The FORFEST undertakings held until now have shown perhaps an almost surprising interest in art production, which can be called spiritually oriented. It is an entirely natural interest in artists, not only because of less frequent opportunities of similar presentation, but certainly also because of a traditionally significant position of spiritual themes throughout the fine arts region. The question of the current spiritual streams appears to be attractive even for art theorists and theological  reflections have been appearing lately as well. At the same time it becomes obvious that the very approaches and angles of view on the given region may mutually be essentially different.

General reflections on spiritual art often begin – and many times even end – with differences about appropriate or rightful designation. A long discussion took place e.g. in Germany a short time ago. Above all the questions of the term up to this time in use Christian art was scrutinized and one of the suggested new alternatives read Art in the Christian space. Such characteristic certainly brings further questions – one obviously is, however, valid even for our situation. The today’s term art cannot be immediately bound without great troubles with any non-artistic attribute. Spiritually oriented art of course exists without any doubt and the term spiritual may be the widest and most general denominator which is to our disposal. Every undertaking or exhibition devoted to such creation is a certain interpretation itself, it is a possible account of this phenomenon.

The authors or curators of individual exhibitions give them mostly a symbolical or in any other way substitute name. Some time ago there were exhibitions held in Prague with the name Grand Theme and roughly a month ago a conference took place in Bratislava named A Place for Prayer. This conference was dedicated to new churches which had been built in Slovakia during the last 10 years. I must state that the overall estimate of the major part of new churches and chapels was relatively critical. The organizers were, however, pleased that even a number of theologians were present (protestant and orthodox including), who were concerned not only with liturgical rules and demands, but who also formulated philosophical points of start and sometimes even their visions of a church in future. I myself was surprised that in Slovakia the new churches get such attention from the public, and that including university circles and the expert press. The church in the Lomná in the Orava Region (architects P. Abonyi and M. Bišťan) was awarded a prestige prize of Dušan Jurkovič for the year 1997, and this makes an example we have been lacking so far. During the conference also could be heard that the term sacral architecture was used above all as a typical term which expresses the worshipping function of a building. I was provided the opportunity of speaking to several participants, theologists including. We agreed that the original meaning of the term sacrum expresses to immediate relation and so close proximity of God, that apart from architecture – e.g. with a concrete fine art work – it can be hardly used. The basic obstacle today is that many artists (self-reflecting) are aware of the fact, that their work always is a subjective and personal expression which cannot claim such an ontologist weight.

The basis of the contemporary spiritual art problem, however, is far from only being terminological. It concerns the position – the part of a work of art in connection with the world and system of religious concepts and values. Exhibitions and displays mostly present a viewer with an art creations spectrum which took their origin in studios from the inner impulse of the authors as a so called free creation. A member of artists do not even think about another presentation of their works than through exhibitions and galleries and get it does not affect their qualities. Rather the opposite – such works affect and convince only with their own artistic and human authenticity. If we take sacral as a presentation of a work, then most top paintings and sculptures of classical modernity were created without such ambitions, although at present they are in the places of honor of the modern spiritual art displays.

However, there are exceptions and these achieve a place in modern churches and chapels. Their number has been increasing roughly since the 1960ies and above all during the pontificate of the pope – a collector and lover of modern art – Paul 6th. The Chagalle’s vitrages, wall paintings by Matisse, at present paintings by Arnulf Reiner or plastics by Friedrich Press in historical and modern churches prove, that just in such milieu the modern art can demonstrate its possibilities and bring message of contemporary man. It is very typical that in these caves it is not necessary to stress the difference between free creation and sacral realization. They rather are examples of such manifestation which we may feel as bold, but in any case rightful and natural.

As a matter of fact the strict differentiation between free art and religious or sacral art took place around the turn of the 19th and 20th century as a result of the clash of the modernism with clerical criticism and rejecting it. Also the new, open letter of the pope John Paul 2nd which addresses artists, has mentioned this distance between the world of art and the world of belief. After mentioning this crisis in the relation of art and church there follows the idea that it is just art which from now on represents a certain sort of the bridge to religious experience. At this point is spoken on art as it is itself, on its inner closeness to faith in the time of a great distance between culture and church. I think that just this – perhaps not very striking passage – is worth the attention of all who want and wish to discuss the art and its spiritual aspects.

A pronounced modern art drive in the church building in the 60ies and 70ies, the examples of which we can see in a number of towns and villages immediately beyond our (west) border, suggests the question, why the current art is pushed in our country with such difficulties. The answers may be different, but the basic one is simple: The contemporary art cannot easily push itself even with other public occasions or commitments, which often do not lack of substantial preconditions.

