"The target of both religion and art is the human soul, and both wish to penetrate its depths so as to influence it, to purify and shape it."

Be that as it may, many new interpreters of Nietzsche constantly dive in, never wearying of trying to penetrate the mysterious sayings of the greatest philosopher of the late nineteenth century, who continues to stir large numbers of people in the twentieth too, and to cause enormous spiritual turmoil among many thinkers and artists. Indeed, at the start of the twentieth century mankind seemed to be heeding Nietzsche's advice, and to be willing to shake free of the divine vision within themselves, to abandon faith and religion, with their precepts and commandments: either through free choice in the expression of belief in science and human rationality and power to choose; or through tyrannical decree by Communism, which declared religion to be the "opium of the masses", or by Fascism, which replaced the spiritual God with a god of flesh and blood.

But towards the end of this century there appears to be another upheaval, and if Nietzsche were to rise now and announce the death of God many intellectuals including important and respected scientists, would ridicule his statement, suggesting that he look around and see for himself that not only were the major religions alive and functioning, the faithful refusing to recognize the death of God, but that the ranks were even growing stronger, despite the fact that the natural and social sciences were daily capturing more space in the cosmic universe and in the human universe. Among the Jews, people who observe the traditions are increasing in number, and the ultraorthodox world is only intensifying its piety. And even those who were natural candidates for secularity, such as the large Jewish community in North America, are finding no other way to preserve their Jewish identity but with some link with the synagogue, with all that this entails. The Reform synagogue too, for all its pleasantness and liberal rules is still a synagogue.

Fundamentalist processes in the countries of Islam in the last generation have already been the subject of dozens of research studies and the most profound analysis. In essence, the concept of symbiosis between state and religion prevailed also in ages when Islam appeared moderate and well mannered. Even in countries where Islam has not taken absolute control over government, religious tension is growing ever higher, and religion is becoming the prime factor among hundreds of millions of people - not only in the Arab lands but also in Islamic countries such as Iran, Pakistan, Malaysia, and others.

Christianity too, with all its different shadings, is no longer on the defensive but experiencing the process of spreading and expansion. The inhabitants of eastern Europe and Russia, free of the shreds of Communism, are discovering the forgotten and suppressed Christianity of past times, and seek to join it, if only to return to the pre-Communist past. The living religious feeling is what gave the Poles, for example, the courage to be the first to rebel against Communism. No wonder then, that millions of new believers who hesitate between the old and the new are clinging to the Christian church.

In the United States, which always saw religious attachment as part of the American identity, religion is not declining. Not only do many Afro-American citizens still seek in the church redress for discrimination and the painful memory of their slavery, but also among the new conservatives religious concepts flourish. Even if we disagree with Professor Harold Bloom of Yale University, who professes that at the end of the twenty-first century most Americans will be either Mormons or Southern Baptists, it is still clear to us that God, at least as a human concept, and the machinery of religion still play and will continue to play, an important role in American social existence. The violent protest, for example, against the clinics of doctors who perform abortions attests to the religious force among many Americans, whom feminism and individual rights do not move from their adherence to old principles. I am not so closely acquainted with the religions of the Far East to make definitive statements, but it seems to me that the alive religious feeling among Indians and the Japanese, remain permanent fixtures in their identity; so even in the heights of Japanese technology and financial dealings, deep currents of genuine religiosity continue to flow.

I have started with this evident and well-known opening in order to reach the essence, which is to consider the nature of the complex and problematic relations between religion and art. However, I do not intend to address only the theoretical side of these relations, but also to attempt to probe the practical level of the relationship, which is of special interest to those who direct the centres of culture. That is, to see how one may successfully influence the religious community to join in contemporary art, and make this community a consumer of art, both for its own benefit and for the benefit of art.

Relations between religion and art are by nature tense and complicated. They are closely dependent on each other, but also in fierce competition. They nourish each other, but are also mutually suspicious and intensely hostile. The target of both religion and art is the human soul, and both wish to penetrate its depths so as to influence it, to purify and shape it. Every religion knows that to open the heart of a person and to raise him to divine sublimity, to attach him to forces invisible in the world, it must make use of artistic means that stimulate the imagination and expand the capacity for identification.

