Religion and the Creative Drive in Art
Recently, I was doing some research on Chartres Cathedral and came across a thought-provoking quote by Ingmar Bergman, one of the most distinguished film directors of the twentieth century (and a personal fave; his The Seventh Seal is marvelously haunting). In this piece, Bergman argues that art lost something critical when the maker’s motivations were no longer spiritually motivated. He explains:
“There is an old story of how the cathedral of Chartres was struck by lightning and burned to the ground. Then thousands of people came from all points of the compass, like a giant procession of ants, and together they began to rebuild the cathedral on its old site. They worked until the building was completed–master builders, artists, laborers, clowns, noblemen, priests, burghers. But they all remained anonymous, and no one knows to this day who built the cathedral of Chartres.
“Regardless of my own beliefs and my own doubts, which are unimportant in this connection, it is my opinion that art lost its basic creative drive the moment it was separated from worship. It severed an umbilical cord and now lives its own sterile life, generating and degenerating itself. In former days the artist remained unknown and his work was to the glory of God. He lived and died without being more or less important than other artisans; ‘eternal values,’ ‘immortality’ and ‘masterpiece’ were terms not applicable in his case. The ability to create was a gift. In such a world flourished invulnerable assurance and natural humility.
“Today the individual has become the highest form and the greatest bane of artistic creation. The smallest wound or pain of the ego is examined under a microscope as if it were of eternal importance. The artist considers his isolation, his subjectivity, his individualism almost holy. Thus we finally gather in one large pen, where we stand and bleat about our loneliness without listening to each other and without realizing that we are smothering each other to death. The individualists stare into each other’s eyes and yet deny the existence of each other. We walk in circles, so limited by our own anxieties that we can no longer distinguish between true and false, between the gangster’s whim and the purest idea.”
Given that I’m a scholar of the modern period with a definite postmodern bent, I’ve been asking myself 1) if I agree with Bergman, and 2) if I do, whether or I should feel unsettled about investing my time and energies into studying and promoting these narcissists (I’m formulating a title for a new course. Maybe “Narcissism and Modernism in the Visual Arts: From Courbet to Koons”? It would be a dreadful class to teach–or take). I’ve been mulling over Bergman’s statement for several days now and think I want to argue with him a bit. But I thought I’d put this out there as a conversation topic and see what you think first.
[By the way, it is so good to hear from present and former students and from other lovers of art history! Please keep sharing your insights and experiences, and please feel free to suggest future topics. I don't want to be one of those formidable salonnières 
]
Conversation Topic: Do you think that “art lost its basic creative drive the moment it was separated from worship”?
6 comments
First of all, I thought that was a great quote. As for how valid I find it, I think I agree with the major ideas expressed therein.
I don’t know if art lost its basic creative drive being separated from worship, religon, and spirituality–I think the creative drive has been in man since the beginning of time and will continue on inside of us for the rest of time–but I think that the separation from worship caused art to lose a major sense of purpose and hope.
Centuries ago, art was seen as a powerful tool in communing with deity, and even was considered deity at times. Without that purpose, much of today’s art seems hollow and somehow unfulfilling when viewed.
Without striving for the divine, artists have settled for the mundane in subject, purpose, and motivation.
I have been pondering this quote for a week. I don’t feel that the artistic drive is necessarily religious, but at the same time, I understand Bergman’s concern. A comment Campbell made during our grad seminar intrigued me. He said something to the effect that he had little respect for artists who were intentionally irreverent in their works. I think that reverence is what is missing from some of the more recent art; not just a religious reverence but a respect of fellow human beings and their beliefs (religious or otherwise).
Granted individuals will have varying ideas of what is appropriate or not, and art is seen by many as a way of pushing the limits, so there can be almost no agreement on what is acceptable, but I would argue that sometimes the very “edginess” of art hurts its causes more than helping.
