The Heroic Generation and Art Criticism's Tower of Babel
Today, Matthew Milliner, an Art History student at Princeton Univ., posted a reflection on Reno's article, which I wrote about yesterday. Milliner begins by recounting the recent art conference, Retracing the Expanded Field, at Princeton's School of Architecture. The conference included art critic legends like Hal Foster, who seem now to be arguing the same thing about the practice of Art Criticism as Reno does about Theology, namely that revolutionary movements in art, Post-modernisms namely, have been great for shaking up the paradigms, but they've done so to the extent that Criticism has yet to find a unified machinery from which to continue to assess art. Like the Heroic Generation, figures like Piet Mondrian and Andre Malraux (to use Milliner's examples), gained enough momentum to attract a following, but failed to provide a stable "baseline" from which others could grow or rebel. Now, many are without enough of a tradition or background to converse gainfully with others in the field, resulting in a kind of Babel experience. Milliner goes on to conclude that as with the supposed break of the Heroic Generation with the 2 centuries of theological neo-scholasticism before them, so the "post-moderns" broke with those before them, like the New Criticism group (Clement Greenberg, et. al.).
After posting on Reno's article yesterday, I began thinking more about the argument he made, that in criticizing the ethos of neo-scholasticism the Heroic Generation (HG) were in fact fatally disrupting the stability of RC theology. The so-called "baseline" deteriorated until at last the students of the HG had failed to develop the requisite tools to dialogue with the very generation of theology that the HG sought to "rebel against". What I want to reevaluate here is this notion that the HG is necessarily or entirely to blame for the atrophy of theological acumen Reno so detests in theological education today. Let me state that I, too, am unhappy with the lack of agility and breadth in the theological academy today. However, I am unconvinced that everyone he lists is culpable, or at least as culpable as he makes them out to be.
Balthasar, for instance, spends a good deal of time relating his own project to the last two centuries preceeding him. His analyses of figures like Bruno and Goethe, for instance, are some of the best in vol 5 of his Glory of the Lord. However, they are not disavowals of traditional catholic theology, but rather affirmations of traditional concepts in RC theology. Ironically, many of the arguments Reno makes against the HG are also arguments Balthasar makes about the orthodox theological generations preceeding him. They hadn't so much lead their students astray, rather they had relinquished the power of theology, whether in losing so much of the brilliance of the Fathers (Denys, Maximus), or in the lack of catholic scope in evaluating the movements of the Rennaissance or Romantic period. Reno calls for a Ressourcement of the Neo-scholastics as a base for theology, but why not go even further with Balthasar, Congar, and de Lubac - the orginal Ressourcement and unconvering the Fathers as a our stable base?
Going back to Milliner's argument, I am worried about his criticism of the post-moderns' rebellion against earlier movements like the New Criticism, which along with Clive Bell, Jerome Stolnitz, and most of the modern art world, elevated the work of art to an untenable status of "purposeless", "useless", and "an end in itself". Milliner's quote of Mondrian and Malruax's deification of art - "it is hallowed by its association with a vague deity known as Art" - only echoes stronger claims once made by Bell and reified (albeit in a more "responsible" academic form) by Stolnitz. Likewise, the French Ressourcement calls our attention to some of the more troubling foundations of modern theology laid by early modern theologians and philosophers. Seen in this light, they serve more as a agents of internal critique and less like Reno portrays them as external innovators and excursionists. In fact, Reno's argument might have fared better considering Rahner alone, as his theology served the purposes of the more liberal and unorthodox forms of theology today than Balthasar's.
Just as Milliner seems to be lamenting the confused state of Art Criticism today and seeks a stable and universal language with which to move the dialogue forward, so too Reno seems to wish for the good ol' days when theologians sat on the stoop and built the great edifice of scholastic theology, brick by brick, all talking the same language. I guess I'm just not very convinced we can or should return to such a tower.
