0:00

When you look at modern works of art,

0:02

one thing often stands out. They're ugly. This

0:04

is just a urinal or a blank

0:07

canvas or a giant rock. If

0:09

you're Catholic, it's especially embarrassing to

0:12

see what passes for art or

0:14

sacred art in modern Catholic churches.

0:17

There are the bland, soulless buildings that are

0:19

supposed to be churches, the childish

0:22

artwork that announces the synod

0:25

and just bizarre works like the

0:27

so-called depiction of the resurrection in

0:29

the Pope Paul VI audience hall.

0:31

And in today's episode, I'm going

0:33

to explain why it's not a

0:36

coincidence that the defenders of this

0:38

ugly art are usually theologically

0:40

or politically liberal. Before

0:42

I explain why, though, let me

0:44

provide a few more examples of

0:46

this kind of ugly art in

0:48

Catholic spaces. In 2020,

0:50

the Vatican hosted an activity scene

0:53

with figures that looked like creepy

0:55

Fisher Price toys. As

0:57

the world was enduring the darkness

0:59

of the pandemic, one news story

1:01

records how people longed for a

1:03

more traditional nativity display. It

1:07

made me think of bowling pins with a

1:09

baby Jesus as a ball. I

1:12

liked it, but I preferred last year's,

1:14

but it's not too bad. Here's

1:17

another one. Heidi Schlumpf, a senior

1:19

correspondent for The National Catholic Reporter,

1:21

a periodical that often platforms dissenting

1:23

voices against the church, wrote

1:26

the following on X, happy feast

1:28

of the Immaculate Conception. This

1:30

is my favorite image of Mary from

1:32

the Basilica of the Annunciation in Nazareth.

1:35

Now I've been to the Basilica of

1:38

the Annunciation multiple times, and I really

1:40

enjoy the dozens of depictions of Mary

1:42

and Jesus from all around the world.

1:44

My favorite is this Chinese depiction of

1:47

Mary and Jesus, where Jesus has little

1:49

panda slippers. But the

1:51

depiction of Mary from America is

1:53

easily the ugliest. Well, Canada

1:56

is a close second, but it's

1:58

more incomprehensible than ugly. The

2:00

one from the United States, it looks

2:03

like someone vomited up oil paint and

2:05

aluminum foil. It's objectively

2:07

ugly. Now, art

2:09

can be ugly if it's depicting

2:12

objectively ugly things, like the devil.

2:15

But art that depicts the most venerated

2:17

creature in God's creation, Mary, the Mother

2:19

of God, should be breathtaking.

2:22

At the very least, it should not

2:24

be ugly. Here's my

2:26

last example of bad Catholic art. Before

2:29

it was redesigned in 1967, the Newman

2:31

Hall at the University of California in

2:34

Berkeley looked like a typical Catholic church.

2:37

The redesigned church, however, looks

2:39

like a concrete bomb shelter.

2:41

It's cold, drab, dark,

2:44

gray. The Newman Center website

2:46

describes it this way. The building

2:48

conveys a sense of the primeval,

2:50

of spiritual realities that have lasted

2:52

down through the ages. It

2:55

is an architectural statement of Christianity with

2:57

its roots in the altar of Abraham

2:59

and in the catacombs of Rome. But

3:02

it's compatible with an era when space

3:04

and human freedom are explored. The

3:07

examples of bad modern art, and

3:09

especially bad modern Catholic art, could

3:11

be multiplied ad infinitum. Although

3:13

some might say that beauty

3:15

is subjective, so who am I to

3:17

say any of this art is bad?

3:20

I'm sure there's going to be some commenters

3:22

to this video who will say, but I

3:25

like that Newman Chapel. Or

3:27

I personally think the American mosaic

3:29

of Mary is quite beautiful. Beauty

3:32

is subjective in some ways because

3:34

it appeals directly to us as

3:36

a subject. But beauty

3:39

is not completely subjective.