The contemporary creation into officiating spaces nevertheless is much more complicated. After the wave of enthusiasm for modernism of the 1960th which we did not experience from understandable reasons, at present e.g. in Austria is often stressed the rule nothing against community – freely paraphrased: those who are building or repairing their church cannot be compelled in any way. The rightfulness, but also the stumbling block of this democratic rule are obvious at the first glance. Not even in our country is any expert committee able to push a design which is not accepted by the investor or his associates.

It is also necessary to say that criteria and attitudes of builders may be different from theoretical or artistic points of view not only in the question of taste. It stands to reason that from the point of view of a priest the liturgical function must be above all concerned, from the point of view of parishioners is necessary that the art solution is understandable and creates a favorable atmosphere, a theologian will stress the iconographic side etc. As for historical buildings, here specific conservationists’ demands play part and these can play even essential part. The artist – author, is to defend his idea against all participating sides and it is he, who above all appeals to them for discussing a problem with emphasizing the value part of things. Appeals for a dialogue at present emerge on more sides and ever more often they push in clerical documents as well. A dialogue which we need to restore in our conditions, or perhaps better completely newly establish, should not only dwell upon philosophically – theological reflections. If it is to bring concrete results, we must create preconditions, that cannot be replaced by only good will alone.

A matter of principle is the mutual acquaintance with several regions: the sphere of the contemporary art, liturgical rules and needs, and also the concrete conditions under which a church or chapel take origin and under which they will serve in practice.

The survey of the art history at theological faculties definitely should not end with the era of 19th century, but it should deliver a survey to investors of modern art, its character and possibilities. It at least concerns a basic information which would reveal that the relation of theology and art never was an only one-way relation of authority and illustrators. The whole history of art reveals that a real work in not only a passive or receptive response. Often we can realize that the very realizations which were received reluctantly, at present are on the first places of the representative publications. It is because they managed to bring their own stimuli and to express new evidence that they are not based on repeating the already well tested forms but that they managed to find a new relation to tradition. In this sense they are disclosure of things old and new as the biblical text puts it on the work of scriptures expounders. Above all, however, are more frequently some disputes between artists and customers spoken about. As an example the rejected painting by Caravaggio St. Matthew can give evidence or the moralizing repaint of The last judgement by Michel Angelo. But there also exist cases of a different sort, which I would like to emphasize. We may be surprised that new concepts of sacral space arrangement had taken origin in the studios of several architects long before they became rules, worded by the Second Vatican Council. The architect Rudolf Schwarz introduced the central location of altar and its orientation towards the gathering as ideal projects as early as 1938. His accompanying texts give evidence that the point was not only a formal experiment. E.g. he writes: “… then the altar is in the middle, the cleric behind it and people on three sides and thus they all make a sacred circle around the altar.”

In 1929 Rudolf Schwarz realized a variable concept of the liturgical span, which corresponds with various occasions, in the castle Rothenfels chapel. This idea did not spread before 1960ies.

Very interesting is the example of applying the ideas of the theologian Roman Guardini, the partner of whom in many projects was the architect Dominikus Böhm, the author of a number of excellent sacral buildings in Germany.

These at random introduced cases of a mutual contribution did not rise from a mere theorizing, but from the work on concrete tasks , which were felt as entirely actual and significant in the framework of creative activities of their times. An author himself cannot as a rule carry out such actions, and this does not only concern architecture. The necessary condition is understanding, cooperation and courage of the investor, who in the end has to defend it as well. In the history of the church and art relation these are the most important moments, and it is necessary to remind them. The dialogue, at present an issue once more, thus cannot be only limited to pile up supporting arguments or demands, laid before the other side. As it is necessary for theologians to get acquainted with contemporary art, it is necessary for artists to gains a personal and concrete experience of the sacral space, simply spoken the experience of the church organism. The knowledge of the contemporary liturgy and theological thinking may mean much more than only to meet the given operational demands. It may because a very important stimulation and also argument for its defense. If an artist is committed to build a new church and to provide it artistically, then surely it is not only an outstanding opportunity for his artistic presentation. When I return to the term sacral art, I would like to quote perhaps a bit provoking, but a profound observation of H. Hodfstätter, who was concerned with sacral art all his life: “from religiousness itself there can rise no genuine work of art, from ingenuity itself no sacral work.”

We really have a lot of reasons for a dialogue at present. The contemporary European theologians, artists and theoreticians agree on one thing: the way of liturgical space forming influences and co-determines the experience of prayer or divine service itself. The liturgy minister Klemens Richter expressed it very exactly: “The faith of every communion is entirely definitely formed by liturgical space, It is valid vice verse as well: Every decisive shift of the accent in the Christian faith expression finally leads to changes in forming the liturgical space. In addition his forming is also an expression of self-understanding of the communion and church, reflecting of an entirely definite ecclesiology.”

The art which we can call spiritual certainly belongs into this common process, and perhaps even to the struggle for finding our own spiritual identity. Art can present this role of it at exhibitions. However, it should exceed the exhibition halls.