Between Faith and Art
-
Upload
jodie-barry -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
Transcript of Between Faith and Art
-
7/30/2019 Between Faith and Art
1/7
The Resurrection: LinkBetween Faith and Art
Linda Marie Delloff
Saddle River, New Jersey
I spend essentially allofmy work time (and
much of my other time as well) in the self-
conscious use of words: writing them,
speaking them, analyzing them. I make my
living with words and, to a great extent, I
live through words. Yet what I will use
words to discuss here is first, that we are all
too dependent on words, especially in the
church. Second, I will use words to talk
about another phenomenonone that does
not necessarily use words: the creation andunderstanding of images.
This is one of the great ironies of the
human conditionthat in many ways, our
methods of communication are self-lim
ited. That is, we need, or think we need, one
method of communication to 'explain'
another. Yet that limitation is also illustra
tive of the promise and potential of the
human condition: for, in fact, our variousmeans of communication can be used to
more difficult to facilitate). But we ofte
take negative advantage ofthe relationshi
between words and other forms of commu
nicationin fact, using words almost as
crutch to 'explain' other forms of commu
nication when they do not need any suc
explanation.
I am first going to discuss image
generally, then the resurrection specificall
and its depiction in images. There ar
actually many types of images. In somways they are all related to one other, and
otherways some ofthem are near-opposit
of one another. All uses of the word "im
age" derive from the same Latin roo
imagoas do some other very importan
and related words such as imagination
imaginable, imaginative, and imaginary.
In one definition, an image is describe
as "an exact likeness" or "a tangible ovisible representation." In contrast, anoth
-
7/30/2019 Between Faith and Art
2/7
The Resurrection: Link Between Faith and Art
93
photograph; or it can be the least exacta
merely suggestive representation.
What kind of images constitute thepresent topic? For the most part, the second
kind: ideas, concepts, impressions, sugges
tions. These we can call connotative im
agesas opposed to the denotative images
to be seen in a mirror, or a snapshot. Con
notative images are appropriate to art be
cause art is not an exact representation of
anythingeven when it is representational.
This is most obviously true in art forms
that do not use visual images, i.e., how
could music produce an exact image of "La
Mer" (Debussy) or the "Fountains of Rome"
(Respighi) or the "Mysterious Mountain"
ofAlan Hovhaness? It is less clear with arts
of the word, though more so with poetry
than with fiction. For poetry creates images
not only through words but, in a way, throughthe elimination of words, the distillation of
meaning into few words. That is, it is
generally purposeful in using fewer words
than does literature to convey an idea; in
deed, it uses words to stand for other words
or groups of words, as well as for ideas.
So, one reason art uses connotative
images is because it is not the thing it
represents. And because it wants to maintain a certain distance from the thing it
represents so that we are sure it is art and not
that thing (though some contemporary art
ists play games with these ideas, creating art
that is ' the thing itselfand challenging us to
understand why it is art).
But why have art at all? Why not just
represent things or ideas in specific, deno
tative waysin precise words, or in some
mathematical formula? The answer seems
Actually, visual images and music may
even have pre-dated language. Drawings
appearing on pre-historic cave walls, andmusical instruments found among other
exceedingly ancient pre-historic artefacts,
raise this possibility.
Some scientists and psychologists posit
that images might present themselves to an
infant's mind before the understanding and
learning of language. Of course we cannot
know this, at least as things now stand,
because, in another of those ironies of the
human condition, infants do not have lan
guage to tell us aboutany images they might
have. Norcould they understand our posing
such a question tp them in any form other
than language. In fact, once infants have
begun to learn language, and are strongly
encouraged in its use, they may begin to
lose the capacity to think in images, thuslimiting their (our) ways of understanding
the world once they (we) become adults. (It
would be interesting to consider to what
degree an artist's images might in some
waybe 'memories,' but that is another topic.)
In this regard, it is truly strange that the
Protestant church has traditionally been so
resistant to artistic imagesand so dependent
on the specificity of words. It is strangebecause the very act of religious faith is to
a large extent a connotative actat least
more so than it is a denotative one. The
majority of human beings who claim to
"have faith" did not come to faith through
logic or reasoned argument. They have not
based their decision to believe on a series of
demonstrated facts. Often they have faith
despite the available facts, not because of
them. They may make a 'wager of faith' or
-
7/30/2019 Between Faith and Art
3/7
The Resurrection: Link Between Faith and Art
94
church has never clasped art in any such
embrace.To summarize, I have suggested that
the most basic human experiences are not
logical, verbal ones, but more likely non-
logical, non-definable, non-verbal, emo
tional ones. And that is what many images
are as well, at least the connotative ones we
are speaking about.
