JD Vance Criticizes Controversial Art Installation at Canterbury Cathedral
JD Vance, the US Vice-President, has publicly criticized an art installation at Canterbury Cathedral that highlights voices from marginalized communities. The installation, which features red graffiti-style writing on historic stone walls, asks provocative questions to God, such as: “Why did you create hate when love is by far more powerful?”
Vance’s Criticism of the Installation
In a post on X, Vance described the exhibit as making “a beautiful historical building really ugly.” His comments sparked a debate about the appropriateness of the installation in such a revered space.
Responses from the Community
Despite Vance’s criticism, the installation received praise from some quarters. Dean of Canterbury, David Monteith, stated that the exhibit “intentionally builds bridges between cultures, styles and genres.” He emphasized the importance of allowing younger voices to contribute meaningfully to discussions of faith and spirituality.
Community Engagement in the Exhibit
The installation officially opens on 17 October and aims to involve broader community participation. It is the result of workshops that engaged participants from various backgrounds, including Punjabi, black and brown diaspora, neurodivergent individuals, and LGBTQIA+ groups.
- The project explores questions such as “What would you ask God?”
- Questions featured include, “Does everything have a soul?”
Historical Context of Graffiti in the Cathedral
Canterbury Cathedral noted that the installation reflects a tradition of historical graffiti within its walls, including masons’ marks and symbols left by pilgrims over the centuries. “This project, at its core, is about community, using your voice, and change,” stated poet Alex Vellis, who collaborated on the installation.
Public Reactions
Visitor reactions to the installation have been mixed. Some have described it as sacrilegious or compared the look of the cathedral to an underground car park. Others view it as an important expression of the “language of the unheard.”
As this conversation unfolds, it raises questions about the role of historical sites in contemporary cultural dialogue, and how communities can express their identities within them.
