Ritual and art
So now we’re talking about ritual, partly via what Julian said in that interview (‘And also you have rituals of gratitude. A religious person can say grace, they can pray. Now, you can try to create these little rituals in atheist settings if you like, but I tend to think they wouldn’t work.’) and partly via what JS said in that other interview (‘You have the thought that the rituals that go along with religious practice are desirable, and so on. However, there’s a lot of research that suggests that people get seduced by ritual…’). This is connected, it seems to me, with a post of Nigel Warburton’s the other day, which is also about something I ponder sometimes.
Many of the great works of visual art are religious. But when an atheist like me looks at, say Duccio’s painting in the Sainsbury Wing of the National Gallery of the ‘miracle’ of Jesus healing a blindman, I do not believe in the literal truth of what is depicted (David Hume, for example gave excellent reasons for being sceptical about believing reports that such miracles have occurred).Nor do I believe that Jesus was the son of God (nor that there is such an entity as God). Does this mean that I can’t adequately appreciate this picture?
I think no, it doesn’t, although it may mean that you (and I) can’t appreciate it in exactly the same way that a thoroughgoing believer can. I brought up Rembrandt’s ‘Supper at Emmaus’ as another example. It seems to me it’s not necessary to believe Jesus came back from the dead to find that painting moving. One can think one’s way into it; one can imagine believing it; one can imagine being the disciples in the painting; one can imagine being a 17th century Dutch viewer of the painting; one can imagine that it is true, and what that would feel like; one can imagine half-believing and half-hoping, or all hoping. I don’t think we’re (always, necessarily) reduced to mere aestheticism in response to religious art.
Apropos of not very much, weren’t those Solar Temple self-immolaters pretty heavily into ritual…?
Seems like a vital ingredient for any cult seeking to gain adherents from the ranks of the gullible, along with fancy robes for celebrants & promises of arcane secrets.
or was that catholicism?
;-)
Good old BBC radio 4 broadcast something (unintentionally) hilarious t’other day – some modern “druids” holding one of their ‘ancient’ (ie made it up last Thursday) rituals at a minor stone circle…sounded horribly like dialogue from a second-rate fantasy film.
Or maybe those films are tapping into ancient truths, hmmm…?
What about appreciation of the skills and techniques used to produce another type of “Great work of Art” – that also happens to be engineering/building?
I’m thinking of Peterborough or Chartres cathedrals here, and their ilk.
However, the moment you start discussing that sort of thing, another author immediately springs into my mind: The late Professor J. E. Gordon, who wrote the classic (no pun intended):
“Structures – or why things don’t fall down”
This is now required reading for many engineering students, but it is also a work of philosophy (in a way) because he also talks about why some things did fall down, and usually puts it down to hybris – he specifically refers to the loss of HMS Captain, and the crash of the R101, and part-concludes that chapter with the words: “thus are the purposes of Zeus accomplished” (!)
Incidentally, and not (I think) totally off-topic, I’ve read the Robert Persig interview, and, of course, both the books….
Very impressive, but (to my mind at least) I spotted one basic flaw …
In “Zen & the Art” he refers to not believing that the Law of Gravity was discovered – he (at that point at least) appears to be subscribing to the “social construct” theory of science (and presumably technology) – which, of course, I cannot do.
Any thoughts on this matter, anyone?
A new thread on Pirsig, Ophelia?
Never mind the content, what I find odd about this is the over-representation of OU Arts Faculty academics on the internet – Nigel, John, Jon Pike, me – haven’t we got enough to do or something?
If I watch a Shakespeare play about a king but I am not a king (or a monarchist) I cannot appreciate the play.
This is a silly argument, and is no less silly when we substitute religion for monarchy. I understand the iconography and what the image is meant to mean. I appreciate that and the artistic merit of the work. In many ways I can see and appreciate it more clearly for it not being a kind of iconographic pornography for me.
