Philosophizing on the "art" ...
Donna says, "I LIKE it," and everyone wants to know if Tim LIKES it, but really that is all irrelevant to the most important question: SHOULD we like it?
Now, I am curious about whether or not Tim likes it. It is a piece of trivial information that will amuse me, and if he wants to hang it in his office that's his business. I will not judge him for it.
I can't. I LIKE music I shouldn't like. I LIKE food I shouldn't like. And I even LIKE art I shouldn't like.
I think.
But I wonder if the inscription on the painting shouldn't read:
Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in Your sight -- because my painting sure isn't.
Isn't beauty objective? And shouldn't we all agree that even if we don't know what it is that there must be some objectivity somewhere, perhaps beyond the limitations of our fallen minds, that determines whether beauty is actually beauty.
Consider the work of art that was partially funded by the NEA: a crucifix in urine. (Write me for a link).
Now let's think:
1. It would be easy to denounce this "art" as non-art because it is blasphemous. Most Christians would agree.
2. Now, supposing the artist takes the crucifix out of the jar and just presents the urine. Is it art? Is it beautiful because some people "LIKE" it?
3. If a person says that it is beautiful and that he LIKES it, on what grounds can you tell him that it is NOT beautiful?
4. Is beauty really in the eye of the beholder?
I don't think so. If beauty is in the eye of the beholder a lot of people are going to be disappointed when they get to heaven. The reason we will all find heaven the most beautiful place is because we will all be so radically changed that we will finally be able to see and understand objective beauty.
I find it fascinating that everyone is asking whether or not the "art" is LIKED. But no one has answered whether it SHOULD be liked.
Perhaps the "art" is actually art and I am ignorant of true beauty. I'm prepared to admit that. I have listened to many people tell me that classical music, for example, is yukky noise. They're ignorant. Beauty is not in the eye -- in this case, the ear -- of the beholder/hearer. Nor is ugliness necessarily in the eye/ear of the beholder/hearer.
Therefore, I could be the one that is wrong. Maybe I am so pitifully marred by sin and ruin that I cannot see beauty even when it smacks me in the face. Maybe Donna is not "worldly" as she jokingly referred to herself, but instead her brother Bob is ignorant.
That is quite possible.
On the other hand, if visual art can be justified merely on the basis of being "liked" why can't certain kinds of music be so tolerated?
I confess to have erred with food and music in the same way others err with art. I confess to being a lover of ugliness.
Beauty cannot be determined by corrupt affections. In truth, only God is the determiner of beauty. In our fallenness it is the perpetual quest of the redeemed humanity to learn beauty (among other things, of course).
But as I said before, I confess to being a lover of ugliness. I confess to not even knowing what real beauty is. That's why grace is amazing.
God shows grace to people who offer to Him things that they think are beautiful much as a loving parent receives the artwork of his toddler. In some sense it is the relationship of the "artist" with the one for whom he is drawing that makes the "art" beautiful, but it doesn't change the objective standard. My daughter's artwork will never be in a museum for outstanding art just because I LIKE it.
But here's the kicker: my daughter's art work should NEVER be in a museum for outstanding art even if MILLIONS of people LIKE it.
Today, we live in a world where millions of people LIKE things that are, well, ugly.
We also live in a day where millions of people don't know what beauty is anymore.
Therefore, we are back to the question posed much earlier in this saga, now expressed with two questions:
I, Bob, find a part of me that likes the art. Is that because I am part of a culture that like ugliness?
I, Bob, find a part of me that disapproves of the art. Is that because I am part of a culture that is ignorant of beauty?
I confess to not knowing for sure.
If it were hanging in my office I could never get much study done. I'd be pondering this philosophical question and searching my soul incessantly.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
The analogy of your daughter's artwork may hold a valuable truth. You may be correct to say it SHOULD NOT ever go in a museum - or, you may not.
Two thoughts came to mind when I read that.
First, is an obvious one that you failed to mention. YOU (being her parent) SHOULD enjoy and appreciate her art. You would be wrong to refuse enjoying it based purely on its lack of objective beauty.
[This, of course, assumes that she followed some basic principles - thus the "purely." A beautiful painting on your Bible pages, wall or bed sheets would probably not be well accepted.]
As you said, We, as Christians, will never know what true, objective beauty is until we get to heaven. God, as a parent, loves our "art" even as far away as it may be from true beauty. That is not to say that he doesn't want us to be drawn more and more towards true beauty. We think we know that Handel's Messiah is closer to true beauty than some other musical number. It certainly is in some regards, as we apply biblical principles. It may not be in others.
If your daughter painted a picture and gave it to you purely on the basis that she believed it to be objectively beautiful, one that SHE believed SHOULD be in a museum, would you appreciate that more than one that she presented as "I know others can draw prettier pictures, but I'm giving you this one because I love you"? I doubt it.
[I understand that analogies between earthly parents and God can quickly go askew, but there are certain principles that apply.]
The second thought was this. Museums serve different purposes. There is a lot of "art" in the Holocaust museum that "shouldn't" be there. But it is. And it is powerful. All agree it is ugly, but it serves a powerful ... and even beautiful... purpose.
We should be careful to not assume that we know what is beautiful in God's eyes. I believe that some "art" (i.e. music, prayers, paintings, writings, etc.) can be both beautiful and ugly in God's eyes.
[Again... this takes a lot more thought that a comment on a blog post during a lunch break can afford, but maybe it can provide some "chewing" material.]
Good points, Dan.
This is why I have some difficulty with the aesthetes that are getting more and more verbal within conservative Evangelical circles.
In many ways I agree with them. I agree with their idea of beauty as it is understood objectively. What I don't see in so many of them is the fact that nothing is beautiful to God if we do it.
