Oh my goodness... Now that's a connection I hadn't made yet. In fact, the ludicrously huge eyes in relation to the rest of the face, and the tiny cupid's bow mouth, are commonalities of child proportions. Often seen in Japanese Anime, that I dislike for similar reasons. I'm not willing to say it was consciously deliberate, but it's a good catch nonetheless.
What do you think about the art in the new Immaculata in Kansas City? It fits your theme, but I’d like your expert opinion. Many of us found it cartoonish—artist out of New York. Too bad even the trads missed an opportunity.
With regard to the eyes, I think the explanation in your article gives more weight to the reaction of "They're demonic" than you seemed to intend. If heavily dilated pupils indicate that the person is a threat or a monster, what are you saying when you depict our Lord and Lady with such eyes? Just who would want to do that? To whom exactly would our Savior be a threat? Certainly not to a faithful Christian!
I can't comment on the condition of Marko Rupnik's soul. Whether it was consciously an attempt to frighten people away from the Faith, or just egotism or a love of faux primitivism - his work does superficially resemble Coptic iconography - it's worth examining dispassionately what it looks like, and what it might be objectively. More than that is edging dangerously up to presumption and judgement of the man's soul.
I was not commenting on the condition of his soul nor was it my intention to come across as asking you to. The visual language of Rupnik's artwork as described in your article leads one to the conclusion that there's something objectively morally wrong with his artwork and that he is acting in a manner inconsistent with a Christian by producing such artwork. I agree with the gentleman iconographer you mentioned who called Rupnik's artwork blasphemy.
Ah, I see. Yes. It's difficult not to come to a conclusion like that, esp. given what we now know about his behaviour. I think there is something intrinsically immoral about his work.
And I had such hopes for trads, especially for that huge church that they spent so much money on—ugh!
Hilary, is there a way to reach you per email? I lived in Europe for many years as an opera singer and specialized in baroque opera and chamber music. There are so many parallels in art and music. I’m especially interested in the camarati.
The black burned-out looking (dehumanized?) eyes are also reminiscent of the alarming paintings of children featured in Tony Podestas house. It bespeaks a horror. I cannot recall the artist’s name, and would rather not look those up.
Thank you for this article. I agree with you about Rupnik’s art but I am not sure that all primitive art should be frowned upon or can’t be sacred, and I’m also not sure that is what you are saying. For example I love the primitive retablos that are in the Hispanic churches and homes of many in places like New Mexico, the work of past santero’s (saint makers) like Jose Aragon and Pedro Fresquis, and modern ones like Charles Carillo and Felix Lopez. What is your opinion of that sacred art? Thank you.
I read somewhere that one of the nuns abused by him said that Rupnik’s art and abuse were intensely intertwined. No wonder we react to it viscerally and reject it.
“His sexual obsession was not extemporaneous but deeply connected to his conception of art and his theological thought.”
The art itself tells us
The question of separating the man from the art is important, and gives us another hint as to why the higher echelons of the hierarchy, particularly in Rome where he was based, are so keen on continuing to use his work. His work is an expression of his perversions, which, if you know anything about Byzantine art and the history of Latin Catholic liturgical art since the ‘60s, makes perfect sense.
“His sexual obsession was not extemporaneous but deeply connected to his conception of art and his theological thought.” That quote comes from one of his victims of sexual manipulation and abuse, interviewed in Italian media2 and reproduced by Diane Montagna for the Pillar Catholic. In this case the work - which is essentially ideological, not religious in the Christian sense - can’t be separated from the man. The art is a perversion of Byzantine standards and is intrinsic to his perversion of theology that he used to justify and perpetrate his crimes; they are all of a piece.
"22 The eye is the lamp of the body; so then if your eye is clear, your whole body will be full of light. 23 But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!"
Ah! Lifeless! That's it. I don't know what the artist wants to convey with his art (it is not an area where I would have any kind of informed guess); what I hypothesize the enemy wants to convey with this art, however, is basically the reverse of St Paul's logic in 1 Corinthians 15:12-19 (St. Paul argues "you have to believe in the resurrection of the dead or all of Christianity makes no sense (and anyway there are eyewitnesses who can tell you that Christ was raised)", and the enemy would want to convey "look at these lifeless faces, which were supposed to represent (and make attractive to you, so that you desire it) the life of the blessed in heaven: see for yourself that the dead are not raised, therefore everything you have been told is fake news and you are the most pitiable of men. Look at the face of your alleged mother and see that she is not listening to you and does not care about you", and similar lies.)
Good for you! I'm glad you wrote this. It's timely and useful.
Too long nose = phallic obsession. Short face = child's face. Pedophile, homosexual pedophilia, spiritual pedophilia with novices, hatred of purity.
Oh my goodness... Now that's a connection I hadn't made yet. In fact, the ludicrously huge eyes in relation to the rest of the face, and the tiny cupid's bow mouth, are commonalities of child proportions. Often seen in Japanese Anime, that I dislike for similar reasons. I'm not willing to say it was consciously deliberate, but it's a good catch nonetheless.
We shouldn’t be surprised that such a demon infested soul would produce such atrocities.
We're not. But it's useful to analyse it without emotions getting in the way.
I thought you were spot on!
What do you think about the art in the new Immaculata in Kansas City? It fits your theme, but I’d like your expert opinion. Many of us found it cartoonish—artist out of New York. Too bad even the trads missed an opportunity.
