logo
‘The Last Supper': Paul Elie feasts on artistic ferment over religion in the '80s

‘The Last Supper': Paul Elie feasts on artistic ferment over religion in the '80s

In his gripping and essential new book 'The Last Supper,' Paul Elie captures a pivot point in 20th century social history, when certain ideas about religion, art and sex in the '80s crashed headlong into each other during an epoch that tends to be shrugged off by historians as a quiet interval between the gas shortages and political malfeasance of the '70s and the emergent technological revolution of the '90s. But it was in fact a breeding ground of artistic ferment, in which creatives grappled with what Elie calls crypto-religion, that 'liminal space between belief and disbelief' that produced a wealth of thought-provoking popular art.
Elie's masterful survey is a group portrait of artists and their fellow travelers who participated during a bloody crossroads in American life, when Ronald Reagan's ascension to the White House in 1980 collapsed the walls between church and state, sparking a counterrevolution across the arts. It is this dialogue, this back-and-forth, that drives Elie's fascinating survey, placing the reader in the thick of a convulsive era when ideas about the role of religion in modern life were fighting it out in the public sphere in ways that we haven't seen since.
Among these voters that swept him into the presidency in 1980, Reagan was a savior, wresting the country away from the unchecked permissiveness and aggressive secularism of the prior two decades into a new era of 'family values' that encompassed adherence to the straight and narrow, of which biblical scripture was the key text. Gathering up zealots like Jerry Falwell under his new revival tent, Reagan preached the virtues of heterosexual marriage, of preserving the life of the unborn fetus, of chastity and moderation.
The Roman Catholic Church had Reagan's back. Pope John Paul II, who had ascended to the papacy in 1978, toured the world like a beatific rock star, preaching the gospel of this new sobriety in football stadiums across the country. This was Christianity leached of all nuance or moral ambiguity, a battering ram of religious doctrine.
What emerged from this great leap backward was a diverse efflorescence of art that directly addressed the very things the church ignored. Elie calls it crypto-religion, in which artists negotiated the 'liminal space between belief and non-belief,' and in so doing, created a rich body of work that raised the question 'of what the person who made it believes, so that the question of what it means to believe is crucial to the work's effect.'
Elie's cast of characters — an eclectic list that includes Andy Warhol, Sinéad O'Connor, Bob Dylan, Bono, Czeslaw Milosz, Martin Scorsese and Robert Mapplethorpe — were, to varying degrees, children of the church who had internalized its tenets at a time when religion was still a central fact of life in America and Europe in the '50s and '60s. As Elie astutely points out, even an artist as outwardly estranged from religious life as Warhol carried with him the lessons of the Polish Byzantine Order of his youth. 'He made silk-screen images of skulls, memento-mori style,' writes Elie. 'He dressed dolls as priests and nuns and photographed them.' As an adult, Warhol attended church, albeit sporadically, and accepted a commission to refashion Leonardo's da Vinci's 'The Last Supper' for an exhibition in Milan.
What these crypto-religious artists shared was a vision of divinity shot through with doubt and wonder, weighing the desires of the flesh against the ephemerality of the holy spirit. It was necessary for these insurrectionists to embrace faith on their own terms, transmuting their internal theological dialogues into popular art. On his 1979 album, 'Slow Train Coming,' Dylan had come out in no uncertain terms as a man who now held fast to Jesus love. That record would have a profound influence on O'Connor, the Irish singer who wrestled with God like a scorned lover: 'Tell me, where did the light die?' she sang in her song 'Troy.' U2, whose lead singer Bono also looked to Dyan as an exemplar, turned the tropes of arena rock inside out, so that a garage-rock classic like 'Gloria' becomes a 'crisis of faith,' an 'anthem of self-surrender' in which the devotion Bono feels 'involves something larger than himself, and he's trying to empty himself of everything that's not in it.'
As religion and crypto-religion were locked in mortal combat, the AIDS plague was sweeping across gay communities like a firestorm, to the complete indifference of the federal government and their Christian handmaidens. The gay artistic community was ravaged, many of its greatest creative geniuses felled by the disease. But a groundswell of protest art was answering the call with a new kind of ardent feeling that damned the false piety and hypocrisy of homophobic Christian doctrine.
Peter Hujar, who would die from AIDS in 1987, used solemn, stark portraiture to create a new kind of crypto-religious iconography, while his compatriot David Wojnarowicz, another victim of AIDS, channeled his rage toward homophobic indifference into mixed-media pieces that restored his subjects' bruised humanism.
Then there was Scorsese. The filmmaker, who had been raised in a strict Catholic household in New York's Little Italy and had in his prior films grappled with ideas of belief in a violent world, was obsessed with adapting Nikos Kazantzakis' 1955 novel 'The Last Temptation of Christ.' It took years to drum up the financing, but when the 1988 film was completed, the religious right did everything in its power to block its release. No wonder: Here was crypto-religious art writ large, a vision of Jesus who was all too human, plagued by doubt and a troubled inner life. It was, according to Elie, the 'Jesus of history more than the Christ of faith' — a man first, in other words. This dovetailed with the work of scholars such as Elaine Pagels, who were framing Jesus as a historical figure, rather than the 'Christ of faith.'
Where has all of this crypto-religious practice left us in 2025? That liminal space that Elie describes between belief and disbelief has closed, at least for the time being. Yet even as 'the American population has become less religious and religiosity more diverse,' the idea of mainstream artists grappling with religion no longer exists, perhaps because such matters are irrelevant in an aggressively outward-directed, spiritually bereft time. Elie's brilliant book is a bracing reminder of art's far-reaching power in matters of the heart and soul. His expansive vision of the '80s rings out like a clarion call for a new era of rigorous artistic engagement with the unknowable and the unseen.
Weingarten is the author of 'Thirsty: William Mulholland, California Water, and the Real Chinatown.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Judge blocks Trump order targeting law firm tied to Fox News, Dominion settlement
Judge blocks Trump order targeting law firm tied to Fox News, Dominion settlement