3:42

Beauty is an objective reality in the

3:44

world, and it cannot be changed merely

3:46

by something like democratic vote. Medieval

3:49

philosophers like St. Thomas Aquinas

3:51

and Duns Scotus taught that

3:53

in reality there are things

3:55

called transcendentals. They are

3:57

properties that all beings have in certain

3:59

degrees. These are things

4:01

like truth, goodness, oneness,

4:05

and according to some authors, beauty.

4:08

The transcendentals are also convertible. They

4:10

represent the same thing when seen

4:12

from different metaphysical points of view.

4:15

For example, a good tree will have

4:17

being and not lack the being it

4:19

ought to have. The intellect

4:22

will recognize it truly has the properties

4:24

of a tree, like bearing fruit, for

4:26

example. It is a true example of

4:29

a tree. However, the sensitive

4:31

appetite of the soul will see the

4:33

tree is beautiful, because

4:35

it has what trees ought to have. Same

4:38

thing, different metaphysical points of view.

4:41

But when we see a dying tree,

4:43

we recognize it is a bad tree.

4:46

It's not morally bad, it just

4:48

is naturally deficient. It lacks being.

4:52

It's not a true or archetypal tree.

4:54

And because of this, it's an ugly tree. And

4:58

since God just is unlimited infinite

5:00

being itself, that means God is

5:02

perfect truth, God is

5:04

perfect goodness, and God is

5:07

perfect beauty. Whatever is beautiful

5:09

in this world is in some

5:11

way reflecting the truth and goodness of God

5:13

himself. Now one reason

5:15

liberals and other modern people embrace bad

5:18

art is because they reject

5:20

the idea of objective truth. For

5:23

them, truth is entirely subjective.

5:26

There is no such thing as absolute truth.

5:28

There is just your truth,

5:31

my truth, my lived experience.

5:34

If someone says that something is

5:36

beautiful, you can't say that they're

5:39

wrong. You just have to respectfully

5:41

disagree because their truth can't

5:43

be mistaken, apparently. But

5:45

beauty is not purely subjective. St.

5:48

Thomas Aquinas once compared beauty to God

5:50

the Son and said that

5:52

beauty has three elements, integrity

5:55

or perfection, since those

5:57

things which are impaired are by the very

5:59

fact ugly. do proportion

6:01

or harmony, and lastly

6:03

brightness or clarity, hence things are

6:05

called beautiful which have a bright

6:08

color. Now this shouldn't

6:10

be taken as an exhaustive definition of

6:12

beauty because some art with bright colors

6:14

is pretty dreadful. Instead

6:17

Aquinas is saying the presence of

6:19

light, proportion, and perfection are

6:22

indicative of the objective nature of beauty.

6:24

In fact across all cultures

6:27

symmetrical faces are considered more

6:29

beautiful than asymmetrical faces.

