Even though religion or spirituality are controversial subjects, I think whether someone is atheist or a devoted Christian they still find the subjects interesting. Possibly for the reasons that Robertson and McDaniel give, “One reason that artists are drawn to the themes of religion and spirituality even when they harbor doubt is that they are interested in morality and ethics” (Robertson, McDaniel, 287). However I believe that another reason is because most people are curious and don’t actually know the truth. There is no way to “know” and I am one of those people that do not claim a religion at all. I think because of this I was able to closely relate to Robert Gober’s work. Gober is described as someone who “does not participate in the religion of his upbringing (Catholicism), attempted to come to terms with the absence of religion in his life” (Robertson, McDaniel, 287). Although I think his work is bizarre in some ways, it is also intriguing. The curator’s analysis is what sparked my attention and made me associate myself with his own beliefs and work. Dean Sobel says, “this dual-level installation also explores the dynamic between the conscious world (what is immediately apparent) and the subconscious (those things lurking beneath the surface)” (Robertson, McDaniel, 287). It is as if even non-believers, like myself, wonder if something is actually there “beneath the surface”, however it is unknown and it can never be fully concrete.
This view of Robert Gober’s and my own view made me think back to Bill Maher’s “Religulous” video. However the video is harsh, it is brilliant. He puts forth the idea and religion of “I don’t know”. This view seems to be the view of many of the artists mentioned in the Spirituality chapter. This view could also apply to Maurizio Cattelan’s piece “La Nona Ora (the Ninth Hour). This controversial piece can be depicted in many ways, however I think maybe Cattelan was trying to say that they too do not know the answer. Also maybe in attempt to make the point that whether full blown atheist or Christian, they are both just as bad, because in reality no one actually knows if there is a higher power or not.
The chapter also brought up science. Science and religion have both been interesting topics to me, especially when they are combined. I read an article in Time magazine about the “religious gene”. It’s a gene that makes people crave something to believe in. This gene is stronger in some people than it is in others, hints the reason why some people are religious fanatics and others are not. Regardless of the fact whether this gene is the sole provider for why people insist on basing their lives on ethereal sources, it is impossible for people to believe in this gene. The reason for this is because it is science, it is concrete, and people want to believe in something that they cannot see before there own eyes. They want to believe in something that can do the impossible. Whatever people believe, it is neither wrong nor right, and I feel that it will always be a topic of interest even to those who choose not to naively say, “I know”.
Robertson, Jean, and Craig McDaniel. Themes of Contemporary Art: Visual Art after 1980. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.
I like your theory of "I don't know." There is no way to know for sure who, why, or when life came into being. Faith is the key, I think, in being a devout religious person. A person can chose to believe in something or is brought up to believe something. As a non-believer myself, I share your opinions.
ReplyDeleteAs for the "religious gene," I find that theory interesting. I have never heard about it, but I shall look into that. I have thought of religion as a psychological way to cope with or a way to explain issues that have no definite answer. For example, what happens after death: if you were tell a small child that their dog was hit by a car and is now in heaven with grandma and grandpa, the child would respond more positively 'knowing' that their dog was in a better place. If you were to tell that child, instead, that the dog suffered horribly in its last few moments of life and is not buried in the back yard, they would more than likely be scarred by that for the rest of their lives.
If everyone 'knew' they were going to be with God after death, it makes death less scary. If everyone 'knew' that when they die, it is final and there is nothing after life or that their bodies were going to be burned and put into a decorative urn or buried and turned into worm food, the idea of death would be more unsettling.
There is always going to be that level of uncertainty in life; because we are not omnipotent beings, we will never know for sure the true nature of the universe or of God.
ReplyDeleteBut is the idea of "I don't know" enough to explain any sort of spiritual studies by atheist artists? As you have already stated, religious people express their search in the same fashion. In your opinion, what exactly would a spiritually probing artwork from an atheist be like? Would it be just like the basic, non-religious artwork already produced by artists? Or would it be more like a presentation of the self in the face of the world (sort of like, "here I am, here you are, there is nothing else")? The idea of a religiously-experimental atheist blows my mind. I'm not sure why I find it so shocking.