Archive for the ‘Art’ category

Evidence of a Beautiful Mind

June 12, 2018

Sunrise over Hawaii by Miriam Higgs

Everyone recognizes beauty. That is undeniable. Everyone recognizes beauty in nature. Nature is virtually saturated in beauty from mountain peaks, to ocean shores, to barren Antarctica and the desert landscapes, to the starry host and the living cell. We recognize beauty in things we see, in things we hear, words that are spoken and in the personalities of exceptional people.

We see beauty in human art, and that beauty is usually produced by effort and design. The beauty in art is rarely produced unintentionally. Art, itself, is an intentional activity. If “art imitates nature” (Aristotle), then our proclivity toward art suggests that nature is also the product of intentionality.

Just as human art reveals something of the personality and character of the artist, nature reveals something of the personality and character of its Creator.

Beauty has a certain objectivity to it. While people disagree may differ on whether certain things are beautiful, no one denies that beauty exists and that some things are beautiful. Further, there are some things that nearly all people agree are beautiful.

If beauty wasn’t, to some degree, objective it could not be taught by experts in universities. The study of beauty includes principles of symmetry and asymmetry, color palate, texture and many other things that these experts agree make good art. A principle that is not the least important is the meaning behind the art, not just for the artist, but for the viewer of the art.

Virtually no one disagrees that these are objective truths, self-evident in quality and character. The fact that people will disagree over what is beauty, or what is most beautiful, doesn’t negate the universality of the idea of beauty – beauty does exist, we can recognize it and we can replicate it.

Beauty is hard to explain on the basis of naturalism. What sort of function does beauty supply? And why does it persist? The more advanced human civilization becomes, the more we insist that beauty be incorporated into our world, the more we desire it and the more we seek to make things beautiful. The best explanation for the source of beauty is a Beautiful Mind of which we are but images.

Myth, Appearance and Reality

February 3, 2016

Some of the great breakthrough realizations in human history are that the earth is not flat, that the earth is round and rotating, that the Sun does not revolve around the earth, that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and the earth along with other round bodies in space rotate around each other kept in correlation with each other by gravitational pull. These realities are different than the appearances.

We appear to be standing on a stationary earth that, for all we can see, is flat. The Sun appears to rise, cross the sky and set every day. It is no great leap to understand that the sun might move around the earth, though the perception of a flat earth persisted into modern times. The moon seems to move around the earth in the same way the sun seems to move around the earth, but one does move around the earth and the other doesn’t.

Although we have known the realities for centuries, we still talk in terms of the appearances. We talk about the Sun rising and setting. We describe the phenomena as sunrise and sunset. Someone unfamiliar with our colloquialisms might hear us speak and think that we are ignorant of the truth.

The appearances have a strong hold on us. So strong that they persist in our language and how we describe things on a day to day basis. Those appearances stubbornly refuse to leave our everyday speaking patterns.

What other appearances and corresponding realities exist that we have yet to debunk or lay hold of? (more…)

Do We Stand in the Way of the Prodigal

April 26, 2015


I am compelled by a phenomenon that I see in modern culture. Maybe it is not a new phenomenon, but the current expression of it is new (because it is happening now). The video above is an example: Jesus, Jesus, is a haunting ballad of the unbeliever by Noah Gunderson. (more…)

Devotional Artifice and Didactic Crap Reprise

April 2, 2015

Devotional Artifice and Didactic Crap. I wrote this article in response to statements made by Sufjan Stevens and the fodder they were for an uninformed, shallow critique of music that more overt Christians make couched in a fawning review of Carrie and Lowell, Stevens new album.

Maybe there is something to fawn over, as this article in Christianity Today suggests. The article suggests the following options: 1) accept him as “one of our own” who has found the key to the inside of popular art culture (a response that Stevens would pointedly protest); 2) reject him as one who does not want to be associated with “us”; 3 or) worship at the feet of the altar of his art. I do not claim these are the only options, but they seem the most obvious.

