Camille Paglia on Religion and the Arts

Nobody incites more hatred on a university campus than Camille Paglia. Just try walking around with a copy of Sexual Persona under your arm and see how long it takes before you are confronted. She’s hated because she’s provocative and respects no sacred idol, but also because she runs counter to mainstream theories about gender and sexuality. That said, I kind of like her.

But since I’ve relished the counter-cultural insights of Sexual Persona, as well as Vamps and Tramps and Sex, Art and American Culture, I thought I would check out one of her recent articles on Art and Religion in Arion. It’s called Religion and the Arts in America, and her thesis, in a nutshell, is this: “I would argue that the route to a renaissance of the American fine arts lies through religion.” The unfortunate thing is that she doesn’t really defend this statement. Most of the article is a summary of the American history between religion and the arts, from Puritans and Quakers up to modern day attacks on NEA funding, which is occasionally mundane (because she rarely adds commentary to the history) and occasionally stimulating (when she does add commentary). But very little of the article actually does the groundwork of defending this notion that a true revival in American art will take place through religion. There are teasers: “I view each world religion, including Judeo-Christianity and Islam, as a complex symbol system, a metaphysical lens through which we can see the vastness and sublimity of the universe.” Okay. But it’s a big step from the existence of a complex symbol system to actually stimulating the creation of art. Or this: “Great art can be made out of love for religion as well as rebellion against it. But a totally secularized society with contempt for religion sinks into materialism and self-absorption and gradually goes slack, without leaving an artistic legacy.” Which is not supporting her thesis as much as the counter to it – contempt for religion will not lead to an art revival. And this broad generalization isn’t buttressed by any kind of reasoning either.

I wanted to be impressed, to find some of the insights I’ve found in her previous work, but this was shoddy thinking, designed more to be provocative than to actually advance and defend a genuine idea. It’s the first time I had heard even a peep from her in the last five years (I wondered whether she was writing still, or just writing in places off my radar), but it wasn’t a good re-introduction.