Between Faith and Art

7/30/2019 Between Faith and Art

1/7

The Resurrection: LinkBetween Faith and Art

Linda Marie Delloff

Saddle River, New Jersey

I spend essentially allofmy work time (and

much of my other time as well) in the self-

conscious use of words: writing them,

speaking them, analyzing them. I make my

living with words and, to a great extent, I

live through words. Yet what I will use

words to discuss here is first, that we are all

too dependent on words, especially in the

church. Second, I will use words to talk

about another phenomenonone that does

not necessarily use words: the creation andunderstanding of images.

This is one of the great ironies of the

human conditionthat in many ways, our

methods of communication are self-lim

ited. That is, we need, or think we need, one

method of communication to 'explain'

another. Yet that limitation is also illustra

tive of the promise and potential of the

human condition: for, in fact, our variousmeans of communication can be used to

more difficult to facilitate). But we ofte

take negative advantage ofthe relationshi

between words and other forms of commu

nicationin fact, using words almost as

crutch to 'explain' other forms of commu

nication when they do not need any suc

explanation.

I am first going to discuss image

generally, then the resurrection specificall

and its depiction in images. There ar

actually many types of images. In somways they are all related to one other, and

otherways some ofthem are near-opposit

of one another. All uses of the word "im

age" derive from the same Latin roo

imagoas do some other very importan

and related words such as imagination

imaginable, imaginative, and imaginary.

In one definition, an image is describe

as "an exact likeness" or "a tangible ovisible representation." In contrast, anoth


2/7

The Resurrection: Link Between Faith and Art

93

photograph; or it can be the least exacta

merely suggestive representation.

What kind of images constitute thepresent topic? For the most part, the second

kind: ideas, concepts, impressions, sugges

tions. These we can call connotative im

agesas opposed to the denotative images

to be seen in a mirror, or a snapshot. Con

notative images are appropriate to art be

cause art is not an exact representation of

anythingeven when it is representational.

This is most obviously true in art forms

that do not use visual images, i.e., how

could music produce an exact image of "La

Mer" (Debussy) or the "Fountains of Rome"

(Respighi) or the "Mysterious Mountain"

ofAlan Hovhaness? It is less clear with arts

of the word, though more so with poetry

than with fiction. For poetry creates images

not only through words but, in a way, throughthe elimination of words, the distillation of

meaning into few words. That is, it is

generally purposeful in using fewer words

than does literature to convey an idea; in

deed, it uses words to stand for other words

or groups of words, as well as for ideas.

So, one reason art uses connotative

images is because it is not the thing it

represents. And because it wants to maintain a certain distance from the thing it

represents so that we are sure it is art and not

that thing (though some contemporary art

ists play games with these ideas, creating art

that is ' the thing itselfand challenging us to

understand why it is art).

But why have art at all? Why not just

represent things or ideas in specific, deno

tative waysin precise words, or in some

mathematical formula? The answer seems

Actually, visual images and music may

even have pre-dated language. Drawings

appearing on pre-historic cave walls, andmusical instruments found among other

exceedingly ancient pre-historic artefacts,

raise this possibility.

Some scientists and psychologists posit

that images might present themselves to an

infant's mind before the understanding and

learning of language. Of course we cannot

know this, at least as things now stand,

because, in another of those ironies of the

human condition, infants do not have lan

guage to tell us aboutany images they might

have. Norcould they understand our posing

such a question tp them in any form other

than language. In fact, once infants have

begun to learn language, and are strongly

encouraged in its use, they may begin to

lose the capacity to think in images, thuslimiting their (our) ways of understanding

the world once they (we) become adults. (It

would be interesting to consider to what

degree an artist's images might in some

waybe 'memories,' but that is another topic.)

In this regard, it is truly strange that the

Protestant church has traditionally been so

resistant to artistic imagesand so dependent

on the specificity of words. It is strangebecause the very act of religious faith is to

a large extent a connotative actat least

more so than it is a denotative one. The

majority of human beings who claim to

"have faith" did not come to faith through

logic or reasoned argument. They have not

based their decision to believe on a series of

demonstrated facts. Often they have faith

despite the available facts, not because of

them. They may make a 'wager of faith' or


3/7


94

church has never clasped art in any such

embrace.To summarize, I have suggested that

the most basic human experiences are not

logical, verbal ones, but more likely non-

logical, non-definable, non-verbal, emo

tional ones. And that is what many images

are as well, at least the connotative ones we

are speaking about.

