The latest
ArtWay meditation is about
Alfred Manessier’s The Passion According to Matthew.
Jérôme Cottin writes that ‘During World War II he
went through a double conversion: to Christianity and to non-figurative art.
Actually it was the first that led to the latter.
Manessier came from a
non-believing family. He turned to the Christian faith in September 1943, when
he heard a choir of monks sing the Salve Regina in the Trappist
monastery of Soligny.’
Cottin notes that Manessier ‘belongs to the rare group of
artists who were well-known internationally as well as sincere believers.’
Interestingly,
Kathleen Soriano writes, in the catalogue for
Anselm Keifer’s RA retrospective, that Keifer also had a revelation whilst at a
monastery: ‘During a trip in 1966 to
La Tourette, the Dominican monastery
designed by
Le Corbusier near Eveux, in eastern France, Keifer spent three weeks
in a cell meditating on the fundamental questions of life. It was at La
Tourette that he ‘discovered the spirituality of concrete’.
In contrast to Cottin, Soriano notes that ‘The search for
transcendence, the connection between heaven and earth, God and man, lies at
the heart of Keifer’s oeuvre, despite the fact that he would not consider
himself a religious man.’
While both are, no doubt, factually correct in articulating
the personal stances on faith of these two artists, it is interesting to consider
why it is important to both writers to mention these specifically.
Tyler Green has written of ‘the art world’s indifference
toward religion’,
James Elkins of the strange place of religion in contemporary
art and
Dan Fox has stated that religious art ‘when it’s not kept safely
confined within gilt frames in the medieval departments of major museums, is
taboo.’
‘The close relationship that art and religion maintained for
several millennia has in recent decades eroded so drastically that it’s
difficult to imagine fine arts and contemporary religion having anything in
common. Art is, on the whole, a secular enterprise, and religion is frequently
more anesthetic than aesthetic in character. The two worlds happily foster
vulgar understandings of each other almost to a point of pride. Some might even
suggest that adherence to one entails a rejection of, or at least critical
distance from, the other.'
Benedict
Read in his 1998
lecture to the Royal
Society of British Sculptors noted that following the Second World War:
“Churches were being repaired. New work was being installed in them. There was
an expansion of church buildings with works of art in them … There is an
alternative world there of the commissioning of art for specific purposes that,
with no disrespect to established art historians, simply doesn't feature in our
notion of cultural history in the post-war period.”
Fox suggests that art about religion is totally kosher however;
as are: “modernist dalliances with spiritualism;” the “obsessive cosmologies
and prophecies” of ‘visionary’ or ‘outsider’ artists; and “a little dusting of
Buddhism or Eastern philosophy.” But, “contemporary artists who openly declare
affiliation to Judaeo-Christian or Islamic religions are usually regarded with
the kind of suspicion reserved for Mormon polygamists and celebrity
Scientologists.”
David Morgan has explained this phenomonen by suggesting that, "Moving through the discourse of Modernism in art was a dominant conception of the sacred, one which distanced art from institutional religion, most importantly Christianity, in order to secure the freedom of art as an autonomous cultural force that was sacralized in its own right."
Why is the art world wary of religion? Fox gives five reasons:
1. “For most of the 20th century, art aligned itself with progressive
rationalist secularity and radical subjectivity; the ideas that have fed into
art come from modern philosophy, liberal or radical politics, sociology and pop
culture rather than theology.”
2. “It’s also a question of finance: the money that funds art doesn’t come from
churches or religious orders like it did hundreds of years ago.”
3. “Religion is broadly seen by many progressive thinkers to be a cause of
intolerance and war.”
4. “The early 21st century has been characterised by a dangerous return to
faith-based political conviction, be it radical Islam or neo-conservative
fundamentalist Christianity, neither of which has much sympathy for
cutting-edge art or ideas.”
5. “Also, religious organisations aren’t, of course, exactly known for their
forward thinking attitudes to women or sexuality: the moral teachings of many
religious denominations can be at odds with the ways artists want to live their
lives.”
‘Although his move to France coincided with an intensified
investigation of myth and religion in his work, Kiefer is no longer a
practising Catholic, but acknowledges that "even people who seem not to be
spiritual still long for something; I'm sure this is the reason we have art and
poetry. I think without spirituality we cannot live, and in this respect the
best religion is Hinduism, which teaches that each religion can contain some
little truth. Art is an attempt to get to the very centre of truth. It never
can, but it can get quite close. It is the dogmatism of the church, the idea
that words can express a single truth over hundreds of years, that is complete
nonsense. The world changes. Language changes, everything changes. Paintings
certainly change.’
Cottin, however, has studied the relationship of modern art
to Christianity in the French-speaking world, writes regularly about
Christianity and art, edits the website
www.protestantismeetimages.com,
and is ‘a Calvinist who is at pains to justify the importance of visual
theology to the Protestant world.’ As a result, his focus is on those who either belong ‘to the
rare group of artists who were well-known internationally as well as sincere
believers’ or have produced significant examples of modern religious art. His
book
La mystique de l’art: Art et christianisme de 1900 à nos jours accordingly features in-depth
studies of the work of individual artists such as
Gauguin,
Ensor,
Arnulf Rainer,
Picasso,
Schmidt-Rottluff,
Rouault,
Chagall,
Bacon,
Jawlensky,
Manessier,
Nolde,
Richier.
Both are correct but from different perspectives. Soriano
writes of religious affiliation from within the viewpoint of the mainstream art
world, while Cottin, from his perspective outside that world, focuses attention
on those artists who have expressed religious affiliation within the mainstream
art world. The story of religious art in the twentieth century is but one story
among many in modernism. However the historical accuracy of the history of
modernism can be enhanced through the telling of that tale in a way that
refuses to see the predominant separation between art and institutional
religion (Christianity, in particular) as being the only game in town.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.jpg)