But every religion also knows that art that is unchecked and not guided by religious ethos can be dangerous, and rebellious, precisely because the oxygen that feeds it is freedom. And it needs the highest possible concentration of this oxygen, namely freedom on a high level: freedom that is not required only for the artist but also to draw in the recipient. This freedom is a sort of threat to religion, as it can lead people to the conclusion that they do not need the religious institution to guide them on the right path, but they can by themselves, and in their own way, fashion the link between themselves and the divine. The more monotheistic the religion is, and the more systems of strict day-to-day precepts and laws it possesses, so much the narrower is the room it leaves for artistic activity. This is the case with the Jewish religion, which from its beginnings, as a jealously monotheistic religion, hostile to any expression of paganism, was against any aesthetic activity, particularly one associated with matter - a statue or a picture. For centuries religious Jews lived beside the greatest cultural centres in Europe, and there they created distinguished works in philosophy and law, but not in art. Beside Leonardo da Vinci or Michelangelo, Shakespeare or Moliere, Vivaldi or Mozart, Rembrandt or Goya, no Jewish artists of any significance arose. Only in the last two centuries, when the process of secularization of Jews began, did there suddenly break out that creative and artistic energy that had been repressed for ages. The many Jewish writers, painters and musicians who astonished the world in the last century represent not only themselves but are also the emissaries of their artist forefathers who never came to realization because the Jewish religion did not allow them proper and genuine space to express themselves.

In Islam, also an obviously monotheistic religion, the margins for artistic expression were slightly wider, especially in architecture, but there too art was held under strong supervision. In Christianity, particularly Catholicism, the margins were still broader. Yet despite their scope and their riches, there were still margins, and within them the religion sought not only to fix the location of the true arena in which man contended with the important questions of life, but also to state clearly that the truest and most serious purpose of art was to convey the religious message. In the last two centuries the world embarked on a process of profound secularization. This was not only through bidding farewell to religion and denying the existence of God, but primarily through the release or discharge of entire human domains from the authority of religion and from the concern of religion: science, the social world, the state, and of course art in all its variety. Free man expressed the realization of his complete liberty first and foremost in art. This was the boldest trail-blazer, and the most daring in terms of its critical attitude to society, state, and religion. But here we are, at the end of the twentieth century, at the end of the second millennium, with the marvelous feeling that democracy has won a resounding victory in the inter bloc struggle, that science is opening new vistas for us by the minute, that psychology is deepening our understanding of human nature: yet for all that, many people are not yielding, not only their belief in God but not even the religious framework, and are freely assuming the burden of commands and behavioral norms. Some do so while keeping up their modern activities in society, and some prefer to limit their worldly doings in order to give themselves up maximally to religious deeds. Most of these people are not the natural consumers of art that you ladies and gentlemen are trying to market to them, be it in dance, in music or in theatre. Not more than a kilometer from this hotel large communities of people live who have never set foot in a concert hall to hear an orchestra playing Beethoven or Mozart. They have never watched a dance or theatre performance or visited a museum. I believe that pious Muslims, not necessarily poor or uncultured, keep away from the centres of culture in the Islamic countries, and it seems to me that even decent and cultivated people like the Mormons or the fervent Christians in the American South would prefer the tranquil singing of their choir to Stravinsky's "Firebird" or Balanchine's ballet troupe.

For over twenty years I have held a subscription for the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra, and I am always amazed that among the crowd that always fills the hall to overflowing there are so few religious Jews, skullcap wearers, who are considered fairly moderate in their religiousness. And this is not, heaven forbid, on account of financial strain or cultural inadequacy. Regarding spheres of society, economics, science and law they are most active participants, but they appear at the theatre only rarely, although here the situation is better than for concerts and dance.

