"... be reminded that it’s you and the light of the Creator shining within you that makes your art, art..."
– from Christian Aesthetic
I was thinking this afternoon about our ability to create things that are beautiful, thought-provoking, and in general, artistry that reflects the nature of God or reflects Truth or any such similar thing. You have church buildings that are in of themselves works of art. The architectural designs, the stained glass in the windows, the wood carved altars and pews, the columns and vaulted ceilings, all bespeak of the glory of God while simultaneously speaking of the creativity in man that can reflect, form, sculpt, construct, make, create such beauty.
However, there are a lot of other mediums of art besides architecture and stained glass. Paintings. Christian paintings are often displayed, but usually only seen in Orthodox or Roman Catholic churches, in the form of icons or painted ceilings. Sculpture. Sculpture appears less in churches, and if it is present, it is usually a sculpture of a person, a saint, Christ, Mary, the Nativity manger scenes, etc. Sculptures seem to be rooted more in Europe. (Plus, in Europe, the paintings/sculptures seen are very old and have a history… there is little of contemporary, present-day artwork… Granted we’re not all Michelangelo, but all the same, our best efforts still honor God….) However, most of these paintings or sculptures you might see are specific in their scope. They are clearly Christian. They depict specifically Christian symbols, people from the Bible, or historical events that are the makeup of Christian heritage or the history of the Church. Thus one of the main mediums of art I use – photography – is understandably absent.
There are no photographs of Christ. There are no photographs capturing historical events of (ancient) Christianity. However, I am not about to say that photography cannot be an art, and a God-glorifying art at that. (Granted, much of photography is not art, and I confess, much of my own is not art.) Photography as a different medium can also certainly provoke a different impression than one would receive by gazing upon a sculpture or looking at a stained glass window. However, the very thing – time – that keeps photography from being an art form “on display” in our churches also reveals the diversity to the other “accepted” art forms in church – sculpture, painting, stained glass – that are not embraced in church because the expression is not decidedly Christian.
For a church, I can understand this. However, I contend there is much to art that is beautiful and glorifying to God that may not depict any traditional figure or symbol from the Bible or the history of Christianity contained therein. So where is the place of Christian art that lacks the explicit portrayal of Christian themes and persons? Where can implicit Christian art be displayed for enjoyment, and for the purpose of drawing near to the Author, the Creator? If I were to propose to the pastor of my church that more art created by Christians be displayed in the church, but artwork that may not necessarily consist of a sculpture of the crucified Christ or a stained glass mosaic depicting the Garden of Gethsemane, what would he say? I am not sure. But what would be a good venue for such art? Church hallways if not the sanctuaries? Christian bookstores? Christian schools? Coffee shops? Art galleries? Magazines or books? Internet (blogs and webzines and photojournals)? Where could one go to appreciate art by Christians? And why would we keep art by Christians out of churches? Is this because we still must put art under a discerning, judging eye? (Thus the question, who is to judge, or value a piece of artwork?)
I will attempt to say, in summation, what I am trying to really get at: I don’t think art is appreciated as it should by Christians. I don’t think many Christians cultivate their natural, creative abilities and talents. I don’t think these talents are encouraged or embraced to the extent that they should within the Christian community. But I don’t know how this can change. I don’t know how to incorporate art into faith. Specifically, corporately, not just individually. Individually, I believe I do meld art and faith. But communally, how is this accomplished, and appreciated? Is there an avenue for this appreciation outside of historical norms of icons, tapestries, stained glass, and architecture? Is there a place for other mediums, like photography, and subjects other than biblical figures and traditional symbols?
To qualify what I mean when I am speaking of “implicit Christian art,” I intend to focus on art that is by Christians, meant for the Christian to see beauty and truth in God and His world, and yet also meant for the non Christian to contemplate the truth and beauty another finds in God.
Or do we sequester such art to only our homes, for personal reflection and worship?
I also have not even considered the art of writing, which may need to be saved for another discussion, in another post.
(I feel I am being *terribly* inarticulate, but as I have gone over this multiple times and can’t seem to “spit it out,” if one garners articulate insight into the ideas and questions that are compelling me to write, feel free to assist me in this discussion.)
10 comments:
basically, I just want to say that I agree. more Christian art: yes.
"Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children..." (Ephesians 5:1-2). God got creative and made himself a universe. Let's get creative and make stuff too.
