What Ever Happened to Chartres? Neil Patterson Originally published in Issue IX of Vulgata, December, 2002.

"Even today, in this age of iron or, let us say, white metal, the Temple of Solomon and the Cathedral of Chartres have not exhausted all the possibilities of getting back to God. There is still something to be garnered from those people with plaster in their hair and fingers full of paint."

    Paul Claudel – Early 20th Century French Poet

If we do not lead the world, then we are either being swept up in it, or are standing outside of it being critics without offering anything.  The Church has the Gospel to offer to the world, and, as Catholics, we know that the Gospel is not only four unchanging books; it is an organic tradition; it is the source of all that we create and our civilization itself.  It is in the image of the Gospel, through the Church, that the world is to be changed into Christendom and fallen man into a royal people.1   Perhaps the disparity between how the Church should relate to the world and how it actually does is nowhere greater than the realm of art

It is very common for Catholics to grumble about the state of liturgical art.  The complaints, and I’ve made a few myself, range from the general to the particular, but I think they all amount to “why can’t we build anything as impressive as Chartres anymore?”  So what happened?  As with many weighty questions, it is necessary to take several steps backward before answering.  I think it would be best to start with a discussion of art in general: why it is important?  What is its relationship to the Church?

What is Art?

I think firstly, art is a distinctly and intensely human activity.  Through art, we are able to be in union with the creative acts of God, not bringing things into being ex nihilo, but rather giving form and meaning to what God has given us.2 This is a profound partnership in which God makes us in his image and likeness and invites us to create with him in a way that no other creature can.

Secondly, art is communication.  This is often said, but seldom understood.  Communication takes many forms, but obviously technical diagrams, car horns or even this article are not works of art.  It can also be seen that the medium of communication does not determine whether or not something is art, since for all the above examples works of art can be thought of in the same media: Rembrandt, Mozart and Shakespeare, respectively.  Therefore, if not the medium or communication, then the content.  Art communicates three things: self, truth and beauty.  While at first glance these may seem lofty but arbitrary, they are actually an inseparable triad.  God is truth and beauty – and so in that sense art is the communication of God.  Beauty must necessarily be combined with truth, since beauty is the visible representation of what is good and true. 3 The artist, therefore, is in union with the Father when he looked upon creation and saw that it was beautiful. 4 Since art appeals necessarily to the senses – with the exception of written art, which rather than being thereby lesser, demonstrates the elevated position of language – it necessarily communicates truth through beauty and communicates it in such a way as to be unique, that is, in such a way as cannot be communicated by other methods.  Therefore, any supposed piece of art which we can describe entirely through inartistic means is not art at all.  The last film I saw that I truly moved me I am still unable to describe in any meaningful way other than, “you just have to see it.”  If this were not the case, no one would bother to visit the Cathedral at Chartres that we hold up as a symbol of past and continuing glory: we would simply read about it.  To complete the triad, art also is a communication of self.  Just as the Father made the world as a communication of himself, so too do humans create their art to express themselves and express God through themselves.  Many secular artists would vehemently disagree that they express the divine, but at some level what any artist seek is to communicate beauty and truth, which is the image of God within themselves.

Does this mean that all art, to be legitimate, must not deal with evil as a subject?  If so, how many works, from Macbeth to the paintings of Hieronymus Bosch, would have to be dismissed as non-art or at best very bad art that has failed in its purpose.  Pius XII warns us that,

“[Some works of art are] accomplices of the lower instincts and passions which overthrow man, luring him from the precepts of his sane thinking and better will….  [Such works] can easily fill halls and coffers, evoke frenzied applause, and assemble in the columns of some newspapers reviews which are too subservient and favourable. But all this has nothing in common with the accomplishment of an ideal duty. It is, in reality, decadence and degradation; above all, it is the refusal to rise to worthy ideals.” 5

John Paul II points out that “the attitude of those who irresponsibly bring about degrading imitative behavior whose harmful effects can be read about each day in the pages of the newspapers cannot be defined as free artistic expression.” 6 I think a lot of films that come out of Hollywood can be put in this category as well as many blasphemous art exhibits and theatre productions designed to be controversial.  However, it is very important to look at the other half of what Pius XII and other popes have been trying to teach us.  Evil is a very important theme in human art, and to remove it would be to remove from art much of its function.  "When the struggle with evil, and even its temporary victory, serves, in relation to the whole, to a deeper understanding of life and its proper ordering, of self-control, of enlightenment and strengthening of judgement and action." 7 Indeed, did not God employ this very principle in writing the Bible.  Most stories in scripture have human evil as one of their primary themes, and yet these stories call us to virtue rather than lead us to vice.

Art and the Church

We Catholics, perhaps more than any other religious group, know the importance of art in worship.  We are not beings of pure spirit and are thus tied to the material world.  Our spirits are tied to our environment and affected by it in the same way that our bodies are effected by cold or heat, pain or pleasure.  This means that art is very important.  A piece of art is an entirely physical object, and yet it can point beyond itself to a spiritual truth in a way that nothing else can.  Duns Scotus, the 14th century theologian, said that “it is impossible for our mind to rise to the imitation and contemplation of the celestial hierarchies unless it relies upon the material guidance that is commensurate to it."  According to Scotus, the material world is necessary to the contemplation of God. We cannot understand God without looking at his creation.  This doesn’t necessarily mean art, but it most certainly includes it.  Remember that art is some of God’s most wonderful creation, which he has chosen to create through us humans.  Abbe Suger, the 11th century monk put it this way:

“When out of my delight in the beauty of the house of God the loveliness of the many-colored stones has called me away from external cares … it seems to me that I see myself dwelling, as it were, in some strange region of the universe which neither exists entirely in the slime of earth nor entirely in the purity of Heaven; and that, by the grace of God, I can be transported from this inferior to the higher world in an analogical manner.”

The Church fought iconoclasm for centuries not only because it is contrary to dogma, but it is also a serious danger to our spiritual lives.  It is interesting to note that Protestants have produced almost no art of note, certainly nothing that has influenced the history of human art as a whole.*   This may sound like an unwarranted blanket statement, but it does seem to be true.  I think it is because of their lack of tradition, their lack of reverence for mystery, and their desire to “worship God in spirit”, which they take to mean “without the body”. 8

It is because of the consequence of iconoclasm that the fathers of the Second Vatican Council declared the “great importance” 9 of the arts and went further to address a letter to the artists of the world in which they declared, “this world in which we live needs beauty in order not to sink into despair.” 10 Indeed the Pope has written that “the Church needs art,” 11 but he goes further and says that not only does the Church need art, but that perhaps art needs the Church.  The statement, by the Pope’s own admission, sounds like a provocation.  However, the Church does not simply leech off of the artistic talent of others, rather she is a source of inspiration and symbolism.  Therefore the Church and artists stand in a reciprocal relationship.  It is of course true that there has been a lot of great art made without directly or consciously drawing on the Church for inspiration, but the fact remains that the Gospel is an “inexhaustible mine”12 of inspiration, whether or not it is tapped.  We also know that all valid artistic inspiration comes on the wings of angels.  Even bad art is Godly insofar as it is good  and true.

A Brief History of Church Art

 The beginning of Church art was very functional in purpose.  It was made to communicate using symbols, often as a form of code. We are all familiar with the “fish” and the “Chi Rho”.  But even in these early days of persecution we can see the start of something which is more than just code, but a new style of art reflecting a new tradition.  After the Edict of Constantine in 313, the Church was allowed to freely develop.  For the first few hundred years, Church art borrowed heavily from the Greco-Roman esthetic tradition.  Indeed, the art of Rome was a worthy tradition to start from, but what Rome didn’t have, since they had not yet developed harmony, was great music.  It was in the fourth century that Christian monks developed Gregorian chanting, which is the first of many instances where the Church made a lasting impact on the history of human art.

As the Middle Ages began, there began to be a strong shift, particularly in all forms of two dimensional art, away from realism and towards forms that were simple, stylized and deeply symbolic.  Figures became tall and thin; many were depicted with their eyes heavenward as if they were not of this world and were waiting to cast off their bodies at a moment’s notice.  It was at this time, too, when the great tradition of Byzantine art was beginning to develop, most especially the icon, which, in the East, has become a kind of sacrament, putting such rich meaning and symbolism often into a very simple image.  Towards the end of the Middle ages and on into the Renaissance, Gothic architecture began to appear, which is considered by many to be the height of Church architecture.

The Renaissance brought the rebirth of the Greco-Roman forms of art.  So, starting with artists like the monk Giotto, artists began to have a new interest in realism and perspective, which they transferred to the medium of painting and other two-dimensional forms in a way that the Romans never did.  Renaissance art was characterized by a feeling of tranquility and order.  Rather than stirring up intense emotion, artists were interested in instilling a sense of relaxation and quiet piety.  I think that this is the first time a significant number of artists who were making Church art were not very faithful.  Some of these secular artists managed to make very good sacred art, but we also begin to see art which supposedly has a religious theme, but which doesn’t seem to in actuality.  Michaelangelo’s David is a prime example of this.

In the sixteenth century, the Protestant Reformation drew every kind of battle line across Europe: political, religious and artistic.  While the faithful kings warred and the theologians pronounced dogma, the artists sought to do their part by reminding Catholics of the beauty and mystery of their tradition.  Since the iconoclastic Protestants were not creating art of their own, this was a natural way for Catholic artists to keep souls in the Church.  They developed the styles of Baroque and latter Mannerism.  Baroque art shared the realism of the Renaissance, but sought to express strong emotions and intense moments.  The Mannerists painted flamboyant colours and sweeping gestures carrying art to new heights of drama not seen before. Caravaggio, El Greco, Bernini and so many other great painters worked in these styles.

What Happened Next?

This takes us to, at a stretch, the end of the eighteenth century.  After that the artistic world moved on to beauty of Neo-Classicism, the delight of Impressionism, the imagination of Romanticism, the dream-like quality of Surrealism and the power of Expressionism.  Where was Rome, forging ahead as the innovator of the art world and the keeper of western artistic tradition?  Where did we loose two hundred years?

It is often said that the Church's current artistic slump happened after, or even as a result of, Vatican II.  However, I think it happened two hundred years ago.  It is not to say that Catholics have produced no art for two hundred years.  Many Catholics today want a return to "traditional" Catholic art, but what does that mean?  But what really is traditional Catholic art?  The history of Catholic art is long and varied.  Although I have my preferences, as we all do, I do not put one period of Church art above another.  It is all awe-inspiring.  It also is all loved by Catholics and secularists alike.  The art that we have been producing in the last two centuries has been, for the most part, imitations of previous styles, especially Baroque and Gothic.  Much of this art does very well as an aide to worship: the statues of Mary in our Churches, the saint cards and our stained glass windows that we all love.  However, viewed as art, it simply doesn't compare with previous centuries, and so, with good reason, it receives no attention from the culture as a whole.

It would have been easy for me in this article to talk about the secularization of our world and blame others for our failure to communicate the Gospel.  However, we cannot simply expect others to accept the Church as the major cultural force it once was without making it that force.  That means that the Church must be on the leading edge of the arts and intellectual life of the world.  What this does not mean is that we must adopt the secular culture, that would be allowing ourselves to be changed by the world.  Neither would that mean being on the leading edge; that would simply mean following whoever was on the leading edge, wherever they may go.  No, if the Church is to be renewed as a cultural force, it must express what is beautiful and true in a completely new way.  What is this new way?  I don't know any more than the Medievals could have predicted the Renaissance, but I'm sure as our past was great, so shall our future be.  I also think that the remembrance of our past, our living tradition, is essential in shaping our future.  The modernist liturgical art (which, incidentally, I don't think should all be painted with the same black brush, but for which I share the general distaste) makes its mistake in forgetting our past.  It also conforms itself to the style of modern secular art, which is a flawed way of going about things.  Note that this is different from the early Christians drawing on the Roman esthetic tradition, since what they did was Christianize Greco-Romism.  I suspect that most modern liturgical art is an attempt to modernize Christianity.  It is our job to Christianize modernism.

I think that that is what one of the fruits of Vatican II will eventually be.  The Council Fathers were trying to let the door open for this kind of renewal to take place.  It hasn't happened yet, but it will.  Based on some quick research, I have found a few examples of new Catholic art which I consider to be very good.  You will notice it is all very different, which tells me that we have not found our style yet, but I think it is only a matter of time before we do.  Remember that nothing is isolated.  Artistic renewal means intellectual renewal moral renewal, political renewal and cultural renewal.  We must bring these about together, not one by one, but to do this we must be active.  We cannot separate ourselves from the world and we cannot return to the past, even a great one.

_______________________________

* I think that Gospel music is the one major exception, here.  Not only is it great music which has influenced many other styles, it is distinctly Protestant and yet loved by all western culture.
1 1 Peter 2:9
2 Letter of His Holiness Pope John Paul II to Artists, 1999.
3  Letter to Artists
4  John Paul II, in his letter to Artists, points out that the Greek word “kalón” used in the Septuagint is best translated “beautiful”.
5  Exhortations of His Holiness, Pius XII to the Representatives of the Cinema World
6 Message of the Holy Father on the 29th World Communications Day, 1995. (JPII)
7 To the Representatives of the Cinema World
8 Philippians 3:3
9 Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes
10 Message to Artists, 8 December 1965
11 Letter to Artists
12 Letter to Artists