CC BY
21Paul Tillich's Position on Visual Arts and Architecture
Michael RIAGUZOV. Russia, Moscow
© M. Riaguzov 2003
The topic of Tillich's work was chosen for many reasons. First, the author's work in developing multi-purpose Christian complexes is closely connected to this theme. As foreign sociologists and specialists on religion assert, the future belongs to such complexes (Gieselmann 1983, 3). With the appearance of religious freedom in Russia, the rapid growth of a number of Christian associations and congregations may be observed. Presently in Moscow alone there are 850 such congregations: 50 % of them are Orthodox, 31 % — Protestant, 7 % — inter-confessional, and 2 % — Catholic (Spiritual Renaissance [Moscow], No. 1, 2000, p. 25). Many of them (mainly Protestant and Catholic) rent premises and intend to build in the future, not so much buildings for worship services as multi-purpose Christian complexes. The same phenomenon may be observed in other regions of Russia as well, where at functioning churches, or churches under construction, Sunday schools, workshops, rehabilitation centers for alcoholics and drug addicts, and much else, are being erected.
Then, too, the creativity of Paul Tillich, the great modern theologian and philosopher, who has made such a great contribution to scholarly studies on the interaction of philosophy, theology, art and architecture, is interesting in itself. He belonged to the liberal wing of Western thinkers open to cooperation «on the border» (an important concept of Tillich's that will be discussed later), between various sciences and arts. His ideas gave important impulses to the building of Christian complexes. Architects, artists, and critics refer to his works
Michael Vladimirovich Riaguzov was born April 24, 1978 to a family of architects in Moscow. In 2001 he defended his graduation work on the theme "The higher-technology park in northwest Moscow" at the Moscow Architectural Institute. He participated in the work of the building department at the Union of Evangelical Christians-Baptists, in the program of building "rapid-rise" churches for Russia, and developed projects for churches in the cities of Perm, Smolensk, Kaluga, and Novo-Michurinsk, which is presently being finished. Since 2001 Michael has been a post-graduate student and researches the architecture of postwar Protestant churches and church centers.
most often. But first of all, let us consider Paul Tillich as a philosopher and theologian, and demonstrate what is pertinent to our theme.
1. Paul Tillich:
Philosopher and Theologian of the Twentieth Century
According to Tillich, «...philosophy .... is an attempt to answer the most general questions on the nature of the reality of human existence» (Tillich 1995, 191). The meaning of human existence is the main philosophic interest of Tillich the theologian. He says the following: «As a theologian I tried to be a philosopher and as a philosopher I tried to be a theologian.» All his life he strived to work on the border between philosophy and theology, simultaneously as a philosopher and as a theologian. «He developed a theological system in which Logos — intelligence, or philosophy — obtained their proper place, where Tillich observes not just biblical evidences, and not just Christian tradition, but where he is focused only on philosophy» (Henel 1981, 72).
The fact that Paul Tillich was a thinker «on the border» between philosophy and theology is confirmed in his book On the Border. He was equally competent in both of these disciplines, and in place of the traditionally existing border between them, he tried to create «an area where these two disciplines merge.» At the same time, Tillich was convinced that there could be neither a close union nor enmity between them, because there is no foundation that
would bring them close together. Many wondered at the creativity of Tillich «on the border,» calling him a skilled "dancer on the rope" (Henel 1981, 7).
Trying to be an arbitrator between philosophy and theology, Tillich clearly realized their distinction and simultaneously their interrelation with one another. He considers that:
A theologian is engaged in the research of a specific display of the universal Logos in Jesus Christ as the center of the so-called «theolo-gical circle,» while a philosopher is not bound by this circle, but only by the universal Logos — Intelligence (Henel 1981, 76).
However, inasmuch as both theologian and philosopher are eager to find the truth, this circumstance does not permit them to depart from their subject.
Paul Tillich sees a great difference between philosophy and theology, defending their autonomy and never identifying the God of Christianity with the «god of philosophers» (Henel 1981, 10). He emphasizes one more important difference: a theologian deals with the universal Logos and also with the study of the structure and categories of existence. He connects them with the proclamation of the gospel and, in so doing, comes to know not only existence but the meaning of existence, which is not given by philosophy, but is obtained through faith.
However, observing the differences between philosophy and theology, Tillich also postulates what
unites them: ideas and systems that have important meaning for both, even if a philosopher does not always fully understand and accept them. Therefore, according to Tillich's conviction, «. a true philosopher is always a hidden theologian» (Tillich 1962a, 101). That is why, in his report on the occasion of his appointment as head of the Philosophical Theology Department at the famous New York School of Theology, Tillich emphasized the importance of the convergence of philosophy and theology because they are united by the same subject — the Logos — that fashions the structure and form of existence, which the philosopher studies and formulates in rational concepts. However:
Since the Logos is incarnated in Jesus Christ, philosophy must be the theology of the Logos. Philosophy that ignores the Logos of existence, and theology that does not consider the revelation of the Logos in Christ, lose their foundation, are separated from each other, and self-destruct (Henel 1981, 11).