As for rituals, I’m a great believer in *personal* honour and in politeness. Simply from a naive categorical imperative point of view. So I can show gratitude to people. I find it psychologically rewarding, and gratitude is a gift in itself. In fact I don’t understand why I wouldn’t be made happy by a present or be unable to display ritualized (in the anthropological sense) reciprocity if God doesn’t exist, but I’m sure that there’s a wonderfully complex theological argument that “proves” why I am in fact incapable of doing so despite my -er- doing so.
It’s worth reminding ourselves that if the Puritans and other such enlightened folk had been a tad more numerous and thorough we wouldn’t have any religious art around to appreciate anyway…
You could argue it other other way round. Only by examining the art as an atheist can you appreciate it in its historical context. It’s possible “The Martyrdom of St. Wayne” wouldn’t emotionally move me as it may a Catholic called Wayne, but which is the adequate appreciation?
I remember my younger sister getting a fairytale book, where the heroine had her name and birthday. It was quite stunning to her, but not to me. Was my appreciation inadequate? If not, then do I need to feel that a Christian killed in a portrait is Catholic, just like (?) modern Catholics?
What about art featuring St. Christopher, which the Catholic church now feels may be fictional? Can only believers understand the image of St. Christopher?
In contrast, I’m pretty certain I don’t know the meaning of a lot of palaeolithic cave art, which probably had ritual meaning. Yet, I think one reason I don’t understand it is that I don’t understand its history or techniques, rather than lacking the necessary beliefs.
Thinking out loud the same could be said for Native American imagery. But here you can learn what contemporary symbols mean – if you’re taught how to interpret them. Belief isn’t a necessary component.
Perhaps saying you have to belief in Christianity to understand Christian Art, is a bit like saying you have to believe there’s a Rottweiler on the premises to adequately appreciate a “Beware of the Dog” sign.
“the over-representation of OU Arts Faculty academics on the internet – Nigel, John, Jon Pike, me”
Heh – I had similar thoughts only yesterday – I suppose because of linking to John and Nigel in quick succession. But it’s not a matter of not having enough to do, it’s a matter of sharing the wealth.
I obviously agree that one doesn’t need to be a Christian to appreciate Christian art – being able to *imagine* what the artwork is, religiously, trying to convey is enough. Being unable to do that may mean being unable to appreciate art, period. I’d like to widen Alun’s thesis that religious art must be viewed as an atheist in order to put it in its historical context – I’d say religious art must be regarded as human-made, metaphorical, etc. regardless of whether one views it as an atheist or a religionist, rather than as ‘literally true’ or ‘untrue’. Religions who believe in the literal, infallible truth of their doctrine usually have difficulty dealing with religious art, and I would imagine someone who would reject religious art as valueless because “it’s not true” would be in exactly the same boat in that respect.
A knowledge of religion is surely necessary for a full appreciation, but so is a knowledge of the political situation of the day.
Durham cathederal is breathtaking, but it is as much a statement of political power as it is of religious faith.
Not impossible, but a bit harder (at least) I would have thought. There are also the allusions from being a believer that are harder to find as a non-believer. I find that when I hear the hymn ‘Abide with me’ I think of the story of the road to Emmaus, because of the pleas of the two disciples for Jesus to stay. I’m sure I miss things in other religion’s art because of this. But if you read up enough to study the background maybe you can compensate.
Anyway, very thoughtful post
Jeffrey, do you know Rembrandt’s Supper at Emmaus? Seek it out if not. It’s a remarkable painting. The more I think about it, the more I think about it.
“I think no, it doesn’t, although it may mean that you (and I) can’t appreciate it in exactly the same way that a thoroughgoing believer can.”
From a personal perspective, I’d probably have to disagree. To take medieval art as an example, I love the pigments and styles probably more than I do their Renaissance equivalents but do tend to find that art altogether impossible to relate to in a way that I don’t for art after the Renaissance. Art is about content as much as form and the two aren’t easily separable. Certainly there are authors and artists that depict or propound viewpoints of such extremity that is very difficult to be other than revolted by them; pure aestheticism seems to me a position that very few people will actually hold in practice.