This page is an archive from the previous version of The Row Boat, which is why it doesn't look and work the same as the current version. However, these archives are fully functional and integrated with the new system.

Why does this site permit advertising?
Click here to discuss.

The Row Boat

"Had we but world enough, and time..." *

"A Theology of Art"

11/14/2006 19:59:07

I have finally come along to reading Walter Banjamin's notes "for the formulation of revolutionary demands in the politics of art": the famous essay "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction." Fundamentally he charts the disenchantment of the work of art, from aura and ritual object to art for its own sake. And then in a useful twist of phrase he describes it this way: "art reacted with the doctrine of l'art pour l'art, that is, with a theology of art."

The meaning is that, when the object no longer has a ritual use other than to be looked at ("captions become obligatory"), its meaning must be imagined in an especially speculative way, by means of self-alienation from both the artist and the audience. Benjamin follows here Feuerbach's identification of theology as the self-alienation of human love.

To take these terms, I have suggested with the idea of "aesthetic theology" that, as a part of the same process, we might react to the secularization of religion with an aesthetics of theology. Again, it is a process of self-alienation in which theology becomes an abstracted medium: a language for talking about things, apart from the things themselves. This, indeed, is its aesthetic quality, for by setting apart it exhalts. It differs, however, from traditional theology because it is a self-conscious performance, one that is aware of its reasons and limitations.

I differ from Benjamin in at least one important way. He begins his discussion with remarks about "authenticity." His authenticity requires a unique original, which in turn experiences a history over time. I would suggest instead that the performance, like the mechanical work of art, reinvents authenticity in its own image. As a result, aesthetic theology does not need to justify itself for a not-entirely-faithful appropriation of traditional theology, for it recognizes both as performance ultimately, and the aesthetic one only being a self-aware performance. The whole question of authenticity is a moot point.

Here are some of my past articles on aesthetic theology:

Reliquary Theology

Aesthetic Insight

Aesthetic Terms

The Near and Faraway

Aesthetic or Anesthetic

Hagiography

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

re: - 11/15/2006 01:24:59
Posted by BT

...[Aesthetic theology] differs, however, from traditional theology because it is a self-conscious performance, one that is aware of its reasons and limitations.

I think I might finally understand why I can't conceive of aesthetic theology as you describe it, since for me traditional theology, at its best, is already aware of its reasons and limitations, which is probably why for me it's aesthetic theology that can't but ultimately be a moot issue? I guess for me "performance" is just a given when it comes to any expression whatsoever; it's how one works-through the limits of representation (either despite them, under some sort of truce, or just naively) that matters most, which is probably why I've reacted to the gesture of highlighting the aesthetic dimension as just a truism, since any act of highlighting can't avoid the performance issues either, ultimately. The regress of theorization has to stop at some point, if only for pragmatic reasons, so it seems much easier and saner to me to just think of theology as it stands (at least its best enactments, otherwise just potentially) to already include the acknowledgment. Since *any* expression whatsoever can't but be a performance, or have an aesthetic component, no matter how true or false or helpful or misleading the expression, the claims of aesthetic theology per se could only be that much *more* removed from any truth-content, since the content/expression gap or delay is operational from the get-go, not at all dependent on recognition or theorization to function.

It's kind of like the story about Karl Barth quoting the children's song ("Jesus loves me, this I know...") when asked to summarize all his writings: it seems to me that the acknowledgment of performance or humor or the aesthetic is already self-consciously present, to *some* degree, in the best "traditional" theologies, whether theorized explicitly or not. Which is what makes me suspicious of the claims for a new "performative" dimension, since in the worthwhile stuff it can't but *already* be there.

