Thursday, April 07, 2011
Sublime Depravity - Human nature and the arts IV
What might humans “do” with the arts? Will we be wasting our time in creating art or thinking about it when “the time is short”? Will art have a diverting or even corrupting influence on us, leading us to idolatry or immorality? Surely not. Art is a good part of God’s good creation; the freedom, ability and materials necessary to produce art are his gifts. Yet, like everything created, it is in bondage to decay as a result of sin (Rom 8:20-1). The effect of Christ’s work is not just a return to the way things were, but promises a transformation of creation (Rev 21:5). However, that redeemed people are satisfied with cosy banality when they have a foretaste of such splendours is bewildering and disappointing. Having glimpsed eternity in the resurrection of Jesus, will we not be more aware of that which demeans our humanity? As we reform our bodies in conformity with their heavenly destiny, so oughtn’t we to reform our imaginations in line with Paul’s evocation of the true, honourable, just, pure, pleasing, commendable and praiseworthy in Phil 4:8? In the best hymns, for example, are united words that are neither merely theologically correct nor trite but rich and evocative with music that serves those who sing it by lifting their spirits in glorifying God. Neither sentimentality nor mere formalism have a place. The Christian hope gives us confidence there is in the arts potential for real communication and pleasure. The Christian hope gives us a grasp of reality that richly informs discussions of the arts. The Christian hope speaks of God’s judgement, and thus allows for a thorough critique of the abuses of art. The Christian hope also draws our imaginations to Christ. There is then every good reason for a Christian delight in the arts. Indeed, for Christians to maintain that there is a real joy in the arts glorifies God. Far from wasting time, they are (potentially) a redemption of time. The arts, created and experienced under the fear of God, have, like sex, their own peculiar ecstatic holiness.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Michael, thank you for the posts - a lot of food for thought.
May I ask tho': I am wondering what the implications of what you state here -
As we reform our bodies in conformity with their heavenly destiny, so oughtn’t we to reform our imaginations in line with Paul’s evocation of the true, honourable, just, pure, pleasing, commendable and praiseworthy in Phil 4:8?
What do you mean by demeaning our humanity, in relation to art?
While I agree entirely with what you say, I am wondering whether there is a slightly overrealised eschatology at play here, or perhaps I am trying to imagine what 'such art' would look like, which, I think, is always dangerous, for then art runs the danger of becoming prescriptive, mechanical (tho' of course, there must be judgement in art, as anywhere else).
What do you, for instance, under this rubric you've suggested, think of the work of someone like the Catholic Flannery O'Connor? O'Connor's thesis was to 'testify' to Grace, as it encounters the terrifyingly banality and evil of the world. She goes on to argue that the world must be 'shocked' into seeing Grace; we have been lulled to stupor by sentimentality. And so her stories are confronting, visceral - she writes about killings about rape, terrble things, terrifying thing. Not in a way that sensationalises, but because when such evil is confronted with grace, with redemption, often in unexpected forms, then we are jolted, out of our comfort, out of our semi-somnolent complacency, to see the world as it really is. That is, for her, art and beauty, is something dissonant.
My fear, I suppose, is that a faithful evangelical Christian will take what you say, and decide that all art must be positive and shiny. Think about the good, says St Paul, and so we mustn't have anything uncomfortable in our art. And so we descend into sentimentality, or well-meaning epithets of hope that skip over the weeping with Job, the cross and the garden of Gethesamene. We do dishonour then, not only to form, but to function as well (just look at the row of Christian Romance Novels at your local Christian bookshop!) I think there's a danger that we might make unhelpful 'judgement' on art - on what a Christian should view, make, listen to. As if the art itself is the thing. Art can bear witness to humanity, as well as to divinity. It confronts us with who we are, as well as who we shall become, are in the process of becoming. If we shy away from that, then I think we mis-use art. But art, in some senses like the bible, is about the effect it has on the person, and no-one can measure that, tho' we might be able to help the interpretive/discerning process.
And we haven't really even touched on whether art is about representation, expression, or simply form.
So what I think I'm trying to say, is that while I think what you're saying are good and true and worthy theological statements to make, I wonder whether we might need to take a closer look at art itself. By understanding these things, we can then look at how it intersects with theology. What is art purporting to do, and what are its limits? What does a redeemed person think about their art, if they're doing art (and in one form or another, I think we all do!) What is the relationship between beauty and the good in art. What do you mean, exactly, on the abuses of art that we should be able to critique? What is the relationship between beauty and God?
There's something in the saying that often, beauty in this world can take on the form of something grotesque, fragmented, confronting and dissonant. The Cross was one such event, indeed the key event for understanding beauty and understanding God. On the Cross we see the beauty of God. And so we, as Christians need to be nuanced in our thinking, about art, about beauty, about what Paul calls the true and the beautiful too, I suspect.
Yeah, I second wht the guy above said. He just said it in a smarter and more detailed way.
Post a Comment