This is the final section in the four part discussion of the aesthetic theory of Hermann Broch and Calvin Seerveld. This section returns to the central issue of each man’s presuppositions that factor into their respective perceptions of art and the possibility of kitsch as art. As a note to those interested in furthering their study of Broch’s philosophy, while it is outside the scope of this article, Broch’s conception of the necessary autonomy of individual value systems is quite similar to Abraham Kuyper’s and Herman Dooyeweerd’s conceptions of sphere sovereignty. Furthermore, I would argue that it is this similarity between Broch and the fathers of neo-Calvinism that allow for the group’s more positive view of non-Christian cultural formation.
Afterward
In order to understand Broch and Seerveld’s arguments, it is necessary to locate them in relation to particular religious conviction or presuppositions. While Broch, himself, would appear to have harbored Christian leanings, he views the world as post-religious and, therefore, attempts to establish a new general value system of which the aesthetic is just one facet. Seerveld is unabashedly Christian in his philosophical orientation, however, this conviction also forces him to address not only the difficult issue of how kitsch relates to art, but how art relates to obedient Christian life. Indeed, Seerveld’s perspective on kitsch is grounded in his religious orientation as much as Broch’s perspective is grounded in his replacement for religion, the “general value-system.”
Yet, both men insist that true art is to be geared toward a transcendent goal. For Seerveld, this transcendence is tied to recognition of God as the divine pattern-maker for all of aesthetic life, informing normative behavior, and himself, the referent of all human artistic endeavor. For Broch, this transcendence is of a far more Platonic flavor. True cultural formation is movement toward the infinite where, in contrast, kitsch is the reactionary return to imitation of existing rational systems. The moment of cultural decline, in which he perceived himself to live, was understood as affecting a return to simple, emotive, and even base aesthetics. Thus, kitsch—itself—was understood by Broch as being emblematic of the universal decline of humanity.
“Every era of disintegration of values was also an era of kitsch. The disintegration of classical culture of Imperial Rome created kitsch, and the present era, standing at the end of that process in which the medieval worldview began, must once again find its representation in the aesthetically evil. For times of final loss of values are grounded on evil and the fear of evil, and the art that is to be their most obvious expression must also be an expression of evil at work in them.”
From the author’s perspective, the temptation is to see Seerveld as the Prophet Hosea, lovingly seeking repentance and return to faithful aesthetic obedience while Broch is cast as the Prophet Malachi, denouncing the popular aesthetic and warning of coming judgment. However, a more nuanced reading reveals that in actuality Broch is far more positive and Seerveld negative. Broch admits that all aesthetic work includes elements of kitsch, (beauty over good), and tendentiousness, (subversion of arts true purpose). This perspective leaves his audience with the possibility that existing popular art (kitsch), while not ideal, does at least contain some of the necessary elements of true art. Thus, while kitsch is evil in the general value system as a whole, it is fallen—but not unredeemable. In contrast Seerveld doggedly implies that absolute categories of true art and kitsch have no overlap, that is that kitsch is of another sort than true art. Ironically, by allowing art to be evil, Broch allows for it to be reclaimed in a way that Seerveld’s seemingly more tolerant view cannot. As Christians from neo-Calvinist traditions acknowledge that all art—not just kitsch—is fallen, it is Broch’s view that offers hope for redemption far more than fellow neo-Calvinist Seerveld.
Bibliography
Broch, Hermann. “Evil in the Value-system of Art,” In Geist and Zeitgeist: The Spirit in an Unspiritual Age: Six Essays by Hermann Broch, Ed. And Trans., John Hargraves. New York: Counterpoint, 2002.
Hargraves, John. Introduction from Geist and Zeitgeist: The Spirit in an Unspiritual Age: Six Essays by Hermann Broch, by Hermann Broch. New York: Counterpoint, 2002.
Seerveld, Calvin, A Christian Critique of Art and Literature, Second ed. Downsview, Canada: Toronto, 1968.
Seerveld, Calvin, Rainbows for the Fallen World. Downsview, Canada: Toronto Tuppence Press, 1980.
As I’ve been reading your posts I’ve begun to wonder whether both Broch and Seerveld aren’t deficient in their overall conception of the possibilities of art, a deficiency perhaps best announced by their theories of kitsch.
