Seems we have established the link between art and culture, and the fact that art should be art, without labels. Specifically, it has been argued that we should not attempt to produce “Christian” art for the sake of “Christian” art. I think that there is a bit of dishonesty in this argument.
If we are comparing today’s “Christian” labeled art with art from antiquity, and other eras of world history. We are, in fact, arguing that Art with a “Christian” label is inferior to its “secular” counterpart. Is this an honest critique? I believe it is.
Let’s define a term before we proceed. What art are we talking about here? Name one instance where art is art for its own sake. I dare say that once you get beyond kindergarten, or maybe later in life drawing, composing, or painting for one’s own self gratification, you find much “true” art. Throughout history art has always been a product of consumerism. “Artists” of the past were commissioned to do a work, and we now stand in awe of their accomplishments. Michelangelo’s David, the Sistine Chapel, Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, all were commissioned art and artists. They produced “art” to fit the commission. Of course the prevailing worldview was Christian theism and the art reflected that worldview.
Fast-forward to the twenty-first century. The theistic worldview is on the decline and is now only one of many competing worldviews that the population at large can embrace. It follows that taste and consumption of art will align with the chosen worldview. It will follow then that a theistic, Christian worldview will produce “Christian” art. Just as Atheistic-nihilism produces a Maplethorpe and his art. The article, “What is Christian Art?”(see below) correctly points out, “Good art represents the artist. We don’t have to think consciously about what we’re producing to have our art represent our thought. An existentialist artist doesn’t sit down and say, ‘I’m going to make existential art.’ It is in the air he breathes, so it naturally comes out.” Throughtout history we see art change to reflect the culture and age in which it was produced. Today’s art may or may not be on par with the past masters. Modern artists usually do not have patrons who commission them to produce artwork. Therfore they turn to marketing and mass production in order to produce a product called art. How else are they to pay the bills, put food on the table and make a life? It is not just “Christian” art these days, it is “African” art, “Gothic” art and a myrid of other niches that have been identified by Madison Avenue as target demographics. I believe that much of the argument I have seen here in our blog is more about economics than the nature of art, Christian or otherwise. Now as to the quality, or depth of the arts in “Christian” packaging… I do not have the credentials to judge. The dime store novel of yesterday is in some cases now looked on as high art. Is the non-Christian worldview art better than Christian worldview art? I think not… but we do have some dollar store Christian art out there as well.
January 12, 2008 at 7:30 pm
I think you missed what I said in my article. I didn’t say that secular art was better than Christian art, nor did I say that we should not attempt to produce “Christian” art for the sake of “Christian” art. I’m not sure what that means. What I said was that we should never under any circumstance produce art with conscious intentions of making sure it “looks Christian” and lives up to the standards that our Christian sub-culture has put our art. That is what’s really dishonest. If we make Christ Lord of everything in our lives, if He is in the air we breathe, then we can’t help but produce Christian art. As I said, Cristian art is merely art produced by Christians. Just like in the “secular world” (to use a bad term) there is good and bad art, there will be good and bad art in the “Christian world” (to use another bad term). You also said, ” If we are comparing today’s “Christian” labeled art with art from antiquity, and other eras of world history. We are, in fact, arguing that Art with a “Christian” label is inferior to its “secular” counterpart.” This is not the truth. First I am not comparing art from antiquity with art today, there is no sense in doing that. What I am doing is comparing good art with bad art from every period in history. Good art is art that represents the artist. A form of bad art is insisting that we can ONLY paint pictures of crosses and lambs and lillies or any other Christian cliche. I emphasize ONLY because I don’t want anyont to take away from this that we CAN’T paint crosses and lillies, but that there is more to life than these things. Indeed there is more in the BIBLE than these things!
I will also take up your challenge to name one piece of art for art’s sake. In fact, I’ll name several. First, the poetry of Emily Dickinson, which was never intended to be seen by the public and was not published until after her death. Second, Anne Frank’s diary, which is a beautiful account of man’s suffering. Third, personal devotional writings, which many Christians produce as nothing more than to glorify God through the beauty of language. Art can be simply a doxology, with no regards to profit. Fourth, the Tabernacle, which contained golden angels (Ex 25:18), highly decorative candle sticks (Ex 25:31-33), and other beautiful works which served no purpose other than beauty as worship. Fifth, the garments of the priests, which were ornamented with blue, purple, and red pomegranates. Why blue and purples pomegranates? There’s no such thing in nature– simply because it’s beautiful. Sixth, the temple, which was covered with precious stones (2 Chron 3:6), carved angels (2 Chron 3:7), and pillars which supported no weight, and therefore had no actual function other than their beauty.(2 Chron 3:16-17)
Also, this is not about economics. Why can’t a Christian just write a book about a a man and a dog (for instance) without turning it into a symbolic story about how the dog represents sin and the man is Jesus and shoots the dog when he tries to attack the neighbor boy thus destroying sin (the dog) and saving us (the boy). Non-Christians can just write books. They don’t always try to turn it into propaganda. A nihilist doesn’t always just paint a picture of an empty cup (representing his empitiness). Sometimes a nihilist will paint a picture of a beautiful sunset, because that’s a part of reality. So why do we as Christian think we have to make everything “look” Christian. Just make it! If it looks Christian, great! If not, great! Just make art from who you are and what you believe. There are things in our reality that aren’t just crosses and lillies. A Christian photographer will usually take pictures of things that look Christian, like sunsets or lillies, or “the heavens”. What would happen to a famous “Christian Photographer” who decided to take pictures of homeless people? He wouldn’t be called a “Christian Photographer” anymore would he? He would just be a “secular” photographer, when in reality a picture of a homeless man taken by a Christian IS CHRISTIAN ART! It’s not necessarily better or worse than “secular art”. Christian art SHOULD be better because it’s made by people who have been “freed from the cave” (to reference Plato) Don’t try to put on a fake smile if you’re dying inside! Christians can suffer too. Why don’t we ever see “Christian” books about how bad things are. Isn’t that what Ecclesiastes is all about? It’s about suffering. The author was suffering mentally so he wrote about it. My point is, just make art, please.
January 12, 2008 at 11:37 pm
The language does get in the way don’t it? Your examples of true art are prime examples of what I was talking about. Each being something that was for the artist alone, at the time it was produced. But once made public someone else made money with their art. Then someone mass produced it and marketed it to a target audience. For good or ill that is the economics of ‘art’ (and everything else) in our society.
I’ll stand by my statement about economics driving the production of modern art, be it Christian, Muslam, African, Dutch, pop or retro. The bulk of what is before the public is fluff, and made for the consumption of the masses ie. Grisham, Tutrow, Steele, and Stephen King et al. That is where the money is and that is where the emphasis will be. I am not so cynical to think that this applies to ALL artform and ALL artists’ works. In time, when the fluff fades away and we get away from the novelty of our latest fads then we will see more clearly what will standout as ‘good’ art.
Still, I stand by my statements that Art, like all other aspects of life are formed and driven by worldview and economics.
January 13, 2008 at 12:38 am
No, not all of my examples were mass produced or marketed for money. There are millions of Christians who write their private worship experiences in a book that will never be seen. Nothing in the temple or tabernacle was posthumously marketed. This blog for instance is an art form. We’re not getting paid to write this stuff. Stephanie’s story is art. Stephanie is a Christian. Therefore, Stephanie’s story is Christian art. It’s just art for art’s sake. Even had it been marketed, that does not change the integrity of the art or the intentions of the artist. Sure there is a market for art, but that doesn’t change the beauty of the art. Profiting from my art doesn’t somehow taint it. In fact, good art should be profitable. Preaching is an art form. We pay our preachers, right? Money isn’t evil.
I’m not sure that mass economics is driving modern art. Much of what is produced in the modern art community is one-of-a-kind and gets put in a museum for the public. Not much money is made from that kind of labor.
The authors you listed, Grisham and the rest, are what I meant by “superficial art.” Remember I wrote, “Because art really does express what we believe and where we are, (I’m not speaking of superficial art. Drawing a picture of a doggie or a kitty is not what I’m talking about.) we can’t just consciously apply Christian conventions to our art to make it look Christian.” Art for the sake of art is on another level than art for the sake of entertainment.
You said, “Art, like all other aspects of life are formed and driven by worldview and economics” Art driven by worldview is GOOD art. Art driven by economics is BAD art. You can’t put them together. It is also a great tragedy and betrayal of the image of God within you to not see all true art, even art by those of vastly opposing worldviews from your own, as beautiful rather than a vast marketing gimmick.
You also said, ” Throughout history art has always been a product of consumerism.” Products of consumerism are not art unless they truly reflect the artist. That they were bought and paid for does not nullify them from being art. Art is that which reflects the artist, even if he made it to make money. Again, I’ll use all my examples– Dickinson, Frank, Tabernacle, Priests’ garments, personal devotions, the temple — none of these were products of commercialism when they were made. Most of them never became products of commercialism. However, Frank’s and Dickinson’s estates made money from the works. That’s true, but that does not make them bad art.
The Bible is the highest point of literary art, but Tyndale House and Moody Publishers have made a fortune from mass marketing it in any color you want. Does that make the Bible bad art? By your standard of artistic integrity, it would. Instead, what it does is put good art in more people’s hands, something lacking in our world.
Anyhow, back to the point of the original post, I didn’t even hint that secular art is better than Christian art. In truth there shouldn’t be such labels. There should just be art, some done by Christians, some done by atheists, some by Hindus. It’s all art. It’s part of a great conversation. To reduce it to material pragmatism is to deny one of the greatest aspects of the imago dei, our creativity. God made us to do beautiful things, and we can’t help but do them.
January 13, 2008 at 1:33 pm
I can see what you’re saying Donny. I do believe that cultural demand (whether economic or aesthetic) will have some influence on the way that art is created and perceived. I do, however, think that art can and is created just for its own sake. And I also think that the personal art commissions of antiquity are quite a different thing from the consumer demand of modern pop culture. The commissions of the past were normally given by individuals from the nobility or the church. Furthermore, these commissions did not in any way shackle the artisitic license of the artist (besideds the artist was commissioned due to his individual skill and method). The consumer-driven art of today is usually cheap, shallow, and base in comparison because it is being produced for the modern masses that -for the most part – share these traits.
