Art For Goodness Sake
This post, over at Cranach (weblog of Gene Edward Veith), discussed the value of poetry. Actually, it discussed the "use" of studying poetry. I love Veith's reaction to the discussion by a postmodern critic regarding the uses of poetry.
"But what he is no longer able to do, given his postmodernist worldview–which makes him have to explain everything in terms of a “community of discourse”–is to use classical, Aristotelian analysis, whereby some things, such as a poem and studying a poem, are good IN THEMSELVES. Not everything HAS to be “useful” (good because it leads to other goods). The pursuit of things good in themselves was also the hallmark of a classical, liberal arts education (as Cardinal Newman explains)."
-G. E. Veith
I think this is an ESSENTIAL point, and one that I long to hear conveyed more. Art does not have to have any "practical" utility to be of value. If it is good, it has value that need not be "useful." And I mean useful in a practical way. To a large degree Christian artists have become utilitarians, seeing art as merely a vehicle for transmitting a message. And that is not the sole purpose of art. I won't say that art cannot be a medium for a message, but I believe this very often serves to cheapen the art and the message it is presenting, usually in an ungainly way.
But aren’t we to live and breath for the glory of God?
The Tree Illustration
When explaining my view on this, I often resort to “The Tree Illustration.” I am fond of trees, even with an amazing deficiency of botanical understanding (there's something in that, I suppose).
Imagine the most beautiful tree you have ever seen. What beauty, what serenity, what transcendence it conveys. It speaks plainly of the glory of the Creator. Now imagine that same tree, but with "John 3:16" crudely spray-painted on the trunk. Now this tree, already displaying its God-given purpose, becomes polluted by being transformed into a mere medium for a message.
The Word of God and the Gospel of Christ
Now, hold on. I hear you. I know that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. That's a fact. I am one who does not buy into the idea (attributed, I believe erroneously, to St. Francis of
"Is that Christian Music?"
I believe that engaging in art, be it writing a novel, painting a canvas, composing music, sketching a tree, writing poetry, etc., has value. It has value even without a “conversion scene”, or an “allegory of Christ”, or “Bible verses above the lyrics”, or a “quota of Jesus references in a song.” It has value because it is part of the order of God to convey the beauty of the common, and the thrill of the transcendent in his world through every noble facet of our imaginations. Imagination is crucial to the Christian, it is where the Lordship of Christ is established and his reign issues in our lives. If he is not Lord there, then where? And I do not mean, by imagination, the unreal. But the most real. The place of the soul…our very selves. As C.S. Lewis said: “You do not have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body.”
Disclaimer
This is not a definitive treatment of the subject, but merely a window into my thinking on it, which is always growing and (I hope) conforming to the truth of God. I think we ought to engage in art to the Glory of God, and that leads us necessarily to art that expresses Beauty and Goodness.
Semi-concise Pseudo Summary
Here's my semi-concise pseudo-summary:
We are either engaging in art for goodness' sake, or we are forsaking good art.
Rembrandt Philosopher in Meditation
Posts
9 comments:
I almost 100% agree with what you are saying. Actually, I think I do 100% agree with you...except with a couple caution flags tacked on. ...which is not a reflection of your post, especially a post admitting to not being definitive.
I think there's a fine line to be balanced when it comes to this conversation. I think it's easy to slip into (what I would label) a postmodern attitude where we think we are degrading the beauty of art by trying to understand it. Perhaps, it's like walking up to the tree and just feeling awe and then walking away.