6:32

And even though the cultural styles

6:34

may differ, beautiful architecture tends to

6:36

rely on the same mathematical ratios

6:38

like the golden ratio, 1 to

6:41

1.61. Personally

6:43

I think one quality beautiful art

6:45

has is that it takes us

6:47

out of ourselves and it lifts

6:49

us up to something beyond, something

6:51

universal. You see this

6:53

for example in beautiful cathedrals that lift

6:56

us up to God. You

6:58

also see it in beautiful non-Christian worship

7:00

sites, beautiful secular buildings,

7:03

and even beautiful natural features of

7:05

the earth, up, out,

7:08

and beyond. This kind of

7:10

art or these kinds of beautiful things,

7:12

it lifts us up to contemplate other

7:15

universal good things, friendship,

7:18

justice, love, and

7:20

the greatest good of all, God. But

7:22

ugly art doesn't do that. It doesn't

7:24

care about lifting us up to God or

7:26

even to any transcendent values. Ugly

7:29

art cares more about shock

7:31

or subverting our expectations or

7:34

hammering home to some kind of message

7:36

about mankind. It brings us down to

7:39

think more about mankind than the things

7:41

that transcend. For example the

7:43

reason the resurrection sculpture looks so weird in

7:45

the Pope Paul VI Audience Hall

7:48

is because the artist was trying to make

7:50

a point about the threat of nuclear war,

7:53

not something awe-inspiring in Christ's resurrection

7:55

itself. Likewise the 2020

7:57

Vatican Nativity scene doesn't lift us up to

7:59

God. God. Instead, parts of

8:01

it like the astronaut are supposed to

8:03

remind us about how amazing it was

8:05

that human beings made it to the

8:08

moon. But at Christmas,

8:10

shouldn't we celebrate the God-Man who

8:12

made the moon and the stars

8:14

and the entire universe instead of

8:17

focusing ourselves down on what human

8:19

beings have done? Modern art also

8:21

values what matters to humans more

8:23

than what's transcendent, in that it

8:26

values things like efficiency more than

8:28

these objective goods. So

8:30

older art and architecture is usually

8:33

generous in its designs and its

8:35

features, not purely about function or

8:37

minimalism. And in this, it lifts

8:39

us up and beyond. But

8:41

modern art often considers this gaudy

8:44

or wasteful. The designer of the

8:46

2020 Vatican display describes

8:48

its weird Fisher-Price-like sculptures

8:50

in this way. The

8:53

choice of these cylindrical blocks is linked

8:55

to the modularity of the project, which

8:57

sought to provide a formal model that

9:00

was easily replicable and simple to make,

9:02

to apply to the production of

9:04

large ceramic sculptures depicting figures. Using

9:07

a circular plan module, it was

9:09

then possible to add elements to

9:11

create individual characters, and not

9:13

only for the precipé. Some forms

9:16

were freely inspired by elements of industrial

9:18

production of the time, like spark plugs,

9:20

which have the screw thread at the

9:22

base. The architect of the

9:24

Berkeley Newman Center was steeped in

9:26

a genre called brutalism, which uses

9:29

minimalist concrete designs in its architecture.

9:32

His previous experience had been in

9:34

designing things like freeway overpasses. The

9:37

cold, blocky design of brutalism

9:40

is often associated with Soviet apartment

9:42

blocks or low-income housing projects in

9:44

the United States, many

9:46

of which have fallen into decay because

9:49

the people who live there don't care

9:51

about keeping it up. What's there to

9:53

keep up? They've succumbed to despair because

9:55

of the inhuman conditions in which they

9:57

live, caused a lot by the

9:59

architecture. It makes me feel as if

10:01

this is not my home. This is

10:03

only a place where I

10:06

sleep and pay my rent. It's

10:08

just like your clothes in a corner

10:10

with no way out, nowhere to go.

10:13

However, the defenders of brutalism don't

10:15

want us to value unequal art

10:17

that lifts us up and beyond.

10:20

Instead, they say concrete brutalism is

10:22

a good kind of art because

10:25

it promotes values like socialism. In

10:27

fact, this defender of brutalism says

10:29

that's one of the positive values

10:31

of this architectural style. They're accurately

10:33

understood as a movement underpinned by a

10:36

utopian socialist ideology. And it's important to

10:38

get that phrase right. Utopian socialist ideology.

10:40

Brutalist structures are a means for achieving

10:43

an integrated and thoughtful way of life.

10:45

A life where every individual knows their

10:47

role in the collectives. Look

10:49

at the Barbican, for instance. A full city and a brutalist get

10:51

up. It has housing

10:53

and a theater and nature and stores

10:56

all woven together in a confusing 3D

10:59

matrix of slabs, walls and walkways. Contrary

11:01

to what you might think, the massive ugly

11:03

and imposing structures are more like

11:05

a byproduct of this utopian thinking.

11:07

The ultimate goal is to create

11:09

communal spaces and promote social cohesion

11:11

all through architecture. Tucker

11:14

Carlson made a similar point in a recent

11:16

interview he had with Andrew Cuomo. Do you

11:18

believe that postmodern architecture is designed to kill

11:20

your spirit? Of course. Why?

