Occasionally, it can be useful to start reading a book by having a look at its ‘Conclusion’. Here, Joseph Masheck comments on the choice of the deliberately ambiguous title ‘Faith in Art’ and the central aims of this volume. Professor emeritus of Art History at Hofstra University, New York, and recipient of the Distinguished Lifetime Achievement Award for Writing on Art of the College Association in 2018, Masheck notes: ‘One is invited to settle on the nuance of one or another preposition. No ambiguity, however, clouds its wider purpose, which is to depose of the prevailing idea that whatever might seem at least vaguely “spiritual” here is unconcerned with biblical truth and the social, institutional life of what Durkheim called “church”. By countering assumptions about supposed irreligion of early modern artists (not to mention the thoroughly mistaken dependence on Theosophy), the book may more broadly also serve to introduce readers largely ignorant of religion to certain basic theological concepts that were known to all educated people at the time when abstract painting first took off’.
This first paragraph in the ‘Conclusion’ neatly sums up what this book is about and, one might argue, it might have been better placed in the ‘Introduction’.
The book is an in-depth engagement with four artists, in particular their Christian-denominational and Jewish backgrounds and formation and how this has found expression in their art and, at times, in their writing. Already the chapter headings, ‘An Orthodox Kandinsky’, ‘A Protestant Mondrian’, ‘A Catholic Malevich’, and ‘A Jewish Lissitzky’, make clear that Masheck is not so much interested in distilling some general, slightly vague, spiritual dimensions in these artists’ lives and works, but rather in ‘revealed religion’, faith, theological ideas, and ecclesial belonging.
He convincingly demonstrates that while Kandinsky, Mondrian, and Malevich had ‘flirtations’ with the then en vogue theosophy, symbolism, and occultism, it did not become a major concern in their lives and art. However, his slightly negative aside describing Hilma af Klint as a spiritualist, occultist painter is a little tendentious, possibly even condescending. As with vague spirituality and theosophy, he is also ‘wary of the word “mystical” in view of its indistinct boundary with the occult’. In a Christian context, mysticism through the centuries has played a central role in shaping both theology and faith life. To associate it with the occult seems somewhat baffling.
What impresses the reader is the wide-ranging research and knowledge Masheck evidences in his writing on these artists, bringing to the fore aspects about each of these that one will hardly find in any other art-historical writings, at least not to the same extent.
The chapter on Kandinsky is somewhat longer than the others. The author points out that Kandinsky might have remained a ‘provincial landscape painter’ were it not for ‘the exalted role of the icon in the Russian Church Orthodox church, of which he was a lifelong member’. He focuses on Kandinsky’s writings, notably on the influential The Spiritual in Art. And he offers interpretations of two of the artist’s works that are most icon-like.
In this chapter, as in the others, Masheck brings into the discussion other artists, writers and intellectuals who indirectly or directly influenced the four artists examined here, as, for example, Tolstoy and Solovyov in relation to Kandinsky.
Concerning Mondrian, Masheck asserts that too much has been written about the artist’s interest in theosophy and too little about his Christian-Reformed background, ‘his manifest interest in contemporary Calvinism’. Indeed, several of Mondrian’s works demonstrate this interest in pictorial form. Hermann Bavinck’s theology of the kingdom, the Protestant concern with justification and Calvinist predestination mattered to Mondrian. Yet, at times, here and in relation to the other artists’ paintings, Masheck’s interpretations, while interesting, may come across as a little too speculative. But then this is, of course, always a possibility or ‘danger’ in the interpretation of art, especially when one examines art from a specific angle, as here in the context of Christian faith and theology. Positively, however, it has to be stressed that the author is usually careful not to claim too much. Throughout the book sentences in the conditional appear, or comments are made as suggestions rather than definitive statements, e.g., ‘a brilliance that would have attracted Mondrian…’, ‘Mondrian would also have liked Bavinck’s discussion…’, ‘…artists were likely to be interested in…’. This approach is appropriate as, frequently, the author cannot make comments into definite claims and rightly refrains from so doing.
Malevich was born into a Polish noble family who lived in Ukraine. His mother was instrumental in educating him in the Catholic Christian Faith, in morals and piety. The family wanted him to become a priest. Yet, according to his sister, Malevich seems to have downplayed the religious dimensions of his background in his autobiographical writings for political and philosophical reasons. Malevich was central in the development of Suprematism, his Black Square of 1915 being a major example. Masheck examines in detail the suprematist aspect in the artist’s life as well as the wider origins of both the Eastern icon and Western roots of Suprematism. In particular, his analysis centres on the symbol of the cross which the painter included in several of his works, e.g., Suprematist Hieratic Cross (1920) and Suprematism of the Spirit (1929), which is, very fittingly, reproduced on the cover of the book. Like Kandinsky, even if not to the same extent, Malevich’s writings include quite a lot of interesting theological reflection which Masheck brings to the fore in his discussion of the artist.
Lithuanian Lazar Markovich Lissitzky, the final artist under consideration, would, as the author points out, usually not be regarded as ‘“spiritual” at all’. Masheck, however, emphasises that, on the contrary, Lissitzky, was in fact ‘not so indifferent’ to revealed and organised religion. As a modern Jewish artist he was encouraged to look at the art of the ancient near East and he was also influenced by the Bible and Jewish folklore. Masheck notes: ‘I believe … that Lissitzky’s art and its implications encouraged a sense of basic and enduring religiosity that led quite naturally into Communism as a conceivable fulfilment of age-old Jewish aspirations for the Kingdom of God and divine justice.’ In particular, the book of Ecclesiastes affected the artist. Lissitzky also illustrated books and was actively involved in politics, becoming a cultural attaché for revolutionary Russia in Berlin in 1921. It is during that time that he appears to have moved away from suprematism to a ‘more categorically materialist constructivism’. As many other artists in the early twentieth century, Lissitzky sought to root himself in ‘so-called folk art’ as he noted himself while being also interested in modern art and architecture. Lissitzky became and was celebrated as both a Jewish and modern artist. He was involved in producing revolutionary works, notably in a memorial of Rosa Luxemburg (ca 1919–20). The discussion here on Luxemburg by taking in Lissitzky’s own writings, Karl Barth, Ernst Bloch, Joachim of Fiore et al. is interesting but comes across as a little too wide within the frame of the chapter.
This is a remarkable book, no doubt. It makes a real contribution to knowledge about Kandinsky, Mondrian, Malevich, and Lissitzky in relation to their personal, artistic, and religious biographies, as well as their social-political backgrounds, including detailed examinations of specific art works and, notably, of the artists’ writings, their faith and artistic-theological insights. While one may find some of Masheck’s explorations occasionally a little too speculative, his observations and conclusions are sustained by impressive research throughout this fine volume.
