Having faith in art
I'm blogging from the Eternal City, which is probably why I'm thinking grander thoughts than usual. Take this comment by Picasso: "art is the lie that makes us realize truth". It is difficult to explain the role art plays in the journey to truth, though many have tried. But, somehow, these great buildings -- and the carefully planned space between them -- can lift a person's mind and spirit to another level of perception. The wisdom contained in Picasso's claim is that the buildings, piazzas, paintings and sculptures are not an end in themselves; they point beyond themselves to some truth about the world and ourselves that is difficult to access otherwise. And when we uncover that truth, it re-organises and re-values our sense of place in this shadowy version of reality.
That may be a little too much for one post. But this new is a fascinating attempt to link spirituality, art and politics with a new kind of respect -- all the more fascinating given that this defence of the spirituality underpining art comes from a professed atheist. argues that "a totally secularized society with contempt for religion sinks into materialism and self-absorption and gradually goes slack, without leaving an artistic legacy." Money quote:
For the fine arts to revive, they must recover their spiritual center. Profaning the iconography of other people's faiths is boring and adolescent. . . . To fully appreciate world art, one must learn how to respond to religious expression in all its forms. Art began as religion in prehistory. It does not require belief to be moved by a sacred shrine, icon, or scripture. Hence art lovers, even when as citizens they stoutly defend democratic institutions against religious intrusion, should always speak with respect of religion. Conservatives, on the other hand, need to expand their parched and narrow view of culture. Every vibrant civilization welcomes and nurtures the arts.
Comments
Right on Camille. I agree. I dont understand why so many protestant churches are so ugly though. Anyone help me there? Go to a baptist or a free presbyterian church and they are totally ugly places, no respect for art at all. Why is that?
The reformation destroyed the art of protestantism. They ran away from anything that looked catholic. Thats the danger of writing anti-theology. Better to take what is good from catholicism and the art history is wonderful.
I love art too. I just have a fear that we are spending so much on art when people need food in the world. How can the church justify all that expenditure on great buildings when there is so much poverty all around?
I agree ... all that spending on church art seems like a scandal. Just think however: where would the world be without Michaelangelo and Raphael and the other masters whose work was patronised by the church? We'd have a world vastly more impoverished. The truth is that we have more than enough food water and money to care for the world's poor while at the same time investing in great art that improves all our lives. The answer to global poverty is not to reduce everyone's standard of living to the level of the poor but to lift the poor to a full participation in the world's wealth.
The arts and the sciences do have a place in the Christian life -- they are not peripheral. For a Christian, redeemed by the work of Christ and living within the norms of Scripture and under the leadership of the Holy Spirit, the Lordship of Christ should include an interest in the arts. A Christian should use these arts to the glory of God -- not just as tracts, but as things of beauty to the praise of God. And art work can be a doxology in itself.
from Art and the Bible, by Francis Schaeffer
I really had to put my hip boots on to wade through this one, the bullcrap is so deep.
"To fully appreciate world art, one must learn how to respond to religious expression in all its forms."
Does anyone really believe that? So an atheist cannot appreciate art as much as someone who is a believer and has a religion. C'mon, without that handicap, the atheist can put art in a truer perspective as an expression of culture and history through the skill and unique vision of the artist. Atheists enjoy, admire, and understand all arts including the performing arts as much as anyone else. I particularly enjoy great choral and organ music written for performance in cathedrals even though I do not subscribe to one word in any of it.
"And when we uncover that truth, it re-organizes and re-values our place in this shadowy version of reality." Whose truth? The truth of a child molesting sexually perverted priest and the wealthy corporation which hides his crimes and tells its customers it's OK to be poor as they willingly hand over their money to it?
I started reading the Camille article this morning and at 6pm this evening still have only found the time to read about a fifth of it, but I agree entirely with William's description: "fascinating". (By the way I agree that indeed the arts have been undervalued by Protestantism, tragically so.)
