W'7

1

Overture

Soine of the tnosi 21eep-seated pleasures of oric natural selves . . . insro}ve appetitestbat had to be educated. If thcse pleasures are rooted in crudc instinct, theyiioiietheless Brow iii deptb and liowcr as wc acquirc hierarchies of discrimina-tion, until second nature is ncisvhere separable from the first. Yet visual art-aridabstract arc n'iost )i;irticularly-remains orie of the ?asr L+astions of unasltamed,rimepentant ignorance, viherc cducated cxperiencc cars still be equated withp?iony experience. . . . This syndron'ie Liecomes ever more acute as the traditiongets farter and the uiorks get leaner.

lll

Kirk'hrricdoc, Piclures of Notbing

Art is a decelitive c?iltural liractice. (')n one hand, it is ubiquitous iii popularcult?ire. Art nmseums attract tl'iousands of visitors, and local coinnmnity artsprojects abound. And wiitli the currem interest in the "creatiiie class" and tl'ie"creative turn" in the corporare world, ar5 as a manifestarioii of creativity,is good for lxisiiiess.l But it is rarely defiiied. We seem to know what art iswhen we see it; or, pcrhaps more accurately, we know what it isn't. Oii theother hand, there are few cultural l:iractices that have such a wide disparityarid discoiinectioii lietween rhe pop?ilace and the specialists, who are almostuniversally iissumed to be irrclevant to understanding ;ind appreciating art.l

lT

llllll

ll

lllI

4 .j:4 .!a =i.t>= 'oa?oa' :- .,g ti, ..g-:ffl, ,!.. ,:x., .,u"o ?:;h,,I"'-; %'g. ;: ag,-a?o i ':: ."I"',i, ao--9w.==i: -o;, 'j 3, p-. ,;,, .g. i.i-,S? a"Wu i '5',, ,'J'.:a?ool a?aa:? ?'a?"y ?'oj -o?'B l"< ""?2 ""'a0 'a'8'6o :" ao"a ""E 'av?B:u i.i '[4, -g, =, -i, =co '4,, 'j, ";? '% !<=:=u? c=% L'???'?5= :uL ?,=bs, ffiu,a?. :j6, roE '?'?oa.? ::'..os?.?aa" ?a?'?oa?n 'a'?ua?o:"' ??a?8 ?'a'a*?" a"""7 ,"aJ" 'au 'a"??'a:,, :?< . %. .'aa'-??? ?ffi? ' "zu 'a:a"')-i O 11)

"W 3 Cli w ,

,: %, e '; 4 2, mF4 "4, ?-,, i su, j =, ,B,"?: 'a?d""?Q?. '; ' :yo ?-???aa??'a"??o :'=?'aE?.?"' ?=o? ?"?dF, ,IW? 'a;L aa""'89B ;=" 0-u?-EEos .-;o,oB, ":>m=L,'t0::u, 'g:?n,,,*:-eop,,m= ..?,,H:?" a=?=a.i= :,,: ?a,o- .E:,4:: 4=. ??f- s-ol, ?a,. i. ?i, -oy= :.N-, Aa,, ,4a 4,, .Ai.?=,J'.?U??:I=, ,<?.?' =3=? ?a: ??.?u:' ?u?uJ'a '?:=?'a??, ?a;'?a??7?ag?u ?p'?c! *???a::I'a?a'?*tV ,s.""? o'ffl- ;, J?H 4- -i,i'. ,:-it, =: :i r'i, "'B?"a'o'oa- ua.i;==.,"cB,N= ??j'mum .oo?,Bm :.E,o..?S'aou?e. .'a'3,?M, ;,--a" >.,", ;mo: ':5?.,aI" "eo,= W,>,,.'J

;> n 'O < s'O a ag a'- NO .', a ;Q?iO .s,i 0 @ 0

'o?a, ,:-i= i"?RN'a ??';, ":=i-?:""a'o??'oao: ??""a:g ,?.,,H????"?",?4u=.,,?om, ;,oh ?'?:o' ;,?,,%s'a'§ q Q,a Ei,'iy a.-o=."????'oq= @?" a"; ': ;a?a" a";, ?'6 ;o? ?R4e,3 ',, ??.jfi '?€m?o? "':cf)-.o??vg, " ::o '??: l;'. ;,o?oa'.,'-md...,p A,oB'!, ,O:m,. +'8o, ' "(/), =?"o= 4b, il-li 'g,,o =ua.+c?'i::w j .W i" jar Eo u W'M "W 'A Ht'?,? ?*:* ,I..?:?a?=aa?? ?'?a'a??o 5'a?'?o a??' ;"'a'a "?':" a,"a ' ??'?j'?u 'a??"oo ? ;" ?'?coua'aoo: ?"?'?':" ?'<'J3' : ::q ??o????a":= a"??;"a""'a ' ?"a'0:??. ;'?????a'a=o ="'a'i?? 'a???'?ucffi .' ::-..bo m""=;=i? -; ,U, =. j?'a'a 2,o ':a'mV? ?o'4 'oE'5 F'ffi, ?a:S :-":= ?a=e:'?' it)' i=? 7,:?=eaa? ??'iou a??2 '.?'ai% " (.,.?'oi o"?'fflEm ?r=4=. ' i?.l==?, :t s,o"'