Another way to ask my question might be: what makes "aesthetic theology" necessary (or unavoidable) that hasn't already made "traditional" theology (in its best sense) necessary (or unavoidable)? That is, what could possibly be the lived value of any theology that didn't take authenticity or truth seriously, however performance-savvy it was?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

whether to speak - 11/15/2006 12:42:25
Posted by nathan

I really appreciate your comments on this! One thing that comes to mind, for instance, is the possibility that theology's goal is its own end. Makes me think of Karl Barth too: the passage in Thomas Merton's Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander called "Barth's Dream." Barth had a dream about Mozart and felt that despite all of his writings it would only be the little playful Mozart in him that would be his salvation. To take this further, there is an element in all theology that seeks to be its own end, that seeks the moment in which theology is no longer necessary. In this paper I explore such a possibility with Athanasius of Alexandria through his relationship with the desert ascetics.

Furthermore I sympathize very much with the possibility that maybe there is no sense talking about these things. I have certain convictions, for instance the general equivalence of religions, that I generally do not both trying to explain because I have found that doing so is impossible. So I play the Catholic party line instead, though I play it down. Aesthetic theology is an attempt to break through this, to say what I suspect actually cannot be said. The need for it comes, though, when theology feels destructive in world events and in myself: when it becomes necessary to make the boundaries of theology more stated, more carefully agreed upon. I started developing the idea as a suggestion that I did not like, something that I even wanted to define my own faith against, but I ended up becoming more and more an aesthetic theologian and believer.

As for the truth value of aesthetic theology, that is an open question for me. I guess built into the aesthetic qualification is respect for truth, and also the possibility that (scientific) truth is in some respects irrelevant. It helps set theology in an entirely separate universe when needed. Like it allows you to say that scientifically the world was made probably over lots of time but theologically it was made in three days. Now I know, Ben, that you would say this anyway, but lots of Christian theologians have a lot of trouble with it. I am still trying to understand what truth here means. I definitely want to think in terms other than authenticity. Because an aesthetic axiom is the following mantric justification by faith: "you are authentic, you are authentic."

Here is an example of what aesthetic theology can do and be. It is a poem called "Wichita Vortex Sutra" by Allen Ginsberg. He uses all sorts of great theological personalities and calls on them to end the madness of war. But I doubt the normal adherents to these traditions would call him one of them. I would, aesthetically.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

re: - 11/15/2006 19:27:53
Posted by BT

Yes, I think it ultimately comes down to your comment's title. For me the problem is that anything like the aesthetic theology you're describing can't but run into the very same problems you find with "traditional" theology, the moment "aesthetic theology" gets formalized into expression, however self-aware or open-ended the attempt is. Which is why I guess I feel there's already more room for that within "traditional" theology than you may think there is (?), although maybe it's because I'm thinking of theology itself and its built-in limits a little differently? In other words, I don't have much hope for theology as a project anyway -- as anything more than a temporary scaffolding, or at best creating systems of coherent symbolizations -- which is likely why any additional, "qualifying" theology just seems *doubly* hopeless to me. But I should read the paper you linked to and think it over more. ...I agree with what must be your intension behind all the aesth. theology stuff, I guess just not with what I feel the results would be bound to become as a formalized approach, etc. But ultimately it just comes down to one's temperament; I gravitate more toward my own wacky variant of the "perennial philosophy" stuff, at least as far as antidotes to the more harmful directions "traditional" theology can sometimes go in are concerned. In that sense I feel that theologies that vary widely on the surface might sometimes be equally "true" as symbolizations that lead to certain experiential results (in a mystical or devotional sense), even if by definition there's no way to make that sort of truth-claim scientifically.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

re: - 11/15/2006 20:47:04
Posted by nathan

Well let me say I symapthize with your remarks here a lot. And I agree with them. I guess aesthetic theology is supposed to be more an expressive effort than a formalizing one. I know I try to formalize it some - that's in my nature and training. Another thing is that of course there is nothing other than "traditional" theology once a thing is said: aesthetic theology is still theology! (Though some might claim it is not.) Taking a stance outside of other theologies is put a temporary one, which in turn is enveloped by theology as a whole.

I forget if I mentioned this but I think this project bears some relation to what theology might look like according to the secularized theology of Harvey Cox, who is not very popular these days. In any event, the attempt is to make a secularized and artistic theology.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Printer-friendly version

The Row Boat basks under a liberating Creative Commons license