The Vatican has taken umbrage with a recent church mural in Rome, which features the face of Italian populist leader Giorgia Meloni gazing serenely from among the clouds. The artist, Bruno Valentinetti, 83, painted his tribute to Umberto II, Italy's last king, earlier this century. While not the most aesthetically pleasing work, it is a curious choice for a church mural.
Valentinetti has claimed that he was pressured into removing Meloni's face by the Vatican, citing Cardinal Don Baldo Reina's condemnation of her "misuse" in sacred art. However, as Italian art historian and critic point out, this portrayal of a real person, real people have long been part of Italy's artistic heritage.
In 15th-century Florence, for example, artists like Domenico Ghirlandaio and Benozzo Gozzoli depicted prominent families and figures in their frescoes. Lorenzo de' Medici even had himself painted as a Magus in one famous scene, while another artist captured him with his young sons.
Michelangelo's Last Judgment also features private portraits – including the infamous depiction of Minos, who received Biagio da Cesena's face after the artist was accused of irreverence.
One might wonder what changed since those days? The answer lies in modern expectations of church art. No longer contentiously real, it must be safe and contemplative, not willing to tackle contemporary politics head-on. In this context, Valentinetti's amateurish portrait appears like an embarrassing hack job that deserved removal on aesthetic grounds alone.
However, the Church has taken a firm stance, likely reflecting its more liberal leanings under Pope Leo XIV. This is understandable in today's polarized climate, where even seemingly innocuous images can be fraught with symbolic meaning.
Valentinetti has claimed that he was pressured into removing Meloni's face by the Vatican, citing Cardinal Don Baldo Reina's condemnation of her "misuse" in sacred art. However, as Italian art historian and critic point out, this portrayal of a real person, real people have long been part of Italy's artistic heritage.
In 15th-century Florence, for example, artists like Domenico Ghirlandaio and Benozzo Gozzoli depicted prominent families and figures in their frescoes. Lorenzo de' Medici even had himself painted as a Magus in one famous scene, while another artist captured him with his young sons.
Michelangelo's Last Judgment also features private portraits – including the infamous depiction of Minos, who received Biagio da Cesena's face after the artist was accused of irreverence.
One might wonder what changed since those days? The answer lies in modern expectations of church art. No longer contentiously real, it must be safe and contemplative, not willing to tackle contemporary politics head-on. In this context, Valentinetti's amateurish portrait appears like an embarrassing hack job that deserved removal on aesthetic grounds alone.
However, the Church has taken a firm stance, likely reflecting its more liberal leanings under Pope Leo XIV. This is understandable in today's polarized climate, where even seemingly innocuous images can be fraught with symbolic meaning.
Giorgia Meloni is a real person and her face is part of Italy's history. The fact that they're being all high and mighty about it seems like an overreaction to me. 
so i'm thinking... what changed? 
we used to have like super accurate historical portraits in churches, right? now it's all about keeping things safe and not stirring up controversy 
valentinetti's piece was probably meant to be a tribute, but the church is being super uptight about it 
pope leo xiv's got some pretty chill vibes, tho 
maybe they just want to avoid any potential drama or backlash 
but honestly, can't we still have art that's like, real and honest without being all judgy? 
And yeah, I get why Pope Leo XIV might want to take a more liberal stance on church art, especially with the current polarized climate and all...but still, you'd think Bruno Valentinetti would've gotten some creative freedom when it comes to his tribute to Umberto II 
... although, tbh, Meloni's face does look kinda weird in the clouds 
. But seriously, who are we to decide what's "safe" or "contemplative"? I get it, some people might take offense, but shouldn't artists be allowed to express themselves, even if it means tackling politics head-on? 
. Maybe they should've left Valentinetti's masterpiece alone 
... the Vatican's being too uptight about this whole "contemporary politics" thing - art should be more than just safe and pretty, you know?
, and I'm starting to get worried she's going to clog up the whole kitchen drain one of these days... anyway, what's with this whole church mural thing? Can you imagine if they painted a portrait of their current pope on the ceiling? 
. I mean, these old masters like Michelangelo and Ghirlandaio were all about capturing real people in their work - it was just a normal part of the job for them. And now, suddenly it's all about being safe and not offending anyone? It feels like we're living in a different world 
.
. It's hard to walk the fine line between artistic expression and avoiding controversy. At least Bruno Valentinetti was trying to pay his respects, even if it wasn't executed perfectly 
. But what really gets me is that the artist was basically told to remove her face by some high-up official in the Church. Like, what if he had a different idea of who should be featured on the mural? 
My kids are always telling me to express myself and take risks, so why can't artists do the same thing? 
just kidding kinda (kinda). Seriously though, it's weird how some art is considered "misuse" nowadays. Like, we're living in a world where politics and church get so intertwined... can't even paint a portrait without offending someone 
aka "do not offend".
. I get why the Church wants to avoid controversy, but this is just one of those things where they need to lighten up a bit 
Anyway, it seems to me that modern expectations of church art have shifted towards being all safe & contemplative... which kinda sucks for artistic freedom, you know? 
.
. It's like, the Church is trying to control what we see and think about in art – no thanks! Art should be free from all those expectations and should be about sparking conversations and emotions.
. Long live art that speaks its mind