11:22

With the message of it. Well, look. Anything that we make

11:24

with our hands is the

11:26

purest expression of our creativity.

11:29

So there's a purpose behind everything that we make. There's a

11:31

message behind all of it, as there is in all art.

11:34

You don't paint a painting with no vision behind it. You

11:37

paint a painting because you're saying something. And

11:39

so buildings that are

11:42

warm and human and

11:44

that elevate the human spirit

11:47

are pro-human. And brutalism,

11:49

for example, or the IM Pei glass boxes

11:51

that crowd every city in the United States,

11:54

those are not elevating. What's the

11:56

message of working in a cube in

11:58

a room with a... Synthetic drop

12:00

ceiling and dry wall on the walls

12:03

and fluorescent lighting ahead of you know

12:05

privacy at all. The message messages really

12:07

clear. You. Mean nothing. You.

12:09

Are replaceable. You're a wizard in

12:12

have been awaiting assembly. You're just

12:14

a cog in a machine. You.

12:17

Have no value. And.

12:19

Everyone kind of ignores this I got. Well, that's the

12:21

way buildings always been. No, that's not true. And.

12:24

Architecture and anything made by human hands

12:26

is the purest express of the society

12:28

that produce. It. Many. Liberals to

12:30

test classic art because it's not

12:32

egalitarian. They want everything to be

12:35

beautiful in it's own way. But.

12:37

If everything is beautiful, Than.

12:39

Nothing is beautiful. In George Orwell's

12:42

Dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty Four, the

12:44

detail Italian government big brother is

12:46

represented as saying there will be

12:49

no distinction between beauty and ugliness.

12:51

There will be no curiosity, know

12:54

enjoyment of the process of life.

12:56

All competing pleasures will be destroyed.

12:58

A lot of modern art is

13:01

bad because of focuses primarily on

13:03

the artist, How he subverts expectations,

13:05

how he stalks, or just to

13:08

amplify human creativity and ingenuity. Look

13:10

at the new thing we did. Nobody

13:12

could have expected we would do it

13:15

this way. If you don't like it,

13:17

then you just don't get it. But

13:19

truly good art. He uses ingenuity, even

13:22

subversion, For. The purpose of

13:24

listing us up to contemplate that

13:26

which is true, good and beautiful.

13:28

Consider Michelangelo's Phr. You don't immediately

13:30

think about the ingenuity involved, and

13:32

there's plenty of it. Instead, the

13:34

depiction lists you up and out

13:36

from yourself and allows you to

13:38

six eight on the mystery of

13:40

the death of the God Man

13:42

and his body being cradle by

13:45

the sale. Tokyo's the Mother of

13:47

God. As I said, the sculpture

13:49

is ingenious. Mary is not sculpted

13:51

to be life sized by scale.

