Somewhat, but the fact that they think it is permissible at all is what is at issue. There are of course many fairly awful modern art installations in churches that are permanent.
Yes. Because they weren't even committed to producing real graffiti and actually vandalising the building like some revolutionary vanguard of the vulgar. So bourgeois, as Eagleton might say.
I think MAYBE you're being a little unfair to Eagleton. Not that you're wrong in your judgement of him - but that book of his has positive virtues as well which makes it far from the worst of the critical theory crowd. The main purpose of the book, which it accomplishes well, is to give a general (and very useful and readable) survey of various theoretical approaches to literature. He is totally up front about the fact that he himself is a partisan of one of those approaches, but he tries to give a fair account of others also. If one reads the book in the spirit in which he wrote it, one certainly will see that (as a Marxist) Eagleton does not accept the idea of literary value independent of its social/political uses, but one will also understand from his survey of different theories that this is not the only possible way of approaching literature, even if Eagleton himself happens to think it is the right one.
Far, far worse than this are the legions of literary scholars who simply ASSUME as an unquestioned fact the approach which Eagleton adopts, and who do not acknowledge any other possibilities. This has been for many years the dominant stance of much of the academy - one can't even really call it "Marxism", because it is too unconsidered to be aligned to a ideology, though one might say that it is "Marx-adjacent" or "Marx-derived".
We've visited Canterbury Cathedral twice. I'm trying to imagine a visitor (or tourist) paying £18.00 ($24 US) to see one of the most cherished sites in Western Christianity, and then discovering the cathedral "decorated" with graffiti. I can go to virtually any highway underpass, industrial building, or other abandoned structure in north London and see better-quality "voices from the unheard." And it's free. Just a few blocks away are the ruins of St. Augustine's Abbey, despoiled by Henry VIII, and I'm likely to be more moved and impressed by ruins than by graffiti.
I suspect if we knew more about who created the modern stuff and what it was deemed to represent, there would be a lot more cohesion with my thesis. Even St Pauls has some of that stuff, valued entirely for the value they have created in it.
Chichester Cathedral is worth looking at. And obviously Coventry. Both have amazing work done in the ‘50’s which sort of works with the architecture, which in Chichester’s case is Norman/Early English.
The problem with this installation is that it is laughably inauthentic as art. The idea of taking theological questions from marginalized people and elevating them so that they become the basis for discourse is a good idea -- maybe not as art, but as some kind of cathedral-worthy installation. But doing that by packaging the questions in "graffiti" that looks as if it was generated by a second-rate commercial artist or perhaps by AI -- that IS a problem, because it bowdlerizes the questions and turns them into something wholly inauthentic. If the designers really wanted to elevate the voices and ideas of marginalized people, they shouldn't have hired non-marginalized people to add an artificial sheen to their ideas. If they wanted to do this project meaningfully, they should have worked with the question-askers to create the art, not just repackaged it in a way that looks as if it's McDonald's scrambling for contemporary relevance.
Also, even the questions are slick and do not sound like the voice of anyone besides ChatGPT, even when I abstract away from the risible "graffiti."
More simply: massive “hello fellow kids” vibes.
Does the fact that it is temporary make a philosophical, or practical difference? Or neither?
Somewhat, but the fact that they think it is permissible at all is what is at issue. There are of course many fairly awful modern art installations in churches that are permanent.
Yes. Because they weren't even committed to producing real graffiti and actually vandalising the building like some revolutionary vanguard of the vulgar. So bourgeois, as Eagleton might say.
I think MAYBE you're being a little unfair to Eagleton. Not that you're wrong in your judgement of him - but that book of his has positive virtues as well which makes it far from the worst of the critical theory crowd. The main purpose of the book, which it accomplishes well, is to give a general (and very useful and readable) survey of various theoretical approaches to literature. He is totally up front about the fact that he himself is a partisan of one of those approaches, but he tries to give a fair account of others also. If one reads the book in the spirit in which he wrote it, one certainly will see that (as a Marxist) Eagleton does not accept the idea of literary value independent of its social/political uses, but one will also understand from his survey of different theories that this is not the only possible way of approaching literature, even if Eagleton himself happens to think it is the right one.
