News Intelligence Analysis
How the Culture War Has Spread to the Fine Arts:
An Answer to H. R. Rookmaaker and Francis Schaeffer
By Katherine
Yurica
February 27, 2008
An essay I published on the Yurica Report, confirms that Francis Schaeffer and H. R. Rookmaaker began a “Christian” movement to change the arts in the late 1960’s to 1970’s. The essay, “The Importance of Hans Rookmaaker: In Art and in the Life of Francis Schaeffer” by David Bruce Hegeman, introduces the reader to the question: Should art be Christian? Should Georges Rouault replace Picasso? In fact, the issue is one of dominance rather than taste; Hegeman and his mentors are really asking, “Whose art shall reign supreme in our world?” But my question is, “Should art be judged by the belief system of the artist or his religious mentors or should it be judged on the basis of the vision the work itself presents to the viewer?
Hegeman champions Christian art. However, he makes H. R. Rookmaaker, the author of Modern Art and the Death of Culture, his hero.[1] But there are some things we need to know about Rookmaaker. First, he believed that modern art reflects a “dying culture.” And secondly, he does not mention the Christian artists who formed themselves into a group in Paris in 1888, calling themselves the Nabis (or prophets), who are credited with coming up with an art theory that started the entire modern art movement. As I wrote in my essay “What Is Neo-Nabism?” Maurice Denis, a member of the original Nabi group and a devout Christian, “penned the famous dictum that a painting, before being a cavalry horse, a nude woman or any other representation, ‘is essentially a flat surface covered by colors that are united by a certain order.’…It is a fact that his words…lived on and did prophesy art trends of the twentieth century. Denis’ single sentence is considered the summation of all the principles of the concept of “sysnthesis.” Thirdly, he praised Georges Rouault’s work (1871-1958) over Pablo Picasso’s because Rouault painted prostitutes and judges the way Rookmaaker wanted prostitutes and judges to be seen. With this background, we can examine a brief example of the culture war.
Although Rookmaaker did not mention Hieronymus Bosch or his works (c. 1450) in his book, he does favor Goya’s depictions and seems to desire similar visual distortions in order that artists may ‘accurately’ represent sin.[2] On the other hand, Rookmaaker wrote that Rouault’s prostitutes “are symbols for prostitution, for cheap love for sale, for the depravity of [Rouault’s] time. According to Rookmaaker, "his judges are akin to those of Daumier: they stand for the corrupt courts of his time. Rouault prophesies against the times in which he lives.”[3]
Here we come up against Rookmaaker’s preconceived thoughts of how prostitutes should be depicted by artists. It does not occur to Rookmaaker that not all prostitutes look depraved and grotesque and not all corrupt judges or politicians look miserably grasping and spiritually twisted. Consider the photographs of Brassaï as just one example, particularly Prostitutes in a Bar, Boulevard Rochechquart, Montmartre, 1932. Published by the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and see also La Presentation Chez Suzy, Quartier Saint Germain Des-Pres, 1932. Rouault’s nude prostitutes are repugnant, particularly in “Filles (ou, Deux Prostituées,” 1906.
And see also “Fille (Femme ux Cheveux Roux),” 1908 where the two prostitutes emerge from the shadows as powerful masculine-like figures with inflated heavy limbs, curved backs and swollen torsos, with breasts that appear glued to the bloated flesh, with distended abdomens and thighs, thick necks and ugly mannish faces. It is an understatement to say that Rouault succeeded in creating images and symbols of revulsion—but Rookmaaker wrote incredibly, “Rouault has shown what it means to believe in God and to love man in this age.”[4] In light of Rouault’s depiction of prostitutes, I find it difficult to believe his paintings represent love. For when we contrast how Jesus perceived the same kind of sinners, and contrast His gentle words to them, and His gentle love for them, Rookmaaker’s vision becomes repulsive. (See the wonderful exchanges between Jesus and “sinners” that reveal His attitude toward the most despised of men and women: Luke 7:36-50; John 8:3-11; John 4:5-30; Luke 15:1-2; Luke 19:1-10.)