Here is what kept coming to mind as I read your post. One of my classes in seminary was a sermon outlining class where you were supposed to use the structure of the Greek to outline your message. Every class we'd share our outlines. For one of the classes a guy got up front and said he thought outlining the passage into simple points ruined the beauty. Instead, we should challenge our congregation to simply appreciate the story. If I remember right, he compared it to trying to give a thesis statement to Shindler's List...by doing so, you miss the overall soul and impact of what is occuring. I challenged him on it, on the grounds that the movie director admits that they have a point when they're directing their movie (I had just watched an Unforgiven documentary where Clint Eastwood explained that the point was anti-violence, which I used as an example)...if the director admits that he or she has a purpose in their art, then, maybe it makes sense that if the artist admitedly creates something to express a point, then why couldn't the Holy Spirit be doing a similar thing in the Bible passage. ...I was then (deservedly) scolded by the professor for using something like media to understand how the Holy Spirit works.
...it's probably simpler to say that for some reason the tree by itself is good art. And, the tree with John 3:16 scrawled in it is bad art. What makes the tree good art is that you can return again and again to it and find new things (greatest of all God's glory - Ps. 19:1). ...this ability to find new things is easily confused to mean that there's actually nothing there and that we're imposing meaning on something and that we should just "appreciate" what is in front of us...soak it in.
What makes the John 3:16 tree bad art is that A) you only need to make one trip to get the message and B) there's an element of deception to it because true life is not so trite as to be explaned in such simplicity.
Like I said, I'm pretty sure we aren't in disagreement over these things, because I think it's all in your post...these are just my thoughts as I read.
Pseudo Summary: It's good for art to carry a message.
What I'd Like to Say, But I'm Not Sure I Truly Believe: It's not art unless something is being stated.
Let me know what you think...
Jimmi
Well said, by both you and Jimmy. Now for a comment from an admitedly "low brow" blue collar type- your's truly.
I see real beauty in watching a gifted practitioner operate a backhoe or endloader. I have seen beauty in the artistic productions of vandals who paint their gang symbols on the sides of CSX coal cars. And most certainly a tree alone is art direct from the Master Artist.
I don't think that the aforementioned backhoe operator needs be shouting, "Praise God!", in order to reflect the image of Him. As marred as creation has become, it screams out God's glory, if we have "ears to hear" and take time to listen.
Thanks for a very enjoyable read.
Pseudo Summary: Art is a message.
mKhulu
Wow. So far some excellent comments. Thank you both. I want to hold my fire until some others get in on the action.
Related to art in the backhoe and endloader...
I thought about this in regards to the example of John 3:16 painted on the tree. Even this has a beauty to it in the same way that the gang symbols on the coal cars has beauty. What's puzzling for me is how to judge the quality of art. My initial reaction is that the Mona Lisa is of higher quality than a painted train car, and I could likely come up with a half a dozen ways to back this up. However, I think it's difficult to prove this. ...Maybe I just haven't trained myself to appreciate the more common art...or, maybe it is possible to judge the merit of artistry...?
I agree, at least from my perspective, that the Mona Lisa is a higher form of art than street graffiti. I suppose that distinction is made giving subjectivity more value than objectivity. Anyway I recognize my own "value system" comes into play. Hey maybe the science of judging art is actually more art than science after all.
mKhulu
I have enjoyed reading your post Samuel and the commentators comments.
There is a beauty to both the Mona Lisa and graffiti. They both communicate a message(s). To say that they are comparable in the level of beauty would be ignorance in my opinion.
It seems as though you have to be educated to appreciate beautiful art like classical music, artwork, etc. But, what is it about more simple art and beauty that needs no education to enjoy?
I think I have to agree with Jimmy and mKhulu. It's not art unless something is being stated. Art contains a statement about reality. The Mona Lisa is a statement, "here is beauty, here is goodness." Similarly, art that doesn't reflect beauty (I'm thinking of primal scream recordings as I write this) is itself a statement about reality. While I think it's important to enjoy art for it's goodness, I think it's goodness is present because of what it says about reality.
So perhaps it can be said that good art says true things about the world, life, and reality.
I don't know... perhaps that's too circular, but I thought it made sense in my head.
