Download - Art is Life: Rookmaaker, Theology and Art, a critical consideration

Art is Life:

Rookmaaker, Theology and Art - a Critical Consideration

Joseph SverkerB3

Supervisor: Dr. Graham McFarlane

Year 3 Project

12 May 2003

List of Illustrations 3

Introduction 4

Part 1 6

1.1 Rookmaaker in his context 7

1.1.1 The Christian context and influences 8

1.1.2 The cultural context and influences 9

1.2 Modern Art and the Death of a Culture 10

1.2.1 Modern Art and the Death of a Culture, a break or continuity in

Rookmaaker's own thinking and wider context? 12

1.2.2 The concept of “art is life” 13

1.3 Rookmaaker in relation to postmodernism 15

1.3.1 Rookmaaker in modernity’s art criticism 15

1.3.2 Rookmaaker, looking forward. Connections and dissimilarities with a

postmodern discourse. 17

Part 2 18

2.1 Discourses, narratives and metaphors in life 19

2.1.1 An organic worldview: a way to understand communication in art 20

2.1.2 Can art be for its own sake? 21

2.2 “Art is life”, but whose life? 22

2.2.1 Subjectivity in interpretation 24

2.2.2 Fusing of horizons 25

2.3 A biblical perspective on “art is life” from Rookmaaker’s

point of view 26

1

2.3.1 Creativity and transformation: a recontextualisation of the concept “art

is life” to its new discourse 28

Part 3 31

3.1 Reality, true or false? 32

3.1.1 Heaven lost 32

3.1.2 Heaven regained? 34

Conclusion 37

Bibliography 39

2

List of Illustrations

Constantin Brancusi, The Kiss 1908, Philadelphia Museum of Art, Philadelphia. Frontp.

Franz Marc, Tierschicksale 1913, Kunstmuseum, Basle. 11

Sherrie Levine, Untitled (President: 5) 1979, The Museum of Contemporary Art,

Los Angeles. 23

Vasily Kandinsky, Black and Violet 1923, Private collection. 29

Pablo Picasso, Nude 1910, The National Gallery of Art, Washington. 33

Edvard Munch, Skrik 1893, Nasjonalgalleriet, Oslo. 34

Pieter Pauwel Rubens, Martyrdom of St Livinus 1633, Musées Royaux des Beaux-

Arts, Brussels. 35

Marc Rothko, Unknown, Private collection. 35

3

Introduction

4

One day there will be summerthe songs have said.

But songs are hollow sibyls.1

These lines from Nils Ferlin, a renowned Swedish poet, point to the postmodern dilemma in

interpretation. Barthes, Rorty and Lyotard would all agree with Derrida that there is no connection

between language and reality.2 However, if that is the case, whom can the interpreter trust? The

text? Ferlin’s poem turn this to its edge. Namely, the songs promise summer, but they are not to be

trusted. However, paradoxically Ferlin states this through, exactly, a song. The reader now faces a

dilemma. Should the reader trust the songs that promise summer or the song that undermines the

reliability of all songs, including itself? Thus, the text has deconstructed itself, to use Derrida’s

terminology.3

This is what Derrida said would happen: texts will inevitably deconstruct themselves. However, is

it possible to come to terms with Ferlin’s contradiction in some other way? One such attempt,

undertaken by Rookmaaker, did indeed try to come to terms with the nature of art. This essay seeks

to critique and evaluate Rookmaaker in his time in order to take him into the contemporary

dilemmas of art and interpretation and see if he can offer us an alternative to the problem posed by

postmodernity and its subjectivity in interpretation.

The first part will present Rookmaaker in his context, explore his background, influences and his

interaction with art as a Reformed professor in art history. In addition we outline the concept of ‘art

is life’, Rookmaaker’s approach to art, and compare it to his contemporaries’ view of art, artists and

art critics and, finally, link Rookmaaker with today’s challenges in interpretation.

The second part gives a fuller presentation of the challenges posed by postmodernity upon art and

interpretation and suggests an alternative view. However, interaction with Rookmaaker’s concept

of art and postmodernity will occur throughout the second part in order to determine whether or not

Rookmaaker’s concept and approach to art prove fruitful in the contemporary climate. In addition,

Rookmaaker’s biblical basis for his approach will be presented and critiqued in order to judge its

usefulness for today.

5

1 Ferlin, ‘Skönheten’.

2 Culler, Deconstruction, 95.

3 Culler, Pursuit, 15.

The third and final part interacts with Rookmaaker’s own interpretation of art and poses some

challenges to his interpretation of abstract art in particular. This, in order to decide whether or not

abstract art can be embraced by the concept of ‘art is life’ as well and thus find its place on

Parnassus.

6

Part 1

7

1.1 Rookmaaker in his contextWhat is essential with all theologians is especially important with Rookmaaker: to take them and

their theology in their own context, since no one lives and works in a vacuum.4 However, this is not

an easy task when it comes to Rookmaaker. There are many complexities to his background from

childhood, adolescence and, indeed, throughout his whole life. As Birtwistle points out in his

introduction to Art, Artist and Gauguin,5 on the one hand ‘Rookmaaker always remained a kind of

outsider in Reformed life,’ since he was not brought up in the Dutch Reformed tradition.6 On the

other hand, Rookmaaker had an ambivalent academic background as an art historian: his was more

technical, where ‘something of the engineer’s mentality always remained with him.’7

This sense of being an outsider extended beyond religious and academic circles: he was literally an

outsider as a Dutchman too. Rookmaaker, born 1922, was brought up in the, then, Dutch East

Indies, the colony which would eventually become the Republic of Indonesia.8 His family moved

later to the Netherlands. However, when the WW II broke out, he was deported to different POW

camps along with some of his closest friends, amongst whom were Jews, who were never to be

seen again.9

Interestingly, the imprisonments were the catalysts through which both Rookmaaker’s faith and

academic interest were born. On the one hand, he became a Christian in the prison of Scheveningen

due to the provision of a Bible,10 and on the other hand his academic pursuit, which was mainly in

philosophy, became rooted in Neu Brandenburg.11 Both interests remained after release resulting in

Rookmaaker eventually becoming Reformed professor in art history at the Free University in

Amsterdam.

8

4 Heslam, Creating, 91.

5 Birtwistle, ‘H.R. Rookmaaker’, xv.

6 Birtwistle, ‘H.R. Rookmaaker’, xvi.

7 Birtwistle, ‘H.R. Rookmaaker’, xvii.

8 Birtwistle, ‘H.R. Rookmaaker’, xvi.

9 Martin, Rookmaaker, 85ff.

10 Martin, Rookmaaker, 58.


Thus, even a brief biography reveals that Rookmaaker has a highly complex background, one

which is essential to keep in mind when interacting with his writing, but also one because of which

it is difficult to pin down direct influences. It will nevertheless become clear that there are some

specific influences in Rookmaaker’s writing and it is to these we now turn.

9

1.1.1 The Christian context and influences

There was no overtly Christian influence on Hans Rookmaaker from his family, nor did the

Reformed High School make any noticeable impact.12 Despite this, however, one of the strongest

influences on Rookmaaker was the Reformed philosopher Dooyeweerd. This influence is most

apparent in Rookmaaker’s more autobiographical article.13

It was Dooyeweerd’s focus on the God given spheres of norms or laws which exist in every area of

reality that most impacted Rookmaaker. As Dooyeweerd puts it, ‘every modal aspect of temporal

reality has its proper sphere of laws, irreducible to those of other modal aspects, and in this sense it

is sovereign in its own orbit, because of its irreducible modality of meaning.’14 As such, then,

everything created is ‘subjected to a law,’ according to Dooyeweerd, because ‘the lex is recognised

as originating from God’s holy creative sovereignty.’15

Dooyeweerd, therefore, provided Rookmaaker not only with a holistic and clear doctrine of

creation from which he could develop his theory of art, but Dooyeweerd likewise gave him a

methodological basis as a Reformed art historian. Rookmaaker, in an early article,16 interestingly,

acknowledges Dooyeweerd’s rejection of any possibility of a neutral scholarship not influenced by

the faith of the scholar.17

It is certain that Dooyeweerd had a strong influence on Rookmaaker in the area of art. It is not only

‘Sketch for an Aesthetic Theory based on the Philosophy of the Cosmonomic Idea’, in which he

applies Dooyeweerd’s Cosmonomic philosophy onto the field of art, that shows the strong

Dooyeweerdian influence on Rookmaaker’s view of art.18 Dooyeweerd’s influence is poignant

elsewhere when Rookmaaker talks about specific spheres of norms and laws in art, for example, his

10


13 Rookmaaker, ‘What the Philosophy’, 10ff

14 Dooyeweerd, Critique, 102.


16 Rookmaaker, ‘Principles’, 5.


18 Rookmaaker, ‘Sketch’, 24-78.

insistence that, ‘art has a structure, or rather, art is determined by a structural law.’19 In this

Rookmaaker is clearly reflecting the doctrine of creation as found in Dooyeweerd where firstly the

‘structural law’ in art is not created by the artist, the critic or by Rookmaaker himself, but by God.

Secondly, the ‘structural law’ of art is part of all the ‘structural laws’ that build up the reality. As

such, Rookmaaker treats the whole of reality as working according to laws which God has created.

Consequently, any artist breaking free from these norms discovers only a fallacious freedom

leading to slavery.20 Art is then, according to Rookmaaker, intertwined with the whole of God’s

reality. As such it is apparent how Rookmaaker embraces the Dooyeweerdian influence and takes it

into the field of art.

