A Dive into the Subject of Sacred Images

 “All sacred images are, without exception, in a certain sense images of the Resurrection, history
read in the light of the Resurrection, and for that very reason they are images of hope, giving us
the assurance of the world to come, of the final coming of Christ.”

                                                                                                – Joseph Ratzinger

What does this quote mean? What is its significance and how might it alter the way we consider sacred art? At the very least it challenges us to reconsider the significance of sacred art. Understanding that God Himself came to the earth being fully divine and fully human completely changed artistic expression, as it changed every action of man. Dare I say that it seems we have become so ‘used to’ this idea that we are no longer awed by it? That it has somehow become ‘commonplace’? That instead of understanding and accepting with awe and gratitude the invitation, the gift of fulfillment in artistic expression extended by God, we have decided that we somehow must have ‘deserved’ it and need not do much of anything to express our humble gratitude for what we have been offered? Are we just too spiritually lazy to try to figure out our part in all of this? Are we all guilty of the (mortal) sin of sloth?

I suppose an easy and clear way to understand how far it is possible to stray from a gift from God is to look at some other human situations that illustrate how distant we can become from God.

One example might be marriage. A couple may get married being completely in love and appreciative of one another, full of wonder at the gift of the other person. Over time, if the spouses do not recognize that they have a part, a duty to participate, in the tremendous gift, they may begin to take each other for granted. The relationship becomes ‘boring’ as each gives the responsibility for its quality on something external. Let’s look at a person’s career choice. A person may begin his career full of passion combined with ideals. Never seeming to realize his duty to participate, he ends up unhappy, unfulfilled and is never able to affect the world in the way he might have done. Health may be a third thing. Most people experience health and energy early in life but never recognize the duty to participate, so the health declines. Again, a possible result is that the person may constrict his influence for good in his world, maybe even cut his life short. In all of these areas, a ‘once saved always saved’ mindset has taken over. However, since this philosophy can never satisfy, the person (perhaps as a half-way measure) chooses someone else to be responsible for participation: the spouse, the boss, the doctor, the government, the world.

So how does this apply to sacred art? It would be impossible to list all of the gifts that God gave us by coming to earth, by His Life, Death and Resurrection. I will not try. But I will discuss the gift of the fulfillment of artistic expression: the perfect union between artistic expression and the expression of Truth. If only we could transport ourselves to a time when we were all instinctively able to weave the composition, as seemingly effortlessly as Cardinal Ratzinger does, involving an image and the Truth, and the hope it ultimately conveys.

How might it be possible to recognize a gift from God and respond in a way that would develop that gift and experience it at a state closer to its potential? If the fulfillment of artistic expression is the union between art and truth, then we can take that as the ideal of artistic expression. But as in all of God’s gifts, there is an invitation proffered, a loving encouragement to participate in the realization of His gift. This can be very scary. We may think - mistakenly - that our actions are necessary, that God is not complete without us. We may be afraid of the onus of responsibility implied and are afraid of making a mistake. It is very tempting to avoid the issue, to perceive it as either/or: either it’s in God’s hands or ours. But what if the challenge is not to ‘improve’ the gift? What if God is inviting us into a deeper relationship with Him, a relationship in which we are trying more and more deeply to follow His Will? And pure gift is the fruit of us trying to love Him more and more? It’s as if the most trustworthy friend gave us an extremely valuable gift but the instructions on how to use it were not enclosed but depended on our willingness to get closer to him, to love him more and more and be prepared to do it his way instead of ours - because we have the faith to know that his way is the only correct way. And only in this way would the instructions become clearer and clearer and our gratitude and appreciation for the gift become deeper and deeper. How if this were the way in which our own individual voice found its true power?

We all know that the state of art is dismal. There is no ‘sacred’ art to speak of, and without sacred art, the state of ‘secular art’ gets worse and worse. But if we take it slowly, perhaps we may begin to find a way to climb out of the mire.

Visual art is by its inherent nature a community activity. A work of art does not stand alone; it is seen by somebody. There are, at any given moment, two people involved. There is a relationship that exists. Even if f ten people are looking at a work of fine art at the same moment, there is a relationship between each viewer and the artist. There would be ten relationships going on concurrently. So, in a relationship, who is responsible? Both parties are. Are the responsibilities the same? Of course not. But the first step is the recognition of responsibility on both the part of the artist and on the part of the viewer.

