"The great Father Zed, Archiblogopoios"
- Fr. John Hunwicke
"Some 2 bit novus ordo cleric"
"Rev. John Zuhlsdorf, a traditionalist blogger who has never shied from picking fights with priests, bishops or cardinals when liturgical abuses are concerned."
"Father John Zuhlsdorf is a crank"
"Father Zuhlsdorf drives me crazy"
"the hate-filled Father John Zuhlsford" [sic]
"Father John Zuhlsdorf, the right wing priest who has a penchant for referring to NCR as the 'fishwrap'"
"Zuhlsdorf is an eccentric with no real consequences" - HERE
- Michael Sean Winters
"Fr Z is a true phenomenon of the information age: a power blogger and a priest."
- Anna Arco
“Given that Rorate Coeli and Shea are mad at Fr. Z, I think it proves Fr. Z knows what he is doing and he is right.”
"Let me be clear. Fr. Z is a shock jock, mostly. His readership is vast and touchy. They like to be provoked and react with speed and fury."
- Sam Rocha
"Father Z’s Blog is a bright star on a cloudy night."
"A cross between Kung Fu Panda and Wolverine."
Fr. Z is officially a hybrid of Gandalf and Obi-Wan XD
Rev. John Zuhlsdorf, a scrappy blogger popular with the Catholic right.
- America Magazine
RC integralist who prays like an evangelical fundamentalist.
-Austen Ivereigh on Twitter
[T]he even more mainline Catholic Fr. Z. blog.
-Deus Ex Machina
“For me the saddest thing about Father Z’s blog is how cruel it is.... It’s astonishing to me that a priest could traffic in such cruelty and hatred.”
- Jesuit homosexualist James Martin to BuzzFeed
"Fr. Z's is one of the more cheerful blogs out there and he is careful about keeping the crazies out of his commboxes"
- Paul in comment at 1 Peter 5
"I am a Roman Catholic, in no small part, because of your blog.
I am a TLM-going Catholic, in no small part, because of your blog.
And I am in a state of grace today, in no small part, because of your blog."
- Tom in comment
"Thank you for the delightful and edifying omnibus that is your blog."- Reader comment.
"Fr. Z disgraces his priesthood as a grifter, a liar, and a bully. - - Mark Shea
Have you ever checked out the Art Renewal Center website? There are art school specializing in classical training popping up everywhere. Art is experiencing a renewal too.
I do not like Picasso as a person either. He sounded like a horrible man—hope though that he made peace with our Lord and wasn’t damned.
It’s a lovely painting, but it may or may not be a Duccio (or 13th c). There are serious doubts about its attribution.
Most beautiful images of Our Lady and our Lord!
Pray for us, O Holy Mother of God!
Caravaggio! I can think of few artists whose work I’d prefer to see after escaping from the Picasso exhibit. Saint Francis of Assisi in Ecstasy is one of my favorite paintings.
Article on the remains of Caravaggio: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/europe/10333158.stm
Perhaps it’s a silly question, but if you loathe Picasso, why go to that particular exhibit? Sounds a bit like masochism in oil-paint. ;-)
I am sure that you’ve spent some time down the street at the Frick Collection… where they proudly display wonderful Italian painters such as Bellini, Duccio and Gentile da Fabriano…not to mention Holbein’s Thomas More! The place is a jewel!
Father, if you ever get to the “Mall” in DC, and get to the free Gallery, check out Giotto’s works there. Btw, my favorite Da Vinici is there as well. Raphael is also prevalent.
Amazingly, if you go to the Art Museum of Detroit, they have absolutely amazing works, even though Detroit is fast becoming a metropolitan ghost town.
how about Picasso’s 19th cty?
I do not like Picasso either! I loath most “modern art” too. I prefer paintings to be photo-realistic.
Exactly!… Outstanding!… I could not have said it better myself! I have always thought that Picasso wasted his talent!
19th century romanticism is my favorite, followed by rococo
didnt like modern art until my neighbor had some in hers (house its self looks like something from star trek) and actually to my utter surprise liked how it fit in and added to the atmosphere, though the stuff wasnt stupid like picasso or dumb like a badly drawn urinal next to a tomato, more like interesting colors blended in cant really desribe it – they did have a cool fish statue
I love Caravaggio. Evidently he was Not A Nice Man at all, but his art….!! Well, I can only hope he repented before his death.
I’m not a hater of all modern art, I like Picasso’s blue period and I sort of like Jackson Pollack’s paintings.
