[Julie Steiner]

I thought some here might be interested in this, and/or have opposing views about the following situation (either specifically or in general).

Some of the garish, badly proportioned mosaics I've loathed for decades, by a Catholic priest who has somehow succeeded in splashing them everywhere from the Pope's private chapel to Lourdes to Fátima...over 230 religious sites in all...are now being covered up.

E.g.:
Lourdes Sanctuary decides to cover the Rupnik mosaics as a gesture to the victims

A summary of the overall situation with Fr. Marko I. Rupnik, from a few days ago:
Is the tide turning on the Rupnik case?

For about three generations, it seemed as if any cathedral or basilica with enough money to deface their building with his hideous art would jump at the chance. Those were commissions that demonstrably more talented local artists couldn't get, because the decision-makers and donors didn't want the diversity of no-names. They apparently felt that only art by The Most Famous Worldwide Sensation in religious art was good enough for them. (It takes actual taste to determine artistic quality, but any fool can quickly see who's The Most Famous Worldwide Sensation.)

I'm sincerely sorry that to break the spell has taken credible accusations of sexual assault from more than 20 women who had helped Fr. Rupnik to create his mosaics — although, to be fair, some conservatives have been complaining for years that his art is not only ugly, but theologically questionable. To them, it symbolizes all that's gone wrong with the Church since Vatican II. 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'm still seeing the predictable What-about defenses, though: What about Caravaggio, for example? Should we cover up his work because he did some bad things, too? Isn't it best, as a rule, to separate art from the personal life of the artist?

But four obvious differences between Caravaggio and Rupnik are: 1) Caravaggio's reported misdeeds were not committed against nuns, in churches, in the process of creating his art for those very spaces; 2) none of Caravaggio's victims and their families have to have his work in their faces today; 3) Caravaggio didn't have huge, inescapable installations in 230 churches, and a string of victims over decades; and 4) most art experts agree that Caravaggio's work actually has substantial artistic merit, from a compositional and emotional standpoint. None of those things can be said for Rupnik.

Someone online described Rupnik's mosaics as 75% poorly executed Orthodox rip-off, 25% Precious Moments. Personally, I think it's more like 25% deliberate mockery of Orthodox tradition (which, again, has very strict artistic rules for icons), 75% Margaret Keane kitsch. Compare the weird facial proportions and the huge, soul-less, black-irised eyes of Keane's art:
https://i0.wp.com/www.printmag.com/w...ality=89&ssl=1

And of Fr. Marko Rupnik's:
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/...1673x2560.jpeg

Others' thoughts?