I cannot recommend highly enough the wonderful book The Spirit of the Liturgy by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, who we all know has a new name now. There is a great chapter dealing with images in the church and it has been excerpted here (part I) and here (part II). I think it is important reading for those who have been involved in discussing the role of Christian art. Hopefully it can provide some fruitful discussion on how Christianity should approach art in our current state. I’ll include a not-so-short excerpt here to at least get you interested, but please do read the links above and let me know what you think.
…What is more, art itself, which in impressionism and expressionism explored the extreme possibilities of the sense of sight, becomes literally object-less. Art turns into experimenting with self-created worlds, empty "creativity", which no longer perceives the Creator Spiritus, the Creator Spirit. It attempts to take his place, and yet, in so doing, it manages to produce only what is arbitrary and vacuous, bringing home to man the absurdity of his role as creator.
Again we must ask: Where do we go from here? Let us try to sum up what we have said so far and to identify the fundamental principles of an art ordered to divine worship.
…The complete absence of images is incompatible with faith in the Incarnation of God. God has acted in history and entered into our sensible world, so that it may become transparent to Him. Images of beauty, in which the mystery of the invisible God becomes visible, are an essential part of Christian worship. There will always be ups and downs in the history of iconography, upsurge and decline, and therefore periods when images are somewhat sparse. But they can never be totally lacking. Iconoclasm is not a Christian option…
…The image of Christ and the images of the saints are not photographs. Their whole point is to lead us beyond what can be apprehended at the merely material level, to awaken new senses in us, and to teach us a new kind of seeing, which perceives the Invisible in the visible…
…There must, of course, be no rigid norms. Freshly received intuitions and the ever-new experiences of piety must find a place in the Church. But still there is a difference between sacred art (which is related to the liturgy and belongs to the ecclesial sphere) and religious art in general. There cannot be completely free expression in sacred art. Forms of art that deny the logos of things and imprison man within what appears to the senses are incompatible with the Church's understanding of the image. No sacred art can come from an isolated subjectivity…
…But what does all this mean practically? Art cannot be "produced", as one contracts out and produces technical equipment. It is always a gift. Inspiration is not something one can choose for oneself. It has to be received, otherwise it is not there. One cannot bring about a renewal of art in faith by money or through commissions. Before all things it requires the gift of a new kind of seeing. And so it would be worth our while to regain a faith that sees. Wherever that exists, art finds its proper expressions.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
"Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to that arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be walking around."
- G.K. Chesterton
- G.K. Chesterton
4 comments:
I think art is a great gift.
If the artist makes the work and gives it to the church I’m all for it. Or if a church member who is all tithed up wants to then buy a piece of art and donate it, that is also fine. I just don’t want the tithe of a church to go toward bought professional art.
Since music has been discussed I will use it as an example. When a song (regardless of style) is sung it exists in that place at that time. It is created from people with in the church as a form of worship. It is a gift given to God in front of members of the church. The process and workmanship are the gift. It is the effort that gives it value. If a painter is praising God with talent given to him by God, then he will expect no payment. Again the process of making is the act of worship. The enjoyment of others is secondary. I believe that my problem with most Sacred and Religious art is that it is oftentimes paid for by the church for the enjoyment of church members; I do not believe this to be worship, and that that money is better spent in service to God as the tithe is intended.
Image making was very important on the walls of the meeting space before the printing press and the explosion of cheap written material in the language of the believer. The cave walls and simple church had images as acts of worship. If art is done by the church as an act of worship and sacrifice, I have little issue with it. It is vernacular, it comes from the members. My wife’s uncle is a bible translator in tribal Africa he gave my wife’s parents a nativity set from the tribe. They made it as an act of worship and give it to Him as a gift. It is a nice thing to have, but if my church wanted to buy one, I think in a way it cheapens the gift.
So there are no misunderstandings I use the word “church’ to mean a group of Christ’s followers.
I think we can safely leave the aspect of who is paying for, or not paying for the art out of this question. I'm more interested in the content and intent of the art rather than who pays for it. I think that there is much more philosophically implied in most of the Christian art and architecture produced today than we realize.
If art and architecture use a vocabulary to communicate ideas and aspirations, then we have very nearly purged ourselves of any vocabulary that extols the virtue of past experience or wisdom. If Modernism was about the purging of historical wisdom in favor of a style completely of the age, then we discarded one vocabulary and replaced it with one about the machine for living and the triumph of the emminently functional. I'm pretty sure this vocabulary doesn't work for sacred art because of the reasons cited by B16. To talk about the eternal and invisible realm in sacred art requires tools capable of the task. I think the modernist palette eschews that type of communication with dogmatic tenacity. There is a materialist and realist philosophy in the tools that makes it a handicapped system for the portrayal of the transcendent.
"If the artist makes the work and gives it to the church I’m all for it."
Interesting logic. Any particular reason you think artists don't deserve to be paid for their work? For their (in the case of any decent, classical artist) many years of training? If you want cheap art, you will get cheap art (which is worse than no art) which helps explain why the music and "worship spaces" in most churches are so mind-numbing... because Sister Wendy will sing for free, and right angles cost less than curves.
Mediocrity for Jesus!
GOOD liturgical art - sacred art - is a sermon in paint or stone. Up until the industrial revolution and the assembly line (quick and cheap) the Church realized the importance and effectiveness of sacred art as a means of SPREADING THE GOSPEL.
Post a Comment