1.1.2 The cultural context and influences

Rookmaaker lectured at a time when Christian faith was both increasingly marginalised from the

public domain and disconnected from the person’s public life or cultural context. In response,

Rookmaaker challenged Christians to apply their faith in their professional area. Thus he spent

‘twenty-five years thinking, relating Biblical principles to art.’21 Rookmaaker was therefore not

afraid to engage positively with the wider culture and had, for example, a deep (and in Reformed

circles, unusual) passion for jazz.22 As such, Rookmaaker reflects Kuyper’s vision of a

transformation of modernist culture by an all-embracing Calvinistic worldview.23

Following Kuyper’s vision, Rookmaaker sought to transform the area of modern art. This is not

least noticeable in that he, together with his contemporary art historian Jaffé, was among the first

Dutch art historian to write a doctoral thesis on modern art.24 As such, Rookmaaker was amongst

the pioneers in the field of modern art history.

11

19 Rookmaaker, ‘Norms’, 127.

20 Rookmaaker, ‘Guggenheim’, 321.


22 Rookmaaker, ‘Johnny’, 375.

23 Heslam, Creating, 93f. Kuyper stressed that Christians should be involved in and attempt to transform all areas of society. It was done largely from a Calvinistic framework, however Kuyper developed Calvin’s teaching on common grace to enable Christians and give them a basis for social work. (Hexham, ‘Kuyper’, 374.) Interestingly, Dooyeweerd was closely associated with and influenced by Kuyper in his theology and became professor at the Free University founded by Kuyper. (Knudsen, ‘Dooyeweerd’, 206.)

24 Birtwistle, ‘H.R. Rookmaaker’, xx.

In addition, his attempt to tackle the development of modern art in an academic situation where

modern art was far from an en vogue field tells us more about his vision and personality than his

own personal taste in art: Rookmaaker’s thesis on modern art reflected more than a mere

appreciation of modern art. Thus, a comparison of what Rookmaaker liked in art and what he did

not like in modern art will shed some light to his reasons for a study on modern art.

Rookmaaker’s preferred art was that of the 17th century Dutch landscape painters, to which he

often refers back as having the best combination of technical skills together with a true worldview

from which they painted.25 However, one of the few similarities between the Dutch landscape

painters and the Synthetists (the group of modern artists on whom Rookmaaker made his thesis)

was nevertheless in their use of reality. They did not paint a perfect replica of nature but rather an

expression of how the artist saw the world. These landscape painters had a Protestant view of

reality,26 while the Synthetists were highly influenced by both Japanese art27 and late 19th century

theories of art, such as Aurier’s.28 On the one hand, this favoured Rookmaaker to say that Northern

European art in the 17th century ‘reached a peak that has never been surpassed.’29 On the other

hand modern art was the art that would lead to the death of a culture. For Rookmaaker, one art

builds up another destroys.

This comparison points out how influential is the worldview of the artist for our understanding the

work of art. Rookmaaker, therefore, sets out to be a Reformed art historian, in a context where

artists held to very different worldviews, in order to transform the culture towards Christ when

most signs pointed elsewhere.

An additional reason why Rookmaaker wrote his thesis on modern art may well have been due to

the fact that there was an extensive collection of modern art housed in the Netherlands. Van

Adrichem points out that from the late 1930s the Netherlands ‘could pride itself on the most

12

25 Rookmaaker, Creative, 21.

26 Rookmaaker, Modern, 21.

27 Rookmaaker, ‘Gauguin’, 128ff.

28 Rookmaaker, ‘Gauguin’, 44f. Aurier emphasised the emotional and subjective in art: beauty is the degree to which art is expressing spiritual truths and the spiritual in art is how well it portrays the mind of the artist.


important public collections of modern art.’30 This is also evident from the many reviews on

modern art exhibitions on which Rookmaaker wrote for the Calvinistic publication Trouw.31 Thus,

the combination of the availability of modern art in the Dutch post-war cultural context and

Rookmaaker’s own procedure of ‘relating Biblical principles to art’ facilitated an excellent starting

point for his academic pursuit.

1.2 Modern Art and the Death of a CultureOne of Rookmaaker’s most influential books was Modern Art and the Death of a Culture, due to

the fact that Rookmaaker had, prior to its publication, established a wide variety of readers.32 His

readership was established by an impressive amount of travelling to and speaking at conferences

around the world. However, it was, perhaps, his close friendship with Francis Schaeffer and the

contacts with the L’Abri movement,33 as well as being a ‘confirmed Anglophile’, that specifically

exposed him to various Christian Unions and other societies in England.34 Thus, the combination of

all this and Rookmaaker’s lecturing at the Free University established him in Christian circles.35 In

addition, he was also known within the Dutch and international art circles because of his thesis on

Gauguin, Synthetist Art Theories.36 As such he was a recognised authority within art history circles

in the Netherlands and in the wider English-speaking world through the English publication of his

thesis. With such a wide readership Modern Art and the Death of a Culture impacted both Christian

and wider art worlds. However, whilst it was considered to be the Christian book about

contemporary culture it was, amongst the art critics, regarded as too subjective.37

In Modern Art and the Death of a Culture, Rookmaaker attacks modern art, abstract art in

particular, as a degenerative force in culture. Firstly, modern art has pushed God, the sustainer of

13

30 Bavelaar, ‘Reception’, 3.

31 Hengelaar-Rookmaaker (ed.), Art, 303-361.

32 Martin, Rookmaaker, 152

33 Pinnock, ‘Schaeffer’, 179.


35 Martin, Rookmaaker, 108f.

36 Rookmaaker, Hans, Synthetist Art Theories: Genesis and Nature of the Ideas on Art of Gauguin and his Circle, Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger, 1959. It has and will be referred to the 2002 edition ‘Gauguin and Nineteenth-Century Art Theory’ in Marleen Hengelaar-Rookmaaker (ed.), Art, Artists and Gauguin, Carlisle: Piquant, 2002.

37 Birtwistle, ‘H.R. Rookmaaker’, xxv.

culture, out of the picture.38 Secondly, modern art ultimately leads to existential angst since it

portrays reality as absurd with no absolutes.39 Thirdly, the subject matter and the message of

paintings are about death, dying or hopelessness as exemplified in Marc’s Tierschicksale, which

has written on the back, ‘-and all being is flaming agony.’ Rookmaaker concludes, ‘The fact that

we are, that we exist, is no cause for joy. … We are bound to being. Bound to die.’

Franz Marc, Tierschicksale 1913, Kunstmuseum, Basle.

14



In contrast, then, Rookmaaker argues that art inevitably is and should be connected to the external

reality and life, the Christian life even. In addition, artists’ acknowledgement of the Christian God

as the primary creator and giver of life is the only way to true freedom.40 They can still paint the

evil and the absurd, but it should be done in a true light,41 with the knowledge that there is freedom

from the absurd.42 Consequently, Rookmaaker in Modern Art and the Death of a Culture attempts

to show that the only way to get hope back into art is a paradigm shift from the contemporary

worldview to a Christian worldview.43

1.2.1 Modern Art and the Death of a Culture, a break or continuity in Rookmaaker's own

thinking and wider context?

Modern Art and the Death of a Culture had, as we have seen, an impact on both the Christian and

the secular world. Interestingly, whilst the positive reception in Christian circles confirmed

Rookmaaker’s position it was equally detrimental to his secular credentials. Therefore, closer

inspection is required concerning Rookmaaker’s other publications before assessing the reception

of the book in its wider context. For instance how does Modern Art and the Death of a Culture

compare to Rookmaaker’s earlier writing and especially his doctoral thesis Synthetist Art Theories,

which accredited him his status as an art historian? Had Rookmaaker changed?

Synthetist Art Theories was written as a doctoral thesis and assumed an objective approach to art

history, which is contrary to Rookmaaker’s holistic methodology elsewhere. Consequently,

Gauguin’s influences are traced back to art theorists and artists such as Aurier, Baudelaire, van

Gogh and Cézanne, but not from Gauguin’s broader context. Thus, to put it in the terms of

Dooyeweerd, there is no interaction between the different law spheres. Admittedly, however

contrary this is to Rookmaaker’s overall methodology it has to be set against the fact that it was a

doctoral thesis, written with the methodology of a doctoral thesis. Interestingly, the view on the

development of art in Synthetist Art Theories is much in line with that in Modern Art and the Death

of a Culture. Hence, whilst Synthetist Art Theories is different in method it is close in content with

Modern Art and the Death of a Culture.

15


41 Rookmaaker, Modern, 236f.



The 1960s brought significant changes to Rookmaaker’s teaching situation. The way in which

Dutch society was divided in ‘pillars’ gradually broke down: there was no longer a division

between the Catholic university, the Public university or the Reformed university. In addition the

increase of students in the 1960s brought about a change to the universities in Amsterdam:44 more

students wanted further education and attended whatever university that could provide a place.

Interestingly, Rookmaaker explicitly complained about this change since he no longer could

assume a Reformed worldview from his students,45 an interesting insight about a man who,

himself, once lacked such a worldview as a student.

The change in the student/lecturer relationship and the students’ quest for influence in the European

universities in the sixties,46 played a part in forcing Rookmaaker to reconsider his pedagogy.47

Consequently, Rookmaaker developed his methodology to enable the students to make the

connections between art and life further. Rookmaaker, therefore, was more interested in writing a

book which interacted with his changing contemporary context than to attempt to write an

objective study on art, which would have been more favourable amongst the art critics, but

something he had already done in Synthetist Art Theories.