Now, ifan imageeven a 'representa
tional' imageis not exact, but is connotative andsuggestive, how are we supposed to
know 'what it means'? In fact, who gives
'meaning' to the image? The very fact that
we so often ask that question, especially of
art, i.e. "What does it mean?" suggests
again how much we are dependent on lan
guage and how far away we have moved
from other valid and vital means of commu
nicationcommunication through feeling,through look, through touch, for example.
At any rate, a work ofart may, in fac
not have a specific 'meaning.' Butevenon
that does still communicates in images, analways loses a bit of meaning when 'ex
plained' in denotative words, just as doe
one language when translated into anothe
no matter how excellent the translation.
Thus, when we ask "who creates th
meaning of an image," and hence of a
artwork, we are asking a complicatedque
tion. Certainly the artist 'creates' a mean
ing. But in a way, that is like the clich
question of the tree falling in the fores
Does it make a crashing sound ifno one
there to hear it? Similarly, does an artwor
have as muchor, for that matter, any
'meaning' ifno one besides its creator eve
sees or hears it? For we have already sai
that art is a means of communication.
One might cite the stereotype of threclusive artist who paints or compose
"only forhimself," supposedly. But I wou
hesitate to make such a statement categor
cally. I think such recluses, like othe
artists, often create for someone or some
thing beyond themselves, even if that per
son or thing, that object, is itself one of th
imagination. The very phrase "expressin
oneself implies an object, a relationshipThus, an artist could create for anothe
human being or beings whom she knows
for a desired but unattainable human bein
like Dante's Beatrice; for an imaginar
being. Or for God. The fact that the arti
never takes the next step of communica
tionthat is, presenting the work ofart t
anyonedoes not mean that the act of cre
tion was not communicative. To set it dow
on staffpaper or canvas made it commun
-
7/30/2019 Between Faith and Art
4/7
The Resurrection: Link Between Faith and Art
95
cated' or 'informed* without any personal
effort. Thus, the answer to the question of
who creates meanings for images is a dualanswer: both shaper and receiver create
meanings. Meanings becomericheras they
are shared and enhanced by interpretation.
This is certainly not to say that there is
no such phenomenon as 'lasting meaning.'
Of course there isand in fact, I am one
who would say that the images in a painting
that spends its life facing a wall still have
meaning. But they have infinitely more
meaning once they become shared with
others.
If one stops to think about it, history
itself is the cumulative, tacit decision by
succeeding generations to agree to accept a
certain degree of received meaning from
previous generationsinstead of recreat
ing it for themselves. What human beingscannot resist doing is adding layers to those
inherited meanings; that is a basic aspect of
human nature. For the most part, that addi
tion is a constructive process, though often
not entirelyand sometimes, quite the
opposite.
Thus, we have said that art is commu
nicative, and that it uses images of one sort
or another to convey meaning. It is helpful,though not conclusive, to take the examina
tion one step further and to ask: what comes
first, an idea, or an image? an idea of some
thing, or an image that one 'turns into' an
ideaat whatever level of understanding
one's age and circumstances may allow?
This question is surely as difficult to
answer as the one about infants havingimages. On the one hand, can one 'have an
idea' without expressing it in some kind
a thunderstorm, or loud crashes of cymbals
(no pun intended) or two fields of color
colliding violently with each other.Actually, we do not need to worry too
much about answering this 'chicken and
egg' question concerning ideas and images.
But we should not ignore it. At the very
least, turning it over in our minds ought to
awaken us to the various possibilities and
make us realize that there are processes
contributing to the creative act; processes
that don't just start when the painter puts
brush to canvas, or the poet puts pen to
paper, or Paul Manz sits down at the key
board. These are usually the last steps in a
long creative process. At the same time, we
cannot hope or expect to know exactly
'where' (that is, in the human mind? the
soul? the heart? the spirit?) the ideas,
images, or processes originate.How might webest 'use' images? How
can those of us who contemplate images
created by others appropriate or understand
them, especially if this process does not
seem to come naturally,as many people say
is the case for them? I noted that art is
communicative, and communication is
definitionally a two-way street. Consider
translation again as a model. If one wants tolearn a new language, one would have a
difficult time starting by trying to read an
entire book in that new language (though
some people have actually taught them
selves languages in this way). Instead, one
would work gradually and progressively at
translation, with units of that language
some of them structural or grammatical,and some of them units of meaning.
In the same way images are units of
-
7/30/2019 Between Faith and Art
5/7
The Resurrection: Link Between Faith and Art
96
in French without previously knowing that
language. Why should we expect visual or
musical art to be any easier, to be instantlyaccessible? But many people give up if they
do not understand a work of art immedi
ately, in ways they would never give up
attempting to master some other new skill
or language. (Of course there are many
people, especially Americans, who are just
as lazy about learning foreign languages.)