W

<,

Eld

(l)

a

i(lliaRm

-?H

U10

1

i?=aa i--'?'=at=T. ?>m,-oJ. y?i=-o???aaV '??;-,?"?'??a'a?=%. ij%' ;,:??m.l' "'o?u%' ;??'o' ??:uualas i-,,%oE??:' l?aa"?=o'?': a';>" oj a?f:l'a ,p- '? ?r:i,"a??"'? 't' S 7q,-,, '?" aB'a' ;- "o'z a'v:g 'Uo'=?=u*= =a-=i= -nnoll= ?g---oaa('J ieac?"??;o ?==-- J:==u?tl.=a?== :?'--: 3?,?.? =u;-. -a?o5aa F=. :??-=f-?? '?ffil%,'

.=,=" l;,, :.?@=-ouoo?- ?4 j ;<m. it.i ,,<.'o' t'?,,,,o" :i ,,,,,,B-aPa'a"?o ?',,. %.' L-B :,,,E?a ?'3j=?u?'u2- 'IE'l= '34. 'o;, 4==z Sui "4, "3o >'l ?';, ai:. i? ':Nu=ou i, Ela' :€=a'= JW'o,j :'a?":o ,,??':.-Eowo"?E. :=o ?":p, :'= ;o ?a, aa?"8' ?>:E; !I>?-'-? i,.?a??j, .: art j, i A, ': i '4, j: N :I:4. -;, -;o '.q ii4, j.m,.' ?'??,?uE??.' $-?u i? = ??B"?', 'i, : gd :? ,o,Lcf-. . =?u, -. 5=. ?'-',:"a'a??"f ;o?o ??'a?o8 il.?o"a?ua??a'c:a?'>.oa'?'oa'o':; '?:o ?'??L?'oo?- <'a"o?a;o' -??'o€,. , Iooa't ?a"oa?all),ui a ?a?'a?'?, a??-.??0??:'?a"?": "'?'og?2' -=,:ayy'??:" :o"? 'a'??=o>?o 2'oo??> ??ja'o?a-?? ???"::. Lu?'aa? :',s.Cl- ';:?aa?"Eo"? ??":: ;o:' ;7"':'a ?o?'dl" ?"'9.,??:"" ??a??'ao:o '?o'??: ???"'Vaaai':?o "::': 'a-"o'-3 ??::aa?,+==j==a'=E 'l"??' SoH a':' I:': ;a:" l.:%'oo ?:oo ??ll .,%??o??" ao:,I'::"'i :'m%. Bo"'q. i. p. .4 or, .bn= AH a"q =oEi 'j ':ooo3 :i'ti ?o -?u m?'ol ,l?'bb ??'U ,.;o -y:o'o"'i l?o ':' i'i 2i ;" i""" :"'o ;? 'a?" 'j"' :o? 'H" E :oa :"' oog'

>

i)m

-,O

.e

C:

o

C:)

e45(

p

'E 's> '# ! .:N '@ : , "0 'm 'e 'S n 8 N L 'fi ,i S" ffl n ,V :# ,:2, 4 -'E 'j .J" 2;r ? '5 €' E ,8< a bD <

"' .9 < J:4 2 8 @ "'< : N '- .u'im,a'H - B .,o 'm :' 4 =,=i = :S . .:= .hD= ? -, o 'o M,, , 5%r' ,u .a,,4' ,,:= ! .? c @ 'B +y"A"s' 3 'u 2 5o 'a;' 8 j € ==i, -4 -; §,: ?-i ? w i'-s aa'oo §' !E! 5' X o < j .8.= ,J'o N "'j ,,; 4',o H;5,.9.,Uoaua'$u?u'5u .q ..$ S-,oq:§ 'Q = ';:.K €-' u-" F' FC E' < % ('11 sy e w .@ ,E>' 0 g -s. , j. . =ea ,o . ,, h., ='ed =, ,, i-= ,6..,B z ,,? ,,; H i,E :ff Q,§',': '-E'aig' " 3 ffl .E::j.83.H eo,),, IA', Q 3a6 go.,52,:.=': Q.:i'ffl3 E ! o' L% 5.N"g 4 at.-; o, 3c2,,'o< d 'y -r, o ca >, C). 2 ;4 ' l*-i,'a< y a'ao,, , < :o <" 'iu a., E Cb -C, C ee (,1 c'- ,.o=aSi ' aao'C: Ei ? @' B" ; # -E e H s, .@ a .9 S ov 5 ': t ':, ':6 E , ; a oa ';" - a'B 5 aoo 'o -4 E' >" o a"oea (/a) w un g Ci , .. () -sy 2 g g ,a.i'..' g-8,= g7 D.i.5..% -g B,7 -W 54, u24 u E" nE "b"3E : " 'u 'o oa=" :'a" € (/),,,ao ou' a;"a'a 'oC oS W 'oa, j ! ,,, 5 4 .€ 3 S -, ()1, z, ',,,, .'e a? '-JEi,as' a!'-m "6 a,,e 'a,+ ' Zk , ,B ':' 3 B < <e6a a "= 4 p ,% 'W a) g F: a?d .S Ci,, :,m ,0 .'4 ",t++m u,,,'0, z, g" B a," a'E " "o :% ."i .Q .,: "i t -o :J 'o's-'4-€kaA-€Ym8i-jp:m5gkE:i-gHQ%'pfigQ'8 ?-EiUrmY4O

