Upon reading the article ‘Sacred Art Commission rocked by resignations’ (September 3), I feel encouraged to share my opinion and experience both as member and chairperson of this art commission.
Firstly, I would like to clarify that the Art Commission is not responsible for restoring works of artistic artifacts in local churches. The sanctioning of conservation projects of ecclesiastical heritage is the responsibility of the Catholic Cultural Heritage Commission. So any feedback about restoration works should be forwarded to the appropriate entity. What we, as a commission, deal with is the introduction of new works of art in churches.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to find local people knowledgeable in liturgical art so it was worrying when two members on the Art Commission resigned and a third asked to be relieved of their duties. Their knowledge and critical contribution were greatly appreciated throughout their service in the commission.
For the past 15 years it has been a privilege for me to work with a good number of artists, architects, fellow members of the clergy and art historians who formed part of the commission. Past and present members shared a common vision: a desire to create beautiful things to be used by the worshipping community for a sacred purpose.
Forming part of the Commission is not an easy task. Our meetings were almost always characterised by tension between traditionalism and innovation. Most designs presented to the Commission express the tastes of a community, or of a group within it, usually too blinded by the glories of the baroque.
Unfortunately, most of the projects put forward for the Commission’s appraisal reflect repetitive, outdated artistic concepts. These fail to challenge worshippers to appreciate new artistic forms and discourage growth and response to modern trends in liturgical art.
The Commission is a consultative body. Sometimes the Archbishop, for pastoral reasons, decides otherwise
I remember various occasions when the Commission invited artists to broaden their artistic interpretations so that the community could be enriched by appropriate, fresh, artistic forms. One can find a few outstanding examples: Carlo Schembri’s chapel at the Minor Seminary; Manuel Farrugia’s refurbishment of Iklin sanctuary and the Augustinian Sisters’ motherhouse chapel. As regards paintings, one can think of Anthony Calleja’s altarpiece for St Martin church in Baħrija; John Grima’s works for St Publius church in Floriana and Our Lady of Graces church in Żabbar; and Austin Camilleri’s via crucis at the Divine Mercy sanctuary, Naxxar.
When sanctioning such works, the Commission wanted to bring into churches works that create a sense of reverence, respect and prayer. Innovation has its risks. There is always the fear of doing something that is unintentionally too abstract or foreign to our churches and communities. I remember my timidity when seeing for the first time the bozzettos of Camilleri’s abovementioned via crucis. Initially, I had thought that the artist’s self-expression and self-searching were the focus at the expense of the community’s identity. Then I overcame that fear because I realised that doing only what is ‘safe’ simply repeats something that belongs to the past.
Sometimes the Commission’s opinion contrasted with those of other opinionists. A case in point are Farrugia’s paintings at Paola and Marsaxlokk parish churches. Whereas the Commission criticised Farrugia’s oeuvres, the Catholic Herald (July 21, 2017) praised his academic approach to liturgical art.
However, there should be total consensus that the Commission, besides advising the Archbishop on the execution of new works of art in churches, should enhance the spiritual life of the local Catholic community through art. And since art is easily misunderstood, the Commission must embark on a persistent educational agenda. The few lectures delivered annually by the Institute of Pastoral Formation reveal the necessity.
More urgent is the need that the Faculty of Theology and the Major Seminary implement what is stated in Sacrosanctum Concilium, par 129: “During their philosophical and theological studies, clerics are to be taught about the history and development of sacred art, and about the basic principles which govern the production of its works. Thus they will be able to appreciate and preserve the Church’s ancient monuments, and be able to aid by good advice artists who are producing works of art.” It is a pity that no such courses are offered to our seminarians.
The Commission is frustrated when it becomes aware of new works of art commissioned without the necessary Curia permission or when it gives negative advice but the Curia decides otherwise. The Commission is a consultative body. Sometimes the Archbishop, after listening to the advice of other Curia officials, for pastoral reasons decides otherwise. This does not mean the Commission’s opinion was disregarded but that other reasons – perhaps of little or no artistic value – outweigh artistic considerations.
A case in point was the substitution of the Christ the King statue in Paola. The statue by Ġanni Bonnici was replaced by one sculpted by Alfred Camilleri Cauchi and commissioned by the local band club. This decision was not based on artistic merits but to solve a long and complicated issue with various ramifications of a pastoral nature. In fact, after many years, last year the festa was celebrated without tension and a sense of unity prevails in this town.
I hope this article presents the Art Commission and its recent resignations in a proper perspective. While we have lost two valid members, we hope that with the input of new members the Commission is still continuing with its mission in the local Church.
Rev. Jesmond Manicaro is chairman, Diocesan Sacred Art Commission and the Archbishop’s Delegate for the Liturgy.