Below is a post from a blog written by a pastor in my Presbytery. Following it is my response. If you post comments, please be compassionate and respectful. This guy loves God and loves people. Please understand that his concern is for the children of the Church. He does not want to see them turn from the faith they were raised in either in their beliefs or in their lifestyles. Certainly that is commendable! I post this here for your consideration and to convince my readers that the work being done at Grace Central is necessary, good and right. Thinking like this- particularly when it comes from a minister within my camp, from a man whom I know and respect- reminds me why we are planting Grace Central. Artists are often among those who are counted as "religiously disenfranchised" and Grace Central has been called by God to be a church for the religiously disenfranchised.
So, to Grace Central - be encouraged! Your efforts are needed and valued. To artists - conduct yourselves in such a way that rob this kind of thinking of credibility. To everyone else - move to Columbus and join us in our efforts. Peace and remember: Be cool.
(Click the title above to read the article which inspired his post)
____________________________________________
Christians and the Visual Arts...
Is there anything not absolutely normal about the Hollywood lifestyle of this young woman?
Is there any way parents can train up a son or daughter for this kind of career without anticipating this kind of outcome? Are there Christians in this realm of the arts? Sure. Is the existence of Christians in this realm of the arts justification for churches and Christian schools uncritically propelling their children in this direction? Certainly not.
Coming a bit closer to home... Is there anything all that different about the moral course of a typical career in professional dance versus a career in Hollywood? Of a painter or sculptor?
In what conceivable universe should Christians be encouraging their children in these sorts of directions without anticipating potentially tragic outcomes? Does this mean every Christian actor or dancer has prostituted his or her faith? Certainly not. But the track record of those who have versus those who have not certainly shouldn't encourage us to propel our children down these career paths--or to look uncritically at the various visual art forms which so tend toward immorality. (And of course, if you've read this blog over any length of time you know that we are not merely practicing guilt-by-association in making this connection. We tend to believe Christians have failed to apply the second commandment to modern visual arts, a foundational neglect of God's Law which inevitably tends to various other forms of neglect.)
Finally, for all the talk in certain quarters about redeeming culture, all the WORLD Magazine Daniel awards for visual artists, all the lionization of Christian artists taking place in various sectors of (especially) the Reformed world, where's the beef? Where's the salt producing saltiness? Where's the light banishing the darkness? Why can't we see that only the Gospel illuminates, only the Gospel preserves? Why do we think artists and the arts are capable of redeeming culture in a way that plumbers and ditch-diggers do not?
As a matter of fact, I suspect were we to weigh the contributions to culture of Christian plumbers against Christian visual artists, the scales would come heavily down on the side of training our children to be plumbers and ditch-diggers.
One last note--please read the full story first if you're tempted toward a knee-jerk defense of Christian involvement in the representational visual arts.
______________________________________________________
David,
How many professional artists do you know personally? Where did you study the visual arts? How involved are you directly with the visual arts community in your town or area? How many Christians do you know personally who are involved in the visual arts professions? It is easy to find bad examples and unfortunate outcomes, of course. But I'd venture to guess we could find these kinds of sad stories about covenant children in any profession.
I respect your concerns, but I think you are largely speaking from a position of ignorance. Certainly not Biblical or theological ignorance. But perhaps ignorance of the faithful witness of many truly Christian artists practicing their faith with integrity in the context of the visual arts.
Perhaps the operative word in your post is "uncritically". We should do nothing "uncritically". At Grace Central we are equipping artist, dancers, designers, writers and musicians (as well as teachers, doctors, attorneys, mothers, business men, no plumbers, but two electricians etc.) to critically employ a Christ-centered worldview and belief system in the way they approach their respective fields of expertise. I have found most of these artists have been starving for a voice of affirmation and encouragement from the church in place of the voices of suspicion and denigration they have traditionally recieved.
Again, I truly do respect your concerns. I just think maybe they are communicated in an uncritical way, and have the great potential to cause a lot of damage in the lives of artists who are true believers. I know this is not your intent!
We should talk. I look forward to having lunch with you in Toledo sometime soon and it was good to see you at Presbytery.
By the way, I am completely in favor of Christian plumbers as well! Too bad they will be unemployed in the comsummated Kingdom, as I suppose the pipes there never burst! I tell you what, send some of your plumbers to us and we'll teach them to paint and sculpt, just so they have something to "fall back on" when they get to Heaven. ; )
Peace.