Is there another way to look at this? For the Christ follower who cannot easily dismiss the invitation to pick up the cross and follow, is there a compromise? Is there a way to honor God above all else without compromising the art? Is there a way of making uncompromising art without making an idol of it?

Sufjan Stevens has written:

To objectify art is to measure its commercial value and squander its transcendental powers of benevolence. Reciprocity demeans art; or, rather, it functions to incarcerate its powers, to judge it for its charity. Like putting Mother Teresa on trial, or in prison, for the crime of compassion. On the contrary, perfect art, as a perfect gift (without ulterior motive, without gain, without compensation) courageously gives itself over to the world asking nothing in return.

Do I engage with my work as a father cultivates his child, with loving-kindness, with fierce enrichment, with awe and wonder, with unconditional love, with absolute sacrifice? I make this my impossible objective.

Is art transcendental in and of itself? Must art be without ulterior motive to be pure? Should art demand the unconditional love and absolute sacrifice of the artist? I am having difficulty finding the harmony with faith in a Holy God. I have not head the album yet, but I assume it is everything I have read.

For another take, here is an interview with Bono.

Devotional Artifice and Didactic Crap

March 31, 2015

If the point of these statements is to get our attention, then it worked.

Vintage 1960s guy posingThe statements were attributed to Sufjan Stevens in an article written by David Roark in the Atlantic: How Sufjan Stevens Subverts the Stigma of Christian Music.

They got my attention, but they struck a sour note with me.

Sufjan Stevens claims to be informed by his Christian faith. I am not here to judge him, though he seems to have no problem judging others. Implicit in the statements is more than an opinion about art: he implies deceptive motive. “Artifice” meaning a ruse, trick, pretense, lie, slight of hand, play…. Ploy for what?

I suppose I should not be overly critical of Stevens. His words, though razor sharp, may have been taken out of context. The sentiment that the writer seems to capture, however, I have heard before, and the writer exploits it: “Christian music” is a joke; it is not art; it is sold like elixir from a hawker’s cart at a garish carnival; it is a sellout to …. What exactly?

The subtitle of the article is this: “The genre has had a bad reputation since the 1960s [sic], but the singer-songwriter succeeds by focusing on aesthetics over evangelism.” The real point of the article is that somehow, amazingly, by virtue of being a “real” artist, Sufjan Stevens has succeeded, in spite of being “Christian”, while most others have miserably failed. Sufjan Steves, apparently, is to be praised for not selling his artistry out.

Not selling out to who? The article pretty accurately points out that popular culture is not buying it. The people attempting to enter through the narrow gate are the people buying Christian music. The people taking the broad, wide path are not interested.

The “devotional artifice” is not a golden cow. The author even acknowledges that with his South Park allusion. If money is the object, there are better avenues. The same is true for fame, though being a big fish in a small pond does have some advantages. Still, the broad, wide path is a much more lucrative field.

If success means getting noticed by popular culture, then Christian music is certainly failing – the devotional artifice is not working. But, what if that were not the point?

Is success being true to one’s artistic vision? The author holds Stevens up as a golden example of one who has not compromised his artistic vision to be used as a “mere tool of evangelism, or as propaganda.” So, the sellout is to God? To the Gospel?

The author uses examples from the 1960’s and 1970’s, like  Larry Norman, who was a rock and roller who “got saved” and started playing the same music with Christian lyrics. Yes, that was the Jesus People Movement, but that was a long time ago. The author has pretty obviously not researched his subject very well.

The proof that Christian music is “bad” is that it has not made a “footprint in the realm of popular culture”. If popular culture is the measure of good, he is right. (Do you see a theme here?) He probably does not realize that  his criticism might be taken as a compliment, a confirmation of success.

For many a Christian artist, to be accepted by popular culture and rejected by the Church would be failure indeed. It all depends on who is the intended audience. Most of the “Christian artists” are making music for the Church. If they are making music their audience wants to hear, are they not successful? That “didactic crap” motivates, inspires and uplifts many people. That is why many Christian musicians call what they do a “music ministry”.