2 j-3 '; "@ H'w'S.Q> y'c 'o C% ,o'5 e oJE o =i E€.B.g,q.:,;,i -!' E5 ; " S 5 aj

<. -= 5 z. ;w 3. B 3 > '2 ca= 7Q tu B :g ,, s:4 o= 'a, .y '< ; '-= E -E ,3. '5 ;. 'a''r-a.,,a'-= :,,=-,'as,,, a,,,= j 'H 'a'5a.)'z p" r 'a'a, @a'a am !,G , E>W '' Uaa' - 'a':A 5 =-sss=:a;va;=y?;-ig.:ip:p;:B.B.y3g3.Hm:43,;>g.52 5..F:i" aaa' " '# X, :' g 'C" a" ;Ao 0 -C:o E .csau:i ,,o ? :a !L)= -5. 'o, u "H 3, ,,,,'o':'. E :j - ,, ,,io "o, f. 'orm -5- '3N, -6 ,< 5; ;> q .a '5. ,-8 fi g t' .'B Jg .> , -Eo ,, -p, aHetb X 5 7 =:€ g, z"og="B j, -iE ::Er -o: = m'.B ; E, :. '>, 'g,(:tt

,'E a,'aao 2o s"' a' C" a'a' a" a '# ' , i o4 ,"' O ,, a=" uae :f a3 , E : Ua "" a - :3 ''u <E' ;"' 3 a; "'o zm.aa'o> u,a.i= =:=iu t' ofl o5 ':a' aO >'J'op " ,.-. 8 r, ,x . . < L H A 'o .S' z ffl , c B z 5 o, >, q @ B ,,, , o ', , <r ff : E2 E H ..5 , ': bri .H % Q m %f'a Iw C)- - ()"6 .§" :2 'oa.i '.!! >" A' " '? -o O 'u 'ob bri2 c ! >a e'; L'u .ffl' <", € a;o 5 j aE ,o,a ":' .ffl ,".4-l I.1 ,, --s: c's @ 6 ,a a;! " H. q g u .Th :,' a:J < 'a"o.' s C:w " m " ,fj,-u := c; i-/, ..,= :o, ,u 5 2 .'!r = -g, e;. S, IJ !) , t z q 2 4 5 'a'!4 ,o 4"', '.'Eg: a'g.' < 'Y'I" a=a E" a- a oo 'a'o" o": ? oo us b= a E ,o , :o @ ' o= az ' .i' n c 3 B 6 ; i . o t, ' , 5 a :, .g 8 ,'w z B 7.@ ,, 7 > 2 .;, i- -8 -,un :.f R% E, 3&,p-,'p <64 'e i u.:8 ,3 M .H , "5 :m :2"3 '-r--A .'s €'V 4'o 8 u F5 oe ao '3" =s5.io C"s-S- .g g = A8 ;.e B'h:S-8r A m:i:Co flV Sk

7 1does not invalidate its integrity. For example, that T. S. F?.liot's 1?be 'X]asteLanduoor?.?":me's':lo':ce'l-Ulyss;s reqt:ires exteiis:ve notes to explaitt references andallusions does nothing to undermine the fact that Eliot and .)oyce syere vgorQ-fan"g"wo'ithin a-l:viiig 't-radition. It just so happens that this living tradition is not't'h: orJe-of -most contemporary readers, neither in Eliot's or Joyce's time noriii o?ir own.

"M' ode'raiia art's profoundly historical character has givetv rise to importantphi'?'osop'hic;l oreflect':on on'the nature of art. Philosopher Jerrold Levinsonargues that art's historicity is the defining and distinguishing characteristic ofwhat art is and how it is identified.8 In addition to this historical aspect, twoxdvilff'e'rei?i't a"n'd,?at 'times,-competing, ways of thinlcing about art have informedum"y?-o'w'n work"a;aa=curator,'critic:'ani3 art historian: philosolihical consider-ations and theological reflections.

Philosophical Considerations

Art is not only a cultural practice,it is also an institutional practice. There-fore, any discussion of art must take imo account its institutional framework.Modern art's primary institutioiial framework is the art museum. Modern artand its living traditioi'i exists not only invisibly in the hearts and minds of itspractitioners and particiliants but also embodied, mediated in and rhroughits visibLe public iiistitutions. And it is in fact this public or outward manifes?

,9 What art is,'t';tJo;t;att -produces the private and inward experience of artthen, is defined through a public network and not merely by private assertionor opinion.

Moi:eover, what art is cannot be derived exclusively from what it lookslike-' w'ha't-pl'tialoasolQer-GeorgeDickiecallsits"exhibitedqualities"-becauseffRlnV examoles of modern art look very similar, if not identical, to objects andmany exampliimages that are not considered art. Examiniiig art's institutional frameworkenaliles those qiialities tbat are unexbibited to be more proactively consti?

a - - ll:?j?tutive of what art is. These unexhibited qualities are tbe attitudes, beliefs,i'n"t'e'ntioWs,Ta:sum-pt:ons,- and liractices tha-t are absorbed in the very institu-'taiao;s-that 'produce, shape, nourish, display, arid interpret art. Moreover, it isthese ?inexhibited qualities that connect artistic practice with other culturalrlleSC kltscxhuviryy yl --..... ----- ?-???? ?practices. The Russian art historian, mathematician, Orthodox priest, andat?';'r-b;tt;r-or-worse, the work cif art;artyr Pavel Florensky observed that ":is the center of an entire cluster of conditions, whicb alone make possible itslr Gocl in the Gallery

(;zistence as something artistic; o?itside of its con stitutive conditions it simply- a. ttll)does not extst as art.