January 13, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Josh, yes, I agree that the commissions of the past were for higher and nobler purposes but we cannot deny the economics involved. Without the commissions and the partrons involved we would not have the works of art from past masters which we now enjoy.
Aaron, the point of the article is that we have been singling out “Christin” art (being those forms that intentionally appeal to Christian culture) as being inferior and crass. At least that is how I have perceived it, that we are anti-Christian art, anti-Christian literature and so forth. (This is a perception based on all the articles and links.)
What is, is. The reality is that our modern society is based on sorting, filing and pigeon-holing people into groups, sub-groups, cross-group grouping, but this has been going on for a long time. It is part of the great social experiment which makes it easier to control society. Especially when we are broken down into sub-social groups. If you are not part of the American group then you are European, Asian, African or other. If you are American you are Irish-American, Italian-American. Afro-American, Native-American and so-on and so-forth. Out of these groups you are Male, female, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, lower economic class, middle-class, upper-class, Hindu, pagan, Budist, Muslam, Christian,[if Christian then, Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist. If Baptist then Independent, Southern, Free-will...] or Jewish. You see it everyday. (Especially now during the silly season ie. Election cycle)
Where was I? Oh yea.
I agree that we as “Christians” are no longer affecting our society at large based on biblical standards. We have adopted the world’s methods and we have religion and the economics of that religion. I agree that it is wrong, distasteful and downright blasphomous. But the Christian artist who intentionally writes “Christian” books or stories that deal with life and life lessons Writes to their audience, just as Tolkien, Lewis, Homer, Plato and the host of others have done throughout history.
Art, Literature, Education, economics, politics, government and even entertainment are common threads that makeup the tapestry of our society, our existence as humans. I agree, that on the whole, we as Christians have disengaged from cultural issues and even when we have attempted to re-engage it has been disasterous for our collective testimony, in that we are now looked upon as a political force rather than members of the Body of Christ. That testimony has reflected poorly on Christ and in the world’s estimation Christ, God Himself has been brought down to the level of the poorest example of a Christian.
I have now began to ramble. For that I apologize. Again Language gets in the way, and my definition of art is not as broad or well defined as others. I stand behind my view on the economics of art and culture, which does not judge art good or bad based on marketing, just that marketing and economics drive the artist. That is why we have hyphenated art -vs- ART.
January 14, 2008 at 8:11 am
Okay, Christian art is not inferior to secular art. There is nothing wrong with lfe lesson stories. There is nothing wrong with allegory. There is nothing wrong with making something that looks explicitly Christian. IF these things are true reflections of the artist and not merely preformed conventions put into the art to make it look Christian. If you want to paint a crucifixion scene or write an allegory, that’s fantastic because those are forms of art. If you as a Christian refuse to paint anything other that crucifixion scenes, you are denying a fundamental aspect of your humanity. My original article wasn’t dealing with better or worse, it was dealing with real and fake. That’s all.
January 20, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Pseudointellectual Christians. Feh.
January 20, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Intellectualism based on what standard?
January 30, 2008 at 7:38 pm
No matter what, someone’s world view is conveyed through whatever they produce. One’s unwillingness to work hard is a reflection of a heart attitude, the idea that work is not a worthwhile or meaningful task. You say that secular writers can simply “write a book” but that’s not really true, a story can never be JUST a story, it always conveys some world view, some idea. If an author thinks that lying acceptable, and the characters in his book lie, then the author is sending you a message, no matter how intentional or not.
However, I do agree with you in one point. perhaps you have heard the quote:
“Christians should stop trying to create Christian-rock, it doesn’t make their music any better, it just makes rock n’ roll worse.” I agree with this, Christians should try to create “Christian” art..if one world view is that of a Christian, it will speak naturally through the art they create, you don’t have to include Jesus in every painting.
January 30, 2008 at 7:39 pm
I meant should not try to create Christian art. lol
January 30, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Jennifer,
I agree that we ought to first and foremost be honest with our productions, be they paintings, literature, drama, music or other outlet. My underlying point is that not everything that we produce is art for one. If so then nothing is art. Another is that which I stated, it is not just “Christian” but “African”, “Gothic” and every other sub-culture that is producing “art” for their targeted demographic. (better art will be tagged crossover since it will appeal to others outside the target demograpic) That is the economic reality. Should every painting have a cross, or some other iconic theme? Absolutely not! Should we avoid ever including Christian themes in order to avoid the labeling? Again Absolutely not! As I have pointed out the great artists of the past, on the whole were influenced by a theistic, Christian worldview. (I am speaking mainly of European artists, not Asian, middle eastern or African) And you are right, what we produce, be it art or widgets, our wouldview will manifest itself either in the production or the quality of the end product.
February 29, 2008 at 1:32 pm
[...] Tie for Tenth: We actually have a three posts which tied for the tenth spot. The Economics of Art is a rejoinder to post 1 that takes a different approach to the idea of “Christian” art and [...]