The Hill

timean hour ago

  • The Hill

Judge blocks Trump order targeting law firm tied to Fox News, Dominion settlement

A federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration from implementing an executive order targeting Susman Godfrey, the law firm that represented Dominion Voting Systems in its lawsuit with Fox News over the network's coverage of President Trump's 2020 election fraud claims. U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan said the effort violated the Constitution and threatens the independence of the bar, which she called 'a necessity for the rule of law.' The decision marks the latest blow to Trump's effort to penalize law firms for pursuing cases he opposes or hiring lawyers he alleges are adversaries. Trump's April order sought to ban Susan Godfrey attorneys from accessing government buildings, viewing documents or representing any party that has litigation involving the federal government. The president contended that the move was necessary 'to address the significant risks, egregious conduct, and conflicts of interest.' AliKhan, a Biden appointee disagreed with the justification. 'While the Order proclaims that it has been made pursuant to the 'authority vested in [Donald Trump] as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America,' Order, the court is not convinced that there is a statutory or constitutional basis for the actions taken therein,' she wrote in her ruling. 'Defendants do not point to any statutory authority that empowers the President to punish a law firm for its choice of clients, donations, or other speech, and the court is not aware of any law that would support such action,' AliKhan continued. The judge added, 'Likewise, there is no constitutional authority that supports the action taken by the Order, and it cannot be sustained based on any of 'the several constitutional provisions that grant executive power to the President.' The law firm in a statement online hailed the ruling as a 'resounding victory.' 'The Court's ruling is a resounding victory for the rule of law and the right of every American to be represented by legal counsel without fear of retaliation. We applaud the Court for declaring the administration's order unconstitutional,' the company wrote. 'Our firm is committed to the rule of law and to protecting the rights of our clients without regard to their political or other beliefs. Susman Godfrey's lawyers and staff live these values every day.' Godfrey, which helped deliver Dominion a $787 million dollar settlement, filed a suit against the president after his order was released. Other firms, including WilmerHale, Perkins Coie and Jenner & Block, were also on the Trump administration's hit list. Several of those orders have also been temporarily locked after the companies filed similar lawsuits.

With Iran set back, Trump can now pursue peace in the Middle East
With Iran set back, Trump can now pursue peace in the Middle East