An influential, albeit much criticized, definition of art is the institutionaldBfinition, whose primary adherent is George Dickie. He was influenced by,lrthur Danto's essay "The Artworlcl," published in 1964. Danto's essay was2n attempt to rdlcct philosophically on a single problem: hosv cou)d Andy'Jiirhol's p]ywood Brillo Box be understood as a work of art since it is virtu-ally (visually) idenrica) in every way to a simp)e cardboard Brillo box? "Tosee something as art," Danto observes, "requires something the eye cannotd6cry-an atmosphere of artistic theory, a know)edge of the history of art:311 art wor]d."" The difference, for Danto and especially for Dickie, is thatWarliol's reliance 011 the familiarity of the ordinary object provides the in-terpretive ground for his hand-painted copy of the mass-produced origit?ialgnd becomes art when it is placed in a museum/gallery space that invites andprovokes ccrtain responses on the part of tl'ie viewer. The viewer, in short,responds to it as a work of art by cotttemplating its union of form and content,which Warhol produced, in a particular way and by reflecting on tbis experi-ence as a distinctively aesthetic experience. For Danto, it is the presence ofinterpretation and theory that enables an object to become a work of art. ForDickie it is the museum/gallery space that enables tbis transformation. It isthis space, as a literal and conceptual space, that shapes both artistic practicearid audience reslionse.l2

Althoiigh Danto's test cases were Robert Rauschenberg and Andv 'ga rhol,for Dickie it is Marcel Duchamp who is the prototype artist who revea}s thatart is an institutional practice. It is important for the purposes of this bookthat Warhol and Duchamp are the ?enses thro?igh which l)ickie and I)antoview contemporary iirt, since these tsvo artists are perhaps t?ie most vi1ified byChristian commentators of any twentietli-centur)i artists. Tliis has snuch rodo with the pliilosop?iy of arr th at many of these commentators utilize as wellas the historical narratiiies of modern art that view Warhol arid l)uchamp indecidedly uncharitable ways. A more ei'npathetic interpretation of both Warliolarid Duchamp wil? acknowledge the importance of a robust living traditionof high art within which both artists worked, even wl'iile they critiq?ied aridundermiiied certain of its aspects.?'

Tliat high art-museu m art-has for over two centuries developeJ a livingtradition that functions institutionally has important ramifications for Chris-tian reflection on comemporary art. Museum art develolied oiil)i with theemergence of museums. Thus art is but one manifestation and embodiment

l

TOveriure2!1

11.

l

l

j

a

lal

ll

01

7 Nof a certain kind of aesthetic practice. Although this subject wi?l be discussedin greater detail in chapter 1, it is important that modern art is not regardedmerely as an abrogation of its divjne]y appointed place in the church. HumaHinstitutions are neither purely good nor purely bad. They are means by whichhuman persons work out the cultural mandate iii community (Gen. 1:28).

Moderii art as an iiistitutioiial and historical practice, defined iii and throtigllthe museum, is 110 different. Not all products of modernity are theologicallyarid spiritually suspect. The deve?opment of modern art of4rerecl a liarticularopportunity to address certaiii distinctive features of aesthetic practice andvisual representation that werc not given preemiiience in other institutionalmanifestations of aesthetic liractice, includiiig the clmrch.

A distinctive characteristic of modern art is the preemiiieiit role aestheticpractice plays iii the development of the self arid its relationship to the world,This aspect of our humanity is giiien sharp focus and ;ittention in and throughthe iiistitutioii of high art. This aesthetic or stylistic aspect of our humanityhas received broad-based attemion from the church fathers, who ?iiiderstoodindividual Christians to bc shaping theinselvcs imo icoiis of Clirist thro?ighspiritual formation, to Jeaii-Paul Sartre's belief that our lives, as products of ourdccisioiis, are works of art. Tliis characteristic has also rcccived considerablepopular attention recemly, in svvorks si.icli as Virginia Postrel's Tlye Substanceof Style, and is confirmed through Robert Wuthnow's sociological research onthe role of the arts (very broadly speaking) as a liractice that forms idemity.l4The modern ixistitution of high art draws particular attention to the role ofaesthetic practice in human development, and as such, it has become, underthe conditions of modernity, a significant framework for such reFlection.

Instit?itioiial theories of art account for the role of museums arid gal]eries,interpreters, and other non-aesthetic aspects of art that participateiii constit?it-ing what art is, so diat, to quote Danto, "nothing the Brillo people can make willbe art whi?e Warhol can do nothing but make art."" But iiistitutional theoriesdo not offer sufficient analysis of the mechanics of pro<lucing and experienc-ing art. This is perhaps riot surprisiiig, since theories of art most often haveemerged as means to accommodate the most recent of artistic developmentsthat clialienge established philosophical frameworks for understanding art. '6Institutioiia) theories emerged iii an effort to coi'nprehend arid interpret thework of Warhol arid Duchamp, two artists for whom it is said that art wasoften more imeresting to think about than to look at.l7

Tlie institutiona? ap?iroac}i to art locates a break between the modern no-tion of high art as being true art and premodern visual representation-whichf

{pnctions within other institutional frameworks such as the church-as being5omething else. Given this, some will assume thar the term "art" canllot-;:Hpplied to premodern visiual representation, that art is a modern, WesterW -(i.e'.[urocentric) conccpt. Altbough such an instimtiona? approach is he?pfu'la:n(Igrifying and distinguishing im portant differences in visu-al practices,- th-ere?a52 (6rtain intrtnsic meaning in visual represematioii, or aesthetic emliodiment,that,ajyard ,contextlualism such as the institutional theory cannot recognize:

Philosopher Paul Crowther oEfcrs a cotnp]ement to rel:ttiiiistic-approaachWto art, such as the institutional theory, that pay insufficient attention to-W;at@(curs cognitively in che process of producing arid experiencing art. Influenc::;by the thoroughly embodiecl pheiiomenology of Maurice Merlea-?i-J:)-o-nty,(rowther develops what he ca]ls the "icrowttter cieveiops what he calls the "ecologica] theory of arr,? which involvesthe deve]opment of the self through creative and imaginative'interacti'tWi ':witlithe environtnent. Crowther addresses the importam role that art plays iii th:;growth of self-consciousness as the embodied self interacts wiith t-h'e wo;adaesthetically. For Crowther, art possesses "plienoinenological depth' " beca?iseit has a "cognjtisre richness " since "we comprehend the world aesthetically, iiiways that cannot be derived from other forms of knowledge and aWifi-ce'.'iil8Crowther observes that "it i:it is the integra) fusion of the sel?suous and theconceptual which enables art to express sometliiiig of the depth and r:;hnes:of Ltody-hold in a way which eludes modes of affistract th'o?ig;tZ-Jsuach?'asphilosophy." '9 What is important for Crowther is that visual re;reSellra'tf0=aias madc manifest by art, is not xnerely an instimtioiial practJce -b?i;:W'lafil'lsbasjc human needs such as affirming bodily presence arid' boaf:y kn-owlemgi??-, ---../ y- - --xiys- aiiu uuciiiy KrlOWleage,what Crowther cal?s "body-hold." Art irnaginative?y lirojects a harmoniousrelationship between the suliject and oLiject of experi"es;c';,-svhich-recoiicWe:the self to the other in the preservation of human experiei:ceJ-Crow:le'r'thu:locates art's significance in the practice of its making-;;d :ts"e;e:r'i'en"c'i"n?g".If "Llrln[S raflOnqf ':?nA cr-nci----- - - - - -' -" - " a a a 'It "brings rationaJ and sensuous material into an inseparable arid mutuallypnT'i-inr-i - - --I--:-- 1121)enhancing relatioii."2"

Significantly, Croyvther also argucs rhat rhis re]ationship is at its foundationa transcendent one. A work of art enables the self to move beyond and-o?:itsidaeitself toward another object, and this process has a srignificant impact on these]f's development toward a reconci]ed relationship with the world. This tran-scendent relationship makes love liossible-which is n-o-tliingai';nor 'transc:"n:dent-by helping tts move beyond ourselves toward our rieighbor and towardGod. Philosopher William Desinoiid affirms arid extends Crowtber's views. For

fGod in the CalleryOverlure

7

Desmond, it is the space between Self and Other, what he calls the "n'ietaxil,"

iii which art, religion, and philosophy dwell.2'the rich ?betweett" i:?transcultural":C" r'o'wth' e;s ; ological approach to art oFrers what he calls ak..rOWEncs s ci-vtv6- --- .Fk.. --? ? ?definition of visual representation, of which the Western institution oE hig5detlrnnoii ut vshuas .,......--?-???,ai:t is but a particu?ar manifestiition. Crowther argues that all cultures believesomethiiig important takes place in iiisual reprcsentation. Most cultures rec-oqnize that this importartce is distinctively powerful, magical, and reli@ious,OglllZe tita[ [nls uuyutyatt,, .., ...----?-? . ?.?, ,Tliis is not because these cultures are primitive or unenlightened but sin'iplybecause what makes visual representation significant-that it offers a unique." between-sensuous material and rationaland complex "hypostatic union'

:d'eas-I-Iis'inexplicable and thus named "rcligious."This mysterio?is, liypostatic union is the source of high art's powcr. Crowtherarg"u"W'tl'ia)t-the-institution of high art acknowledges this mysterious pomr," " ' --- -----A-a-Ii-srsntuatracwhich has giiieri rise to the close relationship between art and religion that haspreoccupicd artists and critics since the advcnt of modernism. But it has been' a a J-- --I-.-. ..,I-,orr= mr'h inherenrlv-aii-d-the-Wmseum is the place where such ittherentlynamed the ?aestbetic,"religious cxperience is cal?ed an ?aestlietic experience." Still, the inherentlyreligious-eVell magical or mystical-nature of aesthetic experience, as aafst!iict embodimem of the hypostatic uniot>, remains.'Wl"'he't'h'er a ;rei'C:aol:uinbi-aii'artifact, Africaii statue, tnedieval altarpiece, oruw---ynheri':licri:'aizF:ri?n-'is""a"la"t":aala:Jth-e -mod"ern tnstitutional sense OE the term, a!la Byzantine icon is "art" ithese ale visual representations and thus bear a transhistorical and trattscul-tural relationship not only to each other but also to the arti€acts made in and[urak raiilKJll3Aup --,,. ...., e+ -----for the modern iristitutioii of art, because of the cotnmon (universal) humanpractice of making and experiencing. This offers a foundation 'cor a norma-' a ' - '-'-'--I - ---sqvscrsnc nF vKllalpraCflCe OI llliiu'Jllg aissa --i-,, ,....-.-.,. ? ?.-?. ?tive aesthetics that can better enable cross-cultural comparisons of visualtlve aesmcrii..b uiat y,sit ,i,,,.. -..---- ?representations witho?it imposiiig a modern Western view of art onto tltemor exaggerating their differences.exagger;iiiiig uiyii s-ix--,....--..What is important to consider in these theories of art is that there hasbeen no discussion of what art is supposed to look like and whether art is5een nO alSCuS!iloli ui vvuay =-- ., ..rF?.??supposed to be mimetic (that is, represeiitational, which is the conventionalSuppOSea IO L)C iuuus-yxs? 1..,.. .., .-,????? . .assumption of art's significaiicc-that it makes images of the world that- ' a a " ----s tT-C--tiinatplv?t'heaSStlmptl0n or ai'c s 3i6ii-u=.----, .-.+? ?? ??look real or that correspond to what is empirically seen). Unformnately, thela:"su'm'p'tion 'th;'t -al:t-JS 'supposed to be representational, that its images areaSSumprlOn i:na? dl.l l.) >uyyy,,,. ,.. + -?,.represei'itations of what is seen and experienced etnpirically in the world, isrepreSelltatl0nS OI WllaL 1) 3ccll a.,, ,.,.------- - ,often given moral, ethical, and spiritual justification so that representationalOr[ell 71Vcll kkluLaB-,....-, -.-- -r - .art is life- or creation-affirming while ;ibstract art is nihilistic and creat;on?denying.l

God in the Gallery

T his is simply not the case. And it was not the case for the Classical Greeks,(((B whom we receive much information about the remarkable likenesses of(heir aesthetic creations, wbether birds trying to nest in a painting of a tree0( a young man fa?iing in love with a scu]pture of a woman.

