Josh Spero, writer for Guardian Unlimited, feels he’s missing out on something with religious art. “It’s just gold leaf and too many halos,” Spero says. He feels that being an atheist has excluded him from understanding its meaning. Spero’s stuck on appearance and can’t move beyond that. So I wonder, can we bridge the gap between non-belief and religious works of art?
Spero says:
“Matteo di Giovanni’s Assumption of the Virgin altarpiece (1474) is a pious fiesta of angels dancing around the Virgin against a blinding gold background… There is nothing technically wrong with these paintings but they fail to stir anything within me… If a religious person approached di Giovanni’s altarpiece in its original position in Asciano’s church, they might see this painting shimmering under dusty rays, glowing with the Virgin’s aura of holiness. It would be awe-inspiring in the old-fashioned sense.” (Spero)
I don’t live in the 1400’s. And I’m not standing in front of Giovanni’s Assumption. What’s more, I’m Christian, so I could be painting my own assumption here, but I think that we can at least attempt to understand our differences. Spero falls short. He wonders if he can experience the meaning of religious works of art (which seems to short-change atheists’ abilities), but that’s where he stops. Spero can have the same experience a Christian can have with the Assumption, but it requires more than wondering about it. Just like Hindi, Buddhist, Muslim, or Jewish works of art can inspire me… but I would have to do my part because the work wasn’t created with me in mind. However, we do share human experiences: pain, happiness, anger, excitement, etc. It may be easier for a religious person to connect with religious works of art, but the simple fact is that we are all people. And common ground exists among the gaps.
So postpone the disbelief. Put yourself in Giovanni’s place. “Come on in boys, the water’s fine!” (Delmar, Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?)
Spero’s post and the comments that follow are worth a read: Guardian Unlimited: Arts blog - art: I cannot see the divine in religious art (January 11, 2008)
2 Comments
Please Comment!
I don’t believe it’s necessary for an atheist to “postpone disbelief” to understand the meanings of many religious works. He simply must relate it to something he can understand. Everyone hopes for some purpose to their existence. Even if the atheist does not believe, he’s got to admit that the just idea of a loving God and a life with a purpose is beautiful thing.
Even men who don’t believe in God want their lives to have meaning. Otherwise, why would they become philanthropists, why would they want loving relationships, why would they do anything outside what immediately benefits themselves?
The halos and gold may seem primitive now, but to the artist, they represented something that each of us has felt at some time. It meant that their was a purpose to his existence and a meaning to his life.
@Brian:
We all understand logic and emotion in different ways. Sometimes we can explain our emotions, but more often, we “experience” emotions. Drawing a relation to something we understand is a great suggestion, and might also suggest drawing relations to our own experiences.
“Meaning” is another hard thing to explain, but you’re right… we all want it. And it’s usually the things we can’t explain very well that provide us meaning and purpose. Thanks, Brian!