New York Post

timean hour ago

  • New York Post

With Iran set back, Trump can now pursue peace in the Middle East

Donald Trump has stumbled into a position of extraordinary power in the Middle East. Through a combination of Israeli military audacity and his willingness to take risks, Trump has humiliated Iran, proven his ability to rein in Israel, and positioned himself as the only actor who can now impose a postwar settlement. He has leverage over everyone, and he should use it now. Iran tried to negotiate with the United States as an equal. It hoped to deter Israel with missile threats, proxies, and nuclear brinkmanship. But Israel just proved how hollow that posture was — launching an astonishingly successful preemptive strike on June 13. Ten days later came something astounding. US B-2 bombers flew deep into Iranian territory and struck nuclear infrastructure directly. 7 President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have an opportunity to achieve lasting peace across the Middle East. REUTERS 7 Benjamin Netanyahu surveying damage to the Soroka Hospital in the southern town of Beer Sheba during Israel's recent 12-day war with Iran. MARC ISRAEL SELLEM/POOL/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock Washington wasn't just supporting Israel — it was in the fight. And then Trump essentially imposed a cease-fire. Israel stopped. Iran accepted. The war ended not with negotiations but with an American command. This is military might combined with psychological dominance. Trump effectively used Israel as a proxy to break Iran's posture — then proved he could rein in his proxy the moment it suited him. For Iran, the implications are brutal. If Israel wants to strike again, it very well might. If Trump wants to stop them, he will. This is the context in which US-Iran talks will now resume. They must not be open-ended — Iran cannot be allowed to play for time as they did with President Obama. Trump must make clear that the war demonstrated the limits of Iran's options. The regime survived, but just barely. Its nuclear and missile programs were mauled. Its proxies have been badly weakened. And its people are more skeptical than ever of a leadership that promised strength and delivered only humiliation. 7 Massive bombs such as these were used by American forces against Iran to help dismantle the nation's nuclear armament efforts. AP The terms must be firm, final, and immediate: 1. All uranium enrichment must halt above the 3% civilian threshold allowed under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The carrot is that civilian use should be allowed — it is Iran's right under the NPT. 2. The missile program must be ended — especially long-range and precision systems that threaten Israel and Arab capitals. 7 A massive fire at an oil storage depot in Iran illustrates the vast range of targets hit by Israel as it sought to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. AP 3. All support for regional proxy militias must end. That includes Hezbollah, the Houthis in Yemen, and the Shiite militias in Iraq. These groups are not bargaining chips — they are the core of Iran's regional aggression. They must go. Iran may protest, posture, and delay. But it is cornered. The Arab world was largely silent during the Israel-Iran war — a signal of tacit approval. Europe's main governments, though nervous, largely backed the US-Israel axis. Tehran has few friends, little credibility, and almost no cards left to play. But the job is only half done. The war in Gaza — at this juncture, pointless, devastating, and politically toxic — must now end. And here, too, Trump has leverage. 7 A graphic detailing Israel's strikes on Iran on June 13 – Operation Rising Lion. Merrill Sherman / NY Post Design Just weeks ago, Netanyahu's government was under siege at home. Protests filled the streets. The hostage crisis dragged on. His coalition teetered. Then came the Iran strike. It gave him breathing room and a narrative of victory. But it came with a debt, and Trump holds the note. Trump can now demand something Netanyahu has blocked because of pressure from far-right figures who can bring down his coalition: end the war in Gaza, and do it in a way that creates a path forward. The plan is clear: The Palestinian Authority must be allowed to return to Gaza. It must come with Arab security backing — likely from Egypt, Jordan, and Gulf partners — and billions in reconstruction aid from Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Read the latest on the Israel-Iran conflict: Hamas must disarm and go into exile. And in return, Trump must deliver the next phase of the Abraham Accords. Indeed, the Yisrael Hayom newspaper on Thursday reported that Trump already spoke with Netanyahu about ending the Gaza war within two weeks. The report was not confirmed by authorities. This is where the opportunity becomes historic. Saudi Arabia has signaled that normalization with Israel is possible — but only in the context of serious steps toward Palestinian statehood. With Gaza pacified and the PA in place, Saudi normalization is achievable. 7 An infographic explains how a bunker buster bomb works Merrill Sherman / NY Post Design That, in turn, could bring along others: Oman, maybe even Lebanon, under its new political leadership. Syria's new regime, desperate for international legitimacy because of its jihadist past, has signaled positive intentions as well. Either way, Netanyahu announced that Israel is working for 'dramatic expansion of peace agreements' on Thursday. Trump could expand the Abraham Accords into a true regional security architecture — uniting Israel, moderate Arab states, and even a weakened Iran under US oversight. 7 A scene of destruction in the Gaza Strip, where Israel has waged a war against Hamas for more than 20 months. AFP via Getty Images This would reshape the region. Israel would gain unprecedented legitimacy and regional integration. The Palestinians would get governance, reconstruction, and a foothold toward political relevance. Iran would be contained. And the US would restore its position as the indispensable power in the Middle East. None of this is guaranteed. But all of it is possible — and Trump holds the cards. Dan Perry led Associated Press coverage in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, including the Israel and Iran bureaus. He publishes Ask Questions Later on Substack.