It is the same with the creative arts too. There are still very few writers who are considered actively religious people. True, the situation is a little better among the moderately religious in Israel, but still an entire sector of people who excel in law, academe, and even the military, turn away from the fields of art. In France of the first half of the twentieth century there was a great writer called Francois Mauriac who insisted on defining himself first and foremost as a Catholic writer, before defining himself as a French writer. Does he have an heir among the existing French writers today? Even if here and there religious writers are to be found among the Jews, or the believing Christians or the pious Muslims, it is very clear that these are not writers of the first rank; and they would prefer to deal more with art connected to the popular religious existence of their fellow-believers than to try to say something of universal significance. Certainly, in some places today there is a correlation between economically low classes and religious zealotry and fervour; between what we might define as lack of general education and indifference to contemporary art and culture. But even when art is accessible and offered at a cheap price, genuinely religious people will not rush to buy. We know very well that the consumers of art, opera, concerts, chamber music, serious literature, and classical and modern dance and ballet are not numerous, even in the wide non-religious public. I have just returned from a two-month stay in Chicago where I taught at the university, and I was surprised to see that there were always not a few empty seats in the Medinah Temple Concert Hall at five concerts given by the excellent Chicago Symphony Orchestra. And this is a city of many millions with a vast periphery. I never had any difficulty getting tickets for the theatre, even at the last minute and for a good show. True, we know all this, but we have the feeling, at least in Israel, that a whole segment of religious people, with spiritual demands and possessing high potential for artistic consumption, are deliberately alienating themselves from contemporary art.

About a fortnight ago I returned from the United States to Israel on a long flight. During the eleven hour journey I watched a religious woman, seated not far from me, alternately placing the earphones on her head and removing them whenever a film was screened; this was because watching television is forbidden by the Rabbis. This woman had no doubt never been to a cinema to see a film, and it was evident that the chance of watching movies during the flight - for free and not by her own choice - was very tempting for her. She was in fact hungry for art, but also very hesitant about it; attracted to it, but still greatly fearful that what she would see on the screen would deeply offend the religious principles she held dear. Where does religious suspicion about contemporary art arise? And what can we learn from its arguments to improve the connection between art and religion? This connection is important for us not only in practical terms, namely to enlarge the community of consumers of art, in whose fine qualities we all believe, but also in our great hope that this art will learn how to attract religious people away from religious extremism to greater and wider moderation and humanity. Let me give a simple example: If those zealous fundamentalists in the United States who destroy abortion clinics and attack doctors happened to watch a good theatre portrayal of the agonies endured by a young girl made pregnant by social problems or sexual abuse in the family, it is very possible that their religious fury would quiet down, and they would understand that the question of abortion is far more complicated than to be resolved by bringing an axe down onto a medical appliance. Not only from this angle is it important for me to reduce the alienation between modern art and the religious world, but also because I believe that to benefit as well as to refresh and deepen contemporary art it would be desirable to nourish it with certain contents and sensitivities from the religious world. I never forget for a moment that the greatest of our writers in this century, Shmuel Yosef Agnon, the only Israeli to become a Nobel laureate in literature, was a religious man. And in his wonderful books he showed how interesting and how marvelous can be the blending of true religion and true art, no less modern than the most modern things being written now.

What are the chief reasons for the distancing of religious people from modern art? Time does not permit me to go deeply into this question, and I hope that the discussion to follow will consider several of these aspects; but here I shall try to list at least five main causes. Firstly, in the last fifty years art has distanced itself (and I refer mainly to literature and theatre, but in great measure also to cinema) from the mighty moral dilemmas that have always been the substance of great art. Some moral labour is performed by written and electronic journalism, but in its superficial and hurried way; nowadays some of it falls on the shoulders of courts and legal actions, as if moral concerns have become merely a juridical question for more or less successful lawyers. Literature and art are less and less dealing with moral evaluations and moral conflicts, and are more attracted to psychology in an effort to delve deep into personal experiences and to understand them but when you are too much trying to comprehend it means that you are already ready to forgive. And excess understanding neutralizes moral fervour and judgment, which is the breath of life in every serious religious system.

The sacred "cultural pluralism" has also created a kind of cautious moral relativism, which is afraid to make any clear normative statement about other cultures. But the whole strength of the great religions was precisely the distinct, normative utterance, directed as a definitive command to all people everywhere. Sanctity was common to all, precisely because it opposed the moral relativity dispensed today in the name of freedom of the individual. A religious person towards the end of the twentieth century, in quest of moral clarification, can no longer hope to get it from art, as he might have got it in the nineteenth century, from the great Russian literature, for example. So he turns his back on it.

The second cause of the growing alienation between religious people and art lies in the concept of the new as a hallowed value in contemporary art. The new in itself, without even a test of its nature, has become a value in our society, which is caught up in a furious race to the future. And insofar as American culture is involved in setting the standards of the entire world, so the value of the new rises and becomes enhanced. If I try to sell a toothbrush only because it has proved is worth for decades as a good toothbrush, I will not sell many. But if I am able to prove that there is something new here, that never existed before, I am at once assured of enormous interest. The great artists in the past did not greatly wish to innovate. They tried to copy their teachers and the creators of the past, and to follow in their ways out of loyalty and adherence. If they brought important innovations into art, these stemmed from the inner need to contend with new content born out of the development and renewal of the work of their predecessors. In contemporary art there is a feeling that innovation has great value in itself; the artist is obliged to prove that he is not repeating himself but is creating anew. This causes modern art to lay stress especially on innovation in forms, and not in content because innovation in forms is immediately recognized.

Religious people by nature turn their faces to the past, for there glows the source of authority of every religious system. Thus by the nature of things these people will be more attached to forms from the past, and will be wary of the new in case it threaten to destroy the source of authority for what is sacred and dear to their hearts. This antagonistic tension has always existed, but it has become heightened now owing to the strength of the norm of innovation and newness in contemporary art. To my mind it is a norm that greatly harms it, particularly as regards modern music and modern painting. (Innovation that loses that sharpness of its innovation) 1913 Sacre De Printemps Stravinsky.

The third factor is linked to the sense of mystery and the connection to the supernatural, which serves as a very important and fundamental component in religious life, especially in its popular form. To reinforce belief, religious people usually require a constant feeling of contact with the supernatural and the mysterious.

Modern art today indeed responds to this need, but since most artists are distinctly secular, their immediate leaning to the supernatural and the mysterious is expressed in a shift to what I shall term, somewhat crudely and generally, the world of science fiction. The many exploits of the computer, which are steadily taking over on the cinema screen, and the new materials created daily from new technologies in painting and sculpture, create ever widening opportunities for the pleasures of the mysterious and the supernatural world, weird creatures from other planets, and outlandish monsters. What was once so sacred and inward in religious experience has now become technological entertainment, which for the secular person lies in the realm of harmless fun; for the religious person it becomes sacrilege because it takes an inner spiritual element of the religious experience, and externalizes it with repulsive cheapness. No wonder that he stays clear of this art.

The next element that in my view widens the alienation between religious people and art is connected with the great weight attached by contemporary art to the needs of young people, who have become an extremely important segment of art consumers. To please them, modern art tries to raise the dosage in two areas, sex and violence, which have become increasingly legitimate, in the most serious art also. A religious person who today goes to a very serious dance or theatre performance, one even presenting Shakespeare, cannot be certain that he will not be exposed to a scene with evident sex, or to a scene with exceptional violence, which because of his values he cannot unlike a secular person accept with a sort of smiling indifference.

And the final factor concerns the great passivity that contemporary art has imposed on its audience. The religious person is used to far more action in his rituals. The space between the platform and the congregation in the body of the church or the mosque or the synagogue is busy and dynamic. (The black church). Modern art has made the stage remote from the audience. The passivity of the consumer is also not easy for the religious person, who always seeks active participation in the ritual. What then is to be done to bring the religious world closer to the art world, or the art world closer to the religious world? We believe that art intensifies brotherhood among people, opens them to correct and profound insights.

Religious people these days are usually situated on the right side of the political map; they are frequently suspicious of liberalism and democracy, and are often nationalist in their outlooks. Art is important to soften their stands, to increase their tolerance and openness.

In this opening lecture I shall not enter into details of the actions required to narrow the gap between art and religion. This perhaps will become clearer in the discussion or discussions that start here. But first of all I call for special awareness regarding this issue. Those who direct cultural and artistic centres, who also initiate and arrange performances, must think separately about the religious audience; associate this audience with special productions devoted to religious holy days and festivities; consider a deliberately more active policy; open the door wider to folk activity, which always finds its way into the religious heart. The religious experience has to be present in our concert halls too.

And in my final sentence I shall merely hint that religious women may be the best bridge for drawing the two worlds closer together. Women have always been the most faithful and best consumers of art throughout human history. After all, the greatest revolution that has occurred in the second half of this century is without doubt the feminist revolution; there is no reason at all for us not to exploit its achievements in the next century for more reconciliation between modern art and religious people.

home / who we are / what we do / how to join / contact us

International Society for the Performing Arts Foundation
305 7th Ave., 5th Floor
New York, NY 10001-6008
USA
tel 212.206.8490
fax 212.206.8603
info@ispa.org
http://www.ispa.org/