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

I think it’s revolting and if I’d travelled half way round the world to visit Canterbury Cathedral (as many Anglicans do), I’d be horrified. I would feel the same about such a display in any iconic religious building although it’s hard to imagine any other religion allowing such a thing in a setting as important as Canterbury.

genuinely asking, why do you think it’s revolting?

@SoEasyToFallInLove I think it is ugly and without artistic merit, I also think it’s totally inappropriate for the setting.

Exactly, jarring. I’m Christian. I don’t get much out of ‘sacred spaces’ but I find it unsettling.

Sorry wrong thread.

Firstly, graffiti isn't necessarily 'destruction of property and candalism'. Secondly, Christianity started out as a pretty rebellious movement, and without rebellion we would still be living in a world where slavery was legal and women didn't have a vote. So that's a very simplistic view.

@pointythings what does the act of graffiti have in common with movements such as that to abolish slavery?

Tell that to the early Xtians scratching their fishes etc

Having now looked at it…meh, it’s naff. But not downright horrible like some more traditional religious artworks.

"Let us spray". Meh. It's naff, boring and as edgy as the butter knife in a plastic kid's playset.

Dermot Morgan was taking the piss out of this 45 years ago.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KrC6xrg24sM&pp=ygUORmF0aGVyIHRyZW5keSA%3D

I'm glad you asked that! Because I'm sure you're aware that there is plenty of political graffiti around - and protest was one of the things that supported the abolition of slavery. The suffragette movement also used graffiti as part of their protests to get women the vote.

I didn’t say I was anti graffiti. I was commenting on what the motivations could be.

The messages are fine, although not really anything that the Christian church - all religions, in fact- haven't struggled with forever- "why all the suffering?" "are you there?" etc etc

The presentation is really lazy and patronising. I honestly think I'd be more interested in some actual modern graffiti- at least that would be someone expressing something genuine rather than this wet fart.

The Christian church may have struggled with these questions for ever, but these iterations of these questions have been generated by actual people living now and struggling with these questions now. Who gets to decide when people should stop asking the same questions just because they’re the same questions?

The idea that there’s nothing rebellious about Christianity is quite hilarious.

And there is nothing being vandalised ordestroyed here.

I think it’s cheesy and naff and I worry the glue might have damaged the stone

but it’s a temporary exhibition so each to their own really.

It is somewhat possible that there were people tasked with ensuring that the exhibition could be put on in a way that didn’t damage the stone.

I don't object to the questions at all, as I've said. I find the way the questions have been presented is boring, patronising and lazy.

I’ve said my piece on what I think - it’s the imagery rather than the act that’s so striking and so powerful.

I liked it less once I learned that they are stickers.

Before, I thought: it’s ugly but the messages are relevant and interesting. Someone has the courage of their convictions. Someone believes that church is not the building but the message, and they know this will make the news.

After, I thought: this is all a bit CoE down-with-the-kids. A simulacrum of radical. Perhaps they are embarrassed this has made the news.

Sorry, that was to @LittleBitofBread . I actually agree with you on the points you're making to another poster about Christianity and rebellion.

A simulacrum of radical.

Exactly.

Possible but personally I wouldn’t have risked it on a building so old but like I say each to their own.

Nobody on this thread is claiming that we "get to decide" anything.

Just that we don't like this graffiti.

By being so egregiously ugly, it is not going to reach the hearts and minds of most people.

The thing with (say) a beautiful stained glass window is that the beauty catches your eye, and holds your attention and wonder, and then as you keep looking you see a story in the image and you ponder it.

When I see this graffiti I just think "yuck" and look away - and so would most people.

The only people who keep looking, determined to find some kind of meaning* in the ugliness, are those "arty intellectuals" I mentioned above. So that predetermines this art to be exclusivist.

*See examples upthread, like is this symbolism of the future of the Church blah blah.

It is not inclusive. Your average hoodie who actually does graffiti himself would not be moved by this. The only people interested in this are people who try to "analyse" it.

Surely tthese art-analysts are not the people the cathedral is trying to speak to?

Whereas beauty, like a stained glass window or the sound of a voice echoing for minutes under a perfectly arched ceiling, can reach people from any background. Anyone can feel awe, and awe can be a gateway to further contemplation. That's one of the reasons they designed cathedrals to be beautiful in the first place

Edit for many typos

@pointythings graffiti has very little in common with the methods the abolitionists relied on to succeed in their aim.

Graffiti as it is today is an absolute blight on people’s lives in less well off areas.

I’m sure the middle classes can enjoy chin-stroking over its interpretations. They’re unlikely to wake up to find their property or shop completely covered in the stuff and facing a big bill or many hours of back breaking work to remove it. I find it frankly insulting that this is seen as a meaningful way to represent “marginalised” communities,