It is my contention that we have all but eliminated this responsibility - for both parties.

Let’s start with the artist.

By taking away his responsibility, we have placed the artist in a special and unique position. Because we have removed artistic responsibility, the artist often yields to the temptation of bullying people to accept whatever he does. The ways in which he does this usually fall into two general categories.

Some artists stress the ‘concept’, developing a garbled ‘philosophy’ which nobody can understand (who even wants to?) and cows the viewer. This method works well when used by the manipulative ‘artist’ dealing with the viewer who is insecure and mostly artistically ‘uneducated’, and probably has a secret desire to manipulate people himself, someone who is also looking for the ‘easy way out’. This viewer probably enjoys being ‘in the know’.

In the second category the ‘artist’ claims to be ‘real’. He describes his work as ‘realistic’, or ‘represensentational’. We are bullied into believing that his work tells us something true about the human condition. But he is also looking for the easy way out. These artists, especially those who do religious themes, will usually select a ‘period’ in art history and copy it. And be proud of this! As if the artist of the Middle Ages or the Renaissance said ”Oh, I know. I’ll make a Middle Ages work.: Or “Oh, I think I’ll make a Renaissance work.” It never seems to occur to him that the job of the artist might just be to digest the reality he actually lives in.

Both of these groups will reject most criticism. They expect their work to be always applauded, one because of the ‘idea’ and the other because it is ‘recognizable’. But strangely enough, this resistance to criticism becomes justifiable because the basis of the criticism offered is generally superficial and meaningless. And this brings me to the responsibility of the viewer.

We live in a strange state of affairs. We accept, reject and even define reality based on the utterances of others, rather than first considering our own perceptions. There are many situations in which another human being may have authority over us. And it is our duty - and should be our joy- to submit to this. Hierarchy is one of the characteristics of the universe that God created. But as we also know, the Truth includes everything. Which means that not only is hierarchy real, so is equality. The only way to conform to the twin truths of hierarchy and equality is to look to the Being who created both. We are all equally under His commands.

How can the viewer apply this principle to looking at a work of art? The first thing is to stop making universal judgements based on our own personal likes or dislikes. Of course our likes matter-to us. Which means that putting a work of art in your house may justifiably be based on nothing else. But for works selected for a church, God’s house, His likes are what matter. So much more should be considered. The person in charge of selecting or commissioning the work - usually the pastor (the first and most important viewer) - has the duty to consider what God likes. Well, you may say, how do we know what God likes? I think we have enough clues to start with if we look at the reality around us. We know, for example, that He likes good composition, that he wants everything to be developed according to its characteristics and fit together with everything else, even if they seem like opposites. We know that He likes knowledge, and that He loves man, which means that an artist making figures must study anatomy in depth. We know that the Bible is true, so the artist must convey the actual true story, and not try for some ‘original’ interpretation. We know He hates lies and values honesty, which means that the artist must not take shortcuts. We know that He values humility, which means that the artist must accept legitimate criticism and be willing to answer questions about his work. We know that He is really present in the Eucharist, which means that the artist must know the difference between essence and accident, that a representation of a person must contain something of the essence of a person, not just look like a person. We know that He expects us to be on a journey, a journey which ends in Truth, which means that all artwork must be done by the artist himself, not in a factory (mass produced) or by any other artificial means. We know that He taught that there is a conclusion to our journey on earth, so the artist must give us a conclusion, however flawed, and not to bastardize art by using it to ‘raise questions’.

We can see that these considerations will lead the artist in his own responsibilities and the viewer in his.

It begins with the awareness of the significance of sacred art. From there we will begin to understand the seriousness of the responsibility we have concerning the quality of the images that we offer to God. We must acknowledge that both the artist and the viewer have the ability and the duty to raise the quality of sacred art. Both must accept this responsibility, and to know that if they have a duty to please God, then God will give them the ability to do so. And this must be our only goal.

This is the first in a series of articles in which I will discuss sacred art criticism. Sometimes I will stress theory, sometimes I will analyze specific works of art, and sometimes I will compare two or more works and explain why one is good and why one is bad. I am also open to feedback, and will respond to readers’ comments and questions.