Contemporary Sacred Art, the good, the bad and the ugly.

I think it is unfair to compare all Sacred Art to what we see in the great historic churches of europe. They are certainly high points of what Sacred Art needs to be, but some of the most effective Sacred Art can be found in missions as well.
The Spanish missions in California have incredibly beautiful art, created by , for the most part "unkown" native american artists whom glorfy God with a sincere reverence that makes visiting one of these adobe churches a visual blessing.

I recollect one church is in Mexico,the other in Italy with ordnance displayedwhereit entered the church, miraculously sparing sacred objects by not exploding.
But perhaps I'm in error.
Which brings me to another point. Sacred Art should, I feel, compliment a spiritual atmosphere,
I find much modern Sacred Art tends to distract.
It isn't a matter of size, although most modern pieces tend to be large in orderto fill blank walls in the new "stadium seating" auditoriums,
Consider St.Peters or the baroque churches in euope, Once the visitor is a customed to the massiveness of the building and artwork, contemplative prayer is easily nurtured. OTOHwhen I amconfrontedby a twisted, impressionist crucifix with an unidentifiable alien looking corpus towering over me, it draws my attention away from prayer and "what if"questions steal my thoughts, as if "what if that thing falls and kills me?"

Speaking of falling. WHen did it become fashionable to suspend a Crucifix from the ceiling with steel cables?
I see these alot. It is better than not having a Crucifix on the altar at all (which is even more common) but common sense tells me the crucified Christ should be earthbound, with us and not suspended like a model airplane. Beside the steel cables are likely the cheapest and that brings to mind the "what if that thing falls..."

Sacred Art does serve specific functions and certainly in the early Church it was meant to instruct when illiteracy was rampant and also a symbolic manifestation of faith which probably had its origins from symbols and signs in the catacombs of the emerging Church. In our contemporary era, it may be more of symbols and designs to illumen the intelegencia.

Not sure I understand the unexploded ordnances as part of holy decor. I would tread lightly around such sacred edifices.

"Artistic creation does not copy God's creation, it continues
it. And just as the trace and the image of God
appear in His creatures, so the human stamp, sensitive
and spiritual, not only that of the hands,
but of the whole soul." Jacques Maritain

What is Sacred Art? My understanding is that Art in churches,chapels, etc...
1) performs a specific function in addidtion to offering glory to God.
2)Art is part of the rubrics of the Mass. Chalices, crucifixes, Babtismal fonts etc... all have uses aside from being works of Art.
3) Visual Art is a vital part of Catechisis. The visual image is instructional, especially in times and places where iliteracy is common.
4) Objects exhibited as decoration serve as memorials to the History of a community. Before the idea of a museum was secularized, churches were the museums where visitors learned of plagues, miracles, wars and other events. I'm aware of at least two churches where unexloded ordnance are part of the decore.
5) Art gives inspiration and elevation to the soul when praying.

I think it is fair to hold contemporary Sacred Art to at least the same degree of practical relevence,

This ought to be a rollickin' good time!

There are certainly some excellent (IMHO) Catholic artists, but most modern church architecture denies us the artistic venues to appreciate their work. Many modern church buildings seem better suited to the minimalist, or grotesque impressionist fare we often see.
Of course there are many, many factors which effect the installation of religious art in a church---but oddly money doesn't seem to one of them!
Offensive Art costs just as much as fine religious Art.