26 comments:
Be gracious.
no, this is good. . .
a lot of us artists get our rocks off by doing stuff other people like.
if we're taking about who people should and shouldent be, i would say it's just as rediculious to say we should encourage our children to not be INFJ on the meyers-briggs.
it's really easy to say that a persuit of the arts . . .
you know what. i'm going to exercise resstaint here. as i try to form an argument here, i keep seeing more in his text that really requires much more of a response than this comment can contain. suffice it to say, the best medicine would be a long weekend with some informed artists in a culturally rich environment. to learn by emersion. if the author would like to take me up on it, please let me know.
then again, maybe he's right?
take a look at this story.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-fi-kinkade5mar05,1,4840766.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
DF,
Three words: Spellcheck.
Sorry, couldn't resist. :-)
With all sicerety how as Christians who are not informed about the arts be encouraged by it? I mean who can blame the guy. in the past 100 years art has been drasticly deconstructing itself. It seems, us Christians can only blame ourselves due to what happened to art after the reformation, that art has an association today with rebellion. it's even evident in art itself always rebelling against one movement to the next, and im not even mentioning all the stereotypes that being an artist entails. who would want their kid to pursue it. I understand this man's confusion and i am also a painter. i have contemplated this topic a lot while going through undergrad. I had all these questions as an artist why there was no art at all in my church when it seemed to have thrived in the early church and especially durring the renaissance.(visual arts) I did a little research and decided was rooted to the reformation. please tell me if i am wrong. so weve chosen to condemn it and cant figure out why it isnt embracing the gospel. its because weve chosen for it not to. so it then thrives in world and the talented Christians have to seek means elsewhere apart from the church . to be more positive i believe that things are changing for the future of christians in arts. i hope God will be glorified through it and i appreciate churches that embrace it.. there is even a museum now MOBIA museum of biblical art.. and some groups that are rather large IAM and CIVA.
Funky,
Being in NY, is it possible to be in both camps? For example, my girlfriend is an artist, is working on a great project, is wonderful, and I want her to pursue her art, b/c it is what makes her her, art is good, and a gift from God. I look at the history of the Church (both East and West) and the great art the we produced, but here comes the "but". Being in NY, for all the talk about art, redeeming this, that, and the other, I find us riding the cultures coat tails -think of Rosa Parks in the back of the bus-and not really providing the "salt" and "light" necessary to redeem anything. I am biased, but I think my girlfriend is in her environment, so it is a "both/and".
So, kind of knowing this gentelman's "camp", I hear him taking a pop shot at what I see here in NY and I am sympathetic. Are there Christians doing good work in the visual arts? YES! But, it reminds me a bit of the religious right, for all the huffin' and puffin' and money spent on said topic, has it really produced results? I realize different settings are different, but the arts are the dominant theme here, so I am not talking from Greenville, SC or Toledo, OH., so I think it should be an issue, but, and maybe this is a big difference, I don't see anything distinctively Christian about our work. I am not talking about sticking Jesus on a piece of canvas either. It's the difference b/t St Thomas Church and the crap architecture in many of our PCA churches.
So, is it possible to be in both camps?
anonymous & KDNY-
(both comments responded to here. I love you guys, but forgive me if I get all passionate and whatnot...)
Thank you so much for posting. My undergrad degree is in fine arts as well, and I also am a painter (or use to be before church planting and parenting ate all my "free" time!). First I'd like to address some technical/ theological issues, and then address the main issue.
1.1 Historical Reasons- As per the existence of the visual arts in church- if you mean "why don't we see more visual art in the worship service" there are a few answers. The historical answer is indeed traced to the reformation and the reformers' view of the second commandment (prohibition of creating images for worship) and it's reaction to the violations of this commandment by the eastern orthodox and roman catholic churches. It also has been influenced heartily by 21st century evangelical tendancies towards raw pragmaticism. " Why spend money on making beautiful things when we could spend money on making functional things?" Much we could say about both of these historical reasons, but we'll move on without comment.