1.2.2 The concept of “art is life”

Mahalia Jackson is helpful at this point in helping us understand what ‘art is life’ can mean for an

artist. For her, as a performing artist, it is a question of integrity, honesty and truth.48 Thus, she

sings ‘I'm going to live the life I sing about in my song.’49 That is, the content of her songs are

reflected in her life. As such her life gives validity to what she sings about. There is a desire to

‘stand for right and always shun the wrong,’50 and her songs and actions seeks to reflect that.

16

44 Bax, ‘Cleavage’, 11f.


46 Marwick, Sixties, 560f.


48 Terkel, ‘Profile’.

49 Jackson, Life,

50 Jackson, Life,

Mahalia Jackson would have greatly increased her earning potential and fame had she crossed over

from church to secular music. However, her response, in the jazz magazine Downbeat, was ‘I just

wouldn't feel right singing about that kind of music. After all, I've been saved. The good Lord has

helped me in so many ways, and I can't let Him down.’51 As such, the singer Mahalia Jackson and

the person Mahalia Jackson are completely intertwined.

How can you sing of amazing grace, how can you sing of heaven and earth and all God's wonders without using your hands? … My hands, my feet, I throw my whole body to say

all that is within me. … No matter what kind of songs people sing, it must come natural to them. They shouldn't just try to sing something just because they feel it's the proper thing

to do. Then the real person gets lost. He's away from his roots.52

This same integrated method, the concept of ‘art is life’, is emphasised in Modern Art and Death of

a Culture, as well as in The Creative Gift, a collection of lectures given in the 1960s and 70s by

Rookmaaker.53 He, in those, opposed the contemporary dualism which led to a separation between

science as being ‘life and reality’ and scholarship and fine art as being a mere ‘embellishment of

life’. For Rookmaaker, painting, poetry, music, etc., should be part of life just as much as science.

Thus he states: ‘Life should be one, and culture is simply the creation of life’s forms, customs, and

institutions, as well as our utilization of nature and its resources.’54

Interestingly, to say that ‘life should be one’ might appear to contradict Rookmaaker’s

Dooyeweerdian background of reality being divided into different law spheres. Although, while to

say that it contradicts his background is somewhat hyperbolic, it certainly shows a development to

a less rigid interpretation of the possibilities of interaction between the different modal law spheres.

In addition, an essential way by which ‘art is life’ is by its existence. On the one hand art needs no

justification for its existence, just as life, but on the other hand art has many functions and

meanings, just as life. Interestingly, none of these functions and meanings is the justification for the

17





existence of art or life.55 Thus, for Rookmaaker, a work of art is not the sum of its parts, functions,

meanings or aesthetic qualities, a work of art is valuable and justified by just being art, in its

existence as art. Interestingly, something which Novitz, an influential contemporary art historian,

picks up.56

Admittedly, Rookmaaker is deliberately vague in trying to define what art is. Understandably so,

since art is justified by being art and need not be justified from anything else, but as a creation

willed by God.57 Thus Rookmaaker states that we are in art

dealing with the fullness of the phenomenon in the whole of life, in which, even if beauty, the aesthetic, is very important, there are many other elements. The aesthetic can never be realized in its fullness

without these other elements, and the other elements only get their artistic meaning because they are brought together in an artistic way.58

‘The whole of life’, then, is the starting point for art and the worldview and talent of the artist

determine the quality of the work of art.59 Art and the life of the artist is connected in such a way

that the worldview of the artist will inevitably influence the work of art. Consequently, for

Rookmaaker, the norms for human life will be the norms for the artists, which also should be the

norms reflected in the work of art. Rookmaaker primarily takes these norms from Philippians 4:8

and states that just as the Philippians should think about whatever is true, honourable, just, pure,

lovely, gracious, excellent and worthy of praise so should the artist. Hence art’s connection to life is

that ‘art is life’, the same justification for its existence and the same measuring rod, only that art

should be measured from being art and life should be measured from being life.

1.3 Rookmaaker in relation to postmodernismThe period from 1970, when Modern Art and Death of a Culture was published to today, 2003,

may not seem particularly long, but it has been a period of rapid change. Hence, it is not

controversial to state that a paradigm shift from a faith in reason and development to a disbelief in

18


56 Novitz, Boundaries, 43ff.

57 Rookmaaker, ‘Art, Philosophy’, 144.


59 Rookmaaker, ‘Norms’, 129f.

any metanarratives and absolute truth has taken place during this time.60 Consequently, an attempt

to bring Modern Art and Death of a Culture into contemporary time must be made with caution and

critical awareness.

Wright points out that any historical study has to be aware of two sets of questions, on the one hand

the questions that were asked in the primary context and on the other hand the second set of

questions asked today and only when that has been acknowledged is it possible to bring the text

into the contemporary context.61

1.3.1 Rookmaaker in modernity’s art criticism

Rookmaaker shows some signs of hopelessness concerning his view of the contemporary art

climate.62 Art povera, a strong movement in the sixties followed by Pistoletto and Beuys,63 and a

veritable revolution against beauty,64 were diametrically opposite Rookmaaker’s view of art.

Furthermore, Rookmaaker’s Dutch contemporary art historian Jaffé points out that the modern

artists give a ‘true’ view of reality now when we are stripped of religion.65 The weakness, however,

in Jaffé standpoint lies in his unawareness of his worldview, where the stripping of religion

somehow seems to have made it possible for the artist to be more true, or closer to be able to find

truth. This unawareness is reflected in the reception of Modern Art and Death of a Culture by the

modernist art critics who, as we have mentioned, thought it was too subjective, but were not aware

of their own subjectivity or presuppositions.

Interestingly, Rookmaaker was not alone in the late sixties to be critical towards the development

of art. There has been a continuous debate concerning the development of modern art, abstract art

in particular.66 Interestingly, Kramer points out that the critical side in the debate has indeed been

19

60 Novitz, ‘Postmodernism’, 156f.

61 Wright, Jesus, 7.

62 Rookmaaker, ‘Modern art’, 345.

63 Marwick, Sixties, 325.

64 Celant, ‘Art Povera’, 889.

65 Jaffé, Nineteenth, 5.

66 Kramer, ‘Abstract art’.

supported by eminent art historians.67 Hence, Rookmaaker was not alone in stressing the

degenerative influence abstract art has on culture.

Interestingly, Rookmaaker is nevertheless close to many artists in terms of his understanding the

value and function of art. Artists in the sixties repeatedly pointed out how they wanted to bridge the

gap between art and life so that there was no such gap.68 Likewise, for them, art is justified by just

being art,69 as Rookmaaker would agree. The point of disagreement, however, comes in the clash of

the different worldviews.70 A very generalised consensus is that the artists and art critics in the

sixties often adhered to, although admittedly critiqued and exaggerated, the worldview of the wider

culture. Pop art is an example of that. The artist Richard Hamilton points out that pop art shows

how the artist has become a consumer in a consumerist society.71 Hence, Rookmaaker in Modern

Art and Death of a Culture departs with modernist artists at the level of worldviews and not in the

actual view of art itself.

However, Rookmaaker was in disagreement with the art critics of his time who often ‘intuit

complete and immanent meanings’ on works of art.72 Rookmaaker was different in that he worked

from a confessional worldview while many of his contemporary worked from a supposedly

objective and absolute worldview.

Hence, Rookmaaker’s interpretations were consciously influenced by his worldview. Interestingly,

despite (or perhaps because of!) this, he did not claim a rigid absolutivity for his interpretations,

since he was aware that others did not adhere to his own presuppositions. Rather, he continuously

stressed the importance of a dialogue between the artist and observer and also between different

interpreters.73 However, the dialogue will in the final analysis concern the truth of the underlying

worldview, even though the details of the interpretation are genuinely and significantly important.

20

67 Kramer, ‘Abstract art’.

68 Celant, ‘Art Povera’, 888.

69 Manzoni, ‘Free Dimension’, 710.


71 Hamilton, ‘Finest Art’, 727.

72 Harrison & Wood, Art, 988.

73 Rookmaaker, ‘Art and Entertainment’, 61.

Rookmaaker, therefore, on the one hand disagreed on the level of art theoretical method, since he

held a dialogue friendly approach, and on the other hand held an opposing worldview to his

contemporary art critics.

1.3.2 Rookmaaker, looking forward. Connections and dissimilarities with a postmodern

discourse.

The previous section points out that Rookmaaker sought to change and develop art towards a

Christian worldview. Interestingly, this bears significance when art and interpretation are

considered in a postmodern context. However, no single interpretation of the postmodern has

gained consent, therefore the attempt will be to relate Rookmaaker to some perhaps more common

themes within postmodernity.

Two contradictory views of postmodernity and art emerge when considering Habermas and

Lyotard. Habermas, on the one hand, gives consent to a close connection between art and life,

although any attempt to relate art to life has to acknowledge that art is just one part of culture that

has been separated from reality by the Enlightenment project. However, the attempts to connect art

and life are ‘nonsense experiments’ if other parts of culture are not related to life as well.74 Lyotard,

on the other hand, considers postmodern aesthetics to be ‘that which … puts forward the

unpresentable in presentation itself.’75 Hence, the form and how each painting transforms the

established norm of painting characterise art. Thus, any relation between art and life is therefore

blurred and questionable for Lyotard.

On the one hand, Rookmaaker would agree with Habermas that art is related to life, but would

disagree in that an attempt to relate art and life could be a ‘nonsense experiment’ since art like life

needs no justification. Thus art and engagement with art have value within themselves whether or

not other parts of reality are incorporated in the equation.76 On the other hand, Rookmaaker would

disagree with Lyotard that the form is the most important, since this disregards the fact that the

21

74 Habermas, ‘Modernity’, 1005.

75 Lyotard, ‘Postmodernism?’, 1014.

76 Rookmaaker, ‘No Justification’, 329.

artists very rarely do something purely aesthetically, and most of the times are trying to express

something beyond form.77

The previous paragraphs, far from being a conclusive study of Rookmaaker in relation to

postmodernity, serve to show that the sets of questions raised by postmodernity can interact with

the set of questions engaged by Rookmaaker, although they will at times mutually challenge each

other. Further issues raised by postmodernity will be treated in the next part, and to this we now

turn.


