Not that long ago, it seemed the Roman Catholic Church was bent on renouncing pretty much anything smacking of artistic integrity that might be thought even a wee bit insulting, let alone (as the title of a book featuring this infamous photograph by Andres Serrano said) Blasphemy). Following hard on the heels, here in the US, of official complaints concerning government support for exhibits by photographer Robert Mapplethorpe, there seemed to be a concerted effort on the part of conservative elites to suppress any artistic expression that they might deem "offensive".
A recent meeting at the Vatican between Pope Benedict XVI and various artists from a variety of fields (Ennio Morricone?!?), as reported in The New York Times, might be a first tentative step toward reestablishing a relationship between religious bodies and the artistic community. Historically, it was the Roman Church, and in the east the Orthodox Churches, that supported, even encouraged, artistic endeavors (despite occasional lapses in to iconoclasm) as an expression of human devotion.
While I say this may be a first step, there are many, many more to take. I would add that some of those steps need to be taken by artists who, it seems to me, revel far too much in late-Romantic ideas of suffering, marginalization, and protest as marks of integrity. Some of the greatest masterworks in music, architecture, sculpture, and painting (not the least of them being the Sistine Chapel itself) were done through support by powers-that-be, and yet included sly digs at those same powers even as the artists rested relatively comfortably with the income they were receiving (although, one should add, some still managed to die impoverished; Mozart managed to piss his talent, his life, and his money away on extreme dissipation, hardly an example to follow). Furthermore, the kind of in-your-face pieces like Serrano's "Piss Christ", for all they are honest portrayals of the artist's feelings, need to be an opening not to the victimization of the artist ("Oh, woe is me, no one understands my art and now they're calling me bad names!"), but an opening for discussion of larger questions: Why does this piece say about the contemporary Catholic Church? What is the relationship between a theological understanding of beauty and its seeming opposite, a photograph of a crucifix immersed in urine?
While it is a good thing that the Pope is encouraging dialogue with the artistic community, and many artists are responding positively to this opening, particularly in light of the person behind the office - Joseph Ratzinger - questions and caution are always necessary. The Roman Catholic Church has been a source of much of the beauty in the west; this history should be the basis for renewing a relationship. Joseph Ratzinger, on the other hand, has long been a reactionary force, discouraging change, innovation (at least in doctrine and practice), and not necessarily being a prime mover in making the Roman Church part of the 21st century. Moving beyond the days of complaint, mutual misunderstanding and even occasional hostility, the next step might just be a survey of all sorts of current artistic endeavors - architecture and sculpture, music and photography, painting and drama - and delving in to the religious dimension, those one or two nuggets that may just speak of God's love for humanity, of the way the beauty, or even its lack, is an expression of faith (or the rage at God's silence as well). Whether it's Serrano's evocative photo, the plays of David Mamet, or contemporary sculpture - whatever it may be - working together to open dialogue may well clear the air of hostility and suspicion as a way to keep the lines of communication open.