To add perhaps an entirely different tack on the whole discussion (which I too have enjoyed reading):
I'm finally reading Ken Myers' All God's Children and Blue Suede Shoes and he makes the point in there, echoing C.S. Lewis, that we can either use or receive art. To use art is to simply reduce it to just its message, or to listen to a song only because it reminds you of a time in your life. To receive art is to be transported into the world that the artist has created, to allow that art to show you new things that your current perspective didn't include.
Myers/Lewis' argument was that receiving art, because of its ability to take us out of ourselves and allow us to see with someone else's eyes, is the same sort of thing in our soul as love or mercy. To pick up on what Joshua said - when we return to the tree we can keep finding new things - that is much the same way as we can always continue to learn new things about our spouse as we love them.
So I think the danger of art as simply a means for message is that it encourages people to use rather than receive art. After all, once you've figured out the message you got all there was to see. However, all art has underlying themes and messages, or else the artist would never have been moved to create in the first place.
First of all, thanks to everyone for putting so much thought into the post and taking the time to write considerate responses.
Jimmi (aka Joshua),
I am intrigued by your stipulation that what makes art valuable is that you can find new things in it when you go back to see it. That is certainly, in my view, a descriptor of much good art, but not necessarily a definition, or summation. And I don’t think you were making that point. But I am always interested to learn what those things which make great art Great Art, are. And that one is a good one. My mind flies through so many things of value that would fit with that. And the Genesis Creation is foremost that comes to mind. I need to take some art appreciation classes. Homeschooling the kids should help.
On the potential for sliding into a postmodern rejection of “understanding art as degradation of art.” I don’t think I’m quite there, and I’d like to understand better what are the more classical ways to understand art, and evaluate art by objective standards (like unity and diversity in painting). I confess a large degree of ignorance, but I don’t believe that the post-modern approach is right.
Further, I don’t want my post, or my mind, to be a window through which heretical sentiments (very popular now) about the relative value of story and the relative worthlessness of propositional truth (the Word of God) may crawl through and surprise the naïve. I accept propositional truth. I accept the Bible as a story (true) with ultimate meaning. I reject that it is mere literature, but I affirm that it is literature.
Andrew,
I agree with your conclusion that art says something true about the world, life, reality. I think that is my point, but not that it is merely a tool only.
Josiah,
I think you are right that learning evaluative means to appreciate high culture is more necessary, but that folk art is right where so many of us can appreciate it. And folk art endures, even among “our people.” That is, people from the country, Appalachia. This would include the wonderful “Mountain music” and “Old Time” that we both enjoy.
mKhulu,
To the man I learned most of what I appreciate from (I think that’s a good thing). I think you have a good point about common grace, common beauty, and (as G.E. Veith would no doubt say) the doctrine of Vocation. I think art is a message, but need not be merely a tool for a message’s conveyance. The important word, here, is MERE.
To clarify my position somewhat, I stand in opposition to Mere Utilitarianism. This Mere Utilitarianism is where the message is all, or most, and the medium is not counted as truly valuable (except that it conveys the message). I believe that art need not be a medium to deliver particular revelation, but that it necessarily does “speak” something. Thus that art has content that conveys, on some level, is not to be doubted.
Finally, I am but a babe in my understanding of all this (well, maybe a toddler). So one should assume that I have some growing to do and should not presume that your definitive answers about Christians and the Arts should be found with me.
For further (or, real) study, I recommend Francis A. Schaeffer, Gene Edward Veith, and Kenneth Myers.
OK, I wrote all that before I read Brant’s comment. Now I think I can just add.
Yeah, what Brant said.
I think he hit the nail on the head, and that is why I recommend Ken Myers. The book of which he speaks is just a wonderful book conveying great truth (yes) about Christians and the Arts. All God’s Children and Blue Suede Shoes. Get it.
The point about receiving art, and not using it is something I am trying to understand/incorporate into my life (both as a sub-creator, and a receiver, of art).
Please, continue the discussion.
Post a Comment