Considering the convergence of philosophy and theology, Paul Tillich, in his work Theology of Culture, examines their commonality in their view of the actuality (authenticity) of human nature. In its theological definitions, this nature does not exist without so-called existential good (existence in and of itself is good), without existential alienation (the fall of man as transition from existential good to existential alienation from the self) and the possibility of «a third» — beyond the
borders of being and existence, by whose help alienation is suppressed and overcome. Tillich goes further: «In philosophical definitions it means that the existent human nature points to his teleological nature ... for the sake of which human life is carried out, and in which direction life is led»(Tillich 1995, 322). S. V. Lezov evaluates Tillich's concept in the following way: «. it connects ethical problems with onto-logical ones, bringing them together and thus opening a way to a new philosophical synthesis. This synthesis allows the author to give an original interpretation of the most important phenomena in Western civilization» (Tillich 1995, 470).
Thus, Paul Tillich continues the tradition of German philosophy — the tradition of the «great synthesis» developed before him by such philosophers as Schleirmacher, Hegel, and Kant. He tries to bring synthesis to theology and philosophy (Tillich 1995, 355). According to Tillich:
When a philosopher tries to comprehend true reality, his reason and his moral nature are alienated from their original essence, while to realize true existence requires divine grace. Just as any unbelieving person can be cured of disbelief only by grace. And, on the contrary, any theologian, like the philosopher, cannot help but ask the ontological question concerning ultimate, true reality (Tillich 1962a, 124).
Just as faith includes an onto-logical question in itself, so philosophical ontology cannot be consi-
dered without a «crisis-repentance, conversion to Christ, faith.» And if «the eyes... of reason... are opened due to the revelation of the Spirit of God in the human spirit, then, in that case, the truth is comprehended by this spirit» (Tillich 1962a, 125). That is, according to Tillich, human salvation cannot be the problem of philosophy, but depends on a person meeting God at a moment of time, called kairos.
In contrast to many theologians who speak most about the transcendental God, God «in the highest,» Tillich speaks about Him as something constant, immanent, located «in the depth» of our life. That is, according to Tillich, the concept of «God» is a word reflecting «the very depths of life» and that «God can be found in those places where life is not superficial but existentially deep» (Tillich 1962a, 35). From this, Tillich concludes that God is something in life that is connected directly to human beings and is concerned with them. In my opinion, Tillich, working «on the border» between philosophy and theology, uses more philosophical than typically theological terms in order to bring people closer to Christianity, especially people for whom the word «God» has little or no meaning.
Tillich also gives a very untradi-tional definition of the person of Jesus Christ, as opposed to the classical theological definition, according to which Jesus Christ is true God and true man. Instead of this classical approach he proposes his own more philosophical paradox: Christ is, «at the same time 'essential'
and 'existential,' or a true and natural man» (Tillich 1962a, 86). He is the way all of us should be; the way a true human living in the circumstances of fallen humanity should be. Despite the fact that Christ is one with God, He walks the way of one alienated from God in order to reach men for God, so that man can become what he should be — at one with God and therefore at one with himself and the rest of the surrounding world. In other words, thanks to Jesus Christ, a person deep in the gap of alienation regains a solid foundation on which to stand and his life takes on the depth and meaning that Christ gives.
Overall, it is impossible not to agree with Professor Henel, who wrote the following words about Paul Tillich: «As a philosopher he asks questions connected to the existential situation of man, but as a theologian he gives answers to them in the light of the Christian tradition» (Henel 1981, 72). In this way Tillich tried to overcome the gap between a faith that was not acceptable to the culture, and a culture that was not acceptable to the faith. According to Tillich, the effective interaction between philosophy and theology is possible on three levels: as an ideal-speculative philosophy it prepares its foundation; as an existential philosophy it formulates questions which theology answers; and as a critical discipline it determines its rationality (Tillich 1962a, 74).
Thus, the interaction of philosophy and theology on the one hand, and the differentiation of their tasks on the other, has helped Paul Tillich
to create a certain «bridge of tolerance» between them. He builds a similar bridge «on the border» between philosophy and theology on the one hand, and fine arts and architecture on the other, which, for me as an architect-researcher is extraordinarily important. But before continuing, let us examine what caused Paul Tillich to address himself to the fine arts and architecture.
2. Paul Tillich's and Fine Arts and Architecture
Paul Tillich addressed himself to fine arts and architecture in the following way. In his report at the XI Congress of Protestant Architecture in Hamburg in 1961, Tillich spoke about how, after the First World War, he visited the museum of Emperor Friedrich in Berlin. He was looking at one of Botticelli's paintings of the Madonna. Suddenly, in a moment that Tillich calls nothing less than revelation, he caught the sense of the painting — it was a «new dimension of life.» At that moment he asked himself: «In what way does the aesthetic function correspond to the artistic function of the human spirit? How do artistic symbols correspond to symbols in which philosophy and theology are reflected?»