Part 2

23

2.1 Discourses, narratives and metaphors in lifeIn postmodernity we are not, according to Rorty, increasingly understanding how things really are,

but simply existing in ‘a history of increasingly useful metaphors.’78 Thus, reality consists of either

dead or living metaphors that shape our language,79 and a lack of belief in progress means that

metaphors simply add on to each other. Consequently, language does not bring people closer to

truth, it merely changes. Thus, according to Rorty, progress in our overall understanding of reality

is impossible since language determines our view of reality. In addition, reality has become an

individualistic autonomous narrative without possible connection to a greater narrative. However,

does this gloomy picture inevitably follow if life is narratival?

Interestingly, for McFague, the heart of metaphor is the ‘basic movement by indirection from the

known to the unknown.’80 Hence, the known is used in order for us to understand the unknown.

Further, McFague poignantly argues, the metaphor is something natural to us, natural functions,

such as sight and hearing are used metaphorically to stand for something else.81 Thus, when

metaphor might narrowly be thought as belonging to the arts alone it is part of our everyday life.

Holliger’s Cardiophony for Oboe and Heart microphone as performed by Chris Redgate illustrates

this point, where Redgate’s oboe and heart are recorded simultaneously.82 As the music becomes

more intense the heart rate increases, hence Redgate’s real heart is incorporated as a vital, in the

full sense of the word, part of the music. The piece is double sided, the more conventional side,

although far from being conventional music, is the oboe expressing emotions and themes through

music. The highly inventive side is the incorporation of the heart. On the one hand, the heart is

coworking with the oboe as an instrument: it is metaphorically regarded as the centre of emotions

and thus expresses emotions, just as music expresses emotions. On the other hand the heart is

expressing more than the music alone, it is bridging the gap between art and reality, art and life.

The heart is not simply the centre of emotions and life metaphorically, but also an actual centre of

24

78 Rorty, Contingency, 9.

79 Rorty, Contingency, 18.

80 McFague, Metaphorical, 31.


82 Holliger, Cardiophony.

life. Interestingly these two aspects, the metaphorical and the real, are interwoven in this piece to

create music penetrating barriers between art and life.

Rorty is therefore right that life consists of metaphors, however, not everything is metaphor.83 The

question is one of worldview, not everything is metaphor if the worldview, like Rookmaaker’s,

leaves room for a faithful God, nor is it then necessary to conclude that language controls us. This

will all come clear when the question of worldview is considered below. For now, however, it is

interesting to see that the nature of metaphors can lead to a link between art and life.

2.1.1 An organic worldview: a way to understand communication in art

The consequences for interpretation of art, if reality is an individualistic, autonomous narrative, are

that any dialogue is impossible, since it can never be certain what someone else might mean with

the metaphors they use. Thus, postmodernity renders meaning subjective.

Barthes famously announced the death of the author and the liberation of the creative reader.84

Hence, meaning no longer originates from an objective author, but is rather created by the reader.

Consequently, communication of meaning is strictly between the text and the reader,85 thus, there is

no dialogue between reader and author. However, an anthropological insight from Hiebert might

bring some understanding here and an alternative route from the postmodernists’ murder of the

author.

Hiebert points out that West is largely ruled by a mechanistic worldview contrary to the organic

worldview held by the greater part of the world. Whilst the mechanistic worldview is deterministic,

controlled by laws, the organic worldview on the other hand is relational.86 Thus, it will become

evident that the postmodern concept of the text belongs to a mechanistic worldview taken to its

extreme.

25


84 Vanhoozer, Meaning, 69.

85 Barthes, ‘Analysis’, 262.

86 Hiebert, Reflections, 196.

Postmodernity is, for Barthes, on the one hand, the dethronement of the author, a reaction against

the objective authorial intent. The author has to die, since he or she would inevitably determine the

meaning of the text otherwise. Therefore, on the other hand postmodernity is the elevation of the

reader.87 Now the subjective reader determines the meaning of the text. However, Derrida develops

the idea and sees both the author and the reader as slaves in the bigger wheel, language, which

controls humanity.88 Consequently, everything is deterministic, even creativity. Hence,

postmodernity has not broken free from a mechanistic worldview. Admittedly, a shift of rulers has

taken place, but not of the underlying paradigm, or worldview.

It is in response to such a scenario that Rookmaaker argues that liberation of art from absolute

relativity will come only from a shift in paradigm.89 A true worldview is vital. Interestingly,

Vanhoozer proposes that people are citizens of language with rights and responsibilities, rather than

slaves.90 Thus, Vanhoozer, like Rookmaaker, stresses relationality in the interpretation act which

releases people from Derrida’s largely non-relational mechanistic framework of cause and effect.

Interestingly, Rookmaaker, like Derrida, asserted that the spirit of the age is one of slavery.91

However, contrary to Derrida, Rookmaaker proposed that freedom can be found in Christ and that

this freedom is a freedom for the artist to be creative.92 Vanhoozer’s proposition, above, is helpful

in that it creates space for a more organic worldview which enables dialogue and creativity. Thus,

authors are more than inanimate objects determined by language. Both Vanhoozer and Rookmaaker

present a more organic worldview which frees artists from any ‘slavery’ and empowers them to

shape the language. Thus, language enables the reader to enter into meaningful dialogue with the

text and author, since the text’s meaning is shaped by the author. The question remains, however, if

art can reach beyond itself? Simply stated, is art introvert or extrovert, wholly subjective or

objective?

26

87 Culler, Deconstruction, 31.


89 Rookmaaker, Modern, 209f, 223.


91 Rookmaaker, ‘Guggenheim’, 321.


2.1.2 Can art be for its own sake?

The phrase ‘l’art pour l’art’ was coined in the 19th century by Théophile Gautier.93 It was later

taken up by Baudelaire but did not mean that art should be abstract, purely aesthetic or even

autonomous. ‘“L’art pour l’art” really meant the absolute liberty of the artist to treat anything he

liked without heeding ethical or other norms.’94

Rookmaaker’s concept of ‘art is life’ is polemical against critics who hold art to be autonomous,

i.e. the concept of ‘l’art pour l’art’ as developed by Russian Formalists (e.g. J. Shklovsky and R.

Jakobson),95 Structuralists (Lévi-Strauss),96 and critics of New Criticism (e.g. T.S. Elliott),97 where,

even though they applied their theories to literature in particular, art in general is an autonomous

reality. Postmodernity has taken the concept further, typified in Lyotard, who views art as self

referential: art is constantly pushing its own boundaries concerning what is art. It is the form and

not the meaning of art that is important.98 Thus, for Lyotard, art is purely for its own sake.

However, art can never be purely for its own sake according to Rookmaaker, since a painting will

make the observers refer to their reality such is the iconic value of art.99 A painting of a tree, for

instance, will not be seen as abstract lines on a canvas, but will be connected with a perception of a

tree that the viewer has from an experience in reality. Rookmaaker would, in Saussure’s

terminology, but contra to him,100 state that the signifier and the signified are connected in the

reality of the person and can only be separated as a thought experiment. Consequently, ‘art for art’s

sake’ can only be a purely theoretical concept, which does not transpose itself into the actual act of

interpretation, hence is meaningless.101

27

93 Haynes, Vocation, 112.

94 Rookmaaker, ‘Gauguin’, note 89, 370.

95 Hawkes, Structuralism, 61.



98 Lyotard, ‘Postmodernism?’, 1015.


100 Saussure, Course, 67.


Interestingly, Lyotard and deconstructuralists, such as Derrida and Barthes,102 would skilfully

oppose any connection between the signifier and the signified that Rookmaaker makes. Despite

this, however Rookmaaker’s view poses a genuine challenge. The underlying question which

Rookmaaker raises, and for which Lyotard, Barthes and Derrida have to provide an answer, is how

it is that meaning can be transferred in such a way that people actually understand each other in

everyday communication? Such transferability of meaning in everyday communication is also

important for interpretation of art. Rarely do people see a tree in a painting and say that they saw a

fish. For now, however, it is important to take, as Rookmaaker does, any distinction between art

and reality is a false dichotomy. However, the possibility of some understanding does not mean that

interpretation is infallible, neither that it needs to for interpretation to be meaningful. In any case,

art cannot be for its own sake since it is an integral part of life and constantly refers the observer to

the reality of that life.

2.2 “Art is life”, but whose life?If Rookmaaker is right that art is not simply for art’s sake, then, who is art for? Is it just the artist’s

life or does art have wider implications? Lyotard states that objects intending to give an example of

the Idea always are ‘painfully inadequate’ and that they ‘impart no knowledge about reality.’103 As

such, art has no relevance other than as a means for the artist’s creative outlet. Bauman, likewise,

outlines similar tendencies in postmodern art: the artist has gained independence from life and now

‘nothing useful can be art.’104 Consequently, postmodern art has lost contact with life according to

both Lyotard and Bauman.

However, such a view has been contested, especially by scholars with a relational (organic)

epistemology such as Gadamer and Polanyi.105 Begbie, referring to Gadamer and Polanyi, sees a

promising way forward from the Kantian subjectivised epistemology, since knowledge is neither

objective nor relative: rather it is corporate. Thus, ‘without a community, without other people

(living and dead), without a common language, shared traditions and common authorities, there

28

102 Culler, Deconstruction, 70, 95.

103 Lyotard, Postmodern, 78.

104 Bauman, Postmodernity, 102.

105 Begbie, Voicing, 200.

simply can be no knowledge.’106 Consequently, corporate epistemology implies corporate

hermeneutics. As such understanding of meaning in art is reached in a corporate pursuit between

the artist and the observer. Consequently, the meaning of a work of art reaches out through the

canvas and effects reality. In addition, it accounts for the closeness between metaphors in art and in

life that McFague points to.

Interestingly, similar aesthetics must at least have been implicit in the works of Frank Moore and

David Wojnarowicz, who consciously tried to awake the New Yorkers awareness of AIDS.107

Would they attempt to proclaim their views through their art if they did not believe that meaning

can be understood corporately? Likewise Sherrie Levine, would she in her art oppose ‘the male

gaze’ if meaning is not transferable and understood corporately?108 Any such attempts are

meaningless unless art actually effects the life of the observers. However, they are certainly

postmodern in that they refuse chronology and development in art. Thus, since nothing new can be

developed, according to postmodernity, they duplicate and mix from previous periods,109 which is

evident in Levine’s work.110

Sherrie Levine, Untitled (President: 5) 1979,

The Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles.

29

106 Begbie, Voicing, 201f.

107 Archer, Art, 162f.

108 Archer, Art, 178.

109 Bauman, Postmodernity, 95.


This ‘duplicity’ in postmodernity,111 no matter how evident the artist’s intentions might be,

proposes complications in the act of interpretation. The lack of metanarratives in postmodernism

means that one narrative simply adds to another: no narrative is more true than another.112 Hence,

‘art criticism in the post-historical [i.e. postmodern] period must be as pluralistic as post-historical

art itself,’ according to Danto.113 However, is such statement necessary in the light of an organic

worldview and a corporate understanding of truth outlined above? What happens to interpretation

now?

2.2.1 Subjectivity in interpretation

‘One’s life and world view depends on what one believes and on where one seeks anchorage, even on the denial

that there is any anchor to be found anywhere at all.’114

Rookmaaker opposed the modernist art critics who sought to interpret art objectively without

acknowledging their own presuppositions. However, contrary to accusation, Rookmaaker did not

lapse into complete subjectivity. Rather, the subjectivity he was accused of had more to do with the

fact that his interpretation came out of an adherence to a different worldview in which faith in God

rather than reason, which was the basis for his contemporaries, took priority.

Within Rookmaaker’s worldview lies a fundamental relational dimension: faith in God based on

the relation with Christ. Hence, it leaves room for a non-materialistic and not strictly rationalistic

realm where faith in God is a valid epistemological justification and basis for interpretation. This

should be kept in mind when encountering the postmodern thought of absolute relativity in

interpretation.

30


112 Danto, End, 44.

113 Danto, End, 47.


Absolute relativity of meaning, despite being a contradiction in terms, is nonetheless proposed in

postmodern interpretation.115 Meaning is separated from authorial intent and is, instead, created

both by the initial reader and recreated by subsequent readers.116 Derrida proposes further that the

text is prior to its author, since the author is determined by what language makes possible to

write.117 Hence, the author cannot write anything ‘outside’ language, so to speak. However, it does

not follow that the author is completely determined even though he or she is limited by language.

The author may still choose exactly what words to use which convey his or her meaning best.

The author’s ability to choose his or her words in order to express their meaning, therefore, puts

responsibilities on the reader. Thus, Vanhoozer contends, ‘the reality to which interpreters are

accountable and to which their descriptions must correspond if they seek to be true is grounded in

the author’s embodied and enacted intention.’118 Interestingly, intention is the relation between the

author and the actual created text, not intention as what the author’s mental state might have been

prior to writing the text. Consequently, meaning is found if the interpreter relates truly to the text as

the ‘embodied intention’ of the author. Furthermore, the reader has a choice if he or she wants ‘to

invent rather than to recover meaning,’119 where recovery of meaning is preceded by a dialogue

with the author’s factual intentions found in the text. Interestingly, Phillipians 4:8 could bear

remarkable relevance here for the act of interpretation, as it points out the importance of being

honest and true. Thus, it is not that it is impossible for Barthes to kill the author, only that he, by

doing so, does not respect the nature of how meaning is transposed in a text.

However, the importance of a paradigm shift is considerable since, if the preceding is true,

postmodern hermeneutics is treating works of art unjustly. Interestingly, Rookmaaker realised, as

we have seen, the importance of an alternative worldview and presented a worldview based on God

as revealed in Christ.120 Rookmaaker’s Dutch Reformed background, and especially the influence

from Dooyeweerd and Kuyper, is a likely cause for the central role Rookmaaker contributes to

31

115 Lundin, Culture, 193.

116 Stecker, ‘Interpretation’, 250.

117 Culler, Deconstruction, 95f.




worldview. However, Rookmaaker’s worldview, in a postmodern context, is a catalyst for the

freedom of the artist and enables the observer to find a meaningful interpretation in the artefact. A

worldview such as Rookmaaker’s, enables communication about an artefact’s meaning between the

artist and the interpreter, since firstly, such a worldview introduces the relational instead of the

deterministic, and thus bridges gaps and enables dialogue between the artist and the art work and

the art work and the interpreter. And secondly, a faithful God of truth warrants the reliability of

such a communication.121 It can therefore be said that a worldview with a relational basis manages

to fuse many different horizons together, especially for the reader/observer.

2.2.2. Fusing of horizons

It is helpful to follow Gadamer’s terminology of a fusing of horizons when handling interpretation

in the light of Rookmaaker’s Reformed worldview. Interpretation, for Gadamer, is the art of going

beyond the text to ask the question to which the text is the answer. Furthermore, ‘a work of art can

be understood only if we assume its adequacy as an expression of the artistic idea.’122 The fusing of

the horizons is when ‘we regain the concepts of a historical past in such a way that they also

include our own comprehension of them.’123 Interestingly, there are points of similarity with

Rookmaaker’s view of interpretation.

Rookmaaker emphasised the subjective idea becoming ‘objectivised’ by the artist through the

transference of the artist’s idea through different ‘law-spheres’ according to Dooyeweerd's

cosmonomic idea.124 In simple terms, the artist has an idea or intuition, this intuition is transformed

by the inspiration of the artist so that the inspiration leads to an objectivisation of the idea, it is

created into an object, a work of art. The work of art will hence have an ‘objectiveness’ to it: that is

it exists in the reality in which we experience, in which we live. It is then possible for the observer

to enter into a dialogue with the work of art since the observer share that same reality.125

32

121 Hicks, Evangelicals, 189.

122 Gadamer, Truth, 333.

123 Gadamer, Truth, 337.

124 Rookmaaker, ‘Sketch’, 41.


Thus, the dialogue, which Rookmaaker stresses as vital in interpretation,126 is very close to

Gadamer’s idea of fusing of horizons. Consequently, the interpreter is able to get to a meaning

which is on the one hand not absolutely subjective because it is an engagement in a dialogue with

the author’s set intentions in the work of art, but on the other hand, neither is it completely

objective because the dialogue always incorporates ‘our own comprehension’ of the artist’s set

intentions in the work of art. Therefore, interpretation is a balance-act on a thin line with a danger

to fall over either on the objective side or on the subjective side.

2.3 A biblical perspective on “art is life” from Rookmaaker’s point of viewThe Bible, which constitutes the foundation of the Reformed faith, plays a key role in

Rookmaaker’s thinking. This is unsurprising given the importance Rookmaaker pays for a

worldview to be based on truth or rather the Truth.127 Interestingly, as previous sections have

sought to show, a worldview based on the Bible poses a fruitful alternative to that of the

postmodernists since it is organic, in the sense previously outlined, and thus re-enables

communication between the artist and the reader or observer. Consequently, the Bible is significant

in the current attempt to face the issues raised by the postmodern view on art.

The contribution from the Bible for Rookmaaker derives mainly from two aspects of biblical

teaching: what the proper conduct for a Christian life is and that of God as the creator.128

The former is evident from Modern Art and the Death of a Culture, where, after linking art and life,

Rookmaaker applies Phillipians 4:8 to art and the artist.129 Thus, Rookmaaker takes Paul’s teaching

as paradigmatic for the Bible’s teaching on Christian lifestyle, not to the exclusion of other biblical

teaching, but with the view that Paul incorporates and is coherent with it.130 Consequently, the

strong link Rookmaaker draws between life and art enables him to bring in biblical teaching on life

33



128 The Bible certainly plays a more important role in both Rookmaaker’s life and aesthetics than what is stated above (see ‘Miscellaneous Articles’ in Hengelaar-Rookmaaker (ed.), Western Art). However, this section seeks to outline the main biblical teachings which constitute a vital significance in Rookmaaker’s aesthetics.


130 Rookmaaker, ‘Art and Entertainment’, 77f.

the spiritual can no longer paint objects adhering to

reality, since they are determined by naturalistic

laws, which the artists wants to break free from.

Consequently, they had to paint in abstract forms.

Hence, when Picasso paints a nude in 1910, he

paints it in, what is for him, its true non-materialistic

and abstract form.

If, on the other hand, the artists give proper space for

the divine, then they can create, in Rookmaaker’s

terms, with authentic freedom where they would be

subject to the norms of a personal and loving God

instead of ruled by naturalistic laws or enslaved by

language. However, it is more than a choice of

preference, it is to face a genuine choice between an

authentic or inauthentic worldview, since, if Bob

Dylan is right, ‘no matter what you say: You're

gonna have to serve somebody … it may be the

devil or it may be the Lord. But you’re gonna have

to serve somebody.’156

Sadly, as Rookmaaker concludes, it is apparent that

the artists generally accepted the scientific

worldview that the external reality is governed by

naturalistic laws. Heaven is closed, but as we have

seen there is still the need in the artists to reach

as being essential for art alike. The reason and justification for this, however, lies in Rookmaaker’s

constant emphasis on a worldview to be true and that he found such a worldview in Reformed

Christianity.