Far, far worse than this are the legions of literary scholars who simply ASSUME as an unquestioned fact the approach which Eagleton adopts, and who do not acknowledge any other possibilities. This has been for many years the dominant stance of much of the academy - one can't even really call it "Marxism", because it is too unconsidered to be aligned to a ideology, though one might say that it is "Marx-adjacent" or "Marx-derived".
Yes this is fair
We've visited Canterbury Cathedral twice. I'm trying to imagine a visitor (or tourist) paying £18.00 ($24 US) to see one of the most cherished sites in Western Christianity, and then discovering the cathedral "decorated" with graffiti. I can go to virtually any highway underpass, industrial building, or other abandoned structure in north London and see better-quality "voices from the unheard." And it's free. Just a few blocks away are the ruins of St. Augustine's Abbey, despoiled by Henry VIII, and I'm likely to be more moved and impressed by ruins than by graffiti.
Indeed
“Language is the people who speak it, and graffiti is the language of the unheard.”
From one day to the next, I see too much graffiti already; I sometimes go to churches solely to escape it.
Quite
Indeed, but the commissioners of those presumably thought they were great art. Whereas this is merely about diversity I fear
I suspect if we knew more about who created the modern stuff and what it was deemed to represent, there would be a lot more cohesion with my thesis. Even St Pauls has some of that stuff, valued entirely for the value they have created in it.
Chichester Cathedral is worth looking at. And obviously Coventry. Both have amazing work done in the ‘50’s which sort of works with the architecture, which in Chichester’s case is Norman/Early English.
oh yeah, I don’t deny it’s possible at all, even some modern stained glass can be very splendid
I don't think that the problem of this art installation (https://www.canterbury-cathedral.org/news/posts/delight-and-displeasure-art-installation-s-questions-to-god-divide-public-opinion/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email) relates to aesthetic relativism; I disagree with your diagnosis, Henry!
The problem with this installation is that it is laughably inauthentic as art. The idea of taking theological questions from marginalized people and elevating them so that they become the basis for discourse is a good idea -- maybe not as art, but as some kind of cathedral-worthy installation. But doing that by packaging the questions in "graffiti" that looks as if it was generated by a second-rate commercial artist or perhaps by AI -- that IS a problem, because it bowdlerizes the questions and turns them into something wholly inauthentic. If the designers really wanted to elevate the voices and ideas of marginalized people, they shouldn't have hired non-marginalized people to add an artificial sheen to their ideas. If they wanted to do this project meaningfully, they should have worked with the question-askers to create the art, not just repackaged it in a way that looks as if it's McDonald's scrambling for contemporary relevance.
Also, even the questions are slick and do not sound like the voice of anyone besides ChatGPT, even when I abstract away from the risible "graffiti."
BTW, graffiti can certainly be art (see https://www.moma.org/audio/playlist/290/3755), but this "graffiti" does not deserve that name.
Have you ever asked the question of yourself that you're in fact the philistine? 😎
Have I denied such?
I'm reminded of myself dancing, but, likewise, is it the style or the meaning that's in question?
Ironic that it is the religious conservatives that are now pushing for a return to reading the liberal classics !
who is doing this?
On ‘The Free Press, which euphemistically costs money . ?
Shilo Brooks
Ballerina Trad Wife Larissa Philips
Niall Ferguson
‘Without Books We Would Be Barbarians ‘
Plenty more on Substack
Ironically they all seem to write only in the 1st person ?
Even though they deny it
Chapman U & other colleges.
There are prep schools popping up with this general thought process of management by classical reading.
Way back David Allen White began teaching
Shakespeare at the Navel Academy.
Yes of course there is a concerted effort by the
Right Wing to use the great literature as a propaganda tool in their plan to take over the education system.
BTW The Greeks and Romans scribbled graffiti also though is it as valuable as Banksy.