Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

God and art

By Peter Sellick - posted Thursday, 12 September 2013


Here is the rub, since abstract art (from what is it abstracted?) refers to no objective reality and, let us be honest, to no ideal it relies entirely on the subjectivity of the viewer. Thus it panders to the disconnection of the self from the real, an aspect of the oscillatory character of the modern self. (are we bodies or minds?)

Abstraction does not fit either the category of idealist or realist since it represents neither. If anything, it may be seen as realist in that it is itself a material object. Abstraction is an object to itself; it is entirely without external reference.

These examples from the visual arts illustrate the quandary of our time. There is nothing in our minds that filiates the ideal and the real and we oscillate between the two.

Advertisement

It was the genius of Israel that it held the ideal and the real together; the real being the historical events it experienced and the ideal the meaning of those events. This meant that Scripture could not wander off into a fantasy world that was disconnected from the real and the real could not be celebrated at the expense of the ideal as is the case in our time with scientific or economic rationalism.

Neither Tolkien nor Dawkins would have been accepted as Scripture. Rather, Israel meditated upon its history and came up with more than a list of times and places, the ultimate reduction of history to the real. History became legend that carried an understanding of the world. Such an understanding counted as an experience of God.

The New Testament follows this ethos most notably in the incarnation. For in the incarnation the Word (idea) becomes flesh (real thing). The council of Chalcedon insisted that Christ had two natures, the divine and the human (ideal and real).

The elements of the Mass are at once bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ. The central event of Christianity is the death and resurrection of Christ.

The death, an historical point in time is the real and the resurrection is the ideal. These are not separate events; the resurrection is the truth of what is hidden in the crucifixion. One cannot exist without the other.

The filiation of the ideal and the real results in theological language; the only language that is capable of truth since truth exists only when the ideal and the real are integrated.

Advertisement

The dichotomy of the real and the ideal coincides with the creedal language of the visible and the invisible. In a time dominated by the insistence of the real above the ideal, fostered by the success of natural science, the danger to us is blindness. We refuse to countenance the invisible and the world becomes a world of surfaces, as wanting of ideas as an abstract or photorealist painting.

This is how we can give credence to a scientism that reduces the world to causation.

It is significant that biblical literalism has loomed so large in our time. This movement is essentially a result of a realist approach to Scripture, i.e. that all of the events described therein actually happened. However, writers of the New Testament were already immersed in the process of integrating the real and the ideal by elaborating the meaning of the historical. Thus biblical literalism is the product of our modern failure to hold the visible and the invisible together.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All

Peter Sellick is indebted to Philip Blond and his article "Perception: from modern painting to the vision of Christ" in Radical Orthodoxy ed. John Milbank, Catherine Pickstock and Graham Ward and to conversations with the Revd. Bob Booth, priest and painter.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

32 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Peter Sellick an Anglican deacon working in Perth with a background in the biological sciences.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Peter Sellick

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Peter Sellick
Article Tools
Comment 32 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy