Much has been discussed and much has been said about the fact that, in the panorama of contemporary art, the figure of the Redeemer has taken a backseat and is no longer, as in previous centuries, the focal point of interest for artists and patrons. Undoubtedly, in the past, sacred themes, in their many aspects, played an absolutely predominant role, even going so far as to monopolize the subjects and developments of modern art history.

This occurred for several reasons; the first was certainly of an educational nature. Since people did not know how to read or write, it is obvious that the Church’s didactic need to communicate about Christ, the Virgin Mary, and the lives of the Saints was of primary importance.

However, regardless of whether the themes were sacred or secular, the subjects of past representations could not ignore the rather specific purpose of formal identification. In the absence of other means of communication, a painting was created. A painting was made to remember, to identify, to show, and to leave a trace. A simple patron who, for sentimental or prestige reasons, wished to preserve the memory of a wife, father, or son who had died in war had no alternative but to contemplate their portrait.

That same portrait, developed and refined through the artist’s aesthetic research, became the face of a Saint, of the Assumption, or even of Christ. To be even more explicit, when a Cardinal or a prince commissioned a work from a painter—let’s say Paul the Apostle or The Beheading of John the Baptist—the first necessity of the artist was to find a model who could strongly embody that representation.

When the structure of formal representation is based on principles of identification, it is obvious that the figure of Christ cannot help but maintain an essential role. If one paints a man, or even more so, a suffering man, sooner or later one will inevitably confront the enigma of the man Christ. If one paints a woman and wishes her to embody values of self-sacrifice and devotion, sooner or later one will be confronted with the image of the Virgin Mary. And so on…

Much later, with the demographic, technological, and economic development at the end of the 19th century, and with the emergence of the first mass communication tools—photography, the dissemination of print media, and later, cinema—new horizons opened up to the eyes and imagination of artists and patrons.

The artistic approach of the modern age gradually gave way to a new form of research: less comprehensible, certainly, but of significant importance. If descriptive elements had been exhausted, expressive elements certainly had not!

The 20th century saw a real upheaval in the formal values of classical and modern references. What had once been described and exalted was now being deconstructed and reinterpreted in contemporary art. The attempt was to shift from a descriptive formal structure to a representative one. When looking at a modern painting, one might say: “That is what it is… it depicts that.” When looking at a contemporary painting, one says: “It represents that… it is the artist’s way of representing that particular thing.”

Obviously, not all attempts were successful, and painting is perhaps the art form that suffered the most from this transition. Nevertheless, the common goal should still be to engage the observer with the emotions and conditions originally described in the subject.

If, in the past, artists identified people and their dynamics, in contemporary times, the attempt has been to place the viewer in the perceived conditions that gave rise to those emotions: once described, now represented. Not the emotions of the character, but the conditions that provoked them. It is obvious that, starting from these premises, the theme of Christ’s figure becomes extremely difficult to approach. We all know his story and the tragic events that led to the scandal of the Cross.

To make people experience or relive, even partially, those moments in a new and contemporary manner is nearly impossible. In truth, this purpose is fulfilled by the Eucharistic Liturgy. However, this does not mean that there have not been artists who have admirably undertaken this challenge.

For example, one might recall Christ of Saint John of the Cross by Salvador Dalí (1), The Crucifixion (2), also by Dalí, or his Madonna of Port Lligat (3). The Resurrection by Pericle Fazzini (4), located in the Nervi Hall in the Vatican. Or The Passion by Rouault (5). Among these, and by no means least, I believe the statue of the Redeemer in Maratea, a remarkable work by Bruno Innocenti, deserves to be included.

Ultimately, the theme of Christ is and will forever remain the most complex and challenging subject in any artistic representation.