Haven't looked at it. Is it a new church?
With regard to the eyes, I think the explanation in your article gives more weight to the reaction of "They're demonic" than you seemed to intend. If heavily dilated pupils indicate that the person is a threat or a monster, what are you saying when you depict our Lord and Lady with such eyes? Just who would want to do that? To whom exactly would our Savior be a threat? Certainly not to a faithful Christian!
I can't comment on the condition of Marko Rupnik's soul. Whether it was consciously an attempt to frighten people away from the Faith, or just egotism or a love of faux primitivism - his work does superficially resemble Coptic iconography - it's worth examining dispassionately what it looks like, and what it might be objectively. More than that is edging dangerously up to presumption and judgement of the man's soul.
I was not commenting on the condition of his soul nor was it my intention to come across as asking you to. The visual language of Rupnik's artwork as described in your article leads one to the conclusion that there's something objectively morally wrong with his artwork and that he is acting in a manner inconsistent with a Christian by producing such artwork. I agree with the gentleman iconographer you mentioned who called Rupnik's artwork blasphemy.
Ah, I see. Yes. It's difficult not to come to a conclusion like that, esp. given what we now know about his behaviour. I think there is something intrinsically immoral about his work.
Thank you for an excellent post!!! I never liked Rupnik’s work. I found it soulless and ugly.
Multi-million dollar SSPX —largest in the world.
https://www.anewimmaculata.org/blog/2022/5/1-behind-the-scenes-may-2022-update
oh that thing... Yeah... Ummm... Good try, guys! Better luck on the next one!
And I had such hopes for trads, especially for that huge church that they spent so much money on—ugh!
Hilary, is there a way to reach you per email? I lived in Europe for many years as an opera singer and specialized in baroque opera and chamber music. There are so many parallels in art and music. I’m especially interested in the camarati.
Yes, if you're subscribed to World of Hilarity you can just reply to the email.
The black burned-out looking (dehumanized?) eyes are also reminiscent of the alarming paintings of children featured in Tony Podestas house. It bespeaks a horror. I cannot recall the artist’s name, and would rather not look those up.
oh, by that Czech woman? (is she Czech? I'd have to look it up.) Yeee! Those are truly depraved. Horrifying.
Serbian - did a search to find the name. Truly horrific also that it’s presented as “art”.
Thank you for this article. I agree with you about Rupnik’s art but I am not sure that all primitive art should be frowned upon or can’t be sacred, and I’m also not sure that is what you are saying. For example I love the primitive retablos that are in the Hispanic churches and homes of many in places like New Mexico, the work of past santero’s (saint makers) like Jose Aragon and Pedro Fresquis, and modern ones like Charles Carillo and Felix Lopez. What is your opinion of that sacred art? Thank you.
I've never seen them.
https://whyy.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/8ed6e72d-e386-4eb8-9764-65e34697588b/tesoros-de-devocion/
I don't really have an opinion.
And a modern master santero
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAHCpWhejmQ
https://www.twograces.com/twograces/2017/11/jose-rafael-aragon-and-retablo-of-san.html
in real life, demon infested people have their eyes flash obsidian; I've seen it, and so has remarked our priest
Hilary...we need to talk. We are in the same trench in this sector.
I read somewhere that one of the nuns abused by him said that Rupnik’s art and abuse were intensely intertwined. No wonder we react to it viscerally and reject it.
it's here:
https://hilarywhite.substack.com/p/what-marko-rupniks-art-tells-us-about
“His sexual obsession was not extemporaneous but deeply connected to his conception of art and his theological thought.”
The art itself tells us
The question of separating the man from the art is important, and gives us another hint as to why the higher echelons of the hierarchy, particularly in Rome where he was based, are so keen on continuing to use his work. His work is an expression of his perversions, which, if you know anything about Byzantine art and the history of Latin Catholic liturgical art since the ‘60s, makes perfect sense.
“His sexual obsession was not extemporaneous but deeply connected to his conception of art and his theological thought.” That quote comes from one of his victims of sexual manipulation and abuse, interviewed in Italian media2 and reproduced by Diane Montagna for the Pillar Catholic. In this case the work - which is essentially ideological, not religious in the Christian sense - can’t be separated from the man. The art is a perversion of Byzantine standards and is intrinsic to his perversion of theology that he used to justify and perpetrate his crimes; they are all of a piece.
"22 The eye is the lamp of the body; so then if your eye is clear, your whole body will be full of light. 23 But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!"
https://catholique65.fr/contact
Tell the bishop over the Lourdes Sanctuary to erase the infamy. Our Lord and Lady deserve only the best.
But please do it politely.
> the expression of a lifeless doll.
Ah! Lifeless! That's it. I don't know what the artist wants to convey with his art (it is not an area where I would have any kind of informed guess); what I hypothesize the enemy wants to convey with this art, however, is basically the reverse of St Paul's logic in 1 Corinthians 15:12-19 (St. Paul argues "you have to believe in the resurrection of the dead or all of Christianity makes no sense (and anyway there are eyewitnesses who can tell you that Christ was raised)", and the enemy would want to convey "look at these lifeless faces, which were supposed to represent (and make attractive to you, so that you desire it) the life of the blessed in heaven: see for yourself that the dead are not raised, therefore everything you have been told is fake news and you are the most pitiable of men. Look at the face of your alleged mother and see that she is not listening to you and does not care about you", and similar lies.)