I would not expect someone who has not been touched by the Spirit of the Living God to understand that. For many people, it would matter little how good the music is; they could not get past the message. The point of “Christian music” is really the message after all. I can understand why a music lover who is not a God lover would have little interest in Christian music.

I am not judging Sufjan Stevens, though he oddly seems to be judging brothers and sisters who express the same faith (albeit a bit more boldly and directly). I am not sure why he “doesn’t get it”. The audience he seems to have chosen are those who seem to value art first (at least that is what I infer from his comments and the article). That being the case, I am not sure at all why he would measure music meant for a different audience by the same standard. It seems obvious to me that “Christian artists” differ in that respect. Their art is meant for a different purpose.

Art for art’s sake is a popular notion. It is not a notion informed by Christian faith. I would call that idolatry. That does not mean that music or other forms of art cannot be or should not be beautiful, but beauty is often in the eye of the beholder. The “heavy-handed” message of Christian artists that the author of the article finds “bad” is often not seen as beautiful by popular culture. For some, however, it is a beautiful daily reminder of salvation, God’s goodness and glory and hope.

The author laments the divide between faith and art that he does not see in centuries past. I do not think faith has moved. Popular culture has moved, and the art with it.The author’s observation that “today’s disdain [for Christian art] is a fairly recent phenomenon” is certainly an accurate statement, but that should not motivate faith to move with the popular culture anymore than tropical bird should fly to the arctic because other birds are going that way.

The author suggests that faith should be more stealthy, but I am reminded of Jesus’s words that we are to be cities on a hill. We are not to hide our light (faith) under  bushel. When faith is obvious, many will reject it. In fact, most will. Popular culture is tolerant of faith as long as we keep faith to ourselves. That sentiment informs this article.

Meanwhile, Stevens feels absolved “from ever making the embarrassing effort to gratify God (and the church) by imposing religious content on anything I do” by focusing on the art which he believes his faith inhabits. I wonder where worship fits into that worldview. “Religious content” is not something to be imposed, though it is often perceived that way. I suppose it is either embraced or it feels like an imposition. Naturally, where it is seems like an imposition, the person feeling imposed upon will simply move on. And, so it seems to me, is the reaction of popular culture to “Christian Music” – but the reaction really has little to do with art.

I do not, personally, like “popular”, kitschy music that seems to draw the masses like some pied piper. What the author calls kitschy (Christian music) is much preferred to me than what I hear on popular music stations. I appreciate Christian music for what it is and listen to it to be uplifted, edified (as “we” say) and even to worship God through it.

I do like music, many forms of music, both “secular”and “Christian”. I tend off the beaten path. I genuinely love the blues. I have spent several years digging deeply into Indie music and retracing steps from decades ago and going down rabbit trails I did not explore the first time through. I still like what some people would call, apparently with a sneer, “Christian music”; but then, I embrace the message, and it resonates in me.


God Still Speaks

To share the Word of God with all people

Reading Acts

Some Thoughts on the Book of Acts and Pauline Theology

CrapPile

A blog about writing, society, and life itself

Help Me Believe

Strengthen the believer. Answer the critic.

Hotrodhell's Blog

Just basic thoughts on faith and life.com weblog

The Isaiah 53:5 Project

Life: the time God gives you to determine how you spend eternity

Belong to The King

Christian, Faith, Jesus

Quantum Awareness

Are Buddhism and Quantum Mechanics saying the same thing in different languages? Let's finally bring the two together and have an enlightening discussion.

JonahzSong

Setting Sail for an Abundant Life

testifyingtotruth

" Contrary to the claims of "sexual rights" propagandists there is no agreement at the United Nations that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) can be used to create "rights" to abortion, to be a prostitute, to be a child who has sex as they choose or for Men who have Sex with men (MSM) to engage in fisting, felching, rimming, farming, scat, chariot racing, jackhammering , anal penetration etc ".

%d bloggers like this: