The Relationship of Art and Religion

Art as Theology: Chapter Nine

Art and Religion
Metaphysical Art

"It is a well known fact that games and the principle forms of art seem to have been born of religion and that for a long time they retained a religious character." (Emile Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, 1961)

Art and Religion

In the simplest of societies, it is sometimes hard to completely separate any field of endeavor, especially from magic or religion. Most of all, art seems to always have a purpose. This is partly explained by the concern that any pictorial image has occult power, as noted in the chapter on "Magic Art". If there is a fear of inadvertent powers being released, there is not likely to be any doodling. A similar sentiment is expressed in connection to the power of words. In particular, notice the fear of misusing God's name: “Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.” (Exodus 20:7, KJV; also: Leviticus 19:12). This is not just a prohibition against cursing, but against any vain, that is arbitrary, offhand, prideful or other frivolous use of God's name. As a result the Israelites stringently avoided using the name of God, preferring to insert a phrase indicating 'the name of God'. Notice also that the Biblical narrative begins with God speaking all things into existence (Genesis 1:3; John 1:1-3).

Religion is not magic however. Recognizing the relationship between art and religion is much easier than describing it. "Religion and art spring from the same root and are close kin. Economics and art are strangers." (Willa Cather, On Writing, 'Four Letters: Escapism', 1949). Hegel notes that in some cases the religious life is so lacking in spiritual reach, so lacking in religious vigor, that artistic vigor is the best marker of the religious life. "'A more spiritual religion can rest satisfied with the contemplation and devotion of the soul, so that works of sculpture pass for it simply as so much luxury and superfluity. A religion so dependant on the sense of vision as the Greek was must necessarily continue to create, inasmuch as for it this artistic production and invention is itself a religious activity and satisfaction, and for the people the sight of such works is not merely so much sight-seeing, but is part of their religion and soul-life.'" (Hegel, quoted in Kaminsky, 1962). Tillich's distaste for Renaissance art, noted in the last chapter, reflects a distaste for art reflecting so much flesh and so little spiritual longing, (Tillich, 1987, pg.209), so much so that he refuses to admit it as art. "For Tillich, neither religion nor culture can be spoken of in the absence of the other, for they both convey meaning, granted the difference in direction and level of intensity." (Geetrz, 1973, pg.370). Spiritual reach, he felt, is essential to 'art', making it distinct from decor.

When artists first disengaged from the control of patrons, there was a significant minority who clambered for a priestly function. At a time when the left was sure that they had slain God and religion, some assumed that the arts would fill the void. "In the imaginary conversation between an artist and a scientist in Saint-Simon's Opinions Litteraires, the former says that, 'it is we artists who will serve you as avante-garde,' and claims for his work a priestly function: 'The power of the arts is in fact most immediate and rapid: when we wish to spread new ideas among men, we inscribe them on marble or on canvas.' Most intelligent citizens, Left or Right, believed art could fill that role. The ideas of what painting and sculpture could do to people were obviously pitched much higher 150 years ago than they are today." (Hughes, 1980, pg.368).

This attempt to establish social values is forcefully put by Walter Gropius (1883-1969), director of the Bauhaus: "Since my early youth I have been acutely aware of the chaotic ugliness of our modern manmade environment when compared to unity and beauty of the old, pre industrial towns. In the course of my life I became more and more convinced that the usual practice of architects to relieve the dominating disjointed pattern here and there by a beautiful building is most inadequate and that we must find, instead, a new set of values, based on such constituent factors as would generate an integrated expression of the thought and feeling of our time." (Gropius, preface. see also comments by Lipsey, 1988, pp.206-207).

While it might be a stretch of the imagination to suggest a priesthood, there is a sense in which the modern 'zeitgeist' is being accurately reflected in the arts. Much of modern art reflects anger, rebellion, confusion, anomie, or to use Tom Petty's phrase, the modern artist is a rebel without a clue. Ultimately, this represents a community fear and a community stand against whatever, but there is no cohesive spirituality or spiritual reach for the artist to serve or to be priest of. Western society has become so big and so democratic that no artist can properly serve any but a thin slice of the larger community. Most arts institutions serve a liberal/'progressive' community as do the universities which support them.

chapter index. link

“Art is a collaboration between God and the artist, and the less the artist does the better.” (Andre Gide)

Metaphysical Art

Jean DuBuffet speaking of the primitive nudes in his 'Corps de Dame' series says, "It pleased me (and I think this predilection is more or less constant in all my paintings) to juxtapose brutally, in all these feminine bodies, the extremely general and the extremely particular, the metaphysical and the grotesquely trivial." (Lucie-Smith, 1969, pg.90). "Dada, according to Duchamp, was 'a metaphysical attitude—a sort of nihilism—a way to get out of a state of mind—to avoid being influenced by one's immediate environment, or by the past: to get away from cliches—to get free.'" (Gardner, 1959, pg.711; quoted from the Museum of Modern Art Bulletin, Vol.13, No.4-5, 1946, pg.20).

While one might wish to dismiss the claims of these two artists as grand spiritualizing of their work, a sort of self congratulatory righteousness common to many artists of the last two centuries, it exposes something that separates an artist from a decorator. Even if an artist has no discernible religion, and even if their pride makes their work appear to be an egotistical showpiece, the artist is struggling to reach beyond what they can know in the flesh. This is the most essential aspect of the artist, the artist does have a spiritual reach. The sublime may have eluded them, so DuBuffet paints the metaphysical with the trivial, and Duchamp is reflecting the absurdity of his metaphysical conclusions, but in both cases a reach into metaphysical space is present and I would suggest crucial to their work being labeled 'art'.

chapter index. link