1.2 Theological Answers- Next is the question of theological reasons. What are the theological reasons that we don't see more visual art in worship services? First I would point to the fact that Christianity is primarily a word (Word!) based religion. It is spread by the proclamation of the Divine Word (Logos- John 1), by use of spoken language. We proclaim Christ (the Word) as he is revealed to us in Scripture (God's revealed word). God even creates by virtue of His spoken Word ("let there be light"). So from the very onset, we see that Christianity is primarily a word (Word) based religion (though not exclusively word based- as the sacraments are tangible communications of that word which we can see, taste, touch, smell, feel, etc) . Second I would point to the fact that our worship is to be governed by scripture, a teaching called the "regulative principle of worship". This means we are to worship God as he tells us to worship him. And so we ought to very seriously consider whether or not the representational visual art have any place in the worship service of the church. (I have my opinions on this point, but we'll leave that be for now). Of course the historical and theological reasons are so intertwined, it is almost silly to seperate them, but you get the point.
2.1 Next, you point to the way the arts have been deconstructing themselves for the past 100 years and how the visual arts are largley rebellious in nature. Certianly that is true. But so what? Is this a surprise? Are we going to be shocked and angry at a dying world for dying? Do we really believe the visual arts field is a more sinful field than the business world? Than the medical arts? Than the practice of law? Than "you name it"?
2.2 Let us not suppose that God has not preserved a faithful remnant in the arts. (The author of the original post even acknowledges this as do you). But this is no small thing! It means God has not abandoned the arts. And if God has not abandoned the arts, even though the field in general may seem to us in sorry shape, we should not abandon the arts! A similar point has been made elsewhere, that just because the family unit is in sorry shape in our nation, Christians should not scoff, despise, or abandon the family unit! No. Just the contrary, we raise our children and train our congregations to be godly in the way they do family. We don't abandon the family. We mourn and grieve and pray and love and incarnate and labor to see the family unit redeemed by the gospel. It makes just as much sense for us to abandon the arts. We should love and mourn and grieve and pray and incarante the gospel in the field of the visual arts. Why? to Redeem the culture? Yes, that is part of the reason, but also because the visual arts are GOOD! And because the visual arts bring God glory when done well. Good art needs no jutification. And therefore, (per KDNY's question) the only "result" we need to produce is good art. Must there be something "distinctively Christian" about it? I would argue beauty is "distinctively Christian". All truth is God's truth, and all beauty is God's beauty.
3.1 You ask "who can blame the guy"? I can! He is a pastor. He is well trained in scripture and theology. He is a leader of God's people, a people which includes those who have been gifted and called by God to make visual art for His glory! His post is irresponsible and potentially harmful. And so, no I don't think one can be in "both camps" in that sense. Pick a camp. We do not need fewer Chrsitian children to practice thier creative gifts in the visual arts. We need more. And this gentleman's position concerning the arts is one of fear, suspicion and belittlement. None of those are Christian or missional values. I have one son who would be utterly crushed in this man's congregation if this kind of thinking is taught publically. I was nearly crushed by this type of teaching and worldview and for a while I allowed it to drive me from fellowship with the visible church. God humbled me and taught me to forgive. Now I am in love with the visible church. But she still hurts me deeply when she propogates stuff like this.
3.2 KDNY, someday if you were to marry an artist and have children and one of those children was gifted in the area of visual arts, how would you speak to them regarding that child's gift and joy and calling regarding the arts?
Now, if you were to be a pastor of those who are gifted artistically and who find great pleasure in the visual arts, and may be called by God to a vocation in the visual arts, should you speak to these "children" any differently?
Funky,
I am totally open to being informed and corrected as I am responding out of "I thinks" more than any substantive knowledge about art, so as a person sans art skills, other than my uncanny ability to flow on the mic, this is what I am thinking. One, that I agree with most of what you say, I think. Two, I think we are agreeing in disagreement, or looking at different points of the triangle, if it applies, but, again, I am not really sure what I am talking about.
For, when you say that Christianity is a religion of the Word, which I agree with, then I don't conclude that all words are necessarily Christian or all writing is. Or, for example, that all great oration is Christian. A stammering Moses is more "Christian" than the greatest of the unregenerate Shakespearian actors. So, the fact that beauty is distinctly Christian does not mean all things beautiful are distinctly Christian. Make sense of what I am trying to get at?
Sans Fall or in glory, what does art, oration, etc., look like? I am not sure we know, but like our lives, is that not what we are aiming for? The MOMA has an exhibit on Edvard Munch right now and I find his stuff "beautiful", but it is no more Christian Anton's "Bible", although laden with words. There is the directional element to things, and I am not totally positive how it applies to art. I don't expect "Scream" to be glorified, although I definitely expect art to be brought into the New Heavens and New Earth. Assuming Edvard was unregenerate, I expect it to testify against him, b/c art points to YHWH as being the True God. Buddhist sculptings, which are are often quite amazing, assuming I remember that art history class a'right, will not be glorified. Word and art only exist due to the Christian worldview, but I don't believe they both honor God by necessity, even though I find Munch's work beautiful and/or Picasso.