These questions began to occupy Tillich with new force after someone introduced him to German expressionism in painting, and when Tillich became a defender of the Bauhaus architectural style that had spread throughout the architecture of all the countries of the civilized world.
«In the expressive force of expressionism and the business-like style of modern Bauhaus architecture,» wrote the thinker, «I obtained those categories of spiritual creativity which still have important meaning for my scientific activity» (Tillich 1961, 98). Further, he writes the following:
Then something unexpected came up. During my lectures on philosophy of religion at Berlin University, when I spoke about ancient Greek statues and the «Tower of Blue Horses» by sculptor Franz Mark, in order to explain one work of art by means of another, and from that to move on to Greek philosophy, I was faced with a strange struggle. The representatives of the petty bourgeoisie, which later provided the leading force of Nazism, reacted with ridicule and hatred to modern art. They accused it of debasement, which accusation actually showed their own debased nature. Using vulgar words they spoke against everything in architecture that did not comply with their own idea of beauty. They laughed at what they did not fully comprehend. They were ashamed of their guilt, feeling themselves exposed, calling down their own devastation.
Tillich draws this conclusion: «Unfortunately, in the modern world there is almost nothing that could so clearly show the most important essence of religion — the seriousness of the artistic world of symbols. That is exactly what made me study the theology of art, most of all visual art, and architecture»(Tillich 1961, 99).
As a thinker who worked at the crossroads of philosophy, theology, art and architecture, Paul Tillich, in his book On the Border deepens their interaction and makes it more fruitful. First of all, he considers visual art and then examines two basic qualities of an architectural work — the functional and the symbolic. He also defines an understanding of «the theology of art and architecture.» Tillich writes that the object of theology is God and from a grammatical point of view, it seems impossible to add another object — art or architecture. But actually it is possible under one condition: if theology did not only concern itself with God as one subject among others, but if theology concerns itself with «... the divine reflection in all that exists, then the theology of art and architecture becomes a study of the divine reflection in the creative act and its creations» (Tillich 1962b, 181)
It should be noted that Tillich's ideas about the fine arts are characterized by breadth and universality. This allows him to extend them to architecture as a specific area of art that has many common basic principles with it. In addition, as a Lutheran, Tillich made a large contribution to the church art and architecture of so-called «left-wing Protestantism,» where there is a certain element of the sacredness of art and architecture, as opposed to the «right wing» represented by the Reformed minority.
It is well known that the great German reformer Martin Luther, who did not completely lose ties with
Catholic sacramental art, stands in contrast to another great Protestant reformer, John Calvin, who lived and worked in Switzerland. Calvin believed that every «holy object,» created by the hands of a sinful person, leads him away from the truly holy, which must be worshipped — the living God, whom no one has ever seen. Or, as Calvinist Karl Barth later stated, «God is in heaven, and the human being is on the ground. There is a great distinction between them, and that distinction is radical and absolute.» That is why even now the elements of fine art in Reformed churches can hardly ever be found, whereas Lutheran churches are richly decorated with stained-glass windows and an altar. Reformed churches look more functional than symbolical. In this paper I shall focus on «left-wing» Protestantism, brilliantly represented by Paul Tillich.
3. Paul Tillich's View of Fine Art
Tillich's understanding of art as «a reflection of the divine» has certain preconditions and consequences. He believes that religion in the true sense of the word is not just one area of study among others, such as philosophy, politics, law, art and architecture, but is an experience of a special kind that can be traced in all these areas; that is, the experience of the holy, which undoubtedly concerns all of us. The theology of visual art assumes that in paintings and sculptures, as well as to a certain extent in architecture, a true reality of existence can be traced. From there
we come to an important conclusion: «Art does not have to portray religious subjects in order to be religious. It is religious for the very reason that it contains an experience of true meaning and existence» (Tillich 1962b, 182).
Every work of art is a combination of the following three elements: content, form, and style. The content depicts what human consciousness perceives by means of sensory images. However, Tillich states:
Not everything that human perception can comprehend is used in every artist's creative work in the visual arts. There are principles of selection that depend on form and style — the second and third elements of the work of art. Form belongs to the structural elements of existence itself, and by it is meant that which makes a thing, a thing. In the ontological sense, form is the main element in any work of art. But, in its turn, form itself is defined by the third element, called style (Tillich 1995, 285).
3.1. Style as One
of the Components of Art
Tillich believes that the most important element of a work of art, in which true meaning and true existence are portrayed is style — the «transcendental» element, along with content and form. Style is not found somewhere alongside form and content, but works through them and in them. It determines the choice of content and form in those works of art that have a unified style.
