“The Burnt Orange Heresy” Is a Haunting Art-World Fable

Last updated on: September 11, 2020 at 3:23 pm by John Ehrett

“The Burnt Orange Heresy” Is a Haunting Art-World Fable 2020-09-11T15:23:29-05:00 John Ehrett

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Image credit: Sony Pictures Classics

Abstract art, since its inception, has probably always been something of an acquired taste. For one thing, few such works truly speak for themselves—in propositional terms, that is—apart from some moniker, explanation, or contextualization. For another, it’s not obvious how exactly one is to assess the relative quality of a given piece: whereas representational art can be evaluated in terms of its verisimilitude, abstract works stand outside such a framework altogether.

These questions have provoked a number of reactions over the years. At one extreme are theologically-minded critics like Francis Schaeffer and H.R. Rookmaaker, who saw in the emergence of modern and contemporary art a full-scale repudiation of the traditional canons of beauty and meaning. At the other extreme are authors like Arthur Danto, who provocatively argued that the “end of art”—as traditionally understood—was in fact a necessary and historically inevitable event. For Danto and others sharing his sentiments, “art” as an evolving intellectual discipline effectively ended once the last stable rules of “art” faded away, leaving only theory and context in their place as determinants of meaning. In the present age, art is whatever we say it is.

That, at least, is the conviction held by James Figueras (Claes Bang), the art critic protagonist of Giuseppe Capotondi’s new film The Burnt Orange Heresy (newly available on streaming services). But fascinatingly, it is not a view that this provocative film appears to share.

(Spoilers below, but do note that this isn’t the sort of movie that depends on surprises in order to be worth seeing.)

We first meet Figueras at a fancy promotional event for his latest book, where the critic is expounding at length on a striking—if somewhat workmanlike—abstract piece. At first, Figueras dismisses the piece as flat and amateurish, and his audience obligingly nods along with him. But then, Figueras begins to explain the canvas’s backstory, spinning a tragic tale of sacrifice, lost love, and the horrors of the Holocaust…and immediately, the painting becomes interesting and compelling to Figueras’s listeners. But—twist upon twist!—this backstory is itself a lie, as Figueras helpfully informs his viewers after a long pause.

Figueras’s message couldn’t be clearer: artistic meaning and value are pure constructions—constructions, often, of critics like himself. There is no “inner truth” to a given painting or any standard against which its merit might be measured. Taken at face value, this would seem to be a vindication of Danto’s thesis: art is whatever we call art.

Figueras is soon after whisked away—along with female admirer Berenice (Elizabeth Debicki)—to the castle of an enigmatic old art collector (Mick Jagger) with a very specific curatorial request. Figueras—on pains of being outed as a scammer—is to go to the studio of notoriously reclusive artist Jerome Debney (Donald Sutherland)—whose only extant works were destroyed in a fire several years previously—and obtain one of the painter’s recent pieces, by whatever means necessary.

To Figueras’s horror, he soon learns that Debney hasn’t painted a single thing since the fire: the muse is well and truly gone. Determined not to return empty-handed, Figueras promptly elects to paint his own “Debney” canvas—the eponymous “burnt orange heresy”—only to be caught by Berenice partway through the project. Standing in their hotel room, her finger wet with paint from the fresh forgery, Berenice angrily confronts her corrupt lover…until he drowns her in a bathtub and rapidly stages the scene to resemble a suicide.

We last meet Figueras at the grand unveiling of the new “Debney” painting. The delighted collector lavishes praise on Figueras’s find, even remarking offhandedly about the “fingerprint” remaining on the canvas. In the instant of recognition that follows—in the moment Figueras realizes that the painting contains tangible physical evidence of the truth of Berenice’s demise—the film ends.

This revelation profoundly upsets Figueras’s own philosophy of art: Berenice’s fingerprint on the canvas inscribes into the work the cold, hard factuality of her murder. This is no longer something that can be dissolved into clouds of theory, criticism, or deconstruction; the truth of Figueras’s sin announces itself wholly apart from subjective interpretation. The “burnt orange heresy” means, among other things, that a fraud was committed and that a murder took place. And, the audience is left to ponder, cannot similar depths of meaning be found in other abstract works?

There is an echo here of what Jacques Derrida called the “trace”—the indefinite yet undeniable residuum of meaning that permits linguistic communication to occur, no matter how assiduously a critic or philosopher attempts to destabilize a text’s integrity. In the film’s closing minutes, Figueras is confronted directly with a very tangible “trace” that short-circuits his earlier swaggering nihilism. Perhaps, after all, there is something “undeconstructible” in any given artwork, and it is the search for that undeconstructible that accounts for the allure of art that so many people experience.

Derrida himself strenuously argued that this hat-tip to the possibility of undeconstructibility not be understood to have theological connotations, no matter how apophatic. I, however, do not share his biases against the transcendent: to admit the possibility of the undeconstructible—whether understood classically, as artistic beauty in general, or as in Figueras’s case, understood as starkly objective truth—is to admit the possibility of an absolute call on one’s intellect, will, and desires. And learning to live in right relationship to that call, in turn, strikes me as perhaps the most important task of life as a whole.

Movies

Previous Post

September 4, 2020

“Politics After Christendom” Is Not the Political Theology You’re Looking For

Next Post

September 14, 2020 What I Wish Aimee Byrd’s “Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood” Had Argued

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Culture Ecclesiology Education Imagination Movies Political Theory Scripture Uncategorized Worship

Select a Month December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 June 2019 April 2019 January 2019 December 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

I will heal their waywardness and love them freely, making them blossom like this flower and fragrant like this tree. What plant and tree are mentioned?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Lotus and palm Lebanon Cedar and Lilies Iris and cypress Rose and olive