8 comments:
The concept of a 'baseline' theology is indeed a problematic one. The example of Neo-Thomism (it could just as well be Neo-Franciscan) indicates that we are not talking about minimal theologically binding claims, as in the Ecumenical creeds (and for RO other councils; Lateran 4, Constance, Trent, etc.), but we are talking about a particular system that aims to explain all doctrine. This is problematic b/c in terms of the 'weight of authority' I would think that Scripture and creeds (and for some, common liturgy) are what a 'systematic theologian' needs to align herself/himself with. For example, you could (equally) affirm the Creator/creation distinction by either the Neo-thomist 'real distinction' btwn. a creature's being and essence, or you could affirm this by a Scotist acct. of 'contingent being'. Both 'do the job', so on these grounds, I would think the educational issue isn't so much about saying one is a must for everyone, but just that in Christian charity, we ought to try our best to understand the other system and those who follow it and respect them for that. I can't get out of my mind the scene in The Name of the Rose when the Franciscans meet up with the Dominicans--each respecting the other's missio, as it were. But this sort of unity seems to presume a common notion of Christendom, and that there are distinct roles. But I'm getting ahead of myself here, b/c the Dominican/Franciscan difference is not _just_ a matter of speculative accounts, but also practical ways of ordering daily life, and so 'respecting the other order' includes but is not limited to a toleration of another system, but also of another practical life. But these days it seems we have the same practical life (consumers), but diverse masters (e.g Aquinas, Scotus, Barth, etc.), which either is a recipe for feeling the need to polarize the other's 'system' in order to self-identify (just look at all the sloganeering that goes on about Aquinas or Scotus without actually working through a given primary text).
whoops; in the second parenthesis, it shouldn't be RO, but RC.
Scott, You raise some really nice distinctions there, such as how does tradition play a role in the allignment of theology with Scripture, and vice versa - Scripture's role in how we allign to a tradition. I also like your point about the orders' differences yet charity toward eachother.
The funny about Reno's concern about theological education deteriorating in the wake of the Heroic Generation is that he seems to assume theoligcal accumen suffered as a result of the work the HG, rather than assume it was resultant of the actual neo-scholastic edifice itself, or maybe it was a decline in theological interest altogether from outside the church.
Greetings from the tower of Babel Daniel ;) ,and thanks for this engagement. You wrote that I said Hal Foster "seem[s] now to be arguing the same thing about the practice of Art Criticism as Reno does about Theology." I should clarify that Hal is not arguing that, but I am. I'm not sure what Hal would say, all I know is that he said that we are in a "double wake" situation. He has advocated elsewhere that to move ahead we may need at least small narratives (that don't claim grand récit status), but what that looks like is anybody's guess.
I'm not seeking, as you put it, a "universal language" which will be announced and enforced at the next International Art Symposium. I am seeking, as I put it, a "normative culture of art practice," which has been emerging in many places for quite some time, often well below art world radar.
There is a lengthy section (not a throwaway line) in Reno's article describing how much he appreciates and commends Balthasar. Can his position really be considered nostalgic pining for the "good old days"?
Pentecost may have involved many languages, but not many gospels. Can the prospect of renewed catechesis be dismissed as offensively unpluralistic? In the same way, I still don't see how a normative culture that values the craft of traditional paint and sculpture (uninterested in making the cover of Art Forum) would not be good for contemporary art.
Thanks for your comment. You are right to point out that I confused your quote of Foster and your actual point. Lazy afternoons often prompt me to cursory readings and passionate speeches :) i understand that your desire for stability doesn't equte to the search for the holy grail of art speak. pardon.
My concern about the artworld and adopting some sort of normative practice is that the actions of art and our experiences of art are rarely normative. Hence my problems with Stolnitz's argument for a "disinterested" approach to the practice of art. If you're calling for an attitude toward certain kinds of art, in certain kinds of cultures, with certain kinds of people, wouldn't it be best to first talk about the already normative features of that very particular subgroup? If you're talking about something broader, then aren't we at risk of homogenizing the experience of art and losing what's really common with all art, that art is liable to act in very unpredictable ways?
Regarding Reno's article, while my caricature of him was meant as just that, I do take your point that he admires von Balthasar. However, I don't agree with his lumping of VB with the movement he identifies as the HG, that of working against or casting off a normative practice in the process of "rebeling" (as he puts) against neo-scholasticism. I think it has yet to be proven that neo-scholasticism actually provided the stable basis that he claims it did. Further, if it actually did provide this stable base, can it be shown that it WAS the HG's fault for the loss of it, or could it in fact have been something social/cultural like the mass-draft of European citizen's into WWs I and II that provoked the attrition of a church wide system of Thomism - not to mention the fact that among students at Oxford, Thomism seems to be alive, if not well.
My argument is less for pluralism, and more for a broader picture of why Churchly theology splintered in as many directions as it did, and what the implications are for its recreation. Hence, my suggestion that we look not only to the last 2 centuries, but also the Fathers, a task championed by Lubac and Balthasar.
