The controversial graffiti in Canterbury Cathedral

[RevUlsion]

There is outrage on social media about graffiti in Canterbury Cathedral. More accurately, an art exhibition in the style of graffiti. Many see it as desecrating a holy building.

Here's a lively article defending the exhibition. Lots to ponder: about art, 'sacred' buildings, and whether some language is off-limits when it comes to God.

www.flaneurnotes.com/post/let-us-spray

People can look at it online. You might follow Musk on X not everyone does.

Some of it asks difficult and uncomfortable questions, and that is always a good thing in a place of worship - and anywhere else for that matter. The installation is temporary anyway.

To my great surprise, I like it. Faith should never go unchallenged.

JD Vance doesn't like it, which makes me like it all the more.

Next week they can get someone in to do a rap!

It's a bit 'fellow kids' tbh.

If you want a great example of art in church, check out the Vanessa Bell and Duncan Grant murals at St Michael and All Angels in Berwick. Stunning.

I want to preface this with the fact I’m not an art critic, nor am I trying to say that I believe my thoughts are the actual intentions behind the project.

To me, throughout history a common theme of religion has been the contrast between the riches of the church itself, and the poverty of its parishioners. The Church of England is one that sticks in my mind in particular- the church was founded so that the king could get a divorce. Its entire purpose was to facilitate the wishes of the wealthy and the common people of the country got swept up in it.

Even to this day I think in some ways religion is associated with relative wealth and prosperity while the acts are for those who don’t have that.

Graffiti is something that, rightly or wrongly, a lot of us associate with the exact opposite of religion. It’s against Christian values, it’s something that I think a lot of us would associate with poorer areas, crime, the exact opposite of the pious good of the church.

By displaying “graffiti” in a church, the message is twofold - has the church lost touch with the traditional Christian values on which it was founded, and now it’s in a period where more and more people associate with crime? Is this a picture of what the church has become?

Or is it a picture of something that the church WILL become? Is it a look into the future, where more and more people abandon religion (or at least Christianity) for various reasons and the church and its estates become abandoned buildings with graffiti?

Thank you! That's an interesting take! I couldn't get past it's ugly and offensive!

I also think the fact it can be removed is quite poignant. Do they hope this downturn in religious beliefs across the country is a temporary setback? Something they can undo?

It’s fascinating when you actually look past the fact it’s graffiti in a church.

I think that’s the entire point. It’s shocking and jarring - but you have to look at why. Why does it shock you so much? Why do you find it offensive? Because of the place it’s located? Because of the act of graffiti? You need to look deeper to explore it more.

For me graffiti isn't art, it's vandalism.
To vandalise a church is sacrilege which is offensive to me, profoundly.

To me it’s just an aesthetic issue.

A cathedral can be beautiful, jarring art can be powerful but this is lacking.

Exactly. So it’s about those associations - what is the meaning behind it? Why does it evoke those feelings? What does it represent?

To you. Art is entirely subjective

Well yeh. Of course we’re all answering with our own opinion on it.

Sums it up nicely I think.

The decals have got people talking, which is the point. I also agree with pp that Jesus wouldn't have minded. He was all for finding ways to spread The Word.

I wonder why people say things like this

Jesus would like it

Would he?

Jesus was an extremist, kicking off because people werent spiritual enough or traditional enough, not respectful enough of temples and god and whatnot.

He would not like it at all.

It's not any old church. It's Canterbury Cathedral, mother church of the Anglican communion worldwide and a centre of pilgrimage. Beautiful even if you have no religion, awe-inspiring perhaps and steeped in centuries of history.

So let's slap a bit of peelable graffiti round the walls, call it 'searching for truth' or some such and bask in the inevitable publicity. God knows what the Dean and Chapter were thinking (apart from money and publicity) to think this was a good idea. (Btw the diocese has nothing to do with what goes on in cathedrals). As you have to pay to get in there in the first place it's hardly likely that there'll be a sudden rush of people wanting to engage with it.

Maybe they're asking the right questions but definitely in the wrong place.

How is it the wrong place? It’s exactly the right place to evoke questions around the church’s place in modern life.

not actually trying to engage with anyone new but just with a caricature of youth
It was created through a series of workshops with various groups of people. The messages are their thoughts in their words.

I wouldn't be surprised if some people objected to those when they were put in.

It becomes an issue when a particular piece of art/art installation is suddenly treated like The Doom Of Civilisation in the way that this installation is. I agree with you on the tendency to overly intellectualise art - but equally there is a tendency to overly demonise art, and that is what is happening here. What happened to saying 'meh' and walking on by?

The idea that graffiti is against Christian values is something that requires evidencing - where in the Bible does it say 'thou shalt not scribble thy difficult thoughts on the village temple'?

As for the rest of your post, I can't even. It reeks of approval of the prosperity gospel. I'm an atheist, but I have many Christian friends because I run a support group for the families of addicts. And all of the Christian (monstly) women who support the group work with those who are poor, those who are excluded and those who are disaffected. That is what the Church should be for!

What you're missing is possibility number three: that the Church will take a long hard look at itself and decide to go back to engaging with the poor and the oppressed in the way it should have been doing all along. The fact that you and others are associating this graffiti exhibition with crime is something that is in your own head, nothing more.

I just find it depressing and typical of the c of e. Similar to them trying to be "relevant" with silent discos and even fairs in churches. People have a real yearning for the sacred, peace and beauty in these dark times and this sort of thing will just put people off the church. I became a Catholic a few years ago as I feel they are more inclined to take God seriously and with respect which I don't feel this does - it is a distraction from God which a cathedral shouldnt facilitate.

I’m not a Christian. I’m just expressing my thoughts on how the two values seem to be so diametrically opposed, yet coincide here and are obviously provoking thought.

How is graffiti 'diametrically opposed' to whatever Christian values are?

Well, vandalism and the destruction of property goes against the “love thy neighbour” narrative, firstly. It’s also a cornerstone of rebellions, and they don’t tend to fit Christian values.