My worry about the Tom Wolfe school of art criticism is that it makes its religious followers complicit in the avant-garde’s self-aggrandizing and highly misleading story about the war between art and faith.
I’d like to recommend the less polemical (but still highly critical) approach taken by First Things’ own Matthew Milliner. Last May he wrote an On the Square piece expressing hope about new developments in contemporary art. He followed that with a piece for the Huffington Post arguing that we should refuse to be baited by the art world’s shallow anti-religious provocations and instead engage its many riches.
Of particular note for First Things readers is Matt’s article on artists who are unwilling to cordon off deep religious concerns from the world of contemporary art:
One way of reading the slowly cooling controversy over the Smithsonian’s removal of David Wojnarowicz’s “A Fire in My Belly” video is that it was desperately necessary. In the attacks and defenses, the protests and petitions, one sensed a palpable relief. Finally, the art world was back to normal. Religious people got angry; the culturati got angry. It was Mapplethorpe’s Concoran and Ofili’s Sensation all over again. The players took their places, the scripts were handed out, the media yelled “Action!” and everyone knew what to do. Senator Jesse Helms was replaced with Representative John Boehner, and Andres Serrano was replaced with Wojnarowicz, though it wasn’t urine on the crucifix this time. It was ants.
But as the media scans for the next controversy, having drained this one of its potential, a more positive art world development endures: The return of religion as a serious concern.
Those interested in learning more about today’s art scene (and myriad other topics) could do worse than to follow Matt’s excellent blog, which, I should note, has the significant advantage over Tom Wolfe’s books of being both up to date and absolutely free.
April 8th, 2011 | 1:01 pm
I love coming to First Things when there is something as on target as this about the art and faith wars. Well said, and thanks for the smile.
April 8th, 2011 | 2:09 pm
There really cannot be a conflict between religion and art. The later is an activity of man. The former is a type of world view. The only way there could be a conflict between religion and art is to make art its own worldview – an absurd proposition. When we say there is a conflict between religion and art, we are really saying “There is a conflict between the world view represented by certain theistic religions and the dominant world view of the arts community.”
It is a given that art reflects the world view of the artist. It is a given that the artwork of an artist proceeds from that world view. The artist cannot escape his first principles. I want (very badly) to say therefore that art is properly defined as a physical realization of a world view. I am not convinced the definition is correct, but it answers many questions. It certainly explains the conflict. The Christian community reacts negatively to works of art that explicitly repudiate Christian first principles. Certainly this is the case with abstract art. We perceive it as depicting a Creation without form, and void. Man is alone in the darkness and left to impose what meaning he can on that which is fundamentally meaningless.
The artistic community has evidently realized the limits of meaninglessness. The most interesting quote to me from the article was from Camille Paglia:
It has produced no great works of art because it has defined greatness right out of the picture. What greatness can be found in meaninglessness and despair? How many times can you try to find order in chaos and fail?
Whether this will produce detente between Christianity and that arts comunity is another matter altogether. Artists can find a spritual center in many places other than Christianity. Its hatred of Christianity will yet remain even if it moves away from secularism. Christian art requires not rapprochement between art community and the Church but the creation of Christian artists from within the Church. It requires the emergence of those who first believe, and then refelct that belief in their work.
carl
who is Protestant, and defines ‘Church’ accordingly
April 8th, 2011 | 4:18 pm
Nice job, Matt, and welcome to FT.
April 8th, 2011 | 4:39 pm
I don’t get this. How does Wolfe’s critique of modern art somehow support or encourage the kind of shallow “culture war” flareups you describe?
You linked to Carter’s post, which is nothing more than an endorsement of an English schoolgirl’s comment that Koons, and the “found art” movement in general, is inherently shallow, even anti-art.
How does that possibly fit into Millner’s quote, which seems to be about a different subject entirely.
April 10th, 2011 | 11:47 am
Perhaps you have to have lived in New York for 17 years — working publishing, going to law school — as I did to appreciate what Tom Wolfe provides and represents in contrast to the herdish Manhattan landscape. I hope and pray for alternatives to what is offered to hear and see and read by institutional America (media, academia, mainstream Christianity, Judaism etc). Wolfe has brought something useful to the table over the years and decades. I keep coming back to what Cardinal Ratzinger said about what happens when Protestants and Catholics interact — Catholics become more Protestant, but Protestants do not become more Catholic. The same is obviously true of Hollywood and Manhattan and academia and the media and elsewhere. Why are we so uncomfortable with telling different stories, our stories, the Story we have received?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact