The Rising Stock of Visual Exegesis

Byzantine Job manuscript, c. 1200

Theological interpretation (an old concern 'round these parts) is here to stay not because it is new, but because it is normal.  One of the testimonies to its normality is the abundant evidence for the method in art history.  A hot-headed art historian might even go so far to say that theological interpretation of the Bible is primarily a visual phenomenon, in the sense that it constitutes the earliest form of Christian art, and that art is a remarkably more immediate and effective way of "spiritually" reading the Bible.  Consider, for example, Jesus appearing to Job on the right.

Herman's visual typology

This is less known than it should be, but one sees the marks of a rising academic stock worth investing in now.  An intriguing session at the Society of Biblical Literature in Chicago this year thoroughly scratched the surface of this enormous topic.  There, one contributor wisely suggested that "visual criticism" should be added to the more familiar repertoire of redaction, comparative, or canonic criticism of the Bible.  Though some scholars consider this kind of thing "Bible criticism on holiday," such scholars themselves seem to have been on holiday, failing to notice that the De Gruyter's Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception includes a visual arts section (to which I've contributed), and Blackwell's "through the centuries" commentary series is incorporating visual art as well, not to mention a growing number of studies, and an Emory University postdoc to boot.  So let me throw down here:  Criticize historical criticism all you want, but if your interpretive method still unthinkingly limits itself to text, you're still beholden to the historical critical paradigm.

There is little discussion of visual exegesis in evangelical circles, despite the exciting talk surrounding theological interpretation (so well introduced by Dan Treier).  However, one could suggest that the phenomenon first happened visually in the evangelical arena as well, as evidenced by Bruce Herman's typological paintings made in collaboration with the Old Testament scholar Gordon Hugenberger, on offer long before theological interpretation caught on more widely.

All this is by way of bringing up the current issue of Comment, edited by Peter Leithart (who has written in this area himself).  Therein your humble scribe has penned an introductory article to the phenomenon of visual exegesis, concluding with a meditation on what is probably the most interesting Byzantine fresco I've ever seen.  To poke fun at the Anchor Bible commentary series (that bastion of historical criticism), the article is entitled "Anchors Aweigh!  The Neglected Art of Theological Interpretation."  If that's not enough of a motivation to purchase the issue, consider the lineup of contributors, including Marilynne Robinson, my colleague Lynn Cohick, Matthew Lee Anderson, Dan Siedell, Mako Fujimura, and other worthies.  It's more like a book than a magazine actually, and definitely worth ordering (but I'm biased).

update: I've put up the full article at academia.edu

Ut Pictura Poesis

I've got an essay on the poetry of T.S. Eliot as it relates to the art of Philip Guston and Bruce Herman in this gorgeous (if I may say so) publication available for purchase here. The exhibition will be making its rounds at Yale, Gordon, Duke, Baylor, and will be in Wheaton as well.   It's easy to write about work when it is this good!

Well, easier. 

The Cult of Art's Last Stand

Jacques Barzun's death brought to mind his Mellon Lectures, The Use and Abuse of Art.  There he explains that art cannot function as religion.  Art is unable “to reach the divine center from which redemption comes, and is punished for its presumption… Art cannot be ‘a way of life’ because… it lacks a theology or even a popular mythology of its own; it has no bible, no ritual, and no sanctions for behavior. We are called to enjoy but we are not enjoined.”  Indeed, a huge swath of art since 1960 might be explained as the relentless insistence that art cannot save. 
 


Strangely enough, there might be one place that didn't get the message - a place where art continues to perform, or at least approximate the pseudo-religious function assigned to it by Romanticism.  An essay by Roger Lundin written nearly thirty years ago explains that the evangelical attitude to the arts is “the product of a union of specifically American attitudes toward social tradition, romantic aesthetic notions, and fundamentalist view of culture."  Hence the curious correspondence between evangelicals and Romantic notions of artistic creation:

Because of its skepticism about the relevance of history and the historical process, because of its desire to assign to art a special separate status, and because of its sense of alienation about both unadorned nature and mass culture, romantic theory has offered an appealing sight to those of us whose aesthetic lenses have been ground, whether we appreciate it or not, in the shop of American fundamentalism (“Offspring of an Odd Union: Evangelical Attitudes Towards the Arts,” in Fundamentalism and Modern America, p. 138).

Perhaps this is why holy hipsters, or "Christian creatives," have arisen as a separate ecclesial class, even starting their own churches (or thinking they can save the ones in which they remain).  I like to think that at the evangelical art department where I teach we avoid this particular pitfall, but just to be sure, here's an idea for the next Christian art conference:  A series of dazzling speakers telling us not what art can do... but what it can't.