Each style testifies to the process of human comprehension of the self and answers a question about the true meaning of life. Whatever an artist portrays, whatever he chooses as a subject of his work, no matter how perfect or far from perfect the chosen form is, he cannot help but show, by means of style, his real personal interest, as well as the interest of his time and the group of people he represents. He cannot get away from religion, even if he rejects it, because religion is the ultimate interest. The ultimate interest of a given group and a given epoch appears in every style (Tillich 1995, 286).
The artistic style of every epoch is the exact documentary reflection of its life, in which the same features can be found in literature, art, philosophy, ethics. Therefore the Byzantine, Romanesque, and Gothic styles, and also the subsequent styles of the Renaissance, Baroque, Rococo, classicism, romanticism, naturalism, expressionism and others, both in music and in the fine arts and architecture, tell us something important about the epoch. Each of them contains the self-understanding of the person and the meaning of his life.
It is the task of the historian to analyze and decipher this document in order to open up its meaning to interested people. Where that process takes place, all sides of culture come to light. However, in many cases there are only a few such documents. And among them, according to Tillich, «there is nothing else more useful than the faith of the artist, or the faith of a school and society» (Tillich 1961, 182) It is impossible to
write the history of politics, philosophy or religion without using the documents of art and not to learn from them how people of a certain epoch understood themselves and their place in the universe. This means that without a theology of culture there is no deep history of culture, and without a theology of the fine arts it is not possible to understand the true meaning of a work of art! Though the number of artistic styles is great, the number of their initial elements is limited. Tillich designates the three most important stylistic elements that appear in a variety of styles — the expressive, idealistic, and naturalistic elements.
3.2. Expressive, Naturalistic, and Idealistic Elements in Art
Each true work of art is expressive. Just as scientific knowledge is impossible without the search for truth, so the work of art is impossible without the power of self-expression, because the expressive element is present in all artistic styles. When it meets the ultimate, it reveals what is hidden and draws depth of meaning to the surface of what is depicted. Expressive style, as other stylistic elements, has religious significance. But if idealistic and naturalistic elements express the ultimate only indirectly, then «the expressive element shows it directly. through secular as well as traditional religious themes» (Tillich 1995, 289).
According to Tillich, the expressive element assumes a radical transformation of the reality we live in.
«Expression destroys the natural outlook of things. On the other hand, it reveals the depth of reality and shows the foundation on which everything is based» (Tillich 1962a, 124). The expressive element that is present in different styles, revealing the depth of what is portrayed by the artist:
. penetrates the surface and changes its natural structures: by dividing and freely combining them in surrealism; by the excessive emphasis of different elements in expressionism; by ignoring the details, as in eastern Asiatic painings; by the dilution of organic forms in their non-organic geometric elements, as in cubism; by the symbolic division of the parts of the body. in the realism of primitivists and modern artists; by showing spiritual things through the human body, especially eyes, as in Byzantine icons and mosaics; by the attempt to express the power and meaning of life with the help of combinations of different lines and paints, without any subjective forms (Tillich 1961, 184).
Expression is understood by Tillich, above all, as a «. transformation of reality by the artist, bringing its essence up to the surface» (Tillich 1962a, 126). This essence may be not only the beauty, but also the ugliness, which was, for example, depicted in Picasso's painting Guernica, which Tillich called «a truly Protestant work of art,» (Tillich 1961, 285) because in this painting reality and man are portrayed as they are without any lie and unadorned. Considering Picasso's painting in his article «Protestantism and Expressionism» Tillich writes:
The Protestant principle, emphasizes the eternal distance between God and the human being. It emphasizes that the human is mortal and subject to death; but first of all, he is alienated from his own true existence and also subject to the authority of demonic forces of destruction (Tillich 1962b, 80).
Union with God is beyond the human being's power. A new life for him is absolutely non-achievable. Here the only active figure is God, and the person is only a recipient of the divine gift. Tillich goes on:
Acceptance of the gift is, of course, impossible because of human passivity. It demands the presence of the highest courage — courage, including the paradox according to which the sinner is already justified, and, in the midst of fear, fault, and disappointment — accepted by God (Tillich 1962b, 140).
That is why Tillich gives the major transforming role to the expressive style in art. Because of expressiveness, the false mask is removed and a deep dimension, or as Tillich says, «the crack in all human life» is opened (Tillich 1962b, 140). In just such art Paul Tillich sees an ally of theology and philosophy, since to sinfulness and human estrangement are also well known to it.
According to Tillich's belief, in styles where non-expressive elements dominated, religious art quickly degenerated. And, on the contrary:
The prevailing influence of the expressive style's attempts to recreate religious art basically have resulted in a new discovery of symbols, and the theme of many works of art has became the symbol of the Cross, frequently in the style of Guernica by Picasso (Tillich 1995, 289-290).
Only where there is true art can the depth of existence be reflected, the depth that can be expressed in no other way than with the help of art. No critic or philosophy of art will tell us what the painting can about itself. From this Tillich draws an important conclusion:
If a painting sends us a certain message that concerns us directly, presenting religious symbols in the form of art, then it does in visual form what philosophy or theology express in concepts. And they cannot replace the role of art, just as a word cannot replace a sacrament (Tillich 1962b, 183).
