The 2017 Vatican Nativity, located at the center of Saint Peter’s Square in Rome, recently incited controversy primarily because of a figure depicting a nude man. The theme for the Nativity is the “Seven Corporal Works of Mercy,” which includes: clothe the naked. The nude man, with his genitals covered only by a cloth, reclines on his back while another man hands him some sort of white fabric. The work references several traditions, including Michelangelo, the Neapolitan creche, and contemporary homoerotic art.
Throughout the history of Art, even sometimes in images portraying Christian religious themes and subjects, there is a struggle between what is art and what is pornography. For instance, certain scenes from Scripture and Church history, particularly the more grisly procedures of martyrdom endured by the Early Christian martyrs, allowed an opportunity for calculating artists to create almost lurid depictions of torture and death that borders on sadomasochism; see the numerous paintings of Saint Agatha. In addition, at times, the portraits of Saint Mary Magdalene become repetitive and appear as an excuse to paint a beautiful topless woman with flowing hair. In terms of the homoerotic, no Saint has the number of images supposedly crafted in his honor that precipitously teeter between art and the pornographic than Saint Sebastian; see above “Saint Sebastian Tended by Saint Irene” by Vicente López y Portañahence; hence his continual cult of adulation among modern gay male artists. The mixed-media photographs of the talented but misguided gay artists Pierre Commoy and Gilles Blanchard, known as Pierre et Gilles, exploit and fetishizes some of the latent homoeroticism in these religious works; the nude male in the Vatican nativity doesn’t quite go that far, but it is nevertheless still (on purpose or accidentally) part of the same tradition.
No competent artist works within a vacuum and they are normally aware that all Art includes a long history of precedence. As for the 2017 Vatican Nativity, by including a reclining nude man, it is forever linked with other such depictions from the past. Since before the Barberini Faun, carved during the Greek Hellenistic period, to the soft-core drawings and paintings by early-gay artist George Quaintance, (example above,) the nude male figure has the power to illicit admiration as well as lust. The quintessential example of the artist who could utilize the nude male body in his artwork and not slip into the pornographic – was Michelangelo. On the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel at the Vatican are numerous nude men, the famous and repeatedly copied ignuidi, that serve to frame the various scenes representing the Creation of the World, are both ravishingly beautiful and inspiring. They uplift the mind rather than the blood pressure. Their expressions vary from ecstatic to languid. The more energetic examples are similar to the nude male in the Vatican Nativity, expect they are two-dimensional. Although painted in bright colors of pre-Mannerism, yet, there is a level of restraint; and the flat surface presents the possibility for the artist to conceive an entire world in which to place the figure; hence, the vast cosmology of the Sistine Ceiling forms one unified theme of the glorified human body (represented by the male) as created in the image and likeness of God. This is more difficult to achieve in the three-dimensional form of sculpture which pushes the artwork into the so-called real-world of the viewer space. In the oeuvre of Michelangelo, the potential erotic heat of some of his sculptures, notably the “Dying Slave,” (pictured above,) is curtailed because of the bleached-bone surface of the bare marble; in ancient examples, which this is derived from, the statues would have originally been painted in full polychrome. The nude male at the Vatican Nativity could be viewed as an attempt to bridge the Classical and Old Masters with that of the traditional Neapolitan creche – one of the few surviving traditions of European fully painted sculpture outside of the Middle Ages.
The Neapolitan creche has its roots in the florid Rocco of Southern Italy. Its style is highly realistic, minutely detailed, and sometimes garishly colored. This technique is decidedly effective when depicting the expressive faces and gestures of the countless floating angels, townspeople, and shepherds as placed in these incredibly elaborate scenes. When over-sized and shifted to the depiction of the nude body – it becomes artificial and almost ugly. For that reason, the nude male at the Vatican resembles the vulgar pornographic sculptures (detail pictured above) by American artist Jeff Koons – specifically those created when he was married to Italian porn-actress Ilona “Cicciolina” Staller. And although it’s made of terracotta, the Vatican’s nude male looks like the shiny surface of plastic and evokes the contemporary phenomena of lifelike sex-dolls – as a result it becomes a type of grotesque kitsch. Like much modern pornography, it revolts rather than titillates. This project would require an extremely talented artist, actually a great one, to succeed at doing what even Michelangelo did not attempt: a nude polychrome sculpture in the round placed at the middle of a religious scene.
In 2009, speaking to a group of artists at the Sistine Chapel, Pope Benedict XVI said:
Beauty, whether that of the natural universe or that expressed in art, precisely because it opens up and broadens the horizons of human awareness, pointing us beyond ourselves, bringing us face to face with the abyss of Infinity, can become a path towards the transcendent, towards the ultimate Mystery, towards God. Art, in all its forms, at the point where it encounters the great questions of our existence, the fundamental themes that give life its meaning, can take on a religious quality, thereby turning into a path of profound inner reflection and spirituality.
