S.D. Smith » Art

Subjecting Ourselves to Bad Art?

S.D. Smith — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 00:40:21 +0000

Gene Edward Veith has some comments today on Objectivity in Beauty that are noteworthy. I wonder what the Maple Mountaineers (for so I have named that small cadre of commentators whose heads, by way of the mouth area, talk so winsomely here) have to say about this.

“To remind those of us who say we believe in “absolutes” against the postmodernists who deny there is any such thing, the three absolutes were and are Truth, Goodness, and BEAUTY. Christians are against relativism when it comes to truth and goodness but they tend to agree with the postmodernists that beauty is relative. This must be challenged. Once beauty goes, the other absolutes quickly become unravelled. (This is not, by the way, just the problem of churches; rather, it reflects the even bigger tastelessness of the culture as a whole, which Christians, while criticizing the culture on many points, emulate it on this one.)

Yes, beauty involves a subjective response and that “tastes” differ, but taste, like other human faculties, must be cultivated, educated, and disciplined. We need to learn how to take subjective pleasure in what is objectively GOOD.”

I have to admit to holding some lingering relativism when it comes to art, and though I have moved towards a more objective approach, I still see art as possibly having large areas of subjectivity. Am I wrong?
I used to take the approach that music was amoral and that any music could be used to glorify God, or to most any different end, in certain contexts. I no longer hold that view, and believe that we can certainly say that some art is bad and some is good. But I feel uncomfortable with the idea that the rules could be so very objective, and it seems like this empowers elites to tell the rest of us what’s REALLY good. But isn’t that the way all disciples work? For some examples, we say things like: That’s bad philosophy, that’s bad science, that’s bad writing, that’s bad form, that’s bad architecture…so why not in art? Well we do say that, but who has more authority on the subject and why? I don’t ask because I am in defiance, I ask because I know I don’t exactly know and I want to.
I guess I have been on a journey from the relativist position (on Beauty) towards a more sure objectivity, but am looking for a few signs and guides along the way…because I am unsure of how to get there (and exactly why).

Which is better? Warhol, or Da Vinci? OK, sorry…that was easy.

What’s the Use? Christians and the Arts

S.D. Smith — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 00:34:37 +0000

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?

YES!

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 Assisi) that we ought to “Preach the Gospel, and if possible use words.” The Gospel is conveyed by words. God loves Words so much that he has chosen to communicate to man primarily through words, his Word, and most profoundly through his Son, referred to in Scripture as “the Word.” So words matter, the Gospel matters, and it must be preached using words. But that does not require that we put Bible verses on the Mona Lisa. That doesn’t help either the message of the cross, or the art done to the glory of God (or art that necessarily glorifies God by it’s sub-creative worth).

“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

Wordlessness

S.D. Smith — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 00:21:56 +0000

“Wonder is involuntary praise.”
Edward Young

picture by Gina Smith
quotation HT: Ryken

Discrimination is Good?

S.D. Smith — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 23:42:42 +0000

”In the field of aesthetics, all that is necessary for kitsch to triumph is for men to fail to discriminate” (Theodore Dalrymple, In Praise of Prejudice, p. 75).

I saw this over at Blog and Mablog and thought it too good to pass up.

500 Years of Women in Art

S.D. Smith — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:50:23 +0000

This is a beautiful little video. Throw away the modern insurgency against common sense that says women are “just like men.” How boring, and silly. I think that it is in art, and in stories, that these foolish notions are dramatically put to the lie. Women are wonderful –and wonderfully, not men.