13:53

see be about ten feet tall but

13:55

the folding of her robes hides this

13:57

fact so that we recall she is

13:59

my mother first and foremost, cradling her

14:01

son like she did when he was

14:04

born in Bethlehem. Early

14:06

critics also complained that Mary's face

14:08

was too young in the depiction,

14:10

which once again recalls her early

14:12

maternity. Michelangelo told the

14:14

critics that, Chastity enjoys eternal

14:17

youth. And to be

14:19

clear, beautiful art comes from a wide

14:21

variety of cultures, and doesn't

14:23

always have to be about lifting up to

14:25

the good. Works of art

14:27

that depict the horror of war can

14:30

show beauty when it's eclipsed by

14:32

ugliness, such as Goya's The Third of

14:34

May, 1808. Picasso's Guernica

14:36

shows this in an abstract way

14:38

as it depicts the 1937 Nazi

14:41

bombing of Guernica, Spain. It

14:43

also doesn't have to be European. I personally

14:45

enjoy artwork from the Japanese Edo

14:47

period, like the Great Wave of

14:49

Katsushika Hakusai. It's no

14:51

wonder I liked this particular piece, because

14:54

it was an inspiration for European impressionists

14:56

like Monet and Van Gogh. And I

14:58

enjoy these works in lieu of

15:00

more traditional Renaissance art. Good

15:02

art doesn't have to be a bunch of

15:05

depictions of biblical figures in Renaissance style. It

15:07

doesn't even have to be religious. One

15:10

of my favorite paintings is the

15:12

1942 oil canvas work, Night Hawks

15:14

by Edward Hopper. It doesn't

15:16

lift me up to the divine, but

15:18

it transports me to another kind

15:21

of beautiful time. A

15:23

time illuminated by gently buzzing

15:25

fluorescent lights of an all night diner

15:27

that has all kinds of stories to

15:29

tell, if you're willing to listen.

15:32

And I'm not a snob either. You can

15:34

find beauty in all kinds of settings, not

15:37

just ones in fancy museums. One

15:39

of my favorite artistic guilty pleasures is 80s

15:42

synth, a kind of blend

15:44

of cool, dark, smoky, faux

15:46

future. Now in some cases,

15:48

liberal and modern art is

15:50

ugly because it abandoned its

15:52

transcendent purpose. It tries

15:55

to do good, but in a deficient,

15:57

man centered way. So you're always focused

15:59

down on the human element rather

16:01

than to the transcendent element. But

16:04

some bad Catholic art has

16:06

a more sinister origin. Some

16:08

of it, I believe, is meant to lead

16:11

us away from the good. Such

16:13

is the case in the artwork done

16:15

by Marco Rupnik. Rupnik, if

16:17

you didn't know, became infamous after

16:19

credible allegations of sexual abuse were

16:22

made against him by several nuns.

16:24

What this priest allegedly did to these

16:26

women is so vile, I'm not even

16:29

going to repeat it here, but according

16:31

to the allegations, he frequently cloaked his

16:33

abuse in religious language, saying that the

16:36

sex acts he was doing were imitations

16:38

of God and the Trinity. If

16:40

the allegations against Father Rupnik are true, then

16:43

he is a man deeply steeped in evil.

16:45

And if they are true, they explain

16:47

why his art, which had been featured

16:50

all over the world, has

16:52

a stilted and ugly quality about

16:54

it. Genuine Byzantine iconographers

16:56

have pointed out that his

16:59

icons and murals, they lack

17:01

parallelism. They're crooked. They're subtly

17:03

distorted. And most alarming in

17:05

his works are the dead

17:07

black eyes of the features

17:09

being depicted. Hilary White

17:12

of the Sacred Art Project

17:14

puts it this way. Rupnik's

17:16

work is deliberately, theologically, and

17:18

aesthetically transgressive. It aims

17:20

not to illustrate or even didactically explain

17:22

Christian theological ideas, but

17:25

to distort them. It uses

17:27

that sacral language to desacralize what

17:29

it's talking about. It

17:31

takes the extreme precision and

17:33

rationality of Byzantine Christian art

17:35

and creates chaos with it.

17:37

Visual gibberish. Its style by

17:39

imitating children's scribbles implies that

17:41

the Christian things it depicts

17:43

are silly, imprecise, and

17:46

ultimately irrelevant nonsense.

17:48

Stories fit only

17:50

for children. So to summarize, much

17:52

of what I do as an apologist is

17:54

to defend the truth of the Catholic faith

17:56

when it's attacked, to refute lies and errors

17:58

about the faith. A lot of

18:01

that is also tied up in defending the goodness

18:03

of Catholicism. But an enemy of

18:05

the faith, whether they know it or not, might

18:08

be more effective attacking the

18:10

church's beauty instead of

18:12

its truth, because its beauty

18:14

and its truth are the same thing just

18:16

looked at from different points of view. So

18:19

I hope this episode will be helpful for you to

18:22

see that we need to defend not just what is

18:24

true and good in our Catholic faith, but

18:26

in these ugly times, we need to defend what

18:29

is beautiful as well. Thank you

18:31

for watching, and I hope you have a very blessed day.