I think we agree, and perhaps my word "normative" is misleading. I too don't want to risk "homogenizing the experience of art" or losing its unpredicatability. Exactly this is what I think a normative, grass roots, "Derriere Guard" culture of art practice can sustain, that an art world always trying to do the next best thing to capture critical attention cannot.
As to Reno, I think there was sufficient distinction made between Balthasar and the other figures (he's certainly no Pitstick!), yet I suppose that distinction could have been clearer. But as to the Fathers, you most definitely agree.
Maybe we could suggest that if there is going to be a renewal of normative catechesis in the future, it will have to involve more of the Fathers than Thomism did.
This was such an excellent post and follow-up discussion. As I have read and thought about it, I have been struck by the parallels to the situation that concerns me in my own field, history of literary theory. I am concerned about these same problems in terms of teaching undergraduates. Theory is greatly informing and suggestive and inspiring for advanced students and for specialists, but it is also so splintered that the main points (as I see them) don't get through to the students we're trying to educate, unless the individual student is motivated and instructed by a strong feminist or Marxist ideology, which provides its own kind of "catechetical" summation or overview. I think this is part of why we talk now about "after theory," since the Marxist and feminist movements have cooled, students aren't animated by the field as they were in its heyday. I would like to see a teaching emphasis in the universities on the 20th-century critique of Modernity -- the critique across all the disciplines of the Cartesian/Humean mindset that is so prevalent in scientistic North America and that is contributing (on both sides) to the bitter renewal of the wars of science and religion going on right now. I'd like to see some teaching emphasis on the greater flexibility and rigor possible for thinking AFTER that deconstruction. I think most of us would testify that late 20th century theology and theory represent extraordinarily good human thought, and highly applicable thought, but all that most undergrads seem to be getting out of it is relativism and toleration (good things) but not a renewed call to the art of thought. If we could establish a kind of minor catechesis of this sort, it would certainly in turn help to open up the pre-modern texts (and the past in general) to renewed interest for those students.... But this "positive" effect (in both senses) is lost and most undergrads do not experience an epistemological shake-up and a renewal of thoughtfulness through their lit theory courses. (Yet I too am concerned about the problems implicit in grand narratives....)Perhaps -- and this is a wild shot -- the problem could be finessed by avoiding authoritative stances and framing our own theoretical insights and our readings of texts (including the scriptures) as personal testimonies based on decades of work and growth. I do see, though, that in our climate of old-school rationalism, this simply sounds like and can be dismissed as "mere opinion" rather than rigorous thought. It's a fascinating quandary....
Am new to this blog. let me just say that i am happy to note readers of Balthasar engaging each other in helpful discussion and clarification. I started reading Balthasar when I was 21 years old and have not stopped for the last 26 years. I plan to learn German so I can read him in the original. Am waiting though for the English translation of two Balthasar books: Theologik III and Homo Creatus Est.
I teach Church History here in Manila. But I guess I've always had an interest in the history of theology itself. This is the reason why i am glad this blog has paid attention to Reno's article...
I think he is off the mark for blaming the HG for the present state of academic theology. Neoscholasticism collapsed under its own weight. Reno forgets that neoscholasticism had lost the vitality of the original synthesis of Thomas Aquinas. It is strange that he is blase about how neoscholastics had basically brought down on themselves the judgment of irrelevance.
More pressing is what to do to correct the present cacophonic situation of academic theology. I am not sure that what is needed is another scholasticizing of the HG's achievements. I think Vatican II has laid down the "method" to be followed for seminary and school theology (i.e., define the problem, then look to SS, the FAthers, the Scholastics, the Moderns, the Councils, the present-day magisterium, and contemporary theology). the "method" is largely historical. the systematization of theology is not necessarily a good thing (Balthasar likes to think of himself as unsystematic though doctoral dissertations are trying to systematize him). Perhaps the problem is one of catechesis or religious education. But theology is more than catechesis or religious education.
I am also glad that Pitstick was mentioned by one of the respondents to this blog. I was just appalled at the lack of understanding of Balthasar's deepest intentions. Pitstick is one great example of what I would not want theology to go back to. That her book was recommended by First Things and by such figures as Saward, Nichols is making me think that there are people who are afraid that Balthasar is being addressed by a wider group of interlocutors who would like to see Balthasarian insights pushed to where Balthasar himself did not wish to go. I think this is a shortsighted reaction.
In any case, please accept my felicitations on a most useful blog. I hope you keep up the high level of interest it has for such as me.
Post a Comment