Our righteousness - not our sins - are as filthy rags to God. Thus, John Frame's analogy of stepping on a sheet of paper and bragging about being closer to the sun than everyone else applies in many ways to the cultural aesthetes in fundamentalism and evangelicalism.
In other words, "Heavenly Sunshine" rasped from a scratchy monotone in Christ Jesus is more beautiful than the "Hallelujah Chorus" sung by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.
But, as you say, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't aspire to a greater understanding of objective beauty.
My question concerning the unpictured art is sincere. I thought objective beauty could be taught. Thus, we used to have music appreciation classes. Perhaps there are things that I can't appreciate because I am ignorant and have a ruined sense of likes and dislikes.
The analogy of my daughter's painting:
Yes, you are right that I should love it and enjoy and, yes, even think it is beautiful because it is from her even though she acknowledges that others can paint much better.
But what about the third person? Does the third person have to say it's beautiful because our relationship makes it beautiful?
In other words, can't we acknowledge two things at once...
Can I say, that art/music is beautiful to me in one sense because the artist did it for God with a heart of love and purity, but it is not beautiful by objective standards and I do not think that we should use it as a model for future painters and musicians?
Just what was that verse about "vain babblings"? I love you both.
Go ahead, mock us for philosophizing and thinking about this! We can handle it. Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, C.S. Lewis, Mortimer Adler and many other serious thinkers babbled on the same subject exactly. And grappled with the same questions and their moral relevance.
We can handle it! ;-)
Actually, I could philosophize a lot more about it... it is a very interesting topic to me, and one that has some serious ramifications, issues that I am confronted with regularly.
However... I would like to know who "anonymous" is. Especially if they love me. I like to know who loves me :-).
I'm interested in Brian's thoughts. There you go, Brian, I have officially baited you!
Wasn't me...but I do love you both!
I think that art should be understood as the communication of meaning—most often intangible meaning like peacefulness, love, grandeur, excitement, sadness, etc. As such, art has both an objective and subjective element.
Objectively, the art must be able to intrinsically communicate the specific meaning.
Subjectively, the viewer/listener must be able to receive the specific meaning.
Let’s take your 4-year-old’s drawing: he might have been trying to communicate the beauty and grandeur of a mountain landscape. He was frankly incapable. However, unknowingly perhaps to him, he was able to communicate an appreciation for the beauty and grandeur of a mountain landscape and love and affection for you. You appreciate the art. Why? Not because it communicates to you the beauty and grandeur of a mountain landscape, but because the meaning it communicates to you is your 4-year-old’s appreciation for beauty and love for you. That is enough for you to make it valuable. Now to a stranger who walks by, the artwork does not communicate the beauty and grandeur of a mountain landscape, nor does it communicate a 4-year-old’s appreciation for beauty or love for a parent. To the stranger it is meaningless (communicates not meaning). He crumples it up and throws it away.
Now, let’s say that your son turns into an excellent artist and one Father’s Day presents you with a beautiful landscape drawing. Now the painting can communicate meaning to the stranger, but still not the full meaning (of love and honor) that it communicates to you.
I say that to show that the objective element in art is very important. A 4-year-old simply cannot communicate the beauty and grandeur of a mountain landscape no matter how good his intentions may be.
However, I use those examples to show that the subjective experience of art is just as important if it is to truly communicate. We all experience art subjectively. You can tell me what it “means” to you, but I can only see/hear it through my own eyes/ears.
The heavens declare the glory of God (Ps. 19). It is beautiful artwork by a flawless Artist. However, most people look at the heavens like someone watching a film with the mute button pushed. They simply don’t hear what the art is declaring. The art is objectively capable of communicating meaning. The recipient is subjectively incapable of receiving any meaning.
Now on to what I consider to be a very fascinating thought (and perhaps straying from the subject). If we take the implication of Rev. 5:6 (“I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain”) to mean what the hymns interpret that to mean (“I shall know Him By the print of the nails in His hand” and “Behold His hands and side, Rich wounds, yet visible above, In beauty glorified”), then the only evidence in Heaven of our sin will be on the hands and feet of Jesus. I feel like I’m writing about things too wonderful for me to understand. However, if that is true, those marks will be beautiful to us. Why? Precisely because of the rich meaning that they communicate to us.
That is why we glory in the cross (an instrument of torture). The cross objectively (praise God!) communicates reconciliation and peace with God. I can glory in the cross when I subjectively understand, appreciate and appropriate that to myself. For those who don’t, it is folly and foolishness.
wasn't Dad or me either--but we do love all of you.
If you guys are really interested in what you are talking about, click on this sermon.
http://www.desiringgod.org/resourcelibrary/sermons/bydate/1982/338_Jesus_Is_Precious_Because_We_Yearn_for_Beauty/
Sorry, that autonomous was me. I forgot to put my name. But it didn't seem to record the entire site. Here it is again in pieces.
http://www.desiringgod.org/
resourcelibrary/sermons/bydate/
1982/338_Jesus_Is_Precious_Because_
We_Yearn_for_Beauty/
I've listened to this sermon several times this past couple of months.
some quotes from that sermon
"...deeply rooted in every human heart is a longing for beauty….a God-given sense that beauty must have meaning that is larger and more permanent than personal quirks.
the beauty we crave for our physical eyes is only satisfying if we see it as the outward form of a deeper moral, spiritual, and personal beauty, ultimately God's Beauty.
Whether you know it or not, all the longings of your life for beauty are longings for this: the light of the gospel of the beauty of Christ who is the image of God….the more we become like him, the more clearly we can see him, and the greater our capacity to delight in his beauty."
Post a Comment