Actually, I don't think even Dawkins would disagree that much with Camille's quote (I haven't read the whole thing). But it reveals a more pertinent point - the lofty heights of artistic expression and spirituality (not just in Christianity - have a look at the Isfahan mosque or the temples of Karnak) are manifestations of something purely *human*. We can do this without the assistance of gods, other than as mental placebos. It's in *us*.
On a personal level, I love *some* religious art (I have to say I find all the crucifixes and bleeding stigmata and sacred hearts and miserable martyrs of much of Catholic art rather insipid and bland, and I agree that the dour attitude of many protestants is just plain boring). But you get variation in many things - compare Handel's Messiah with the sort of crap Graham Kendrick came out with.
However, where Camille loses it a little bit is in suggesting that we should therefore "always speak with respect of religion". I think this is nonsense. Appreciation of some of the architecture of Speer does not mean that we should speak with respect of Nazism. Similarly appreciation of the engineering genius of von Braun and others. Or appreciation of Crusader castles should mean we "respect" the motivation of the Crusades.
I agree that religion can inspire people to dizzying heights, but it can inspire them to spectacular lows also. It is not the only force that can do this, and it derives no affirmation from this simple fact. I don't think that means we should give up the freedom to criticise where criticism is due, or to point out a distinction between myth and reality.
-A
I've no idea why Mark is so aggressive in response to the Paglia article. Paglia is one of the most interesting thinkers around and she always thinks outside the box, not allowing predictable alliances to cloud her thinking. Thus she is an atheist who respects religion. She is absolutely right to say that knowledge of the Bible is the bedrock of a literary education in the west. She is also right to be concerned about attacks on others' faith. She is not, incidentally, the kind of religious humanist who doesn't believe in God but continues to attend worship. She is a fullblooded atheist who is making a sophisticated argument here about the place of religion in our world. Thanks for posting on this topic.
Cecilia #9
"She is absolutely right to say that knowledge of the Bible is the bedrock of a literary education in the west."
Show me one secular university in the "west" where the bible is required reading or knowledge of it a prerequisite for a course in literature. ±«Óãtvr, Shakespeare, Gunther Grass, yes, the bible no. In real literature, the bible ranks with Hans Christian Anderson and the Brothers Grimm as bedtime fairytales for children.
"She is also right to be concerned about attacks on others' faith."
Why, is she afraid of offending someone by expressing ideas contrary to their superstitions? What intellectual dishonesty. What a fraud. Attacks on other people's ideas is the reason why we have a guarantee of freedom of speech in the West. I'm only sorry those cartoons about Mohammed had to come from Denmark and didn't come from the US. Where are our creative minds? By the way, for some religious Christians, Harry Potter is an attack on their faith. Would you censor that too?
How do you know that some of the artists including those who painted religious art weren't atheists themselves? Would they have lacked the capacity to fully appreciate their own creations?
Hello all from Galapagos,
I don´t have too much to add to this debate. I think Mark said most for me. Maybe just a url to a picture from the Flying Spaghetti Monster website you might enjoy, and is somewhat fitting for this thread
Mark and Peter:
1. Even Richard Dawkins agrees with Camille Paglia that the Bible is a necessary bedrock for a western literary education. George Steiner has argued so for decades. One does not need to be a religious believer to understand the literary significance of the Bible. When Mark rejects this and puts the Bible in the same category as the Brothers Grimm, he makes himself sound illiterate. I repeat: I am not a religious person; but it is practically impossible to understand the canon of western lit. from Shakespeare to Joyce without a grounding in the Bible as literature.
2. Peter thinks this is all to be dismissed with a logo of the Flying Spagetti Monster. This is the kind of response that gets humanists labelled as intolerant and simply objectionable people. I am not a NI humanist but I know their reputation from across the Irish sea, and that comment lives up to the reputation. I do hope humanists in NI can rise to a more sophisticated response to Paglia's interesting comment than Peter's smallmindedness.