Now, ifan imageeven a 'representa

tional' imageis not exact, but is connotative andsuggestive, how are we supposed to

know 'what it means'? In fact, who gives

'meaning' to the image? The very fact that

we so often ask that question, especially of

art, i.e. "What does it mean?" suggests

again how much we are dependent on lan

guage and how far away we have moved

from other valid and vital means of commu

nicationcommunication through feeling,through look, through touch, for example.

At any rate, a work ofart may, in fac

not have a specific 'meaning.' Butevenon

that does still communicates in images, analways loses a bit of meaning when 'ex

plained' in denotative words, just as doe

one language when translated into anothe

no matter how excellent the translation.

Thus, when we ask "who creates th

meaning of an image," and hence of a

artwork, we are asking a complicatedque

tion. Certainly the artist 'creates' a mean

ing. But in a way, that is like the clich

question of the tree falling in the fores

Does it make a crashing sound ifno one

there to hear it? Similarly, does an artwor

have as muchor, for that matter, any

'meaning' ifno one besides its creator eve

sees or hears it? For we have already sai

that art is a means of communication.

One might cite the stereotype of threclusive artist who paints or compose

"only forhimself," supposedly. But I wou

hesitate to make such a statement categor

cally. I think such recluses, like othe

artists, often create for someone or some

thing beyond themselves, even if that per

son or thing, that object, is itself one of th

imagination. The very phrase "expressin

oneself implies an object, a relationshipThus, an artist could create for anothe

human being or beings whom she knows

for a desired but unattainable human bein

like Dante's Beatrice; for an imaginar

being. Or for God. The fact that the arti

never takes the next step of communica

tionthat is, presenting the work ofart t

anyonedoes not mean that the act of cre

tion was not communicative. To set it dow

on staffpaper or canvas made it commun


4/7


95

cated' or 'informed* without any personal

effort. Thus, the answer to the question of

who creates meanings for images is a dualanswer: both shaper and receiver create

meanings. Meanings becomericheras they

are shared and enhanced by interpretation.

This is certainly not to say that there is

no such phenomenon as 'lasting meaning.'

Of course there isand in fact, I am one

who would say that the images in a painting

that spends its life facing a wall still have

meaning. But they have infinitely more

meaning once they become shared with

others.

If one stops to think about it, history

itself is the cumulative, tacit decision by

succeeding generations to agree to accept a

certain degree of received meaning from

previous generationsinstead of recreat

ing it for themselves. What human beingscannot resist doing is adding layers to those

inherited meanings; that is a basic aspect of

human nature. For the most part, that addi

tion is a constructive process, though often

not entirelyand sometimes, quite the

opposite.

Thus, we have said that art is commu

nicative, and that it uses images of one sort

or another to convey meaning. It is helpful,though not conclusive, to take the examina

tion one step further and to ask: what comes

first, an idea, or an image? an idea of some

thing, or an image that one 'turns into' an

ideaat whatever level of understanding

one's age and circumstances may allow?

This question is surely as difficult to

answer as the one about infants havingimages. On the one hand, can one 'have an

idea' without expressing it in some kind

a thunderstorm, or loud crashes of cymbals

(no pun intended) or two fields of color

colliding violently with each other.Actually, we do not need to worry too

much about answering this 'chicken and

egg' question concerning ideas and images.

But we should not ignore it. At the very

least, turning it over in our minds ought to

awaken us to the various possibilities and

make us realize that there are processes

contributing to the creative act; processes

that don't just start when the painter puts

brush to canvas, or the poet puts pen to

paper, or Paul Manz sits down at the key

board. These are usually the last steps in a

long creative process. At the same time, we

cannot hope or expect to know exactly

'where' (that is, in the human mind? the

soul? the heart? the spirit?) the ideas,

images, or processes originate.How might webest 'use' images? How

can those of us who contemplate images

created by others appropriate or understand

them, especially if this process does not

seem to come naturally,as many people say

is the case for them? I noted that art is

communicative, and communication is

definitionally a two-way street. Consider

translation again as a model. If one wants tolearn a new language, one would have a

difficult time starting by trying to read an

entire book in that new language (though

some people have actually taught them

selves languages in this way). Instead, one

would work gradually and progressively at

translation, with units of that language

some of them structural or grammatical,and some of them units of meaning.

In the same way images are units of


5/7


96

in French without previously knowing that

language. Why should we expect visual or

musical art to be any easier, to be instantlyaccessible? But many people give up if they

do not understand a work of art immedi

ately, in ways they would never give up

attempting to master some other new skill

or language. (Of course there are many

people, especially Americans, who are just

as lazy about learning foreign languages.)

People say, "I want a picture, not an

image. I want words with my music. I want

art to look like something."

Well, it does actually. It looks the way

human beings feel.

Human beings need images. Images

are their natural languageone they don't

have to be taught, though they do not realize

that. And they resist it because ambiguity

can provoke anxiety.Can any idea be more ambiguous than

that of the resurrection? Or what do we

mean by "an image of the resurrection"?

Does it mean a portrayal of some sort of

ghostly spirit (what Joe Sittler used to call,

among other things, a gaseous presence)

rising from the body of Jesus Christ and

ascending toward heaven? Or does it mean

depictions of an empty tomb with the restleft up to the imagination? Or can it be

represented by ascending scales and in

creasing volume in a musical composition,

or a statue with arms upraised to heaven?

Well, some of those mightwok, especially

as denotative images. But they run the risk

of being so specific (not to mention cliched)

that they cease to function as images.

What 'works' as an artistic image of

the resurrection is something that inspires

rendering a complicated concept. Note

said simplistic, not simple. Resurrection i

both a simple and a complex concept, butis in no way simplistic.

Human beings

need imag-

es. Images are their

natural languageonethey don't have to be

taught, though they do

not realize that.

Yet inneither case is it ' specific. ' Thu

it could only be represented in an image

a connotative image. It is not specific, no

is it something of which human beings hav

an idea based on personal experience. Th

is also why it is at once so difficult and s

exciting for artists to create images of thresurrection. They must use their imagina

tions to their fullest extent, perhaps more

than in conveying some other religious idea

Consider the idea of creation, for ex

ample, or of forgiveness. All of us hav

some experience of those realities in ou

own limited human world. We all know

what it is to create something, whether garden, a cake, a model airplane, or a Chr

mas wreath And I hope we have a


6/7


97

How do we image such a phenomenal,

tupendous idea? Jesus Christ, crucified

nd died, IS NOT IN THE TOMB. "He isnot here; for he has risen, as he said." What

does that mean? And how could an artist

possibly create an image to convey what it

might mean?

A real work of art, whose image or

mages somehow tell the truth about their

ubject matter, will probably be more sug

estive than specific or informational. It

will be that way because that is what most

ssential truths of life are: more suggestive

han specific. Otherwise we would not

pend our entire lives searching out those

ruths. The concept of the resurrection is

uggestive, provocative, non-demonstrable;

omething that leaves us with more ques

ions than answers. The idea of the resur

ection fills us with profound, deep, and, forme at least, non-specific and extremely

omplicated emotions. Thus I do not want

t represented in images that areotherwise.

Above all, though, I do want it repre

ented. That is, I want it, to paraphrase

Luther, "spoken" but also "sung, painted,

and played." I also want it molded, sculpted,

danced. The resurrection, as one of the

most basic ideas ofthe Christian faith, mustbe communicated as faith is: through feel

ngs and imagination.

Along these lines, I will make a sugges

ion about using images. A way in which

we can enrich our faith through understand

ng other "languages"all sorts of lan

guages, not just other tongues.

Sometime soon when you are at prayer,

ry to pray in images. I do not mean first to

onceive an idea in words and then con

"say" their names, even silently, but instead

conjure up the image of each one's face and

"feel" how grateful you are, instead of sayingso.

Or if you feel joy about something, and

you want to thank God for that joy, try to put

the joy itself into an image, an image of

something that would give you great joy. It

might perhaps be a "sound" image rather

than a visual one; for me, one such is the

sound of a rushing mountain stream or

waterfall. Let me emphasize, I am not

talking about giving thanks to God for a

waterfall, and accompanying that thanks

with an image ofa waterfall. I am talking

about putting your thanks into an image

instead of into words. Your thanks become

the waterfall, though that for which you are

thanking God may have nothing to do with

waterfalls. It may be recovering from anillness, for example, or something as

"commonplace" as having enough food to

eat.

The resurrection is as far from com

monplace experience as it is possible to be.

But however one understands the resurrec

tionliterally, symbolically, something in

betweenone cannot be a Christian with

out taking account ofit. It is a basic elementof faith. We have said that faith itselfis not

primarily logical. And no oneeven one

who believes in a literal resurrectionwould

say that it was a "logical" event. What more

perfect example, therefore, to use as an

illustration ofthe vital link between religion

and art, between faith and the imagination?


7/7

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use

according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as

otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the

copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,

reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a

violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission

from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal

typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,

for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.

Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific

work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered

by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the

copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,

or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS

collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association

(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American

Theological Library Association.

Documents

Between Faith and Art