Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Philosophy/religion

Join our Philosophy forum to discuss religion and spirituality.

The controversial graffiti in Canterbury Cathedral

117 replies

RevUlsion · 15/10/2025 11:08

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

OP posts:
MollyMaybe · 16/10/2025 07:59

crumpet · 15/10/2025 22:39

They might mind big questions being dressed up as plastic graffiti mind you. It’s infantilising

Edited

Plastic graffiti 😆

Doesn't sound so subversive

Generate an interesting discussion though, so not all bad.

Planck · 16/10/2025 10:18

crumpet · 15/10/2025 22:39

They might mind big questions being dressed up as plastic graffiti mind you. It’s infantilising

Edited

Exactly.

pointythings · 16/10/2025 10:36

SoEasyToFallInLove · 15/10/2025 20:28

I think the fact they’re removable also adds another layer to it.

Is it commenting on the transient nature of people’s doubts with regard to religion? That they too will one day be removed and what will be left is their religion?

Or that religion will be removed...

EasternStandard · 16/10/2025 10:49

SoEasyToFallInLove · 15/10/2025 20:28

I think the fact they’re removable also adds another layer to it.

Is it commenting on the transient nature of people’s doubts with regard to religion? That they too will one day be removed and what will be left is their religion?

Or the plastic waste and short spike of SM attention juxtaposed with the beauty of something really enduring, a cathedral.

CurlewKate · 16/10/2025 10:53

It’s a building. An astonishing and beautiful building, but still just a space.

EasternStandard · 16/10/2025 11:00

I’d be happy with that description astonishing and beautiful.

The bits of plastic to be peeled off and binned oth, not moving and a bit naff imo.

RevUlsion · 16/10/2025 14:13

I'm no great art expert, but I don't think we're meant to find the temporary graffiti attractive or artistic.

I think it's more the deliberate contrast between ancient craftsmanship and beauty (the Cathedral) and contemporary scrawl (the graffiti). And exploring how questions of faith can be in both.

Think Tate Gallery bricks, rather than Monet or Turner paintings. The whole point is that it's provocative conceptual art, surely?

OP posts:
LeaningOnTheEverlastingArms · 16/10/2025 14:17

More plastic waste- just what we need. 🤦‍♀️

crumpet · 16/10/2025 14:23

RevUlsion · 16/10/2025 14:13

I'm no great art expert, but I don't think we're meant to find the temporary graffiti attractive or artistic.

I think it's more the deliberate contrast between ancient craftsmanship and beauty (the Cathedral) and contemporary scrawl (the graffiti). And exploring how questions of faith can be in both.

Think Tate Gallery bricks, rather than Monet or Turner paintings. The whole point is that it's provocative conceptual art, surely?

Nah. In this case it’s pandering bollocks.

and to repeat a point I made earlier, those spending nearly twenty pounds to visit a architecturally magnificent, nearly 1000 year old place of worship of huge historical significance (rather than to visit some provocative conceptual art) might be a bit pissed off.

RevUlsion · 16/10/2025 14:26

crumpet · 16/10/2025 14:23

Nah. In this case it’s pandering bollocks.

and to repeat a point I made earlier, those spending nearly twenty pounds to visit a architecturally magnificent, nearly 1000 year old place of worship of huge historical significance (rather than to visit some provocative conceptual art) might be a bit pissed off.

Edited

'pandering' to...?

OP posts:
crumpet · 16/10/2025 14:27

RevUlsion · 16/10/2025 14:26

'pandering' to...?

Pandering to whoever. At least the Tate is free to visit.

Kuretake · 16/10/2025 14:28

crumpet · 16/10/2025 14:27

Pandering to whoever. At least the Tate is free to visit.

Do you know what pandering means?

MrsSkylerWhite · 16/10/2025 14:29

Aren’t churches supposed to be for the people? What’s the problem?

MoltenLasagne · 16/10/2025 14:44

Honestly the artistic value feels one step up from MS Word, and at least that would be vaguely nostalgic. I dislike it because it feels tacky and low effort and seems to think it is being controversial while being a temporary exhibit asking relatively bog standard questions.

crumpet · 16/10/2025 15:52

Kuretake · 16/10/2025 14:28

Do you know what pandering means?

Yes. But I’m not interest in getting into a diversion from the point I made, which is very clear to anyone who reads it.

Catinabeanbag · 16/10/2025 17:04

I wonder various things about the display in the cathedral, and haven't come to any firm conclusions about it...
Banksy could be coined as a graffitti artist (and was when he started out) - he's defacing public property, after all, but because 'people' have decided that for whatever reason his work has now crossed the boundary into 'art' (the points he makes or the reactions he gets, or the fact he's anonymous?) his work now sells for silly amounts of money.
It begs questions about what is art, who decides what 'art' is (or isn't) and therefore what its value is, in monetary and other terms. If van Gogh had painted his sunflowers painting for the front of a seed packet, would we hold it in such high regard? And so because this is graffitti, and in a cathedral, have we decided it's not 'art' and therefore not of any value?
Any decent art will get a reaction. To have people look at your work and go 'Meh' is probably the worst thing for an artist. Love it or hate it, both are reactions, and this has certainly got people talking - about the nature of religious buildings, what is or isn't appropriate in them, and so on.

I wonder if many of the people who are reacting to the display ever darken the doors of a church from one year end to the next, or put money in the collection to keep the buildings maintained. I wonder if the display somehow offends their view of what a church or cathedral 'should' be, but churches are far more than just old, quiet, open buildings for people to wander into when they want. They are often busy places - cathedrals particularly - where humanity in all it's good and grimy glory wanders in, especially in the city centres. They're places where faith and humanity jarr at times, and so in some ways, this display mirrors some of that, and asks questions that we should probably all be asking.

Churches have always had art in them - stained glass windows and medieval murals for starters, and it was the Reformation that got rid of a lot of this from our churches. So in some ways this isn't new, and I'm sure loads of us have been in old churches and seen names carved into pews or stone by past church goers in a bored moment..... there is nothing new under the sun.

MollyMaybe · 16/10/2025 17:11

RevUlsion · 16/10/2025 14:13

I'm no great art expert, but I don't think we're meant to find the temporary graffiti attractive or artistic.

I think it's more the deliberate contrast between ancient craftsmanship and beauty (the Cathedral) and contemporary scrawl (the graffiti). And exploring how questions of faith can be in both.

Think Tate Gallery bricks, rather than Monet or Turner paintings. The whole point is that it's provocative conceptual art, surely?

But!! It's not graffiti, it's latex print‑outs. The medium is the message and all that.

It's Amazon Prime style, pre‑packaged, safe, removable.

Post modern simulacrum is the opposite of truth, honesty and integrity.

Make of it what you will.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page