Art is usually associated with spirituality solely through the depiction of sacred images. This overlooks the fact that spirituality is not exclusively religious: there is also a secular spirituality, unrelated to any religious worship or practice. Indeed, few studies examine the relationship between art and spirituality from the standpoint of art itself rather than that of spirituality.
Throughout history, peoples have expressed their spirituality in paintings and sculptures that give form to the abstract concepts of a faith or mystical feeling. These have generally taken the form of allegorical or symbolic images, the latter being more prominent in architecture than in painting.
These representations do not generally express a direct connection between the artist and a spiritual phenomenon. Rather, they often reflect the wishes of religious or aristocratic patrons who could pay craftspeople and artists to illustrate a religious concept instead of expressing a spiritual feeling. Much as the advertising industry does today, they promoted religion as something external, dogmatic and bound up with power, sometimes resorting to falsehood, distortion and manipulation—the tools of propaganda. Works commissioned by wealthy patrons to win favor with ecclesiastical authorities and glorify their lineage are examples.
Of course, not all religious artworks are instruments of dissemination or propaganda. There are many examples of sincere spiritual feeling as a source of artistic inspiration. Artists such as El Greco, Michelangelo and Pontormo expressed Christian spirituality without rhetoric. Their works differ markedly from propagandistic images: instead of merely representing an official belief or displaying power and wealth, the works themselves become spiritual manifestations, without relying on established iconographic stereotypes.
Countless artists have also attained profound levels of spirituality without depicting sacred or religious subjects.
But through what processes does a work of art become “spiritualized” or come alive?
This is the fundamental question from which our philosophical and practical research began several years ago.
Our investigation began with firsthand study of works by various artists, alongside their writings and testimonies. Art history offers examples of great masters who brought their works to life without ostentation or any desire to demonstrate spirituality. Each, in their own way, understood procedures involving not just painting technique but also a creative attitude that enabled them to work with deep inspiration. Their works do not merely display, describe or represent reality: they express a vision.
We therefore concluded that spirituality in art does not depend on the subject depicted, but on the experience lived by the artist during creation and embodied in the work.
We discovered that art is not a doorway or passage to a spiritual experience, as we had believed at the beginning. A doorway implies crossing into another place, another world. Instead, our work revealed that, in certain magical moments, art is the spiritual experience—not a passage toward it.
At first this understanding was unfamiliar to us. We later discovered that it is deeply rooted in Eastern cultures, particularly Zen, and in Orthodox Christian icon painting. In these ancient traditions there is no separation between the divine and the work representing it: the work is not a copy or an image of the divine, but its real manifestation, here and now.
Through various methods that we continue to experiment with and refine, we have come to understand some of the distinctive elements needed for an artistic path that fosters this profound experience and a harmonious union with the universe.
From these studies and investigations arose the ESTETRA Institute and its annual course in what we call Transcendental Art. We chose this adjective because it seemed the most appropriate way to describe the educational path we propose.
To go back a little, the original impetus for the entire project came from a sad observation: contemporary art seems to have lost this spiritual force. How, then, could we respond to this unmet need?
Although our words may sound emphatic, it seemed clear to us that contemporary art needed to be “brought back to life”—or at least that we should begin to explore these questions and encourage a dialogue centered on them.
In the further readings below, we discuss some of the issues underlying our interpretation of art over the past hundred years.
>>> Further reading
Contemporary Art: Art Without a Soul?
Our Sense of Emptiness in the Face of Contemporary Art
Loss of the Soul: A Process Lasting Over 100 Years