People say, "I want a picture, not an
image. I want words with my music. I want
art to look like something."
Well, it does actually. It looks the way
human beings feel.
Human beings need images. Images
are their natural languageone they don't
have to be taught, though they do not realize
that. And they resist it because ambiguity
can provoke anxiety.Can any idea be more ambiguous than
that of the resurrection? Or what do we
mean by "an image of the resurrection"?
Does it mean a portrayal of some sort of
ghostly spirit (what Joe Sittler used to call,
among other things, a gaseous presence)
rising from the body of Jesus Christ and
ascending toward heaven? Or does it mean
depictions of an empty tomb with the restleft up to the imagination? Or can it be
represented by ascending scales and in
creasing volume in a musical composition,
or a statue with arms upraised to heaven?
Well, some of those mightwok, especially
as denotative images. But they run the risk
of being so specific (not to mention cliched)
that they cease to function as images.
What 'works' as an artistic image of
the resurrection is something that inspires
rendering a complicated concept. Note
said simplistic, not simple. Resurrection i
both a simple and a complex concept, butis in no way simplistic.
Human beings
need imag-
es. Images are their
natural languageonethey don't have to be
taught, though they do
not realize that.
Yet inneither case is it ' specific. ' Thu
it could only be represented in an image
a connotative image. It is not specific, no
is it something of which human beings hav
an idea based on personal experience. Th
is also why it is at once so difficult and s
exciting for artists to create images of thresurrection. They must use their imagina
tions to their fullest extent, perhaps more
than in conveying some other religious idea
Consider the idea of creation, for ex
ample, or of forgiveness. All of us hav
some experience of those realities in ou
own limited human world. We all know
what it is to create something, whether garden, a cake, a model airplane, or a Chr
mas wreath And I hope we have a
-
7/30/2019 Between Faith and Art
6/7
The Resurrection: Link Between Faith and Art
97
How do we image such a phenomenal,
tupendous idea? Jesus Christ, crucified
nd died, IS NOT IN THE TOMB. "He isnot here; for he has risen, as he said." What
does that mean? And how could an artist
possibly create an image to convey what it
might mean?
A real work of art, whose image or
mages somehow tell the truth about their
ubject matter, will probably be more sug
estive than specific or informational. It
will be that way because that is what most
ssential truths of life are: more suggestive
han specific. Otherwise we would not
pend our entire lives searching out those
ruths. The concept of the resurrection is
uggestive, provocative, non-demonstrable;
omething that leaves us with more ques
ions than answers. The idea of the resur
ection fills us with profound, deep, and, forme at least, non-specific and extremely
omplicated emotions. Thus I do not want
t represented in images that areotherwise.
Above all, though, I do want it repre
ented. That is, I want it, to paraphrase
Luther, "spoken" but also "sung, painted,
and played." I also want it molded, sculpted,
danced. The resurrection, as one of the
most basic ideas ofthe Christian faith, mustbe communicated as faith is: through feel
ngs and imagination.
Along these lines, I will make a sugges
ion about using images. A way in which
we can enrich our faith through understand
ng other "languages"all sorts of lan
guages, not just other tongues.
Sometime soon when you are at prayer,
ry to pray in images. I do not mean first to
onceive an idea in words and then con
"say" their names, even silently, but instead
conjure up the image of each one's face and
"feel" how grateful you are, instead of sayingso.
Or if you feel joy about something, and
you want to thank God for that joy, try to put
the joy itself into an image, an image of
something that would give you great joy. It
might perhaps be a "sound" image rather
than a visual one; for me, one such is the
sound of a rushing mountain stream or
waterfall. Let me emphasize, I am not
talking about giving thanks to God for a
waterfall, and accompanying that thanks
with an image ofa waterfall. I am talking
about putting your thanks into an image
instead of into words. Your thanks become
the waterfall, though that for which you are
thanking God may have nothing to do with
waterfalls. It may be recovering from anillness, for example, or something as
"commonplace" as having enough food to
eat.
The resurrection is as far from com
monplace experience as it is possible to be.
But however one understands the resurrec
tionliterally, symbolically, something in
betweenone cannot be a Christian with
out taking account ofit. It is a basic elementof faith. We have said that faith itselfis not
primarily logical. And no oneeven one
who believes in a literal resurrectionwould
say that it was a "logical" event. What more
perfect example, therefore, to use as an
illustration ofthe vital link between religion
and art, between faith and the imagination?
-
7/30/2019 Between Faith and Art
7/7
^ s
Copyright and Use:
As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.
No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously
published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.
The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.