Your artists, then, like Phidias and Praxiteles, went LIP, I suppose, to l>eaven and10@k a copy of the forms of tlte gods, and then reproduce3 these l)Y their art, orwas thcre any other influence which presided over and guided their mou?ding?

There was, said Apollonius. . . . Imagination wrought these works, a wiserand suLttler artist by far than imitation; for imitation can OI?IY cre;ste as its)i;iiidiwork whar it has seen, bur imagination eqiially what it has not scen; forit wiill conceive of its ideal with reference to the reality:""

Visual art was recognized, then, as being more than something that depictsoutward, observable forms; it also consists of imaginative projection. Thehistory and development of modern and contemporary art necessitate rharwe understand that representational art requires imaginative projection whileabstract art rec'1uires representation of some kind; in other words, abstractart is representational in dMerent ways from representational or figurariveart.i3 This dialectic betwecn abstraction and representation, betwecn outwardform and inner feeling or spirit or imagination, will be discussed in greaterdeptl'i in chapter 2. Furthermore, this dialectic between representation andimagiiiation or abstraction is fundamental for understanding the economyof t?ie icon.="

A4y working definition of art is tlms derived iii part from both a moderateinstitutional theory that recognizes the imliortant role that the mriseum spaceplays in determining meaning ;ind mediating a histor>', tradition, and theoryoE what occurs tri that space, and an eco?ogical theory of art that affirms tharin its making and viewing, art does something to arid with the self, project-ing air imaginative world of thoughr in aesthetic fcii'n'i that is necessary forhuman development. The transhistorical nature of visual representation ofEersa basis for re'flecting on modern and contemporary art through the theoryand practice of the icon because its primary goal is to seek communion withGod. Its foundation is prayer.

Artistic liractice, then, is ?itopian. (t recognizes that the wor?d is not as itshou]d be. And it t?ierefore projects alternative worlds. Russian filmmakerAndrei Tarkovsky once said, echoing Dosto)ievsky ;ind other Russian think-ers, that if the world wcre perfect there would be no iiecd for art- Art is awitness to both our fallen world and hope for irs redemption. In a bracing

l/'i..--.-

.1

a

'l

.1

l

iI

11

l

l

:jil

I

?4

10l

'l

il

7 1

30

introduction to the work of Lithuaiiian poet Tomas 'Jenclova, Russian-b@yHaep'li 'BrodsM>i'declares, "Art is a form of resistance to the impcrfectionpoet Josi

of reality as well as an attempt to create an alternative reality, an alternativethat one hopes will possess the hallmarks of a conceivable, if not an achiev-able, perfection."'

Theological Reflections

ftbe Visible, a provocative hook about images, icons, andIn Tbe Crossing o)

idols,-the phenomenologist and Rciman (?:atholic thinker Jean-Luc Marionobserved, almost ixi passing, that

the image-affirmiiig doctrine of the Secoiid Council of Nicaea concerns notonly nor first of all a point in the history of ideas, nor even a decision of Chris-tian dogma: it formulates above all an-perhaps the orxly-alternative to thecontemporary disaster of the image. In the icon, the visible and tlte invisibleembrace each other from a fire that no longer destroys but rather lights up tltedivine face for humanity.i'

This study takes serio?isly Marioii's observation that the theory of imagesarticul;ted:n' tahe-Second Council of Nicaea-which in AD 787 reestablished:h' ;'o;'thoodoxy -of lcons, the lio?y images of Christ, Mary the Tbeotokos, the'an;ls,"andath' e saims for use in chu;ch worship and private devotion, and:e:v:rsed the icono-clastic council of 754-can make a significant contributionto the-study of contemporary art.27 The key principle of icon veneration is

' a -j-.L-t'hat 'theohon' or sfhown to the image is transferred to the prototype, and who-;v:r lioiio;sa'an-image honors the person represented by it. Tbe icon (eikon,":ma;;)-, -then-, is-a material means-of grace, a pointer through which devotion,contemplation, arid communion with God are enacted. It is the sacramentalpresence of a transcendent world.

aSt."John of-Th;tna:cus, the foremost defender of icons in the eighth cen-tury,alJard=o?it the -sevWral adifferem images. The first image, what John calls

is the image of the Son. The second itnage is God'sthe "natural image," i:;r:determianem-w;1.,a the images that he will bring about. The third image is'Wmaiiity-as the im'age of God. Tlie fourth image is found in tbe Scriptures:the use of %ures, forms, and shapes that depict "faint conceptions of God."'al:he"fi:th-kin"d-o€"it'nage 'is also fo'und ;si the Scriptures: images that prefigure

- ? - lt'h";inc',:rna'tion-of-:C'l'uais-t.-Tlie sixth and last kind of image is made up oflr God in the Gallery

(hose that recall the memory of past events either in words (Scriprures) orHmag65, John's conclusion is "receive each [form of image] in the reason and;anner fitting to each."'

An exploration of the economy of the icon is not possible without thestudy of iconoc]asm, which was an organized movement against images usedin worship that began in earnest during the eightlt century in Constantinople.,Although it was ultimately defeated by the church in 847, ir lingered, only to(eemerg,e with a veng,eance in the West during the Reformation in the mid-5ixreeiith century.29 Significantly, both iconoclasm and iconopltilia trace theiryoots to Neoplatonic tbought, particularly as it is t'nanifest in Origen.a'o Theypre therefore two sides of the same coin. Cuimres, comnmnities, and institu-(ioiis are simultaneousLy iconoclastic and iconophiliac.

Nicene Christianity does not merely tolerate images in tbe church. It re-quires them. Tcons are not an alien Eastern addition to Nicene Christianity,but its essence. Tbe Council of 787 in Nicaea, the sevemh and ?ast ecumenicalcouncil of the churclt, was an affirmation of the Nicene faith as embodied inthe economy of the icon. Religious imagery, particularly the holy icons, wasconsidered to be dogma in paint, painted Scriptures. Canon 82 of the Councilin Trullo (691-92) forbids a symbolic represenration of Christ as a lamb be-cause it was a "type" or "image" of the coming Christ who has already comeand thus sltould be depicted as a man in ?remembrance of I-Iis incarnation,passion arid redeeming death, and of tbe universal redemption, tltereby ac-complished." " (ne need not be chrismated in the Eastern Orthodox Church orbe a cradle Roman Catholic to draw from the riches of this too-often ignoredhistory of the cl'i?ircli. Tlie Protestaiit practicc of freely appropriating fromclmrcli tradition, which has culmiiiated iii wihat the late Robert Webber called"ancient-futtire faith," certaiiilylegitimates rhe apliropriation and adaprarionof the economy of the icoii for Protestant use.?1

This aesthetic economy rests fii:st and Eoremosc on the cosmic implica-tions of the incarnation of Jesus Clirist, wliicli did not merely or only effectour salvation, it renewed al] of creationi bringing the creation itself, to quoteSt. Atlianasi?is, into the eternal triune relationship of Father, Son, arid HolySpirit.? St. John of Damasi:?is :irgues for the impcirtance of Christ's iiicarna-tion for the veneration of ii:ons.

Of old, God the iiicorporeal and formless was sievcr depicted, but IIOW thatGod has been seen in the klesh and has associated ai'nong h?iman kind, I depicxwhat I l'iave seen oE God. I c'lo not venerate matter lxit S venerate the fasl'iioner

Overrure

I

'r 3I

i

il

l

l

1

l

i

l

l

r

r

l

rl

ll

i

z

r

7 1

"22

of matter, who became matter for my sake arid accepted to dwell in m;stter andoth'ro?ig?l::'matater'svorked my salvation, ;iiid I will not cease from reverencing:na'tt;,-tliro?igh which my salvation was worked.'

A key aspect of tl'ie theory and practice of icon veneration is tlxat the materialworld is 1101 as Greek lihilosopliy assumed, a burden that must be abandonedor transcended in order to achieve communion with God or participate in his

-3; Tlie material immanence of the world is the verydiviiie naturc (2 Pet. 1:4).ulVlllC k{aILk- - 1- - --- = , ? - -

nleans by which divine transcendence is or can be experienced. It is preciselyat this point that Christianity critic'1ued and transformed Hellenic tbought.Since the Son, the divine Logos, has put on creation through the incarnation,Jth'is ':s"espec?'ally-the'cWse iii'the new-coVenant. Mocking his iconoclastic op-

, "sinceI am a human beingponerlts as super-spiritual, St. John admits that,and wear a tiody, l loxig to have communion in a bodily way with what is horyand to see it. Condesceiid to my lowly understaiidingi O exalted one, that yo(iarnl':y' ln?r"e:':ry'e'your eWaltedness;?V' St.J John's affirmation of the material worldmay preserVe )'our exaltedness.'as the means of God's grace is repeated seven cemuries later when Martin'L'ut'li:r?retu'rn;d W-W:tten-berg from exile in 1525 to battle the iconoclastic'Aunlcl1'r:'a's'K' a'rlstadt an-d-hf's cohorts, to whom he referred sneeringly as the"lieavenly prophets."? 7

lleflectirin on the econ0nl)' of the icoii has much to recommend for a studyof "mo'dern":;ndacontempora"ry art. From a historical point of view, the iconohlas'ii"e'v:r"W'en' far=fro; the-history of modem art. The development of anlaldu:o:o':m'o'us "in'st:tYtion-of ar: in atlie West resulted in painting that takesapulalcoe"oon?p?ortable'p::nels and later canvases, materials that approximated themobility and discrete look of icoii painting.? 8 Modern painting could be saidt'o?be'tliye ;es;ern equivalent of Ea-stern icon painting.39

More important is that a number of avaiit-garde painters during the firstdecades of the twentieth century, particularly the Russian painters Malevichoane'ddKuca5iid"i'n's'k'y, 'found :n-iconJ thc 'e'mbodiment of spiritual power. And spiritualpower-real presence-has been ?ierhaps the driving force of the history anddevelopment of modern art. The avant-garde was eager to access this spiritual

ic. In addition,power-and so they began to describe their paintings as +comc., ?ise of color, grcater"they borrowed vario?is formal compositional devices,

self-consciousness about how they practiced their craft, even, as is evident inoMalev:ch's?exhib:tion ;ractices, installiiig some of their paintings in the easternaco;;ers-of the gallery-spaces, which foliowed traditional Byzantine practice.;W:a't'h'ese anc{-many other avant-garde paiiiters well into the twentieth century,

l

r God in the Gallery

including the Russian immigrants Jollll Graham and Mark Rothkoi modernpainting functioned like an icon, c:reating a deeply spiritual, contemp]ative:relationsh!P between the objecr and viewer. I(othko once observed that if theliiewer doesn't cry in front of his work then he or she isn't having the same6xperience that he had while painting it.