Due to the "subjective" nature of beauty, then it is difficult to judge its beauty. For example, I think art deco sucks. I am sure there are those, especially in the moment, that find it beautiful. Yes, I think it can honor and glorify God and may be brought into glory, but declaring something beautiful is different than it being "Christian" or ultimately glorified. As you pointed out w/ the plummer, due to the over arching importance of art, I believe it has to be "distinctly Christian" opposed to plumming.
How do we use language and art to glorify God? This is what makes something "Christian". I am not looking for a sub-culture per se, like a Christian coffee house, b/c I don't think Starbucks is Christian enough. An artist, uh oh, is more important than a plummer, b/c, in a sense, a plummer is not saying anything with his work, but the artist is. Yes, ultimately, I believe putting pipes together, etc., demonstrates the truth of Christianity, but this is already getting too long...
Any of that make sense or am I completely missing you?
Oh, in brief, I would fully encourage my kids to pursue art in its fullness, and encourage them to honor God with it. If they can write well, I will encourage them to write well and avoid trashy love novels w/ Fabio on the cover. "I've been eating the fare of the wicked men, under the guise of sophistication..." That is my feeling hearing some of the artists in these quarters talk about redeeming culture.
It's all good, but I take issue with the "Christianity being a religion of the Word." John's gospel has an audience that would have read "o logos" much differently than how you are using it here. Of course, creation does come from word, but more importantly from intent expressed in word (unless you meant the literal words spoken became creative beings?).
Obviously, we have a reason to regard The Word and words highly, but sacraments, sanctification, discipleship are infinitely more than any words we could tag to them. These are the center of our religion. It's not that Jesus said the right things on the cross, but rather than he was there and it matched his words and exceeded them.
I'm sure you don't mean to place too much emphasis on words, because words are just ways of communicating, not effecacious in and of themselves. If they were, me and my wife would never have anything to argue about (e.g. "I know that's what I said, but here this is what I meant!").
Just my 2 bits.
Dru,
Of course. But Christianity is primarily word based, rather than primarily image based. In other words, it is the proclamation of the message that is primary, the transmition of the gospel message that is God's primary means of cinvincing and converting, even our worship is very word based, in that we pray (language, sing (language, exort (language and expound the scriptures (language). And even the sacraments are always accompanied by the words of institution. Sanctification comes in part when we believe and apply God's word, and disicpleship means teaching them to obey all that he has commanded (in his word!). So that's what I meant. It is word based, rather than image based. Meaning we don't put carvings, or paintings or images as that which drives our worship and communicates the gospel to us. Words go in that place, thus the primacy of preaching. That's all I'm sayin'
Thanks for the calrification though.
By the way, were you joking about arguing with your wife? I mean your a pastor now. You don;t still argue, do you?
KDNY,
In saying Christianity is a word based religon, I was attempting to explain why proper Christian worship is not done with statues to venerate (RC) or paintings to worship (EO) or any of the other image based means of worship out there. Not saying all use of words is Christian. I AM saying however, that whenever truth shows up, it is God's truth. Even if it is from the pen of an unbeliever. Likewise, I am saying whenever beauty shows up it is God's beauty, even if it is from teh brush of an unbeliever. Now, just as one can speak truth in a very ugly way and so Christians can say hurrah for the message, boo for the transmition of the message, we can also look at art and say hurrah for the (transmission) and boo for the message. So in that sense it is complex. Also, I disagree with art or beauty being "subjective" if what you mean is purely subjective. I admit it has subjective elements, but it also has elelments with are quite objective! So in that sense, I think art and science are really not that different: both objective and subjective elements. I for one, do not believe "beauty is in the eye of the beholder".
Funky,
I think I agree with all of that, esp. the word based and the place of art. As a novice, how can I identify when True beauty shows up? I agree re: the "subjective/objective" nature of beauty, I actually edited out the qualification. As a Van Tillian I am completely convinced that all truth is God's, but I am trying to figure out this applicaiton in the "subjective" realms. For example, as a person that cannot sing or draw a lick, but enjoys singing, albeit privately, what does God think? Is my voice less Christian? Everyone in the world, except maybe my mother, identifies the singing as crap & says that it should not happen again. There is nothing beautiful in it, but I believe God is glorified. Are the three tenors more glorifying to God (Christian)? Now, I agree that when Saddam Hussein says something that is true, then it is still God's truth and not "unChristian" per se, but I am missing the articulation in other realms.