The latter aspect, although present in Modern Art and the Death of a Culture,131 is first and

foremost expressed in The Creative Gift.

Art is not a religion, nor an activity relegated to a chosen few, nor a mere worldly, superfluous affair. None of these views of art does justice to the creativity with which God

has endowed man. It is the ability to make something beautiful … just as God made the world beautiful and said “It is good.” Art as such needs no justification; rather, it demands

a response. … The supreme justification for all creation is that God has willed it to be.132

Thus, for Rookmaaker, God as creator does not simply provide the justification for art, that God

willed it, but it likewise provides the basis for the right attitude to art, that of a response to God’s

creativity. God has created, therefore, when an artist creates it should somehow incorporate or be in

response to the primary creative act.

In addition, it is only through God as the initial creator that Rookmaaker can justify the existence

of norms in art. The norms are not found directly in the Bible, but in the underlying assumption

that God has created humans with certain possibilities where the characteristics for these

possibilities are that ‘God created them, and made and structured man in such a way that he could

discover these possibilities, and gave man the freedom and the task to realize and fulfil them.’133

Consequently, the norms for art are possible to discover because they are part of these human

possibilities.

Rookmaaker, in his use of Scripture, further attested that art is life, or perhaps conversely the

Scriptures together with the influence of Kuyper and Dooyeweerd brought Rookmaaker to connect

art and life in the first place. Either way, it is clear that God as the creator enables Rookmaaker to

justify the existence of art and its norms and draw the link between art and life. Therefore, when

34




such a link has been made, Rookmaaker emphasises the importance to base art on biblical

principles for life, especially as found in Phillipians 4:8.

2.3.1 Creativity and transformation: a recontextualisation of the concept “art is life” to its

new discourse

Rookmaaker’s exegesis in support for the concept of ‘art is life’ is helpful in many ways and he is

certainly right in what he affirms. However, there is a neglect of the Holy Spirit’s role in art which

is less than helpful concerning the importance the role of communication between the artist and the

observer plays in the response to the contemporary challenges to interpretation of art. Less than

helpful since, the Holy Spirit is traditionally seen as the renewer of the heart in humans and the

communicator between God and humanity post-Pentecost.134 Consequently, the Holy Spirit is

likely to be important in enabling communication within and renewing God’s creation. Therefore,

the neglect of the Spirit appears strange since Rookmaaker continuously stresses that art portrays

the decadent spirit of the age and how Christian art should transform such ‘spirituality’.135

Rookmaaker’s neglect of the Holy Spirit probably reflects his Reformed tradition and might have

biographical reasons, since he opposed the charismatic movement on grounds that it was

irrational.136 Interestingly, very similar to Rookmaaker’s reasons for criticising modern art.

However, such neglect cannot be justified considering his emphasis that norms for art are to be

found through ‘human possibilities’ created by God. How is the artist to know whether he or she

has the right norms unless some communication and confirmation with the Creator is possible,

especially since Rookmaaker explicitly states that such norms cannot be found directly from the

Bible.

In addition, Rookmaaker rightly recognises the spiritual in modern and contemporary art.

Kandinsky, a pioneer in abstract art, especially sought the spiritual in art.137 Consequently, since

many artists seek to portray the spiritual in their art,138 it seems odd that Rookmaaker does not

35

134 Pelikan, Christian Doctrine, 164ff.

135 Rookmaaker, ‘No Justification’, 328.


137 Kandinsky published a book, On the Spiritual in Art, where he attempted draw up an aesthetics whereby art should be the painting of the spiritual realm (Lipsey, Art, 1).

138 Lipsey, Art, 300.

invoke a Christian spirituality with inclusion of the Spirit. However, not all Christians have

neglected the role of the Spirit in art.

Vasily Kandinsky, Black and Violet 1923, Private collection.

The Spirit in art, then, is seen by Sherry, as working with the artist wherever beauty is found. Thus,

‘the wonder and admiration which artistic inspiration evokes may be seen as part of our wonder at

the manifoldness of creation and at the continued activity of the Holy Spirit in the world.’139

Beautiful art, therefore, can transform the observer towards the Creator’s intentions, since it reflects

the Spirit’s transformative activity.140 This, however, can only be possible if God is seen as the

creator and the source of all beauty,141 a point too often neglected.

However, there is a possible danger of an all too loose understanding of the Spirit’s activity where

the outworking can take any forms without restrictions. Thus, any definitions of what is from the

Spirit are lost. Therefore, even though ‘the wind blows wherever it chooses,’ it is important to

emphasise that the Spirit is bonded with Christ. They are, as Smail puts it, ‘clasped in the closest

embrace of mutual support and co-operation before they are stretched out to gather in the world.’142

Thus, the Spirit’s activity in art will be coherent with Christ’s activity in his life. Interestingly,

36

139 Sherry, Spirit, 119.



142 Smail, Giving, 142.

Rookmaaker, if following preceding arguments, would find further support for the importance of a

Christian worldview, since proper art will, through the Holy Spirit, be connected with, not just

human life in general, but Christ’s life in particular.

The connection between Christ and the Holy Spirit is important for art since it, when beauty has

faced considerable attack,143 reconfigures the concept of beauty in linking it with the cross. Thus,

beauty comes in to a different light if it is not simply connected to abstract considerations,

psychological explanations, or just taste, but with a concrete example of a life lived beautifully.

Consequently, beauty is not what is considered nice and pleasurable, but beauty can, in Christ

through the Spirit, redeem that which is ugly and ignoble through identification with it. Thus, the

Spirit is able to transform ugliness into beauty, just as death was transformed into life in Christ.144

However, since the Spirit is the power behind the transformation, any artist who does not allow for

the Spirit’s inspiration and creates ugliness might not so much create bad art (even though that will

probably be the case!145) as loosing his or her ability to transform people’s lives through their art.

Additionally, the transformation is not just towards something new, but also a restoration of God’s

initial intentions for creation, as such, creation and eschatology is linked through the transformative

potential in works of art.146

In Rookmaaker’s case, however, it is questionable whether the transformation of the ruling

worldview, be it modernism or postmodernism, into a Christian worldview will ever take place

without inclusion of the Spirit. God’s Spirit hovered over the waters in the creation and it is in the

power of the Spirit that the Phillipians will be able to live according to what is true, noble, right,

pure, lovely, admirable, excellent and praise-worthy. Therefore, Rookmaaker in his aesthetics,

considering his reliance on Genesis 1 and Phillippians 4:8 and his emphasis that art should be

beautiful,147 needs to incorporate the Spirit. Therefore, if art is to be like life, it will come with

power from on high.

37

143 Fontana, ‘White’, 645.

144 de Gruchy, Christianity, 122.


146 Gunton, Triune, 233f.

147 Rookmaaker, ‘Art, Aesthetics’, 142. Interestingly, Rookmaaker has a similar concept of beauty as that arrived to through linking beauty and the cross. However, his reasons are based on a transfer of Plato’s concept of beauty, where beauty is also true and good, into Christianity, rather than the link between the Holy Spirit and Christ’s life.

Part 3

38

3.1 Reality, true or false?As seen in the second part, the importance of the worldview cannot be understated in interaction

with art, whether it be interpretation, or creation. But following on from an emphasis on worldview

is the question of truth. Is the worldview true, is it correct or false in its account of the world?

Rookmaaker, insightfully, distinguishes between a true and a false worldview on whether the artist

or painting shows the world as an open or closed system. It can be characterised by whether the

artist has painted a world with an open or closed heaven.148 Obviously not all paintings have a

heaven or sky, but what Rookmaaker means is whether or not there is space for or

acknowledgement of the divine and supernatural in the painting. However, a true worldview,

according to Rookmaaker, must not just have space for the supernatural, but also represent the

created external reality in a true light as God’s creation.149

To paint reality as God’s creation does certainly not mean an ignorance on the artist’s part of the

existence of evil and ugliness in the world, conversely, what is evil should be painted as truly evil

and not as pleasurable for example.150 Interestingly, paintings depicting a false view of the world

are still valid and important as art, since they portray ‘an honest expression by a person of our

times.’151 Thus, there is in Rookmaaker’s approach a healthy space for dialogue between different

worldviews without therefore recapitulate to relativism. Consequently, it is a method transferable

and recommendable to the contemporary discourse, since the need is for an approach where truth

can be held firmly, but without exclusion of valid inputs from differing worldviews.

3.1.1 Heaven lost

Rubens’ Martyrdom of St Livinus exemplifies,152 for Rookmaaker, a true worldview with heaven

open and possibility of interaction by God. ‘The painting speaks of an open sky, a world that is not

closed within itself: God and His hosts are there too. Truth has meaning.’153 The contemporary

39



150 Rookmaaker, ‘Westminister’, 449f.


152 See illustration on p. 37.


worldview is on the other hand ‘no longer open to a transcendent God’ thus due to scientism the

world has ‘become a closed box, and man was caught in that box.’154 Interestingly, according to

Rookmaaker, contemporary art attempts to escape that closed box of scientism to show that

humans are more than material.155 Therefore, artists who want to paint things as they really are or

Pablo Picasso, Nude 1910,

The National Gallery of Art,Washington.

