Quote:
Originally Posted by Julie Steiner
I disagree with their views on many things, but I do wholeheartedly agree that Rupnik's art is both distressingly short on the compositional harmony that makes things look "right" to the casual observer, and very culturally insensitive (because it upends the strict artistic rules of the Orthodox tradition in ways considered blasphemous by actual Orthodox icon makers).
|
I agree. There is something disturbing about his images and they definitely don't seem to be in the spirit or letter of Orthodox iconography. The empty black eyes are especially problematic (for me).
As far as the artist's life vs work, I don't think there is a black and white answer to that. The nature and seriousness of the action matters, in my opinion - actually abusing people is different from just being an unpleasant person or holding some problematic views that may have been common at the time. None of us are perfect, after all, so we shouldn't, I think, discount someone's art because they were full of themselves, or had a (consensual) affair, or made a racist comment in a letter somewhere. We can admire the art without approving of those areas in which the artist failed.
But actual abuse is different. In the case of living artists and living victims one has to really tread very carefully. Then you add religion into the mix, and ... well, it's ugly.