I don't ask this stuff to be flippant, but as one that desires Christians to produce great art, music, and everything else that we are failing to do (broadly speaking), having no ability to help the cause except for maybe teach and promote it, and trying to do it in a distinctly Christian (God honoring) way, but I AM not sure what that looks like.
Anything I should read? Maybe you can string together some posts for us non art types.
Thanks.
I simply cannot believe no one has bothered to mention Bezalel & Oholiab and the Tabernacle construction. What of that piece of art?
Further, what about the artwork they created before they started working on the tabernacle? Or were they prophetically and supernaturally given artistic talents on the spot?
Or is the issue here (the rub, if you will) that B & O were commissioned whereas an artist today is fashioning material freelance; apart from God's direct decree?
Drucifer
Forgive me before hand because i am going to comment having only skimmed through the replies. I am excited about this post, and glad to see the responses.
But first off let me just say this:
Greg thanks for your theological insight.
KDny How can you look at the Chrysler building and say it sucks ( i know where you live) ?!!!!
I wanted to sum up my previous post because in hopes of being a bit more clear in my thoughts. my main point was that the reformed church chose not to embrace the arts in the same way after and durring the reformation. they had really good reasons to, but the outcome has led the arts to be unguided and left out of the church. Not to say God doesnt care or hasnt been in it .Rembrandt is held as to be one of the all time greats as well as vermeer durring that time. both Christian too. some great things have happened in painting since then also .. But I think there is a lot of talent around the globe and the church has not embraced it nor have found ways for its members to be part of the body. For example I know where my talent is. I used to think while in the midwest "how can i apply it here in church". I am speaking through my own experience and through what i also have seen. so for a pastor to be confused by art doesnt suprise me based on my conclusions, and i cant blame him, but i am really happy somebody is because the church flat out NEEDS that kind of thing happening. We need to as a church body re-identify what art is for us. it shouldnt be left on the outside for our kids nor myself to discover what it is. we need to be knowledgable encouraged nurtured and mentored through it etc.. the world may have different guidelines and strategies.
Beauty on the otherhand is a whole other ballgame. ... Everyone knows when they see something beautiful. I always like to use a football player as an example; Barry Sanders. everyone knows that guy is God Blessed, and watching him run is like watching God at work. its truely a beautiful thing watching him run because you cant explain how he does it. we just call him talented. the same is for seeing a piece of art that has Gods hand all over it. So God has his chosen people with measures of talent, gifts etc.. i hope the church can find ways to embrace these artists and not just for the artists sake but for the body of Christ. and I am not saying just for certain artists even, but for the very least, the artists God has called. i agree with you about beauty being God's beauty. i might even say its distinctly christian as well because it reveals Gods glory and not anything to do with man. the beauty im speaking of we cant explain nor formulate a way to produce. were just the vessel. I also say we know it when we see it. i think its an intuition we all can identify with because its sort of a revelation unto himself and not us.
Kdny.. "Art deco sucks" "Buddhist sculptures are amazing"?
I cant believe my eyes.... tell you what. come over to my place. Ill let you see my roommates buddhist sanctuary ( half price) ( full price let you hear her chant) or we could go to rockaffeler center.. and the Chrysler building.. now what sucks>?
PS Gregg. im revealing my identity...
I am the one who visited Grace Central on new years day. you said "I like your shoes"
i really enjoyed being there. was great!
Anonymous,
I might disagree. There is no indication that the tabernacle was "beautiful". In fact, according to Jay Sklar (Leviticus Scholar), it might have looked pretty hideous from the outside. That definitely had God's handiwork all over it. The beauty could have actually been a culturally derived beauty given the materials and arrangement of the cultic artifacts in the tabernacle. In other words, you had to live in that culture to appreciate its beauty.
Second, with your Barry Sanders example, I think you may be confusing eloquence with beauty. Again, this is a culturally appreciable phenomena. Like a physicist can appreciate the eloquence of certain formulae unlike I ever could, a linebacker can appreaciate the eloquence of Sanders as well.
Certainly there could be some basic level of eloquence that all people could enjoy, but the affect of peircing beauty has a context. And removing one from that context doesn't guarantee a ubiquitous appreciation of its eloquence.
