatre was part of that March... Haven't thought about them in ages...
Does anyone have a link to one of these images? I'm not sure what we are talking about.
Google images:
http://www.google.com/images?expIds=17259,24472,25797,25901,26119,26325&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=bread%20and%20puppet%20theatre%20image&cp=30&hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=848&bih=593
If you want to see the puppets in action during liturgy, go here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh_nqtp3VrU
You'll see the big heads and big hands. It's not an illustration, but I think I know what Katie is talking about. I too wonder when and why Catholic liturgical illustrations look so distorted and strange.
The style that Katie mentioned has been with us for quite some time now. We often see it illustrated in various diocesan publications, missals, song books, and sometimes on the walls in the church. It's characterized by bodies with out of proportion parts, situated in oversimplified compositions, and is generally lacking in perspective.
I think it would be safe to consider this style as part of the "pseudo naïve", "faux naïve", or "imitation folk art" trend. It also goes hand in hand with the "imitation folk music" still afflicting our ears.
My take on this is this:
Some Catholics of a certain vintage seem to have rejected, or just feel uncomfortable with, the refined Church art and music which is part our patrimony. To many of them, this art is too hierarchical, vertical, triumphallistic, or expresses an "outdated" theology. They may view it as lacking in "authenticity" because it comes from a highly skilled source. Ultimately, it is rejected because it doesn't come from "the people".
The irony is that the "folk art" they favour doesn't come from "the people" either. It is mass produced by highly skilled artists who have studied and perfected this "naive" style for this particular market. The faux naive art doesn't stand up very well to the authentic naive (village) art still gracing many Catholic churches.
I would be more inclined to consider the felt banners as authentic products of folk art. They are locally made, and truly reflect the skill levels of the local parish artisans.
Even I don't approve of the puppets at Mass... That's pretty far out for me too!
Fortunately, we don't see much of that kind of thing around here...
I saw that video clip of the dancing Mr. Potato Heads awhile back. Creepy. Anyway, just as I believe we should include traditional music in the liturgy, I also believe we should include traditional depictions and illustrations in liturgical publications. I just seems like whoever made all these decisions went unchallenged. Are Catholics supposed to just go along with whoever is in charge at the moment or is there anything constant when it comes to the Roman Catholic liturgy? Are the Bishops even remotely interested in these little liturgical trends that spread into widespread practices with what seems to be no Church official overseeing what happens? Why do Bishops and Cardinals seem so wimpy and lack strong leadership when it comes to the liturgy and anything to do with liturgy? Some even appear to be trying to save face by blaming the Vatican for this new translation of the missal. Can't the Bishops just stand up and say "YEAH! It is a new translation. Yeah! You're gonna have to start genuflecting and kneelng again. No, parish liturgists! You can no longer tell little first communicants to receive in their hands anymore! Communion on the tongue will now become the norm! The organ is the only musical instrument permitted in the liturgy!"...I think you get the hint...even though it may be a little over-the-top for today's liturgical climate.
Katie:
I firmly believe that the new translation of the Ordinary Form of the Mass will be implemented in every parish in our Diocese, and on time. I also think this translation will come as a very welcome relief to most Catholics, who only expect constancy, dignity, and reverence for this form of the Mass. I simply cannot imagine a Bishop or a priest refusing to implement this new norm.
Any such refusal would be a break with the Catholic Church, and a direct challenge to the authority of the papacy itself. It would precipitate a crisis within such a diocese or parish, and would call for an immediate resolution from the Vatican, or the local Bishop.
So far, this wing in our Church has shown it is not willing to go this far.
Post a Comment