Dear Father the Madonnas with child are beautiful. When I visited the Picasso exhibition in Barcelona it appeared to document the progressive moral decline of the artist over the years, actually quite disturbing to see as a chronological documentation
Caravaggio traveling exhibition is marvellous KA
Have you ever checked out the Art Renewal Center website? There are art school specializing in classical training popping up everywhere
Thank you for posting this… Turns out there’s one about 45 minutes from my home. I have a 15 year old who loves REALISTIC art… We have been looking for something that trains artists classically.. in the same way musicians are trained classically…
Father, I agree about Picasso…
kneeling catholic, you beat me to it…..I was amazed when I first saw that First Communion painting by Picasso.
Picasso doesn’t do much for me either.
His early work is realistic, but stiff and extremely derivative. Other folks did it better . . . and he may well have known that he wasn’t going anywhere with realism, whether he didn’t have the facility or just didn’t have the patience that such work requires.
Similarly, Jackson Pollock’s early work reveals that he could not paint at all in a representational style (he was a pupil of Thomas Hart Benton, and his early work looks like a bad imitation of Benton. He also couldn’t draw.) So he struck off into blobs and gobs of paint.
As it happens, both enjoyed tremendous commercial and critical success with their forays into weirdness. That must have been a bitter pill to swallow, in a way.
Goya is who Picasso wished he could be.
Sargent is also to be admired:
Sargent HATED doing portraits!
Have you seen his watercolors?
Winslow Homer is another great watercolorist. His Adirondack sketches are incredible . . . but so are his Bahamas watercolors.
Nice pictures of Our Lady and Our Lord! Wasn’t the Duccio used for a Christmas stamp? Looks rather familiar….
Carvaggio is very dramatic-he used a lot of light-and-shadow in his works.
I don’t care for most modern art…no beauty or grace in them!
Oooo, I’d love to go to the Met and the Frick Collection!
The Frick collection is wonderful.
It began life as a private collection (the Fricks who were connected with Carnegie Steel back in the day), and the bequest that created the museum has some pretty strong qualifications attached. So you’re not likely to see much in the way of modern trash over there.
Without getting into an Art History dissertation, I am a bit confused by your statement about Photo-realism. Photo-realism as an artistic movement is strictly a mid to late twentieth century development. There was Roman Verism from the time of the late Republic, which is quite beautiful and disturbing for its detail, especially in statues which still have the ivory in the eyes. But from the time of the Caesars, until the development of color photography there was never any real attempt to paint life as it is. If you mean that you dislike abstract art, I would suggest that you look into el Greco, Zaurabon, Velasquez, and pretty much any art from the late Empire until the Reniassance, it may change your mind about abstraction in the service of the Faith.
Also, we can’t wholesale throw out all contemporary art, Salvador Dali was able to do wonderful things with the art he produced later in life such as ” The Crucifixion” and “The Last Supper”. He came back to the faith later in life and his art from that period is a tremendous testament to his faith.
I wondered about that term too, but decided it meant ‘representational’ rather than the 20th c. movement.
And re the ‘abstraction’ edwardo references — that’s not what most of us mean by ‘abstract art’. A little use of abstraction is normal in all painting, because when we’re looking at reality, our eyes and brain focus in certain things and ‘blur’ others. I think most of the masters you mention fall into that category – or it may just be the Spanish style (if you mean Zurbarán). Especially El Greco.
Hyper-realism doesn’t look ‘natural’ because it’s not the way we see the world. A good example of this is the Preraphaelites. EVERYTHING in their pictures – even the smallest flower or grass stem – is painted in excruciating detail. The general effect is somewhat hallucinatory. I like it, but it isn’t “realistic”, it’s something else.
I like some of Dali’s work too – his vertiginous “Crucifixion” is certainly not conventional, but it’s very well painted and very effective as well.
Researchers Identify Bones as Caravaggio’s: http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/16/researchers-say-bones-are-caravaggios/?src=me&ref=arts
Of course this is the finest painting done in any era, in any medium and by any artist:
Why do you dislike Picasso, Fr. Z.? I particularly enjoy his Blue period works including his Visitation.
Fr.z, I think you should begin regular art reviews… not necessarily academic in nature, but reflections. You could title it: “The Aesthetic Education of Catholics”. I think it would be great!
Edwardo3 & AnAmericanMother,
You are both correct. I am not an expert on art, other than I know what I like and dislike. I was trying to say that I only like paintings that are as realistic as the artist can paint given the materials and known techniques of the time. It seems that the goal was to paint something as accurately as possible and to make a picture that would appear to be like what we would call a photograph today, however be the image from the unique point-of-view and mind of the artist. I hope I explained it better, and am sorry for the confusion.