Trump runs up a Supreme Court winning streak, amassing more power
Trump runs up a Supreme Court winning streak, amassing more power

Boston Globe

timean hour ago

  • Boston Globe

Trump runs up a Supreme Court winning streak, amassing more power

Advertisement At times, the court gave little if any explanation for its actions, even as liberal justices blasted the majority for rewarding what they said was Trump's lawlessness. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'The court treated him as if he were a normal president, and I think that was probably a mistake,' said Kermit Roosevelt, a professor who teaches constitutional law at the University of Pennsylvania. The court has yet to grapple with 'what to do with the president who does not seem to be motivated by public spiritedness or the good of the country and doesn't necessarily subscribe to American values like due process and liberty and equality.' The ruling Friday gives the administration a new tool to try to stop judges from putting policies on hold. Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett faulted three trial judges for issuing so-called nationwide injunctions halting Trump's plan to restrict automatic birthright citizenship. Advertisement 'Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the executive branch,' said Barrett, one of three Trump appointees on the court. Trump, who thanked by name the six Republican-appointed justices in the majority, declared the decision a 'monumental victory.' He said the administration would move to lift holds judges have placed on a number of his policies, mentioning fights over refugee resettlement, federal spending and so-called sanctuary cities. 'The Supreme Court has finally put a stop to this judicial activism, which has abused our constitutional separation of powers for too long,' Alabama's Republican Attorney General Steve Marshall said in an emailed statement. The decision was one of five rulings the court released Friday as it issued the term's last opinions in argued cases. Among other decisions was one that backed Trump's position by declaring that parents have the right to opt their children out of public-school lessons for religious reasons. Earlier in the month, the court agreed with Trump in another culture-war clash, upholding state bans on certain medical treatments for transgender children. The court on Monday and Thursday will likely indicate new cases the justices will hear in their next nine-month term, which will start in October. Trump suffered a rare setback in May when the court blocked the administration from using a rarely used wartime law to send about 176 Venezuelans to a Salvadoran prison before they had a chance to make their case to a judge. 'This ruling was particularly significant because it showed the court's willingness to enforce constitutional constraints even on immigration enforcement — typically an area where the court defers strongly to executive authority,' said Stephanie Barclay, a professor who teaches constitutional law at Georgetown Law School. Advertisement But the following month, the court appeared to undercut the decision when it let the administration resume quickly deporting migrants to countries other than their own. The court gave no explanation for the decision, which lifted a judge's order that gave people 10 days notice and a chance to argue they would be at risk of torture. The birthright citizenship case didn't directly concern the legality of the restrictions, which would upend a longstanding constitutional right. Trump seeks to jettison what has been the widespread understanding that the Constitution's 14th Amendment confers citizenship on virtually everyone born on US soil. The executive order would restrict that to babies with at least one parent who is a citizen or legal permanent resident. The practical effect of the ruling remains to be seen. The 22 states challenging the citizenship plan can still argue at the lower court level that they need a nationwide halt to avoid the financial costs and administrative headaches that would result if the restrictions applied in neighboring jurisdictions. And Barrett explicitly left open the prospect that people challenging policies can press class action lawsuits. A prominent critic of nationwide injunctions, Notre Dame law professor Samuel Bray, hailed the decision — but also predicted a surge of class action suits and new court orders blocking the citizenship policy. 'I do not expect the president's executive order on birthright citizenship will ever go into effect,' Bray said in a statement. Barrett cast the ruling as a nonpartisan one, noting that the Biden administration also sought to rein in the use of nationwide injunctions. Advertisement 'It's easy to see why. By the end of the Biden administration, we had reached 'a state of affairs where almost every major presidential act was immediately frozen by a federal district court,' Barrett wrote, quoting from a law review article co-written by Bray and University of Chicago Law School professor William Baude. Critics of the court said that characterization missed a key point. 'It is true, of course, that universal injunctions have bedeviled both prior Democratic and Republican administrations,' Michael Dorf, a professor who teaches constitutional law and federal courts at Cornell Law School, said in an email. 'But the court fails to recognize (or chooses to ignore) the fact that eliminating a tool for courts to rein in the executive branch is especially perilous at this particular moment, when we have an administration that is already inclined to take a casual attitude towards judicial orders.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store