Does that make sense?
Hmmm, anon, you seem a bit personal, esp. given "anon"...
A couple of things, although maybe I should simply chalk you not believing your eyes due to your skimming(?) -
I doubt your roommates statues is what I looked at in art history class, which I had with the funky presbyter, so said comments. Yes, they were quite amazing...
An exception does not prove the rule. If I was to hit a note and have it sound nice, would everyone suddenly claim me great? Nope. I still suck. Now, when I was a kid, art deco interior design was popular in some family friends home. I think the interior designs, which I had more in mind, sucked. Sure there are exceptions (like pieces of architecture) and a lot of the stuff was cool, but I would not describe it as beautiful or amazing. If we all know it when we see it, I do not look at it and call it beautiful. Cool? Yes, but beautiful? No. It all seems like the height of modernity to me. It is a stainless steel sort of world and that is not beautiful to me. Is it cool? Yes. But beautiful? Not to me.
Again, I am a novice and speaking out of "I thinks", but I still think art deco sucks.
***attention readers: Dru & KDNY and I all attended the same graduate institution and are familiar with the same authors, thinkers, books, etc, so often times we speak to one another in a way that is not very accessible to those who did not share in those experiences. But, such is the nature of cyberspace I guess. Keep reading and if you enjoy the dialogue or find it helpful, that's great. If you don't, then ignore all of our hot air and enjoy the posts on the blog that are more up your alley. Thanks.
Dru,
I agree that the appreciation of beauty is enculturated. I agree that there is some basic level of eloquence or aesthetic value that all people can enjoy, but other aspects which are more accessible to persons of a particular expertise (your physicist example).
This is exactly my point that appreciating beauty partly a learned skill! It must be developed! And some people have a higher level of skill regarding the appreciation of some types of beauty, eloquence, etc. For instance, I mostly don't get John Coltrane. I understand he's a genius. I also understand that musically I don;t have the discernment to detect his genius. So I defer to those who do and maybe someday I'll put in the work necessary to gain a greater appreciation of his work. Same with Picasso's cubist period. I don't really get it. I do know enough, however to know that there is something going on with Picasso's cubism that is important and revolutionary and I do find much of it pleasing to look at. But there is a level of appreciation I've not yet been able to attain regarding his work.
So removing one from a context does not guarantee a ubiquitous appreciation of a work's beauty (or eloquence) but neither does it mean that the work ceases to be beautiful and eloquent just because those who are currently experiecing the work do not have the proper contextual framework to appreciate the beauty. This is not subjectivism! Again, I will resort to John Frame's tri-perspectivalism. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but it is not MERELY in the eye of the beholder! It may in fact be that the beholder has an eye untrained in the skills necessary to appreciate the beauty in a particular work.
So now the task becomes searching for "Normative" perspectives on beauty and aesthetics. And admitedly it is a slippery task. Maybe not one we can fully or adequately complete at this point in redemptive history (or perhaps ever). But I have every reason to believe that just as there is a Normative Perspective for Truth, there is a Normative Perspective for Beauty as well. And it is God's Perspective.
Funky,
Keep up the good work. The sound and consistent teaching will bear much fruit. I hope Grace Central is thankful for your efforts.
kdny
Does this work?
Frame's Tri-perspectivalism Applied to Beauty:
Normative- universal standards of beauty
Situational- culturally specific values concerning beauty
Existantial- individual skill & preference in appreciating beauty
So you'd have universal standards, cultural values and invidual skills and pereferences that must converge for a work to be properly appreciated as beautiful by any individual in a given context.
Whaddaya think?
thanks keefy.
The trick here is what are we "knowing"? Are we knowing "David" as a piece or beauty (re through this particular piece called David)?
"That is beautiful!" is an articulation. It seems that for this to be accurate, we must say there is some conception of beauty that is normative. To Polanyize it, we have different vantage points on beauty (e.g. physicists to formulae) and our vantage point (which includes our skill at seeing particular aspects of beauty) determines the subjectives aspects.
However, my vantage of a hot iron doesn't seem to hold in the same way. Why I say, "That is hot," there seems to be something besides a subjective ascription in play; even though "hot" is a subjective/scalar term.
When we ascribe beauty, aren't we just appreciating craftmanship, content, communique, color, texture, and the infinite machinations of these variables? Isn't this just, again, appreciating eloquence and design?