Tillich expresses his personal belief that:
The degree with which style is determined by the expressive element is simultaneously the degree with which it is capable of expressing true reality, and therefore the symbols of religious tradition. Only those styles that make a deep dimension into a visual one in the depiction of each subject can be of service to religious art. They alone reflect the content of religious symbols in the right way (Tillich 1961, 184).
Tillich does not stop at the expressive style, but also considers idealistic
and naturalistic stylistic elements and evaluates them from the point of view of religion and philosophy. He believes that they can never be completely absent from works of art because the natural element, like all the material in visual art, even in abstract styles, is taken from what the artist sees around him. «Since the artist transforms reality by the very fact of the creation of a work of art, it is impossible to avoid the element of idealism» (Tillich 1995, 287). To varying degrees it is present in works of art, since in every creative act the essence and a certain degree of the perfection of the depicted reality is reflected.
This shows that naturalistic and idealistic elements are bound together and that together they contradict the expressive element, because of which the artist strives to depict an extraordinary meeting with reality, proving that he has left the surface and penetrated the depths. It is clear that the style in which the idealistic element dominates is essentially a religious style.
Tillich believes that, «.from the historic point of view, for example in Greek and in modern cultures, the dominance of the idealistic element precedes a naturalistic one in time» (Tillich 1961, 184). That is why he considers the features of the idealistic element first. This element comes from certain elements of the expressive, for example, from the archaic in Greece and from the late Gothic in Western Europe. Later comes the stage of humanization that subordinates the expressive component to the ideal of «perfect» nature, where the images of the gods
of classical sculptures combine in themselves ancient archaic forms and humanistic forms. These images embody the eternal in the form of the temporal. There is tragedy in this that brings their greatness to nothing and announces their end.
«In the Renaissance.form is the ideal, reflecting an other-worldly perfection. The beauty of Renaissance paintings — also often thema-tically — reflects the condition of paradise» (Tillich 1961, 184). The idealism in this case consists in the anticipation of the subject of expectation. This circumstance explains why, at that time, there were innumerable of religious paintings. But do the Madonnas, the crucifixions, and the Bible stories by Renaissance artists represent high art? Paul Tillich gives a negative answer to this question, because they are all only images of human perfection in which there is no spirit that would destroy the limitations of form; the power of expressiveness is missing.
After a brief epoch when the idealistic element prevailed comes the epoch of naturalism. The significance of the naturalistic element in the history of style consists in the attempt to create art that would be subordinate to the direct perception of reality and events that surround it. This submission to what is given, submission to reality, «feeds» empiricism and aesthetic naturalism, where the religious quality is shown in slavish subordination. True religious art is impossible here because religion lives by symbols. And if these symbols are reduced to the level of everyday life, then religious art
comes to an end. As Tillich declares: «If Jesus Christ, as the carrier of new life, becomes merely a rural teacher or a communistic propagandist ... from this a religious painting cannot arise. . Because there is no transparency . and no penetrating force of expressiveness» (Tillich 1961, 185).
After revealing the features of elements of style, Paul Tillich defines the dangers caused by the prevalence of any single one of them. For example, the prevalence of the expressive element leads to the result that things taken up from the depths onto the surface can be abused in favor of the unimportant subjectivity of the image. Or, for example, the expressive form-destroying force becomemay an excuse for the lazy or incompetent artist to evade direct perception of the form. In this circumstance it is often forgotten that only the one who can create a work of art from the destroyed form actually posesses the very form he destroys.
According to Tillich, there is a great danger of a «'... fatal matrimony' between idealistic and naturalistic styles that gives birth to a monster that distorts art. Here the naturalistic element restrains the penetration of the eternal into everyday life or reduces it to sensual religiosity» (Tillich 1962a, 45). In its turn, the idealistic component, joined with the naturalistic one, forces it to «adorn the facade» of the individualistic and societal existence that, in its essence, is not beautiful at all. This is the very reason for the return to expressive elements in style starting from the year 1900.
Tillich asserts that new expressive stylistic elements are capable of expressing what is contained in the great Christian symbol — the symbol of the Cross. But in modern art the crucified is not Christ, but a man, because this art actually rejects the symbol of resurrection and the symbol of glory associated with it. Since humanity is mortal, the symbol of resurrection points to eternity. But here, in Tillich's opinion, Protestantism has a chance that no other religion has: it has the pathos of the secular world. Protestantism loves everyday life experiences and may find the divine in them. Tillich emphasizes: «It would be good if expressive secularity would replace the Kitsch of religious paintings, which is the result of a bad 'marriage' between idealistic and naturalistic components» (Tillich 1961, 180).
