A century-old theatre has taken a new risk in its production of “Sisters’ Follies: Between Two Worlds”. According to Alexis Soloski’s article, “At 100, the Abrons Arts Center Revels in the Risky”, the Abrons Arts Center has chosen to commemorate its one-hundred-year anniversary by performing a satirical play mocking the Center’s founders, Alice and Irene Lewisohn. What makes the production risky, as Soloski described, is that the sisters will be portrayed by drag icon Joey Arias, and burlesque actress Julie Atlas Muz.
The Abrons Arts Center current artistic director, Jay Wegman, is often described as “outrageous” although his current involvement in suggestive theatrical productions is distinctly polar to his upbringing. Wegman grew up as a churchgoer, and eventually moved to Manhattan to attend seminary. At the Cathedral of St. John the Divine, Wegman was hired as the canon for liturgy and the arts, and it was after he left this position that he started work with Abrons.
Wegman claims that his interest in the arts and his theological experience are more closely related than one would believe. He explained that while watching plays “he seeks transcendent experiences” similar to in a church service, and that “artists grappling with grand themes are pursuing ‘another form of theology.’” I would have to disagree with this specific opinion.
I feel as though art and theology share a similar sense of passion and expression. The décor of prominent religious buildings and landmarks cannot be excluded from the realm of art. However, I don’t think that artistic expression can be a platform for “another form of theology”. Religion, though ambiguous, possesses limited ambiguity. Each religion has a set of values that are meant to be followed in order to maintain righteousness and/or receive some sort of divine reward for struggling against worldly desires. So when referring to religious document for these rules, the interpretation of the text is often debated amongst religious leaders and theologians; however, the ambiguity is limited to the words of the text and a claim must be supported with evidence from the text. I feel that unlimited ambiguity is the core of art and its perception to the public. If one is to exper
ience an example of performing arts, and claim that as a result they experienced a certain sensation, someone else cannot deny their experience to be genuine, even if the latter lacks evidence to make his or her claim. Art does not pertain to rules, definitions, nor limits.
I do not believe that religion is non-ambiguous. In fact, I think that the debate on religion is never-ending. However, I believe that religion possesses a limited scope of interpretation compared to art. I do not discourage Wegman’s passion to trifle in “risky” art in the slightest. If anything, I feel that Wegman’s theological background provides him with perspective that adds to the experience of the productions Abrons Arts Center. In fact, “Sisters’ Follies: Between Two Worlds” sounds rather intriguing, and I would consider attending the play myself. I simply disagree with his conjecture that artists pursue in “’another form of theology’”.
I completely agree with you on your take about the ambiguity of religion and art. Though both seem to be full of ambiguity, both have a certain scope- art having infinite possibilities and interpretations. Though the two have totally different limitations, I feel art definitely has a huge role in religion and expressing different historical and religious events. With these two working hand in hand, one can find unlimited ambiguity in religious-centered art.
Wegman’s outlook may be a bit distorted, but when it comes to art everyone has his or her own personal view and interpretation.
I really liked reading your post and I agree with what you think. Art in all of its forms can be interpreted in so many ways and there are usually no right or wrong answers. Although religion is sometimes interpreted, there is mainly a clear way of thinking and clear set of rules for people to follow. There aren’t many interpretations. I also think that religion and art may not go hand in hand, but they do have roles in influencing the other. Religion may be an inspiration for certain art pieces, and art can be a beautiful aspect of a certain religion
I completely agree with your views on the ambiguity of religion. Religion is almost solely based on the idea that a higher power controls everything we do and will do, and in order to be a devout believer you have to put your full faith in that higher power. You essentially have no idea what is going to happen so you blindly put your trust in something that may or may not exist. I believe that is extremely ambiguous, and that while people may believe that their religion is a solid way to guide them through life, you don’t even really know if what you’re believing in is valid. Religion can only be interpreted so many ways, but with art, there is an infinite number of interpretations one can have. Everyone may be able to see something different in art.
I have never considered the idea that there could be a connection between art and religion. Although you touched upon the ambiguity in art and the lack of that ambiguity in religion, I feel as though the two are more similar than not. To some, religion and art can be considered creations of our brain. In lieu of a factual reality, our brain creates fantasy realities which take us to a “higher state” of reasoning or belief. Even though you can find multiple meanings in a piece of art, as a collective whole, art aims to awaken us to truths that make us better people. I feel as though religion directs us to that same goal but through a different method.
I would’ve never connected religion and art with ambiguity, but it makes complete sense. Art and religion vary from person to person because each of us have different point of views, experiences and interpretations of the information or work in front of us. There has to be infinite amount of interpretations with regards to art and religion, some may take an artistic approach, while others may take the religious route. These two topics go hand in hand, their ambiguity allows each person to create his/her own feelings and thoughts about life.
I agree that religion, while ambiguous, is not limitless. Any form of religion provides some sorts of guidelines on how to behave to be considered a good person. Art is a moral compass in the same way; art is about exploration and discovery. Art definitely does not tell people how to live their lives. I do find Wegman’s perspective intriguing; his choice to cast two such unique actors is definitely going to cause outrage. His religious views may influence his work individually, but that doesn’t mean art is another form of theology.
I agree that art has no limits and to say that it is “another form of theology” does not make much sense to me either. Religion is based on certain beliefs, rules, and morals and that differs completely from art. Art does not have to follow any guidelines. And, just as proven in this play Wegman is directing, art can even come into conflict with religion over some of it’s controversial depictions (such as his choice of actors). But, one way in which I can understand Wegman’s statement about art and religion is that both can be very eye-opening and the people participating can experience a new perspective on their life because of a piece of art or a religious ceremony. In this case, they both serve as an inspiration to people.
I agree with you Stella in the sense that conventional religion is limited whereas art is unlimited; however perhaps Wegman had an unconventional view of religion when he was talking about theology. Religion on a basic level is an explanation for life. Man, especially today, is perplexed as to why he exists. Out of the billions of planets in our universe, we are the only known form of intelligent life. Why? While there is no concrete answer for this, and every explanation conceived can be debated endlessly, perhaps Wegman feels that we are here create. In creating new things we in a certain sense mimic on the role of God and are satisfied. And what is the ultimate form of creation if not art? In this sense, art can indeed become a religion and, as such, life really is about “artists grappling with grand themes are pursuing ‘another form of theology.’”
I believe that religion and art are very different from each other. I agree that religion possesses a limited scope of interpretation because of its strict rules. Often, religion actually forbids people from viewing or creating art because it is considered “indecent”. Over the years religion has changed but there are still forms of art that would not be considered appropriate for a church setting. Art is a way to express oneself, regardless of what other people consider to be right or wrong.
I enjoyed reading your post. And I agree with the interpretation that art can mean an infinite amount of things to the audience and furthermore that the idea that the artist intended to convey may or may not come through to the audience. I think this thinking can be successfully adapted to religion as well. As far as Islam is concerned, different muslims have came to different conclusions around a singular passage. Unfortunately however, some of these people have perverted the passages. Side note: I like the pictures you incorporated.
I think it’s important to have people who push the limits of art and what society considers “risky”. At the same time, we should learn when to say “no” to those people. This often comes up with biological ethics (think Jurassic Park and cloning research), but tentatively exploring boundaries so we can prevent people from abusing power in new territory.
I agree with you that art can be inspired by religion but the reverse should not be true. There is a lot of ambiguity with religion that created many factions and started wars. I could not imagine having wars over art even though art can be a catalyst for revolution (American Revolutionary War and Thomas Nast political cartoons).