In the 2017 Vatican Nativity, like the blatantly gay-inspired fresco commissioned by Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, the body becomes merely a body. There is no locus to “transcend” the earthy towards the divine. In fact, it keeps us resoundingly attached to the ground. Michelangelo envisioned the nude male body as the summation of God’s creation – and the most profound artists of every generation transcend even themselves and create something that looks almost as if it were touched by the hand of God. Contemporary art in the Catholic Church, at least since the late-1960s, generally lacks this timeless quality and becomes either violently deconstructive or a sentimental pastiche. The genius of Michelangelo, and other truly great artists, is that they are able to reference the past, honor it, and then move on. Michelangelo certainly understood that the multitude of nude male bodies in the Sistine would immediately provoke in the mind of the contemporary viewer the fleshy paganism of the Classical Greeks; but he transformed what could have been disastrous – because there was an intense Christian mentality in everything he did; he once wrote: “The true work of art is but a shadow of the divine perfection.” And, in an age of pornographic supremacy, unequaled during any moment of human history, for the artist, the depiction of the nude form, especially within a religious context, is fraught with difficulty as well as responsibility. It shouldn’t appear overly stuck in the present or as an afterthought – the nude in the Vatican Nativity seems to be both.
Thank you for your illuminating insights that you express in your clear and refreshing writing. Merry Christmas and may the Lord bless you abundantly.
Bravo, what a sound deconstruction. That Art History degree is eloquently serving God!
Michael Brooks, you mention the technical artistic practical difficulty of rendering a 3D image on a 2D surface, accomplished most successfully by the greater artist. i thought that the point Joseph was making was that in the flat, 2 dimensional surface of the Sistine ceiling, the great artist Michelangelo could create the unified cosmos because he could control the creation of the background the figures are to be seen in, which then set the framework which the figures in the foreground would be seen against. He could control more of the total view intended to be seen by the viewer. Which in this case, is a view of heaven and creation itself (2D background), with the representative figure of the man, made in the image of his Creator (2D foreground). Whereas in the 3 dimensional sculpture, ex. Dying Slave, Michelangelo loses some control of the background because by its very nature and limitations of physics, the sculpture must be placed in an actual setting outside a controlled background, such as on a marble floor, artificially lit foyer, near a window with changing natural sunlight, etc., so that then as creator, Michelangelo must find a way to anchor the figure in space and time apart from its human surroundings, which he did brilliantly by setting the smooth polished body of the slave against the rough cut natural marble with blatant hand hewn almost gashes, clearly separating the created man-made or God-made beauty from the natural rough materials of the un-spoilt earth. This has the affect, if i am understanding Joseph correctly, of cooling off the “homoerotic heat” aspect of the slave’s nudity. Imagine if the slave was just standing out in the broad open space without this anchoring. It would cast a harsher glare of light on a lone exposed mannequin practically begging for a fig leaf! A figure lost in space, abandoned to our whims to interpret as possibly pornographic. A picture without a frame. I see Joseph as having this unique lens on this aspect of painting and sculpture precisely because he is personally experienced in the world of people who actually knew how to purposely manipulate that line between art and pornography. He actually was the dying slave at one time, but probably without any anchor of rough hewn rock, but rather, exploited for his sheer pornographic beauty, if i may. So he knows the difference. But probably only because he stepped out of the picture, the sculpture, the film. His ouvre or whatever, is based upon his no longer being the object or model or subject of the “artwork”. He is now master of it because it is his informed hindsight. That hindsight developed, in my opinion, from turning away from his participation in that artform, to gazing upon the face of the holy. To turning to God, to his holy Father in heaven, and his earthly father whom he just lost to earthly death from the recent fire disaster. And last but not least, he is developing his vision by turning his attention to the traditional latin mass and true holy Catholic Church, where he is home at last, the true home that leads us to heaven.
And btw, i too have two of my 3 degrees from Cal in Art History and also the Practice of Art, painting and sculpture. The death of my father at a youngish age propelled me into many different career directions after these studies, and my longing to see him again someday, hopefully in heaven, is what makes the Sistine ceiling so transcendent. It takes me there. i am so interested to find out from Joseph’s future writings how the loss and (earthly) death of his father will impact his views and expressions.
There is a simply answer to this problem, the biblical prohibtion of making and venerating images (i.e. the Second Commandment):
Exodus 20:4-6:
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
Deuteronomy
Ronald,
The Biblical prohibition in Exodus regarded idol worship – a practice God wished to stamp out amongst the Hebrews coming out of Egypt where such things were practised.
God Himself in Exodus would command the creation of certain images like the bronze serpent and the Ark of the Covenant with Angels to be venerated, and even the Temple of Solomon and the Priestly tools had images created.
This topic is about appropriate imagery. Which doesn’t have a simple answer. We are neither to be iconoclasts nor puritans. But it is the case that at certain times and ages art trends can become inappropriate within the context of certain times of fallen man’s state.
Once upon a time the older generations could understand and appreciate the naked human form appropriately depicted. As the vice of lust grows in the world, it arguably becomes more necessary to tailor our images so as to prevent sin and artists do have a responsibility. This speaks more to the fallen human mind than it does God’s created world which includes the beauty of the human body.
Ronald Sevenster you mean like the Ark of the Covenant that God commands be made in Exodus 25? Or the serpent God commands be make in Numbers 21? Or the cherubim spreading their wings He commands be made in 1 Chronicles 28 and 2 Chronicles 3?…
The prohibition is the making of images in order to be adored and served. The protestant interpretation of this, as usual, is wrong.
But images, pictures and so forth even in the house of God and even in the sanctuary itself are expressly authorized as the above referenced scripture plainly indicate.
“There is no locus to “transcend” the earthy towards the divine. In fact, it keeps us resoundingly attached to the ground.”
Very profound and thoughtful.