These last remarks have brought us to Tillich's understanding of the significance and role of architecture that was highly appreciated by this thinker. In particular he considered that humankind still:
.does not have great religious art in general, in the sense of art creations intended for the cult. Exception is made, perhaps, for modern church architecture that has great potential. Architecture has a tremendous impact on the person, because it is not only art but also serves some practical purpose. It is altogether probable that the beginning of the revival of religious art will start with the interaction between religious art and architecture (Tillich 1995, 290).
4. Paul Tillich's
Interpretation of Architecture
Before speaking about Tillich's relation to architecture, let me introduce you to the dialogue of the architect with his pupil, Lucian. This dialogue came to us from the theorist of ancient architecture Vitruvius:
«I want my temple to inspire people and not leave them indifferent,» says the architect, «And if you want to imitate me, Lucian, then you should study the space of your fine city. Find out its value for the people and also try to find the secret of its influence. Many houses remain silent, some speak with you, and a very few sing» (Tillich 1962, 32).
Here Vitruvius speaks about the purpose of architecture, that a work of architecture should have the ability to communicate to a person what he should learn and feel when viewing and entering it, so that, as Lucian said, the temple would «inspire people and not leave them indifferent.» A temple should appeal to a person and speak to him using a specific language, revealing its secrets.
Friedrich Schleiermacher correctly stated that, «. a language . is connected to knowledge in the same way that art is connected to religion» (Tillich 1962a, 17). In the artistic form of language, our thoughts and feelings portray the reality of life in the best possible way. Architecture also has its own language. It conveys information with the help of images and forms inherent to it. Although architecture uses a wide variety of
different forms, all of them are closely connected to the functional purpose of the building. Therefore, the architectural form of a church building differs greatly from the architectural form of a school building, a concert hall, or an airport. What unites them is that they have the same common ground: they are connected not only to the material — that is, to their function — but they also are connected to the spiritual, to a certain symbol. To show it, to make it an exciting reality in an appropriate architectural form — such is the purpose of architecture.
Tillich pays the most attention to this dual character of architecture: function and symbol, their contradiction and unity, just as earlier he focused on philosophy and theology. For Tillich, an architecturally complete building contains both a symbol and a function. The notion of «symbol» is widely used by him not only in theology and philosophy, but also in architecture. Tillich points to an ancient biblical event connected to the establishment of the symbol: once in a dream, the patriarch Jacob saw the gates of paradise and the angels who went up and down the heavenly stairs. Then Jacob awoke from his sleep and said, «'Surely the Lord is in this place. And he was afraid, and said, 'How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven!' Then Jacob rose early in the morning, and took the stone that he had put at his head, set it up as a pillar and poured oil on the top of it. And he called the name of that place Bethel. saying, '.this stone which I have set as a pillar, shall be
Gods house.'» (NKJV Ge 28:16-22).
This old story tells us what happens when God's house is being built — a church. According to Tillich, «. the church is always a monument and at the same time a reminder of a meeting with God» (Tillich 1962b, 108). This meeting represents a historical event happening in time and space. And, as a historical event, it is always a real experience. «Without penetration into the historic character of a meeting with God, which is crucial in Christianity,» states Paul Tillich, «the church building is nothing but a building with a functional purpose.» It is clear from this statement that a church building should always carry out a functional and a symbolic role. From here certain consequences of the dual character of architecture can be seen clearly.
According to Tillich, the dual nature of architecture has both positive and negative consequences. The negative aspect comes up in a situation when the functional purpose is separated from its symbolic character and is reduced merely to functionalism, or when the symbolic character contradicts the functional purpose of the object and destroys the perfection of its functional structure. Such occurrences constantly take place. That is why an architect must avoid both.
However, the dual nature of function and symbol has a positive aspect. The necessity connected to functional purpose restrains the forces of archaic traditionalism. This is one of the reasons why, among all types of visual arts, architecture has made the fastest and the most
impressive progress when in the majority of Christian countries churches appeared that departed from the false tradition of style and symbols. Tillich declares that:
Each church building submits to the contradiction of various extremes. The first and most important is the contradiction between religious adherence (conservatism) and artistic truthfulness. Religious adherence almost always reigned during periods of artistic barrenness. At that time in church architecture a «divine force of great tradition,» which all imitated, dominated unchallenged. Just at that time, the Protestants inherited many Catholic buildings with their «supernatural divine experience,» in spite of their unsuitability to the Protestant cult. But there is a great difference between getting used to the creations of past styles and starting a new tradition from the existing one (Tillich 1961, 180).
The last assumes the presence of artistic truthfulness. And, according to its definition, it should pay tribute to the past, but not only as delicate care given to an expensive inherited object, but as the possibility of creating a new object, which would necessarily include the rejection of many things from the past. If, as according to Tillich, to be religious art should deal with non-religious objects, then for architecture it would mean that an honestly conceived, objectively necessary style does not have to prove its special religiousness, because it already has it in itself. In this case an architect does not have to sacrifice the
artistic truthfulness of his work for the sake of its «religious» nature, because everything unnatural in architecture causes people to lose their ability to comprehend the work of art and makes it hard for them to experience spirituality.