40



beyond scientism. Hence, there is a cry to get away from the existential angst produced in a closed

worldview, but the exclusion of God and introduction of scientism made it near to impossible for

artists to break free from the materialistic worldview into the organic worldview with the inclusion

of the divine.156

Edvard Munch, Skrik 1893, Nasjonalgalleriet, Oslo.

Interestingly, a paradigm shift to include the Christian God will be particularly relevant and

important for today’s artists if Lipsey is right in that contemporary art suffers from exhaustion and

loss of direction.157 Such an inclusion would namely restore the possibility of incorporating the

external reality into painting, and to paint things spiritual by both figurative and abstract painting,

since the source of the spiritual, the transcendent God, is also the Creator of reality. Consequently,

this will greatly increase the source of inspiration and choice of style for contemporary artists,

since the whole of reality can be used, and therefore revitalise the artists.

41

156 Dylan, ‘Serve’.

157 Lipsey, Art, 2.

3.1.2 Heaven regained?

Is it possible to trace any signs that heaven has been opened again so that art can be refreshed? It is

evident in Rookmaaker that modern art threatens to kill culture: thus heaven is still closed.

However, without wanting to neglect the valuable insights Rookmaaker gives on modern art, its

negative view on reality, its escapism into mysticism and so on, are there, on the one hand, not

some positive features in modern or abstract art? And on the other hand, is Rookmaaker right in his

interpretation of Rubens as a positive example of an open heaven in that Rubens would be

significantly different from someone like Rothko?

Rookmaaker points out that Rubens painted with a concept of heaven as open while someone like

Rothko paints with the concept of a closed heaven and from a standpoint of creation as not worthy

of depiction.158 The distinctions seems clear, but are they really that different?

Pieter Pauwel Rubens, Martyrdom of St Livinus Marc Rothko, Unknown, Private collection. 1633, Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts, Brussels.

Rubens paints here with a visible concept of an open heaven, which is true to the Christian

worldview, but what is the message about the earth? It is negative, just as Rothko’s painting is

negative in that aspect. Hence, nothing on earth is portrayed in a positive light, St Livinus, is


admittedly painted in white and is good, but he clearly does not belong to earth with its dark

inhabitants. In addition, St. Livinus’ persecutors acknowledge the presence of the supernatural, but

they react in fear, as evil people are likely to do. Consequently, Rubens paints the external reality in

a very gloomy light indeed, but would that make this painting false according to Rookmaaker?

Probably not, since it depicts evil in its true light and Christians do in one sense not belong to this

earth. However, is it not possible to interpret Rothko in a similar way?

Rothko rarely spoke about the spiritual in his art, but nevertheless, ‘the mature work of Mark

Rothko (1903-1970) is one of the great spiritual realizations of twentieth-century art in any

medium.’159 Thus, if Rothko attempted to paint the spiritual, is not his negative depiction of this

world justified, in the same way as Rubens is, since the material in comparison is far less glorious

than the supernatural realm? Rothko, in this view, must be entitled to portray the material in a

negative light. However, Rookmaaker is probably reacting against the not so hidden gnosticism in

abstract art, that creation is negative per se.160

Nonetheless, while such an accusation bears some truth, it is questionable whether Rookmaaker has

accounted for the level of analogy on which abstract art is functioning, where something stands for

something else.161 Abstract art, therefore, does not necessarily have to be gnostic just because it is

abstract, the analogies found in abstract art might very well lead the observer to think of something

very concrete. After all, not just art, but life also has a level of analogy, life is, as we have seen, full

of metaphors. In addition, Rothko was inspired by traditional European colour-theories.162 Hence, it

is important to acknowledge such influences and interpret Rothko’s use of colour accordingly since

the observer is in a continuous dialogue with what the artist intended with the artefact.

Consequently, Rookmaaker’s accusation of gnosticism is not completely valid, since there are

analogies between firstly art and life, and secondly art and tradition in Rothko’s abstract works of

which he himself seemed appreciative.

43





Rookmaaker might nevertheless be correct in his judgement that much abstract art portrays a

mystical spirituality. However, a blanket statement about all abstract art is not helpful. Abstract art

on its own might produce a gnostic sentiment, just as over beautification of this creation might lead

to a positivistic humanism a la Rousseau, none of which are true. Hence, a balance between the

two is essential for an authentic Christian worldview where creation is praiseworthy but not to the

neglect of the spiritual and the spiritual is wonderful, but not to the neglect of the beauty of

creation. However, as we have seen, this balance is not held completely in either Rubens or

Rothko, but as Polanyi has pointed out, truth is corporate. Therefore, the artists and their works

taken together should account for the true worldview, something which might be impossible for the

individual artist. Consequently, if heaven is to be regained, artists have to be interpreted with a

corporate and dialogical understanding where not one artist alone can paint a complete view of the

spiritual or material, but where all, if they are truthful, can lead and transform the observer closer to

a true worldview.

44

Conclusion

45

Rookmaaker was not a conformist: he stood out wherever he was, whether in the Dutch Reformed

church or in the secular art circles. He nonetheless had an impact on both with his articles and

books on art, Christianity or art and Christianity. However, his most influential book Modern Art

and the Death of a Culture, even though it was coherent with Rookmaaker’s preceding thinking,

served Rookmaaker well in Christian circles, but was seen with unfavourable eyes by secular art

critics. In there the concept of ‘art is life’ is developed most clearly, consequently, since

Rookmaaker was a Reformed Christian, the life art was supposed to be like was the Christian life.

Rookmaaker argued convincingly how art disconnected from reality and life is detrimental to the

culture and that only a return to God can redeem it. Thus, criticism from the secular sphere is

unsurprising. Interesting, however, is how well the concept of ‘art is life’ fits with the challenges

brought forward by contemporary postmodern interpretation of art.

Interpretation has become absolutely relative: only the reader or observer determines the meaning

of the artefact, which in itself is autonomous, disconnected from life. Art is autonomous since it

functions on the level of metaphors, where something stands for something else. However,

McFague has shown that life also functions partly on the level of metaphor. Consequently, when art

and life are linked, communication is possible between the artist and the observer, since they exist

on the same level, thus enabling an exchange of meaning between the artist’s finalised or

‘objectivised’ intentions and the observer. Furthermore, the connection between art and life in a

worldview where the space for the divine is acknowledged and God is the warrant for truth enables

dialogue between different interpretations.

In creating art, a balance between portraying the created reality and the spiritual must be held, not

necessarily by one and the same artist, but in art overall. Hence, an overemphasis on abstraction,

might lead to the downplaying of the creation and lead to a gnostic spirituality, while an

overemphasis on the created might marginalise the divine.

For Rookmaaker, art must be God-centred in order to maintain the balance: God-centred in that

God was the first creator and as such established the norms within which the artist enjoys genuine

freedom to create art that expresses reality. Sadly, Rookmaaker neglects the Holy Spirit’s role in

art, sadly, because it is through incorporating the Spirit that it is possible to account for the

46

transformation art can generate in the observer. Nevertheless, Rookmaaker’s concept of ‘art is life’

together with his Christian worldview propose a fruitful alternative to postmodernity’s thoroughly

subjective approach to art. words: 11466

47

Bibliography

48

Archer, Michael, Art Since 1960, London: Thames and Hudson, 1997.

Bauman, Zygmunt, Postmodernity and its Discontents, Cambridge: Polity Press, 1997.

Barthes, Roland, ‘Textual Analysis of a Tale by Edgar Allan Poe’ in Roland Barthes, The Semiotic

Challenge, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988.

Bavelaar, Hestia, ‘Book Review: Jan Van Adrichem – The Reception of Modern Art in the

Netherlands, 1910-2000: Picasso as Pars Pro Toto’ on the Boijmansbulletin Web site

(February 2003, http://www.boijmansbulletin.nl/bb003_4.pdf).

Bax, E. H., ‘Cleavage in Dutch Society: Changing Patterns of Social and Economic

Discrimination’ on the Universiteitsbibliotheek Groningen Web site (April 2003, http://

www.ub.rug.nl/eldoc/som/95B31/95B31.pdf).

Begbie, Jeremy, Voicing Creation’s Praise: Towards a Theology of the Arts, Edinburgh: T&T

Clark, 1991.

Birtwistle, Graham, ‘H.R. Rookmaaker: The Shaping of his Thought’ in Marleen Hengelaar-

Rookmaaker (ed.), Art, Artist and Gauguin: The Complete Works of Hans R.

Rookmaaker, vol. 1, Carlisle: Piquant, 2002.

Celant, Germano, ‘Art Povera’ in Charles Harrison and Paul Wood (eds.), Art in Theory

1900-1990: An Anthology of Changing Ideas, Oxford: Blackwell, 1992.

Culler, Jonathan, The Pursuit of Signs: Semiotics, Literature, Deconstruction, London: Routledge

& Kegan Paul, 1981.

Culler, Jonathan, On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism after Structuralism, London:

Routledge, 1983.

Danto, Arthur C., After the End of Art: Contemporary Art and the Pale of History, New Jersey:

Princeton University Press, 1997.

Dooyeweerd, Herman, A New Critique of Theoretical Thought: Vol. I: The Necessary

Presuppositions of Philosophy, Lampeter: Edwin Mellen Press, 1997.

Dylan, Bob, ‘Gotta Serve Somebody’ on the Bob Dylan Web site (May 2003, http://

www.bobdylan.com/songs/serve.html).

Ferlin, Nils, ‘När Skönheten kom till byn’ in LilleBror Söderlundh, När skönheten kom till byn o.a.

visor, Stockholm: Bonniers, 1962.

Fontana, Lucio, ‘The White Manifesto’ in Charles Harrison and Paul Wood (eds.), Art in Theory


Gadamer, Hans-Georg, Truth and Method, London: Sheed & Ward, 1975.

