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.