Tillich is convinced that a church is simultaneously a functional building and a symbol, and this draws, «another contradiction - a contradiction between a symbolic tradition and a symbolic spontaneity» (Tillich 1961, 189). Tillich believes that, «... symbols...indicate something that is hidden beyond them. at a reality that they represent and symbolize. For example,. a flag means the power and authority of the king or country that it represents and sym-bolizes» (Tillich 1995, 274). From this point we can trace the first meaning of symbols — that is, their representation — because a symbol «. represents something that it, in itself, is not, but in the power and sense of which it participates. This is the main function of each symbol» (Tillich 1995, 275).
Each symbol opens up a level of reality for which non-symbolic language is impossible to use. The function of architecture is to discover new levels of reality, just as poetry, music, and visual art have their own levels of reality. However, to discover these levels we need to open up something else important: the levels of the soul, the levels of our own internal reality. They must correspond to the levels of external reality discovered with the help of symbols. «In this way,» concludes Tillich, «each symbol, including an architectural one, has a dual direc-
tion: it discovers reality and it opens up the soul» (Tillich 1961, 179). It is impossible to trade one symbol for another because each of them has its own purpose and meaning appropriate to it. Symbols are born in the «collective unconsciousness» of the group of people who are conscious of the reflection of their own being in those symbols. They die only when the situation changes that first caused them to appear.
Tillich designates the main symbols, or better, the main symbolic elements which are present in any Christian architectural symbols, such as, for example, the cross, «expressing the supreme truth of Christianity» (Tillich 1995, 283). But such a type of presence of concrete symbols as Tillich correctly notes, is caused by time and space, and many things that were symbolical earlier now have no meaning, and that is the reason why a new interpretation of the basic symbolical elements is required. This, for example, concerns the orientation of churches to the east; the designing of round or extended basilicas; the way of accommodating the belfry in relation to the altar and the pulpit, etc. Symbols should testify concerning themselves and, «. the most important symbol of a church building,» considers Tillich (and I completely agree with him), «is the building itself, that directly calls forth a certain sensation in people when it appears at a distance, when they come near it, or when the visitor enters it» (Tillich 1961, 179).
For example, already at the entrance of the church building there is the symbolism of transition from external to internal space, from the
secular world to the space of a different reality. This transition is accomplished in a different dimension which Tillich called «the dimension of depth» (Tillich 1961, 181). Here the preliminary gathering of the believers from dispersion takes place, bringing them from «life's desert» to a protected space, which also symbolically indicates the great gathering of the church on the other side of terrestrial space and time. The church is entered from the west, the side of the setting sun, from the temporary and death, and goes towards the day of general resurrection, after which there will be no more night. That is why the basic movement in church space is carried out from the west to the east — to the altar space with the sign of the cross.
But Paul Tillich does not stop studying and solving the contradiction between a symbolic tradition and symbolic spontaneity in architecture. He is also concerned with the problem that is still pertinent for architecture in our time. This is the problem of the correlation of openness and closedness of space, or its continuity and discretion. In continuity and discretion Tillich sees one of the most important features of modern architecture. He writes:
Recently a new tendency has appeared in the development of architecture — the closedness of surrounding space and openness in relation to it. This symbolism is at once very easy to comprehend and has deep meaning. Both solutions can be very persuasive. There is much to be said for the placement inside the building of
flowers, trees, space, leading to the eternal and almighty. But maybe even more persuasive is the necessity to provide a closed space, where the universe, so to speak, is concentrated in one point. Here is clear symbolism in which the symbols need no explanation (Tillich 1961, 189), Our deep understanding of the sacramental and its perception with the help of the subconscious makes it possible for us to experience in Protestant churches the wonder of broken light and make natural light lose its supremacy, the supremacy of the intellect. and geometrical abstraction also makes a very important contribution to the modern style of optimizing light and color in churches (Ibid., 190).
For this very purpose colorful stained glass windows are used in churches. They do not allow regular light — according to Tillich «the light of human intellect» — to penetrate the building, but distort it so that it transforms the building, making it shine with colors — the light that touches our souls. Since the spiritual being of humanity is impervious to rays of heavenly light, we are able to see only distorted light.
5. Architecture of Multifunctional Christian Complexes Based on Tillich's Principles
In conclusion, I would like to comment on several architectural solutions of multi-purpose Christian complexes where everything mentioned by Paul Tillich is successfully
fulfilled. These complexes have convincingly accomplished both functional and symbolic resolution, and they also provide convincing examples of the expressive embodiment of a work of art in the interior.
5.1. The Center of Saint Laurence in Stuttgart-Rohr (Germany)
The Center is based on the grouping of all church premises around a central courtyard, a place of meeting and for celebrating holidays. The spacious, quiet forms of the roof define the symbolic image of the center on the outside and influence the internal space of the complex, as premises for worship, meetings, and a conference hall are located under these inclined roofs. While the worship space is closed off from the outside world, the meeting hall is oriented toward the nearby park and city center by means of the big, light apertures, embodying the idea of transparency of architectural form.