I don't know. Mark Tucker and myself have argued quite extensively as to whether a flower is beautiful without observation.
Dru, I think your second paragraph seems to be correct to me. Normative aspects of beauty, subjectively accessed. Maybe beauty is something that can only exists at the nexus of the three perspectives? Not sure.
I would argue (in what may be a Van Tillian sense- don't know) that a flower is beautiful and we need not ask what it is without observation, because there is no unobserved flower! Again, the normative perspective of beauty is God's perspective and He is the all-observing one. Kind of like all truth being perspectival in nature. Ok. As long as we allow for God's perspective to be Normative.
Does that work?
so i tried to post a response taking shots at kdny like no tomorrow and clicked the wrong button and lost all i wrote.. just kiddn.... i didnt take any shots... but my rewriting has left this post to be much shorter and more direct..
seriously... i was a bit too personal maybe... I was posting my personal opinion, but with all joking aside, I was trying to get off the topic of what is beautiful or not, and back to david's concerns, and also to encourage the church. perhaps it wasnt the best way. i was only trying to be funny ... since were still on the beauty topic ill try not to offend anyone.. i apologize if I have.
I used barry sanders as an example of someone who has a definite God given talented ability to do something. relating that to artists there is a similarity of something about his running and art production we cannot explain. I think his running is beautiful because ive never seen anything like it before and because he was exercising his God given ability. It angers me to know that there are talented people like this in the church who arent being fostered.
Elequent maybe yes, but not just. its much more than that. I think elequence is a discriptive attribute to what is beautiful. its much bigger than that. another example is a singers voice that radiates a sound we cannot explain. To me this kind of beauty is a revelation unto God's creation which i dont think has a cultural context. the same is for a painting or a painter.. i am excluding rule based perfection here too. i dont think fundamental issues are a source.. the right line the right note etc..
I think beauty is much more profound than what is being discussed. we cannot explain it, nor define it. to define and train one to see it would limit its capacity. the outcome would be man's ideal of what beauty is. maybe that is why one art movement moves to the next. It seems more as a gift of Gods revelation unto himself. I also dont think we should talk about what is beautiful or not. label what is or isnt . if that were so, taste would be a factor, and taste is something of personal opinion as KDNY would agree with me...
as far as the tabernacle, i would love to comment, but i dont know enough about it. It does remind me of the book of Hosea. When the israelites were rebuilding the temple in that book they were discoraged. some of the older people could remember solomons temple and werent pleased with what was being erected. If i recall correctly, in the building of solomons temple, God called for the best craftsmen etc... this might say something about the product and perhaps a little about process as well..
michael
Michael,
Ah Ha! Now Iremember you. You came with Molly, right?
As per offending: KDNY and Dru are both very sensitive, bashful wall flower types with very thin skin. It took me years to draw KDNY out of his shell so he could be comfortable talking in public, and Dru is still very insecure in expressing his opinions about various topics. I hope you haven't done permanent damage to their delicate and fragile egos.
HA! No, you haven't offended anyone I don't think. You make great points, especially about beauty being something a bit more transcendant than we can describe. I've enjoyed the interaction here.
I think at the heart of David's concern is the belief that all representational art is sinful. That would make quite a difference, eh?
I think I understand you more clearly Michael. I still tend to favor the view that "beauty" per se, doesn't exist. Just as "truth" doesn't exist (without referent, skill, degrees of appreciation, etc.). It is a "way" in which we describe some aspect of reality.
Just as nothing is absolutely true (I'm saying this as if it were common knowledge:)), nothing is "absolutely beautiful". Your appreciation of beauty does come with skill (I don't care how you look at it.)
I'll leave it there. No such thing as absolute beauty, just referential beauty (i.e. beauty appreciated). Beauty, then, is just a sentiment about the individual's pleasure derived from some form of craftsmanship. It's not universal or absolute and that is a good and biblical thing (said in a Martha Stewart tone of voice).
That's my current take.
thanks for affirming that i didnt offend anyone.
I still cant shake my feelings that beauty is more revelation, but i was thinking today the heart at what i may be talking about could be the sublime. i always assume them to be one in the same. i cant believe how much this discussion has been consuming my thoughts lately. it will definately get me going in the studio, and I think, i may go crazy very soon especially after mentioning the S word..
youre right. that was me. i drove back to nyc with molly..... was an adventure especially when im behind the wheel. i tend to get lost and not even realise it...
michael
Post a Comment