Interesting questions, thanks! Berger’s context for ‘bogus religiosity’ is to do with the market and commercialisation of art, which I suppose it’s easy enough to see as opposite to ideals of religion and sincere faith. But you’re right, there isn’t necessarily such a discrepancy, as a book I’ve been reading recently suggests. Mark Taylor (in ‘Disfiguring: Art, Architecture and Religion’) talks about currency and the exchange relating to sacred and the sacrifice. The sacred as holiness-made-real becomes something current and valuable in our culture – of which just one measurement is financial value. Perhaps the Christian stake is in other measurements? Not necessarily seen as conflicting with the former?

Sheona

PS. Didn’t notice the new/old thing in Gibson’s Passion, which paintings was he going for? Could make for an interesting discussion re. collaged meaning and media.

Interesting stuff. Couple of things that come to mind:

You mention that “Modernism set art on a pedestal, institutionalised the art gallery and lends to the whole sphere of fine or high art a lingering ‘bogus religiosity’.” I think that’s fairly true – high culture still tends to treat the art gallery as a sacred space (and I’m not sure postmodernism has done anything to dent such practice). But why is this ‘bogus religiosity’? The sacredness and awe sometimes accorded to art seem quite real to me. Does a Christian approach need to first desacralise the social position of art before it can be resacralised in a different manner?

Oh, and on Passion of the Christ: one of the odd things there is how Gibson simultaneously aimed for graphic realism alongside consciously referencing classicial paintings. Is this a tension you noticed? (or even a tension at all?).

Best wishes,

Dave