7he historical relationship between icons ai'td modern art is largely meta-phorical. This is not to say that it is insignificant. It is a way to denote that3 painting ltas a certain spiritual and contemplative power. {n the mid-1970scritic,Joseph Masheck explored the range of this metaphor, perhaps revealingthe real power of the metaphor: "We apply ccrtaitt notions from the earlierhistory of painring, espccially religious painting, to present-day art, not toproject mear>ing onto contentless forms, but to inquire into integral contentsiii art, ar a time when early modern aspirations to a transcendental functionfor painting have rcvived."4o Is the relationship between icon painting andWestern modern painting more tban metaphorical? Can "iconic" be used ina way that is n'iore than merely allusive? Can a more concrete relationship beestablislted betweett icon painting and modern and contemporary Westernpaintiiig? This study takes up Marion's observation and stretches Masheck'simportant essay in order to find out.

Iconoclasm haunts the history of modern art just as it ha?mts the historyof icon iieneration in the dmrclt.4' Reflection on modern artists' interests in

icons provides productive insights into the religio?is and spiritual underpiii-nings of the development of modernistn.

Not only are icoiis relevant to the study of modetn art, they are relevantto the practice oE contemporary Western Christianit): Eastern Orthodoxyand Eastern Christianity in gener;il h;ive received a considerable ai'no?int ofinterest, ?iarticularly among those of the emergent or "ancient-future" faithmovements, for which imerest in icons is part of a larger interest that includesascetic practices, candles, iiicense, plaiii-song and charm, bowing, prostration,arid other forms of ancient practice. From more mainline arid seeker I)rotestantchurdies, the role of the ;irts in worship has become an increasingly importantsubject. Visual images are playing an iiicreasingly lirevalent role in Protestantchurclies.42 As I)rotestaiit clmrches puzzle out the q?iestion of the arts iii gen-era? and images more specifically in worship, the study of icons, their theory,and practice within the Eastern Clmrch can offer significant iissistance. Tl'iedeep riches of dogmatic reflection on icoiis iii the eighth and ninth centuriesare riot exclusively the possession of the Ortliodox or Catholic traditions butpart of thc rich deposit of thc Nicene Cliristian faith.

Overture

lI 33

r

l

ll

rll

l

l

I

l

j

ll

rl

rl

l

l

l

l

JNJj11

lll

l

ffl

The economy of the icon operates in a worldview that is profoundly 53(.ramental, in which the transcendent is mediated thro?igh the immanent ar)dis recognized, experienced, and contemplated through material means. ASGraham Ward observes, ?To desire or to ?ove God is to iiivest the world wit}significance, a sigriificance which deepens the mysterious presence of things."4:'The vocatiori of lturnanity is not only as prophets who proclaim God's lovearid as kings who rule as God's ro)ial represematives but also as priests whomediare lietween creation and Creator. Alexander Schmemann asserts:

2

?4

The first, the basic definition of man is that he is the priest. He stands in thecenter of the world arid ?iiiifies it in his act of blessiiig God, of botlt receiviiigthe world (rons God and offering it to God-arid try filling t1'ie world with hiseuc)iarist, he cransforins his lite, the one that he receives from tbe world, imolife in God, iiito coinmunioii with Him. The world was created as the "inatter,"the material of one all-embracing eucharist, and man was created as the priestof this cosmic sacrament."

For St. John of Damascus, humanity is by its very nature a mediation oEthe Creator arid the creation: "Man is a microcosm; for he possesses a soularid a body, arid is placed Lietween spirit and matter; he is the li?ace in wl'iiclitbe visible and invisible creations, the tangible and intangible crcations, arelinked togetlier."'

Much modern arid comemporary artistic practice manifests this priesdyfunction, this yearriing for a liturgica? rea?it)i that reveals the world as gift andofferiiig. Man)i works of modern and comemporary art manifest this reality:They are indeed poignant iiltars to the unknown god in aesthetic form. Thechallenge for the Christian art critic is to name them and testify to what theypoint toward, however lialtingly, tentatively, and incompletely. As the psalmistAsaph observed:

A History of Modern Art

l-herc arc days svhen [Frank? Stella gocs to the Metroliolitan Museum. Andhe sits for ltours looking at rhe 'i7ela;quezes, utterly knocked :'ut-by-t'l:iae:':i'and'then he goes back to his studio. 'Wlsat he wo?ild jike more than anything else isto paint like Velazquez. But wltat ]ie knows is that il'iat is an W'ptio'Watlia"'t :;?10:open to him. So ?ie paims stripcs.

Michael Fried, q?iored iii Rosalind Krauss,"A View of Modernism," Artforum

?i

ll

l

lt

When I tried to understand all this,it was oppressive to mctill I entered the sanctuary of God;then l unilerstood their final destiny. (Ps. 73:16-17)

It takes ycars to look at a liicture.Thornas Hess, quotediii Leo Steinberg, " 1-?ie

Philosophica} Brocbel," October

Beginnings

34

fI God in the Gallery

Modern art first came to the attention of the American public iii 1913. }tcame, as it has rimc arid again siiice, rhrough spectacle-::n'd-scaWdal". -x;';s 'amistake to regard modern art as a development in art studios on the European

fI

l

l

i

I

li