To: Diago; narses; Loyalist; BlackElk; american colleen; saradippity; Dajjal; Land of the Irish; ...
We called Roy Liechtenstein for the Eucharistic chapel. But, unfortunately, he passed away, and we preferred not to have others complete his work.
Roy Liechtenstein??!! The eucharistic chapel was designed by the pop artist famous for his cartoon images like this:
Arnaldo Pomodoro made the large cross that characterizes the place of the altar.
He means this sacrilegious parody of a cross:
Giuliano Vangi made the ambo. Mimmo Paladino the door. Also, Robert Rauschenberg worked a long time on the representation of the Apocalypse of the large stained glass window. But his work must still find a suitable liturgical response, and for the time being it remains in the drawer.
"Must still find a suitable liturgical response" sounds like a euphemism for "He really went too far this time." And that must be saying something when you consider everything that they accepted. Rauschenberg is another pop artist, so I guess we see a definite trend: Padre Pio's shrine was designed to be "pop art." What must poor Padre Pio be experiencing in heaven?! Perhaps he is glad that the architecture and art of this shrine are telling pilgrims in no uncertain terms, "Go away! Stay far away! This is no longer Catholic here." The design is giving visual evidence of the loss of faith. To get a feel for what Rauschenberg's rejected stained glass windows might have looked like, here is one of his pop art collages created expressly for a monastery in Venice:
Hmmm, where's Jesus, in any of those works?
posted on 08/19/2004 10:46:31 AM PDT
(First algore invented everything, then Kerry smuggled it to Cambodia.)
Oh, my. The good St. Padre Pio must be livid. All this ugliness in his name and supposedly to honor God. What were they thinking, it's like some freak show. How soon till they go the way of Fatima and invite the local yogi or scientologist in for a 'ceremony'. I think a group of us who posted on this thread alone could come up with something more befitting and honoring of St. Pio.
Perhaps he is glad that the architecture and art of this shrine are telling pilgrims in no uncertain terms, "Go away! Stay far away! This is no longer Catholic here." The design is giving visual evidence of the loss of faith.
You've absolutely summed it up! And what a shame, I've always wanted to visit San Giovanni Rotondo. I guess I still could, and just stay clear of this 'shrine'. Pity, though, the misguided who visit the shrine and think it wonderful.
To get a feel for what Rauschenberg's rejected stained glass windows might have looked like, here is one of his pop art collages created expressly for a monastery in Venice...
Sadly, the monastery probably proudly displays it, in all it's ugliness. To me, it looks like a bomb dropped somewhere and this is the immediate aftermath. How awe-inspiring and faith-filled (sarcasm).
posted on 08/19/2004 11:09:11 AM PDT
(VOTE Bush-Cheney '04)
The abomination and the desolation continues. Poor Padre Pio.
Well, the usual continues. When will it end? I hope Padre Pio can fix this mess. He is one of my favorites.
The images appear like graffiti on a bronx apartment done by local srteet artists with no sense or purpose.
Why have a cross without the body of Christ, it doesn't represent the traditional catholic symbol of the crucified Christ?
Thanks for the ping.
posted on 08/20/2004 6:23:08 AM PDT
To: Maximilian; chatham; Petronski
First of all, I would like to attack the comments that you made about the cross. Are you so deluded and uncreative, that unless there is a physical representation of Jesus on the cross, that you cannot recognize his presence in the work? Do you need the icon of Christ imposed by society to reinforce and augment your faith? Do you not see the human aspects of the cross? Are you only able to think on the simplest level of analysis? Can you not infer greater meaning beyond what is being portrayed? It is a pity that you should demonstrate your lack of insight, publicly, over the internet. It may be a modern assemblage, but it still represents a cross, and you should still be able to worship the cross no matter what form it comes in. To simplify this for you, I will give you an example; some people wear diamond encrusted crosses, and wear them purely for their decorative value- is that not a form of sacrilege? The world is changing, our values are changing and along with that, art is changing too. We are not going to build churches and decorate them the same ways as they were done in the past, as we have different beliefs now than we did 500 years ago.
I would now like to attack your comments on Rauschenberg. This is another wonderful example of how closed minded you are; you seem to want your religion and your beliefs served to you on a platter. Shouldnt art represent what is going on in the world- shouldnt it show our values, our beliefs? This is what Rauschenberg does; he creates art out of everyday objects, newspaper clippings, and photographs; something that represents our life, now. How can you possibly reject something that is an optimistic portrait of our lives? Again, this shows that the church (although it promotes openness and understanding) has had no effect on your life. You seem to be trapped with the icon of Christ. This is unfortunate. Perhaps next time, you will have some more respect for yourself, and cease advertising your ignorance over the internet.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson