There are two episodes in the history of Maltese modern art which although thoroughly documented their historical implications have not yet been studied properly. These concern a couple of paintings produced in the 1940s, both representing sacred themes and painted by artists of local repute. However, the paintings were relegated to obscurity soon after their production, transferred to places where the intended public could not see the works, and replaced by more 'suitable' images of the respective themes.
One of these paintings is Anton Inglott's Sacred Heart of Jesus which was donated by the artist to the Malta Society for Arts, Manufactures and Commerce in the early 1940s. It was supposed to hang in the main exhibition hall of Palazzo de la Salle but was taken down to the cellars until circa 1970 when it was moved to the council hall, where only members of the society are able to view the work. In 1951, Emvin Cremona received the commission to replace Inglott's work. Being the artist favoured by the ecclesiastical authorities, Cremona's painting was to be an adequate substitute for the 'inappropriate' version by Inglott.
The other episode involves the commissioned altar piece of a Crucifixion completed by George Preca in 1947 for the Stella Maris Parish Church, Sliema. Preca's painting was abhorred by parishioners who persistently requested its removal, eventually succeeding a decade later. The painting was transported far away from Sliema and now hangs in the Church of the Virgin of Graces, Żejtun. The anachronistic painter Mario Caffaro-Rore, who worked in a Neo-Baroque vein, was commissioned a Crucifixion to replace Preca's controversial piece.
These instances exemplify the tensions of the time as witnessed by these ideological battles between old and new aesthetics. Looking at these paintings today, when we have become numbingly accustomed to vulgar and provocative images, it is hard to understand why Inglott's and Preca's works caused such antagonism, especially since they portray traditional subject matter. However, in both cases it is not really the subject matter which caused trouble for the establishment, but the way in which the works are painted, the manner employed for the materialisation of religious ideas.
In his brief 30 years of life, Inglott managed to imbue sacred painting with a fresh and even a modern perspective. I am not referring to stylistic changes but to even more fundamental elements which confront the stable framework of an artistic tradition. In the Sacred Heart of Jesus, Inglott appropriated Eastern aesthetic principles to render Christ's form. This, together with the metaphysical, mystical quality of the painting, expanded the boundaries of religious art. Inglott's integration of the Eastern with the Western tradition was something entirely new to the Maltese scene, as Dr. Giuseppe Schembri Bonaci has pointed out in his university lectures.
So did Preca's painting challenge artistic boundaries as he greatly distanced his method of representation from any established tradition. The intentionally naïve idiom explored by Preca was a repudiation of the physical realism employed in Baroque art to emphasise the bodily and spiritual suffering of the crucified Christ. This is probably what confounded the parishioners, the fact that they were not able to identify with the image of Christ's tragedy traditionally embodied within figurative details.
One pressing question which emerges from observing these two incidents is to ask why these two paintings which provoked such strong reactions in 1940s Malta due to their unconventional nature be left in the same 'hidden' locations and not been made accessible to present audiences.
The 1940s mentality of the ecclesiastics and parishioners continues to reign supreme in the 21st century. Their victory is certain, witnessed by the fact that these paintings remain in silence. The events which surround the paintings should today incite much interest and even a re-evaluation of their meaning and significance to the evolution of Maltese modern art. They mark pivotal turning point and it is important that we being to understand why.
Acknowledging their significant role could open up new trajectories for the study of the local character of modern aesthetics. Their current positions signify the thoughts of a particular and supposedly different historical time. If presented in diverse contexts where their impact could be felt, I am sure that we would have much to learn and say about these iconic paintings.