*Art and Religion IV: 'Beholder's response'

The Austrian psychoanalyst Ernst Kris studied the idea of the beholder's response very rigorously. Kris concluded that great works are great "because they are ambiguous." In other words, they allow for alternative readings. Consider Masaccio's Holy Trinity, 1425-28, at the Santa Maria Novella in Florence [...]

As Kandel explains, when "you and I look at that Masaccio painting, we would have somewhat different responses to it which means that the beholder’s share varies for each of us because we see somewhat different things in the painting."

http://bigthink.com/think-tank/the-beholders-response-how-the-brain-responds-to-ambiguity-in-art

Undoubtedly one's background will inform how one sees, interprets, and conjures a story about a work of art. This kind of story-making, meaning-making, will vary from art form or art form (which is also to say, medium to medium). How one looks at a painting will differ from a sculpture, a ceramic piece, an installation, performance art, music, and etc. Each of which has its own style of talking about "merit." What's "good", what's "bad", and where a piece or style fits within the discussion of a genre's history. One of the merits that Kandel mentions is the 'ambiguity' and the allowance of mutliple or various interpretations of the piece, in this case a Masaccio painting. This is, of course, in addition to the great skill and technique that was glorified and now typifies an era of painting.

If the merit of a good painting is, in part, its ability to be ambiguous and impactful to an audience, the curiosity here is whether 'ambiguity' is what translates over into a parallel observation with the study of religion. The most easiest example with a great painting is a great book. And one of which that most will recognize as a "great book" is the bible. Socially speaking Christianity branched off into other social institutions, as did many other religions, most of which is indeed grounded on a particular interpretation of the bible in relation/reaction to the social atmosphere of religious sentiment and dominant ideas at the time. This room for interpretation also entails its (Christianity's) ambiguity. Is a post-hoc rationalization for Christianity's persistence, its ambiguity?

Any artist grinding away in the art world will say of course not. It can't possibly just be ambiguity, if that was the case then any art that showed ambiguity would have survived as great. The realm of power, money, and social influence has to play a role. The curator, the gallery, the museum, marketing, and the consumers of art, as well as the influential voices of "taste" play a role. The history of Christianity can also point to such influences of power and social engineering that allowed its persistence.

And yet, there are things about the works of Michaelangelo, van Gough, Picasso, Rembrandt, Rodin, and many greats that are able to instill a sense of awe and wonder without thinking about those historical social influences that allowed its survival. There is still merit. And, it wouldn't just be because of the fact that it is in a museum either. One does not nececssarily have to go to a symphony hall to appreciate Beethoven's ninth. Similalry one does not need to go to the Rijk museum to appreciate Rembrandt, or to the Cistine chapel to admire the ceiling, although it is an awesome experience to witness in person. No longer is it the case that physical presence is a requirement for its appreciation. The merits of a great painting, or any other work of art, is not limited to its space or socio-historical influences of power and market.

(though, we can raise a hypothetical: would the cistine chapel still be as great if any other artist painted it?)

Could a "world religion" also be considered on similar merits that transcend analogous social forces?
What is it that counts as 'merit' in a world religion and captivates the 'beholder's response' for so many people? These questions themselves would be difficult to apply to religion as any one religion is not unidimensional. There are many things happening and actively engaging persons in religious traditions. Is the ritual the most appropriate analogy to a work of art? Ritual as performance art?  Doctrine as literature? The questions can then be asked with regard to each one of them: what is the merit of a ritual that captivates? What is it about doctrine that pull heart strings, drops wisdom, and gives meaning to everyday behaviors?