There is a great line in Madame Bovary where Flaubert writes, “we should not touch our idols, the gilt comes off on our hands.” He is making the statement, even if in a somewhat sarcastic way, that we should not criticize those we love or we will increasingly see their flaws and not the “glittering” qualities that attracted us to them in the first place. The real point is that we attach more value and meaning to those things and people we hold in esteem. Today it seems that, for some artists, neither art itself, nor religion, nor any other type of belief, or even human emotion are treated with any respect or reverence (this is not true of all, but of some). I think that when we lost that basic reverence for humanity we lost sight of the purpose of art.
As much as I love well-done and expressive religious art, I am always equally moved by art that is about personal wounds — regardless of any narcissism on the creator’s half. I feel like I can’t divorce the individual suffering of mankind (the artist) from religion, indeed, religion is traditionally all about suffering. If the artist thought of him/herself and their own pain as a replacement for the old religions or viewed themselves as a new Christ-figure, it doesn’t bother me as long as the art still speaks of something that is true.
In viewing creations of the self-obsessed, I think that if we belive in our gospel theology that we have to strive to know others as the highest form of selflessness, then we have to look at their expressions of pain and acknowledge their validity. Furthermore, such artworks can teach us compassion for ourselves and for others.
I loved that part in the quote about individualists looking into each other’s eyes and denying each other’s existence — it’s true for me on a daily level, sometimes. We’re all self-obsessed and don’t fully comprehend one another. We don’t even fully comprehend ourselves. Every artist creates images based on their experience of the world. Even if the artist is a narcissist, that doesn’t make the art itself selfish, or of less worth than an anonymous devotional image that could very well have been made by an insincere worshipper.
I do agree, though, that the journey towards knowing ourselves and others (and thereby knowing God) is the purpose of our existence, and I think that we can find at least the traces of that journey in every work of art. I really want to watch The Seventh Seal, now!
I find this topic fascinating and wish that I had more time to devote ro really contemplating it and developing a solid response. However, it does touch on some issues that I have been seriously contemplating for some time now. I would have to say from the outset that I think most art is still a form of worship. This worship is no longer generally focused on a known god or focused on an organized religion, but there still seems to be a deep sense of devotion to the at least the idea or spiritual essence behind the work. On occasion, the worship does become an act of hedonsim, focused only on the self.
I find that the contemporary art that I tend to dislike most is hedonistic or shallow. I guess I would argue that the best art is still an act of worship, it just is not devotional in the traditional sense, nor do I think our current political and economic system allow for truly anonymous art on a large scale in the public sector.
I think that Berger makes an interesting point about individualism, but not its logical conclusion. Just because art is inspired by the individual’s plight, joy, or experience does not mean that the art is only applicable to him. I believe that art loses its meaning not when it is separated from worship, but when it is severed from communication and humanity.
Art can still strive to relay universal or individual truths that many others can relate to. Powerful meaning and conviction can be relayed through any attempt on the artist’s part to connect with their audience and convey any desired principle- whether this be through subject matter, formal elements, or even to assert that art is nothing; it still requires a viewer and communication to make the artwork valid. I understand that this point is arguable from a high modernist position, but that’s what I personally think.
This is what allows viewers in the sheep’s pen that Bergeson references to listen to one another. To recognize that we are unique individuals, and yet meet anothers gaze and acknowledge their existence in this open discourse.
I’m inclined to agree with Kalisha in that art ceases to be meaningful when it severs connection with humanity. At first I wanted to disagree simply because I find many artists to be quite meaningful even when they are resorting to more mechanical forms of expression (i.e. the Pop artists). The visceral separation from humanity here, I think, is not a complete separation because the majority of artists still feel a drive to connect with and express their own humanity, and thus, the apparent separation from humanity only becomes another commentary of humanity, rendering any actual separation null and void.
I have to disagree with Mr. Bergman when he says that religion is the only thing that drives meaningful art. People can find meaning in many things, and I think any of those things, even if they seem trivial on the surface (such as personal identity and pride), can legitimately inspire people to create.
Leave a Comment