Why We Need Dualism in Art

I recently found out that there is a Rothko Chapel. Apparently, Rothko intended on arousing a religious experience when you looked at his paintings, and it inspired some to build a chapel in his honor, where there would hang some of his work (different panels of the same project). Looks cold, sterile, and somewhat dystopian. 

Two years ago, I wrote about how realism is necessary for art, which you can find here. It was a reaction against Pollock and Rothko, and I still agree with what I said there. I did qualify myself as saying realism may not have been alone a sufficient reason, but it was definitely a necessary one. I want to add that abstraction is also necessary, which wasn't a view I held at the time. My reaction against the radical abstractionism of Rothko and Pollock inclined me against the view that abstraction was a necessary condition. I mean, look at the "chapel" and you could see why I believed it. It was nothing but abstraction. 

But in a conversation I had with artist David Clayton earlier tonight, he also warned me about my temptation to believe abstraction wasn't necessary and to avoid the trap of being too realist. He drew my attention to hyperrealism, which I've seen before, but never thought too much of. 

Upon first glance, you can't tell the above is a painting. Looks like photograph. So, the worry is that, "it doesn't capture the soul". What abstraction can do is elevate the material world and show you the subjects transcending into beauty. It's possible to go off the rails with abstraction and get a Rothko. But so too can you do away with abstraction so much that all that exists is the material world and you get hyperrealism, and there is hardly anything transcending about that. 

In Christianity, we have parallel heresies: the gnostics and the materialists. The gnostics viewed the material world as inherently bad and wanted to be detached from the material world. This is Rothko and company. On the other side of the spectrum, you have the materialists who believe that nothing but the material world exists. You often find them to be depressing in their philosophy, pessimistic in their attitude. And it so happens that most subjects in hyperrealism are often dark and depressing subjects. 

Christianity rejects both these views. Catholicism, and in particular Thomism, says that matter is not just extension, but an instantiating principle of an abstract form. So, good art might be that which takes a physical scene but highlights a spiritual aspect. I'm thinking of Caravaggio's The Calling of St. Matthew. 

Sure, we can see that Christ is calling St. Matthew because of the pointing of the fingers by Christ and St. Matthew, but also by the ray of light that goes from Christ to St. Matthew, which does require some level of abstraction, and emphasizes the profundity of the act better than the fingers themselves. 

So yeah, realism and abstraction are necessary. You don't want to go extreme in either direction. You want both the material and the abstract. This is consistent with the Thomistic Hylemorphic view. We shouldn't be surprised.