In front of the worship space and meeting hall there is a completely glassed-in foyer done in the style of a pavilion. The ground floor is located at the same level on the northern side as the adjoining park and lake. A separate entrance leads to the old club
premises, with a small tearoom and two other small club rooms for youth. Also for youth there is a large hall, a multi-purpose room, and an art workshop. While the old clubroom is connected directly to the park, the youth rooms face the city street.
5.2. The Complex
in Myyomaki (Finland)
The narrow, extended site is near the city train station and has a unique landscaped park. Groups of rooms form a linear building along the railroad tracks on one side, while on the other side the main rooms face the park. The elongated arrangement makes good use of natural light. Rooms function in different ways depending on the time of day and the season. The stream of light constantly changes as light and shadow dynamically interact. This architecture has clear advantages which need no explanation. The most important element of the structure is the expressiveness of the interior and also the organic integrity of function and symbolism in the complex as a whole.
5.3. The Complex
in Graz-Zagniz (Austria)
The complex is executed in the form of light, transparent environments, reflecting through their form the meaningful and aesthetic significance of the events that take place in them (liturgy, church holidays, care of the aged and youth). The roof construction reaches for the sky and presents a unique landscape of roofs around a courtyard with arcades that lead to the entrance of the complex,
identified by a column. The structures begin from an earthen shaft and continue their ascending movement in the form of light materials and at last join one other, glinting with silver, reflecting the clouds and the sky.
The warm-toned wooden structures of the arcades represent the play of forces spreading a warm atmosphere to the interior. The interior of the church is understated, but the unique language of the basic design emphasizes the unity of believers gathered for worship. Daylight softly penetrates the interior space, dispersing the foundation structures, and then focuses the attention of the gathered people. Starting from the concrete pillars, a branch-like design of wooden structures culminates at the colorful horizontal stained-glass window. There different biblical images appear: trees in the light, trees of paradise, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the tree of life, the tree of the cross. These architectural symbols reflect the ideals of Christianity and form the basis for the self-identification of believers. In this complex architects and artists have created a reserved and at the same time expressive symbolism,
integrated into a single whole with the light dynamics of the rooms.
Conclusion
In this article the major ideas of an outstanding Protestant thinker of the twentieth century are reflected, those of Paul Tillich, who successfully worked «on the border» between theology and philosophy that is typical for classical German and existential philosophy, and liberal theology.
Tillich's contribution to the theological-philosophical concept of art is shown, in particular his understanding of the interaction of expressionistic, idealistic and naturalistic elements in art, where preference, completely justifiably, is given to the expressive element. This element Tillich logically connects with symbolism in architecture in which function is also inherent. The thinker solves the dual functional-symbolical nature of architecture by sanctioning the contradiction between symbolical tradition and symbolical spontaneity in architecture. Paul Tillich's
BIBLIOGRAPHY
consideration of discretion and continuity in architectural space, and the significance of color and light in church architecture is of great importance. Convincing affirmation of this are the architectural executions of modern, multi-purpose, public, Christian complexes such as St. Lavrenty in Stuttgart (Germany), Myyrmaku (Finland) and Graz-Zagniz (Austria) considered in the article.
I would like to finish my paper by citing a very promising, and at the same time inspiring, statement of Tillich:
It is possible to say that any new church in a new style is an attempt. Without the risk of an unsuccessful attempt, there is no creativity. Maybe the future will show us many unsuccessful attempts, but many extraordinarily successful attempts will be pointed out to us too: triumph over whatever is untrue, over a lack of spontaneity, over the fearfully conservative. A new church architecture is a victory of the spirit, of the creative human spirit, and at the same time of what is incorporated in our limitations by the divine Spirit (Tillich 1961, 191).
"Evangelisches Gemeindezentrum
Laurentiuskirche in Stuttgart-Rohr." Die Zeitschrift
Architektur+Wettbewerbe №133, 1988.
Gieselmann, Reinhard.
"Entwicklungstendenzen des modernen Kirchenbaus." Die Zeitschrift Architektur + Wettbewerbe, №115, Sept. 1983. Heatcote, Edwin and Iona Spens. Church
Builders. New York, 1997. Henel, Ingeborg C. Philosophie und
Theologie im Werk Paul Tillichs. Frankfurt and Stuttgart, 1981.
Tillich, Paul. "Zur Theologie der bildenden Kunst und der Architektur." Kunst und Kirche, №3, 1961.
_. Auf der Grenze. Munich and
Hamburg, 1962.
_. "Der Protestantismus als Kritik und
Gestaltung." Schriften zur Theologie, 1962.
_. "Theology of Culture" in Selected
Works. Trans. from English. Moscow: Jurist, 1995.
