The Devil in Fred Stonehouse: The Aesthetics of Evil After Evil

Abstract

The devil is not what he used to be. The mythic villain of the Christian tradition has become cartoon version of his former terrifying self. And nowhere is this more apparent than in the visual arts. Fearsome images of the devil and his minions once adorned church walls, altars, and holy books. He was the very real incarnation of and his image was lesson in the wages of sin. Today, however, when words like sin and evil have lost their theological if not cultural resonance, the arts have all but abandoned sincere representations of the devil, trading instead on his image as logo or slur. To image the devil after is to reimagine the very idea of evil. The artist Fred Stonehouse has accomplished precisely this.In the year 447 the Council of Toledo set out the first official description of the devil. At the council the devil was described as a large, black, monstrous apparition with horns on his head, cloven hoofs, or one cloven hoof-ass's ears, hair, claws, fiery eyes, terrible teeth, an immense phallus, and sulphurous smell (Hughes 104). Since then the devil has morphed into caricature of this fierce beast of Christian mythology. More recently the devil has made appearances as the logo for Underwood Deviled Ham and as regular character on South Park. The reason the devil has ceased to function in the cultural imaginary as the personification of is because itself has become something of superstitious relic. As Peter Stanford observes in his book, The Devil: A Biography, Greater knowledge, less dependency on the idea of figure of evil, and more on the nega- five within each individual has brought more precise delineation of the unknown, the darkness, the shadow (284). Like darkness brought to light, has lost its frightful mystery.The notion that is the willful product of an external cosmic agent bent on the pain, suffering, and misery of humanity has foundered as viable theory of evil. Consequently, the devil too has lost much of his historical, theological, and cultural cache. Robert Muchembled argues that [n]ot only has [the devil] ceased to exist as terrifying external figure, he no longer even provokes fear of the self, dread of the inner demon... (228). Two centuries of the demystification of have enfeebled the once mighty icon of incarnate malevolence.If for nearly two millennia the image of the devil was the didactic embodiment of evil, what then does the devil look like after evil? This article addresses that question by turning to the work of contemporary artist Fred Stonehouse, who has been painting the devil for over three decades with an uncanny awareness of, and artistic reflection on, the tradition of representing the devil in the arts.The following is composed of three sections. The first two form an argument regarding the place of the devil-as-villain in modem art, focusing briefly on the art historical trajectory of the image of the devil before attending to the work of contemporary artist Fred Stonehouse. The third section then turns to Stonehouse himself offering an in depth interview with the artist about his work, his practice, and the place of the devil in his painting.Section one presents the devil as the cosmic archetype for the nemesis-style villain. Here, I attend to how the devil has historically been imaged in the arts and, in anticipation of the work of Fred Stonehouse, the precarious place of that image in contemporary culture where the devil has become more cliche than cosmic villain. Section two turns to the artistry of Fred Stonehouse in consideration of the figure of the devil in modem art. In this section I propose that Stonehouse offers rare, sincere figuration of the devil after by transforming him from villain into an icon of vulnerability. Section three is an interview with Stonehouse exploring the evolution of his art practice, the origins of his fascination with the devil, and how he understands this devious character in his work. …