49

Gunton, Colin E., The Triune Creator: A Historical and Systematic Study, Edinburgh: Edinburgh

University Press, 1998.

Habermas, Jürgen, ‘Modernity - An Incomplete Project’ in Charles Harrison and Paul Wood (eds.),

Art in Theory 1900-1990: An Anthology of Changing Ideas, Oxford: Blackwell, 1992.

Hamilton, Richard, ‘For the Finest Art, Try Pop’ in Charles Harrison and Paul Wood (eds.), Art in

Theory 1900-1990: An Anthology of Changing Ideas, Oxford: Blackwell, 1992.

Harrison, Charles and Paul Wood (eds.), Art in Theory 1900-1990: An Anthology of Changing

Ideas, Oxford: Blackwell, 1992.

Hawkes, Terence, Structuralism & Semiotics, London: Routledge, 1977.

Haynes, Deborah J., The Vocation of the Artist, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

Hengelaar-Rookmaaker, Marleen (ed.), Art, Artists and Gauguin: The Complete Works of Hans

R.. Rookmaaker, vol. 1, Carlisle: Piquant, 2002.

Hengelaar-Rookmaaker, Marleen (ed.), New Orleans Jazz, Mahalia Jackson and the Philosophy

of Art: The Complete Works of Hans R. Rookmaaker, vol. 2, Carlisle: Piquant, 2002.

Hengelaar-Rookmaaker, Marleen (ed.), The Creative Gift, Dürer, Dada and Desolation Row: The

Complete Works of Hans R. Rookmaaker, vol. 3, Carlisle: Piquant, 2002.

Hengelaar-Rookmaaker, Marleen (ed.), Western Art and the Meanderings of a Culture: The


Heslam, Peter S., Creating a Christian Worldview: Abraham Kuyper’s Lectures on Calvinism,

Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1998.

Hexham, I., ‘Kuyper, Abraham’ in Sinclair B. Ferguson and David F. Wright (eds.), New

Dictionary of Theology, Leicester: IVP, 1988.

Hicks, Peter, Evangelicals & Truth: A Creative Proposal for a Postmodern Age, Leicester: Apollos,

1998.

Hiebert, Paul G., Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues, Grand Rapids: Baker

Books, 1994.

Holliger, Heinz, Cardiophony for Oboe, Heart microphone and Delay treatment, BBC recording

from the Sonorities festival, private hearing, 2002.

Jackson, Mahalia, ‘I’m going to live the life I sing about in my song’ on Mahalia Jackson,

Gospels, Spirituals & Hymns, Columbia, 1991.

Jaffé, Hans L. C., The Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries: The Dolphin History of Painting, vol.

V, London: Thames and Hudson, 1967.

50

Knudsen, R. D., ‘Dooyeweerd, Herman’ in Sinclair B. Ferguson and David F. Wright (eds.), New

Dictionary of Theology, Leicester: IVP, 1988.

Kramer, Hilton, ‘Does abstract art have a future?’ on The New Criterion Web site (December

2002, http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/21/dec02/kramer.htm).

Lipsey, Roger, An Art of Our Own: The Spiritual in Twentieth-Century Art, Boston: Shambhala,

1988.

Lundin, Roger, The Culture of Interpretation: Christian Faith and the Postmodern World, Grand

Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1993.

Lyotard, Jean-François, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, Manchester:

Manchester University Press, 1979.

Lyotard, Jean-François, ‘What Is Postmodernism?’ in Charles Harrison and Paul Wood (eds.), Art

in Theory 1900-1990: An Anthology of Changing Ideas, Oxford: Blackwell, 1992.

Manzoni, Piero, ‘Free Dimension’ in Charles Harrison and Paul Wood (eds.), Art in Theory


Martin, Linette, Hans Rookmaaker: A Biography, Downers Grove: IVP, 1979.

Marwick, Arthur, The Sixties: Cultural Revolution in Britain, France, Italy, and the United States,

c. 1958 - c. 1974, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.

McFague, Sallie, Metaphorical Theology: Models of God in Religious Language, Philadelphia:

Fortress Press, 1982.

Novitz, David, Boundaries of Art, Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1992.

Novitz, David, ‘Postmodernism: Barthes and Derrida’ in Berys Gaut and Dominic McIver Lopes

(eds.), The Routledge Companion to Aesthetics, London: Routledge, 2001.

Pelikan, Jaroslav, Christian Doctrine and Modern Culture (since 1700): The Christian Tradition:

A History of the Development of Doctrine: Volume 5, Chicago: The University of

Chicago Press, 1989.

Pinnock, Clark H., ‘Schaeffer on Modern Theology’ in Ronald W. Ruegsegger (ed.), Reflections on

Francis Schaeffer, Grand Rapids: Academie Books, 1986.

Polanyi, Michael, Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy, Chicago: The

University of Chicago Press, 1958.

Rookmaaker, Hans R., Modern Art and the Death of a Culture, Leicester: Apollos, 1994, first ed.

1970.

Rookmaaker, Hans R., The Creative Gift: The Arts and the Christian Life, Leicester: IVP, 1981.

51

Rookmaaker, Hans R., ‘Gauguin and Nineteenth-Century Art Theory’ in Marleen Hengelaar-

Rookmaaker (ed.), Art, Artists and Gauguin: The Complete Works of Hans R.


Rookmaaker, Hans R., ‘Guggenheim collection in the Gemeentemuseum’ in Marleen Hengelaar-

Rookmaaker (ed.), Art, Artists and Gauguin: The Complete Works of Hans R.


Rookmaaker, Hans R., ‘Modern art as national property’ in Marleen Hengelaar-Rookmaaker (ed.),

Art, Artists and Gauguin: The Complete Works of Hans R. Rookmaaker, vol. 1, Carlisle:

Piquant, 2002.

Rookmaaker, Hans R., ‘The Basic Principles of the Philosophy of the Cosmonomic Idea’ in

Marleen Hengelaar-Rookmaaker (ed.), New Orleans Jazz, Mahalia Jackson and the

Philosophy of Art: The Complete Works of Hans R. Rookmaaker, vol. 2, Carlisle: Piquant,

2002.

Rookmaaker, Hans R., ‘What the Philosophy of the Cosmonomic Idea has Meant to Me’ in

Marleen Hengelaar-Rookmaaker (ed.), New Orleans Jazz, Mahalia Jackson and the

Philosophy of Art: The Complete Works of Hans R. Rookmaaker, vol. 2, Carlisle: Piquant,

2002.

Rookmaaker, Hans R., ‘Sketch for an Aesthetic Theory based on the Philosophy of the

Cosmonomic Idea’ in Marleen Hengelaar-Rookmaaker (ed.), New Orleans Jazz, Mahalia

Jackson and the Philosophy of Art: The Complete Works of Hans R. Rookmaaker, vol. 2,

Carlisle: Piquant, 2002.

Rookmaaker, Hans R., ‘Norms for Art and Art Education?’ in Marleen Hengelaar-Rookmaaker

(ed.), New Orleans Jazz, Mahalia Jackson and the Philosophy of Art: The Complete

Works of Hans R. Rookmaaker, vol. 2, Carlisle: Piquant, 2002.

Rookmaaker, Hans R., ‘Art, Aesthetics, and Beauty’ in Marleen Hengelaar-Rookmaaker (ed.),

New Orleans Jazz, Mahalia Jackson and the Philosophy of Art: The Complete Works of

Hans R. Rookmaaker, vol. 2, Carlisle: Piquant, 2002.

Rookmaaker, Hans R., ‘Art, Philosophy and our View of Reality’ in Marleen Hengelaar-

Rookmaaker (ed.), New Orleans Jazz, Mahalia Jackson and the Philosophy of Art: The


52

Rookmaaker, Hans R., ‘Johnny Dodds: a great and modest musician’ in Marleen Hengelaar-

Rookmaaker (ed.), New Orleans Jazz, Mahalia Jackson and the Philosophy of Art: The


Rookmaaker, Hans R., ‘Art and Entertainment’ in Marleen Hengelaar-Rookmaaker (ed.), The

Creative Gift, Dürer, Dada and Desolation Row: The Complete Works of Hans R.


Rookmaaker, Hans R., ‘The Westminister Discussions: Faith, Art, Culture and Lifestyle’ in

Marleen Hengelaar-Rookmaaker (ed.), The Creative Gift, Dürer, Dada and Desolation

Row: The Complete Works of Hans R. Rookmaaker, vol. 3, Carlisle: Piquant, 2002.

Rookmaaker, Hans R., ‘Art Needs No Justification’ in Marleen Hengelaar-Rookmaaker (ed.),

Western Art and the Meanderings of a Culture: The Complete Works of Hans R.


Saussure, Ferdinand de, Course in General Linguistics, London: Fontana / Collins, revised ed.

1974.

Sherry, Patrick, Spirit and Beauty: An Introduction To Theological Aesthetics, London: SCM

Press, 2002 (2nd ed.).

Stecker, Robert, ‘Interpretation’ in Berys Gaut and Dominic McIver Lopes (eds.), The Routledge

Companion to Aesthetics, London: Routledge, 2001.

Terkel, Studs, ‘A Profile of Mahalia Jackson’ on the Downbeat Web site (January 2003, http://

www.downbeat.com/default.asp?sect=stories&subsect=story_detail&sid678).

Vanhoozer, Kevin J., Is there a meaning in this text?: The Bible, the reader and the morality of

literary knowledge, Leicester: Apollos, 1998.

Wright, N. T., Jesus and the Victory of God, London: SPCK, 1996.

53