(Full disclosure: I am operating with the near influence of Siedell and also Ernst Bloch.)
What I mean is this: doesn’t the continual emphasis upon art depending upon adequate representation for its truth mark a lack of imagination? — something that should perhaps be anathema in aestheticians above all. What they seem to mean by the truth of art is that it does not depart from expressing the world in ways that can be experienced apart from art. For instance, for Seerveld certain paintings are kitschy because they’re “idyllic,” whereas the real world never contains such undiluted goodness. Similarly, for Broch it seems that ideological art, art that pretends to versimilitude for the purposes of effect according to an alien value system, is kitschy. The key there, again, seems to be inadequate representation such that kitsch is a form of lying propaganda.
All of which suggests, on both men’s parts, that art must be intert in the process of historical change. Art must always be a result, never an instigator; always reflective, never prophetic. In the end, then, rather than protecting the aesthetic part of life, aren’t they taking from it any form of integral power, any autonomy or at least push-back influence on other aspects of life?
The notion of the icon, I think, is instructive here. The icon is kitsch. It exists to transform the viewer according to a truly alien value-system, by way of intentionally failing to adequately represent that whose image it hosts.
From a Christian perspective, then, humanity itself is kitsch. What Calvin refers to with his ubiquitous mirror metaphor, and what later commentators have called the “iconicity of humankind,” is the aesthetic aspect of God’s relation to men: we are, for him, works of art both in terms of his creation of us and of his enjoyment of us. Yet what maintains his interest, so to speak, is precisely our dislocation from the present order, our promise (which is of course merely the result of his promise, but even so…), our effect with respect to the transformation of the world according to his mysterious, alien value-system (if you will).
Obviously I’ve made some dubious leaps, especially in the last paragraph, but they’re leaps that I believe you in particular will resonate with. How do you feel about them as critiques of the deficiency I perceive Broch and Seerveld’s theories of kitsch point to?
Robert, I would have to agree with you, in general, that both men assume (presume) that the function of art is representational. In Seerveld this is most readily proved. Assuming a religious orientation as the foundation assumes that “true” art alludes to, is allusive of, the True. For Broch, the orientation is no less religious but that grounding element is on the negative axis, thus anything that does not represent a concession to death is life, that does not fail to advance culture (move culture) is true art. For obvious reasons, Broch’s system, in which cultural formation may be directed toward anything but death, is far more open than Seerveld’s, where positive cultural formation must be aimed at a single point (God). In the case of Broch, I assume that your argument is, (and I am open to correction), that art which seeks the “good” seeks “representation” (increasing knowledge and perception of the universe) and is therefore equally representational – but of a broader subject.
(NOTE: Theologically, I realize this is a heretical claim. But, please do not think that I am suggesting that God is a smaller subject than the universe, my theologian’s cap is in the corner at this moment).
If my summary is correct thus far, then the logic of your argument is unassailable, at least to this mountaineer. However, it is interesting that you use the term “prophetic” in your discussion of what art cannot be under these men’s definition. (Why, yes… that is my theologian’s hat coming out of moth balls). The prophet is not the instigator of his own message. Neither is he or she speaking outside of a context. The prophet speaks to an audience, aware of the always, already present conditions necessary for speech – but with an added element. To speak prophetically is to reapply God’s always, already Words kairotically. Certainly, Seerveld would affirm that art is to speak prophetically, applying kairotic truth.
Broch at least believes that art is fundamentally representational, that its ability to accomodate alien value-systems is tied up with this function. Yet, it is interesting that way that his characterization of death as the absolute negative on the general value-system also means that positive cultural formation is necessarily both death negating and death affirming. To speak of life only makes sense as an alternative to death – life is almost reflexive toward death. Thus, positive cultural formation, in that it is in rebellion, affirms the sovereignty of death. To put it another way, positive cultural formation speaks death kairotically, prophetically, into life.
Is this repetition of an absolute message a negation of creativity, of imagination? Is there a creativity or imagination apart from response, from re-presentation? I cannot imagine one.
(Also, would we be servants of the beautiful or the good if we, as people were icons of God… it would make all the difference for Broch.)
Note: I’m bumping your post higher on the page for a while to — I hope — promote some discussion.