My dear Kristi, why, oh why have I not seen you in our little Sunday school class, "The Christian and the Arts," at TCPC? I think you would find some encouragement there for both your views and desires. We've got quite a little community of artists even within the walls of our church and I am hopeful that something concrete will come of our intentional effort to shine some light on the importance of maturing aesthetically. Have you read Calvin Seerveld? If not, run out and find Rainbows for a Fallen World. I've been using a lot of his insights in the class. [/guilt trip]
Hey, Kristi -
It's possible that arguments you seek are actually imbedded in the history of Christian art. Apparently there was a huge uproar in the Eastern church a very, very long time ago (I have no idea what century) against the use of icons, and Rome stepped in to decide it. The reason it was allowed was that since God, in order to reveal His love for us, became a man - became flesh - then the use of senses to explain God was allowed. It's called the Incarnational Principle or something like that. Hence, the icons, the statues, the glass, the incense, the bells, the music, etc. - or, as Catholics call it, "smells and bells". Everything is supposed to be aimed at bringing us closer to God through meditation and prayer. The catecombs are covered with art, too.
The great iconists and artists often spent days, weeks, and months in prayer before they began their work. Many of the Renaissance artists were also daily Mass communicants. The art therefore became the result of a deep love of God and contemplation of the Divine mysteries.
And, like Jackson said, God's creates, we are made in His image, let us create for the Creator.
It seems like a majority of Christian art and representations in Protestant circles is either text-based or symbolic in nature - not surprising considering the focus on the Bible and some people's focus on the spiritual realm against (rather than alongside or with) the natural realm. It's all very abstract, too abstract, I think. People need more than their intellects to understand and draw near to God. A beautiful Kristi Meador photograph of God's creation - that is contemplation on the creation itself, the thing itself, which leads us to wonder at the mystery of God and His creation.
As for venues, I would start with secular venues. After all, it's there that your art is art, and not cloistered into a category of "Christian art", and therefore not taken seriously by outsiders.
My 2 cents.
Rhonda
History of Ecclesiastical Art: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05248a.htm
I'd like to agree and disagree with Bryan's comments.
So my few points are this:
1. I do agree that some Christians seem to mirror the secular world in terms of art and music, however, that is not always the case. Christian music and art has seen a real improvement in recent years as more gifted artists are creating for the Lord.
2. It's more of an underground movement of change with Christian art, graphic design, and photography as is evidenced by people like Relevant Media Group, The Lowercase People, and Pixel Grazer.
3. Many Christian bands are making incredible music that glorifies God and still holds weight with secular bands.
4. Who am I to say that another believer's art isn't good enough if it is made for the intention of glorifying the Lord? It's more about their passion and where their heart is for the Lord.
5. Like truly good art, sometimes you have to search a little bit to find it. Not that these are my favorite painters, but Jean-Michel Basquiat and Pollock did very different forms of painting than other artists and developed a huge following of underground fans. People had to discover these guys for themselves. It's the same in music. If you only listen to K-Love and Air 1 then you are limiting yourself and will not always hear the best of what Christian music has to offer. You have to track it down. Secular radio stinks just as bad as some Christian radio stations...at least ours don't have commercials :)
Just a thought. We need to remember to lift people up for what they are doing for the Lord.
As for Kristi's post, I totally agree that art is often underappreciated and encouraged enough in churches as a form of praising the Lord.
Bryan: I agree, the Church really should be the ultimate source of creativity.
Joel: I'll try to get my hands on a copy of that book, and maybe even come to that class... at least once. Thanks for reading and commenting.
Rhonda: Good thought on secular venues, thanks for addressing that question. In a way, it makes sense to have art in both secular and Christian places. I think, however, that "symbolic" Christian art is not necessarily focused on using your intellect to draw near to God. Some art is not even meant to be "Christian" but will be "Christian" insofar as it is the outflow of our creative nature as humans. It's implicit. More implicit than even the text-based or symbolic Christian art.
Chad: re: #4. Yes... at the same time, I heard someone say once that they thought if you weren't putting your best efforts, with all diligence and hard work, into something, it would be better to not even do it at all. Though this is a strong statement, I do think we need to be reminded (as Christians) that God is deserving of our best efforts and we shouldn't be sloppy or half-hearted in our endeavors. So, no, we don't judge another's passion or heart, but we should look at our own hearts to make sure we give God all that we have and all that we are, even in creating art. ;)
(feel free to comment even if I continue to put news posts up!)
Hi. Further comments. Don't be offended; they're rather strongly spoken, but not to offend, just to provide a counter-point.
Some things are objectively more beautiful than others. Vivaldi's Four Seasons or Bach's Cello Suites are objectively more beautiful than, for example, metal rock. The music itself says something objective about beauty. There's a danger in taking ugly things and putting God's name on it and calling that good.
Allan Bloom (not a Christian by any stretch of the imagination) commented that rock music imitates the sexual act. Is this plausible? Think of Elvis and his pelvis - I think it certainly is plausible. And yet Christian music today is largely mimics popular secular music. So, even though the words praise God, the music itself is mimicing something that in its form is designed to focus a person on the bodily things at the expense of heavenly things.
Music and art are not as simple as saying "this is what is in his heart". The form does matter.
Another example was when my husband and I were on our honeymoon in Italy, and we visited the Academia in Florence, where the David is. We had the very, very good luck to visit on a day when practically no one was there, and so we spent about an hour looking at the David. Surrounding it were other 2 other sculpture pieces by modernists/post-modernists. One was merely shapes and unscultured rocks thrown on the floor, and the other was a large wooden painted boot-thing that looked like two blocks of wood put together. We watched as people's gaze turned from the David to these other pieces, then looked back at the David, and then looked at the modern pieces again, and from then on ignored the modern pieces and spent all their time with David. Why? Because the David is one of the most stunning and breathtaking pieces of art EVER - it's the work of great craft, of deep contemplation, and it's beautiful and intriguing. The other pieces were not beautiful, and, my hunch is, people don't really care to spend as much time contemplating nihilist/ugly/randomly made art when they are in the presense of utter beauty and order. The other pieces only show absence of order, which, on one level, show us truth, but on the other hand, contemplating something ordered and beautiful seems to more readily bring us closer to contemplating God, who is ordered and beautiful - the LOGOS (word, ratio, etc.).
As to what glorifies God, of course all our works are nothing compared to His, but it seems that Christians would be more interested in creating the most beautiful thing they could create in order to glorify God, instead of sticking with 3-chord rock music with pretty shallow lyrics, etc.
Does anyone else see this as a problem?
Kristi - I still don't understand what you mean by implicitly Christian... Sorry, slow to understand....
Rhonda
Sorry, let me follow up really quick with a few points, before y'all throw rotten vegetables at me.
1) God judges the heart, period. Not contesting that.
2) I love music, all types. Including rock... and yes, even some Christian rock. But I'm less affected by Christian rock now than I used to be. Probably because my worship isn't entangled in and completely and utterly dependent on Christian worship music playing 24-7. It used to be, when Worship was confused with Music.
That being said, I still think there is a hierarchy of musical forms in the order of "good" music. Even outside our tastes. And it's not simply a matter of "classical" v. "rock" - there's classical music that's not appropriate for worship, also.
Rhonda
Sorry, I'm repeating some of Bryan's points. Sorry to press your patience.
R
The LOGOS... yes! Amen sister. ;) I definitely do not think form of art should be thrown out or forgotten. Still, you've given me a little more to chew on...
Re: Rock music. This is exactly why I love a band like Switchfoot. They aren't claiming to bring you "worship music" (or as some would say, a "worship experience"... bleh!) I truly respect them for this. In fact, their music is rock, and it isn't blatantly, explicitly Christian. The closest they came to speaking of Christ explicitly was in using the word "Lord" in one of their song lyrics, which didn't happen until their fourth album. They don't break into prayer while performing. They don't act like a worship band. They give a rock concert. They give a musical performance. Music that exhibits their skill and creativity, and lyrics that will make you think. I better shut up now or I could talk forever about it.
As for my "implicit Christian art" terminology... well... I am just trying to come up with a name, but I don't think I'm being a great communicator here. Here's an example, that might help you Rhonda: Bach's St. Matthew Passion is explicitly Christian. Bach's Cello Suites, though I haven't heard them, I sort of assume do not have lyrics. Does this mean his cello suites are secular? I would argue "no" because I know Bach was a professing Christian who aimed to glorify God, and I think he does, even in a cello suite devoid of words, by the sheer order and beauty and skill inherent within such a piece. But it's not explicitly Christian. This is what I sort of mean by implicit.
But the word is probably confusing things too much.
No, I think that makes sense, Kristi. Thanks.
In Master and Commander, Russell Crowe and the other lead, when they are playing their instruments, play one of the Bach cello suites. Maybe that helps. Anyway, they're really stunning.
Post a Comment