In chapters 5 and 6, McDannell looks at the subject of water from the shrine of Our Lady of Lourdes in France and Christian Kitsch, respectively. McDannell begins chapter 5 by stating that she is looking at the “economy of the holy.” (133) This is fitting considering the extensive spiritual and material network system that grew up around the waters of Lourdes. The water, brought through Notre Dame by Edward Sorin and Alexis Granger, was distributed to the Catholic faithful in the United States. According to McDannell, “the user of the object is embedded…in the same system of meaning that produced the object.” (57) As such Americans came to identify with a Marian system of devotion, in reaction to 19th century liberal secularism. This devotional system came to the U.S. from a Post-Revolutionary France, which was rediscovering religion, after Revolutionary civil religion failed, and through devotion to Our Lady of Lourdes. Those who used the water of Lourdes often wrote letters to Father Granger. These letters served as a form of ex votos. Letters were used as physical objects that were given in response to divine favors that were granted. In addition to the letters, Catholics erected multiple shrines as a way of building the communal aspect of the Marian devotional community. In Chapter 6, McDannell examines Christian Kitsch. Before reading this chapter of the book I had no idea no idea what kitsch was, now I understand…its tacky art. I say this pejoratively because, by definition, kitsch is pejorative term that “contains a negative moral dimension” to “mass-produced, inferior art” (165) However, McDannell notes that the appreciation of kitsch is in the immediacy of the interaction. “The enjoyment of kitsch is easy, immediate, and familiar.” (167) There is a sense that kitsch is not true form of art. This leads both Catholics and Protestants to set up a “binary” view of art. With the creation of l’art Saint-Sulpice, arts within the liturgical setting come to the forefront. Soon, for Catholics, the Vatican would comment on the use and “taste” of arts. The Vatican would give permission to bishops to attack Christian kitsch. With the creation of l’art Saint-Sulpice, or Catholic kitsch, many Catholic viewed the art as being too feminine. For many, Catholic kitsch turned sacred space into ornamented domestic space that was cheaply defined. McDannell goes onto to discuss the feminization of Jesus in art, as well as the over feminization of Mary. Protestant kitsch was decidedly masculine in its portrayals, even to the point of calling anything slightly feminine, “Catholic.” McDannell states, “Protestants, like Catholics, did not want to represent Christianity with a feminized Christ.” (193)
1. Why did this particularly French Devotion to Mary appeal to American laity?
2. McDannell expends considerable energy on the idea that Catholic kitsch portrays femininity. Why do you think there was a rise in kitsch portraying feminine attributes of religious figures despite church hierarchy disapproval?
3. In both chapters 5 and 6, McDannell was concerned about how gender played a role in the practice of faith. Did her use of analysis of gender add or detract from her presentation? Why?
Some fifteen years ago when I first visited Lourdes I was struck by the enormous commercial paraphernalia on display in shops, sidewalks and every corner of the small town that bears that name. Some of these artifacts and icons were beautifully done while others were just crude representations. Most importantly there were thousands of tourists from all over the world who after participating in the huge prayerful and emotionally charged procession in the preceding evening, they were out in force the next day snatching the religious souvenirs, icons, pictures and statues that were on display on shelves trying to take a piece of the moment they lived with them back home. For a moment I came to believe and conclude that the pilgrimage itself had become the prisoner of the very commercial environment that it generated accidentally. And that commercial environment was a money making machine to which had fallen prey not only innocent, unsuspecting and often unsophisticated tourists for whom the trip was a life time dream but also visiting nuns, priests and other clergy.
So how come that from a devotional perspective a holy undertaking has been mostly overwhelmed by grass commercialism and how this commercialism has fed into the devotional psyche of men and women.
It seems that all this comes to what McDannell calls for men’s and women’s need to see and to touch… in order to believe. As the clientele is large, mixed fare representing various social strata and backgrounds, the quality of the products on display could be either kitsch or slightly better artistic renditions tying the higher level quality product to an upward moving price scale the pilgrim can afford to pay. So in the end who decides whether it is kitsch or not if there is a buyer! The deeper question of course is whether any of these reproductions are necessary at all for one’s faith to blossom and express itself.
Ovsep Melkonian
November 5th, 2007
I find the gender aspect of the book very interesting. It seems sometimes overdone. I think it hijacks the chapter on kitsch; I’m not sure I see the connection between the structure McDannell begins to set up for the differing responses to kitsch, and the gender discussion.
Jim Ashton
November 5th, 2007