The question is, what did the artist Rouault see and feel when he viewed his prostitutes? As a matter of fact, though Rouault did a series of paintings on prostitutes, the series was apparently inspired by a single glimpse of a woman leaning out of a door, Rouault later clarified what happened:
“I am not a specialist in brothel subjects… The woman I saw in the doorway is not the woman I painted. She and the rest corresponded to the emotional state I was in at the time.”[5]
I do not take away the power of Rouault’s vision nor do I have any less respect for his art; it is Rookmaaker’s doctrine of “Christian” art that I contest. He makes it too easy and profitable for wolves to don sheep’s clothing, for if evil is depicted always as something grotesque, the impressionable among us will always look to false visual generalizations, which ultimately will blind them instead of giving new insights. A happy, grinning, handsome face may hide a multitude of evil intentions—and that dichotomy has not yet been explored, except by modernists.
So when Rookmaaker called Picasso a “true nihilist,” he said, Picasso, “can believe anything, look at things in as many ways as he likes, for everything is possible, even if they are mutually exclusive or contradictory, for there is no one true way.”[6]
For Rookmaaker then, the bottom line is this: there is only one true way: Christian art. Moreover, notwithstanding Rookmaaker and Francis Schaeffer’s umbrage against modern art, the Modern Art movement not only prophesies warnings to modern man—it mirrors the faces of our sins. Because it specialized in fragmentation, it warns us against it—it points to the loss of the whole, the splitting into remnants and remainders—it decries the march into functional compactness. It cries against the death of wholeness, completeness, and the death of the generalist. It weeps and mourns over its images of schizophrenic modern man. What Rookmaaker and Schaeffer forget is this: art is a participatory sport: each viewer and each reader receives back only what they invested in the first place!
While I cannot say whether or not the dominionist “Christian” view will prevail, I find the view—that there can only be one true way for all artists—to be sheer rubbish! It is an anti-Christian repugnancy. For the God who created so much variety in nature, so many different flowers, plants, trees, insects, birds and animals—surely does not condone the idea that man must restrict his creativity to one way. David Hegeman’s essay is valuable, however, for it shows the inroads Christian dominionism has already made in art. It is well to consider what Hegeman wrote:
“Today there are many Christian artists who are flourishing in their profession in part because of Rookmaaker’s patient encouragement. British artists who he mentored include graphic designer and animator Paul Clowney, painter/teachers Peter Smith of the School of Art, Design and Media at Kingston College, Paul Martin of Leith School of Art in Edinburgh and painters Martin and Kate Rose of Sheffield. Another key person Rookmaaker influenced was actor Nigel Goodwin (a close friend of John Walford) who went on to organize the Art Centre Group in London, the first artists fellowship of its kind in the world and a model for several other artist fellowships. American artists Rookmaaker guided include sculptor Ted Prescott of Messiah College and New York artist Chris Anderson. Rookmaaker also inspired an important group of painters in his native country. Members of what has been called the Noordelijke Figuratieven (Northern Figuratives), these include Pit van Loo, Jan van Loon, Henk Helmantel, Rein Pol, Jan van der Scheer, and Jan Zwaan. A traveling exhibition of their work titled “Reality Revisited” was organized in 1982. These artists were remarkable for the high degree of craftsmanship they brought to their work, the clarity of their vision, and the obvious love they showed for God's creation—all values that Rookmaaker cherished.”
[1] H. R. Rookmaaker, Modern Art and the Death of Culture, Inter-Varsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois, 2nd Edition. 1973.
[2] Rookmaaker, pages 50-51 and p. 234.
[3] Rookmaaker, at page 157.
[4] Rookmaaker at page 157.
[5] Edward Lucie-Smith, “Lives of the Great 20th Century Artists,” published by Artchive.com as “Georges Rouault”
[6] Rookmaaker at page 156.
Send a letter to the editor about this Article and be sure to include the title or the url.
Other Art Essays
by Katherine Yurica
What Is Neo-Nabism?
by Katherine
Yurica
Through the
Looking Glass:
the Next
Step in Art?
by Katherine
Yurica
When Christianity Is UnAmerican
By Terri Murray
There is a growing chasm between
the
values of America's founders and the values
of the theocratic Christian right.
The Christian right claim that
their version of
authoritarianism is a more authentic interpretation
of American values than the Enlightenment values
so cherished by our nation's forebears. But their values
are irreconcilable with those of America's past. Here's
how, in an incredibly lucid analysis.
Back to the Directory of Modern Art
Back
to The Yurica Report Home Page
Copyright
© 2008 Yurica Report. All rights reserved.