Intellectuelle

There was a book in the late 80s called "Living a Beautiful Life" by Alexandra Stoddard, and the point of the book was that the commonplace, if allowed to be beautiful, energizes and inspires us in ways plain utilitartianism cannot.

I remember that book! Edith Schaeffer also had that message don't you think? Even though she related it to the spiritual, it was the same message.

Yet, how often do we miss this? We still fight a losing battle when it come to the ubiquitous plain vanilla (imitation vanilla at that!) of our church architecture and expanses of unimaginitive asphalt and turf landscapes.

We don't highly value our artists as we ought- thinking that it somehow is something that belongs only to the "worldly" system. And we don't see ourselves as producing art in our daily lives.

Sometimes I like to think of Mary and Martha a different way... that even though we know them through a harried moment in their lives, Jesus enjoyed their hospitality. It was a place of refreshment and fellowship for Him and the disciples.
I'm sure Martha cared very much about creating a lovely environment- she just had to learn about the environment of the heart that went it.
====
Your comment on how it energizes really speaks to me.

hmmm...not much commenting.

Do we see the use of creating something beautiful as part of the evangelising process? How do we assimilate the Puritan doctrines that eschewed the Catholic Church's support of the arts in their building of great church architecture, of decorating their Vatican with great artistry?

Did the Protestants turn the view toward beauty in the utilitarian of ones everyday life, as they encouraged individual literacy and developing diligent skills?

Is the present day loss of artistic excellence something that comes from Evangelicalism adopting the attitudes of pietism that preceded it ?

Is it just the American bottom line and assemply line mentality that has made its way into the Church?

Or are cooky cutter churches and Hallmark Greeting cards your idea of high art? Why or why not?

Traditional women see no problem with the concept of creating beautiful hospitality: homes, flowers, dining experiences.. home decorating.

Women of the modern culture might value art galleries, but clean their homes? They might turn up their noses at that... at least at those who celebrate it as a fulfilling activity.

So how do we apply that fact that people are more creative when they have surrounding that speak beauty to their senses? Especially visually? And can there be beauty in neglect? There's a zen question for you. At what point is neglect no longer beautiful if you see beauty in it? What are the messages of beauty?

.... and what does all this have to do with the usual woman's occupation with beauty?

Here is a quote for you all:
".. we are now, therefore, paying the dreadful price for a twentieth century brand of evangelical-fundamentalist Christianity that has regarded culture, history, worship, art, and learning as "unspiritual", thus unimportant. ... The blind are leading the blind. Ignorant pietistic teachers are passing on a-cultural learning to the children of ignorant parents."- Franky Schaeffer

discuss, yet?

Ho ho. A HUGE topic! It's too late at night to comment intelligently right now. But I appreciate your bringing this up. Suffice to say, I've thought about this a lot over the past 25 years. I majored in Fine Arts in college (Art history), and then went into Interior Design. I've grieved the loss of appreciation for beauty in my Protestant evangelical environment, but I've pushed forward anyway. I'll try to add something worthwhile to your discussion a little later.

Please do, e-Mom, looking forward to it.

The way you put that "grieved the loss of appreciation for beauty" is articulating just the way I felt, too.

I’ll try to walk my way through a few of your questions.

Do we see the use of creating something beautiful as part of the evangelising process?

Yes, non-Christians do respond to expressions of beauty (or ugliness) in everything we do… whether it’s a book cover, a witnessing tract, our dress, our homes, or our churches. Our mandate is to share the Word with all the world, and I think we must do it as well as any modern marketer would. “Man looks at the outward appearance…”

Eugene Peterson connects beauty to holiness. He says: “Beauty is our sensory access to holiness. God reveals himself, that is, God’s life in creation and in Christ, in ways that we can see and hear and touch and taste—in place and person.”

And,

“The Gospel is not an idea or a plan or a vision: it works exclusively in creation and incarnation, in things and people. Disincarnation is the work of the devil.” (From his sermon “The Beauty of Holiness” published in Image: A Journal of Arts and Religion, October 2000.)

That said, it’s insufficient to stop with the “packaging.” We must also speak the truth even as we attempt to reveal/display it. When evangelizing we must open our mouths!

Did the Protestants turn the view toward beauty in the utilitarian of ones everyday life, as they encouraged individual literacy and developing diligent skills?

“Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.” I suspect the original Reformers valued auditory experience over the visual or kinesthetic. (eg. Wasn't John Calvin a lawyer?) In my view, a good thing, given the low state to which the church had sunk at the time. I do believe their early Reformers’ concerns about icons, idols, relics, indulgences and the all rest were valid. Their sweeping attempts to rid the church of these things, elevated the preaching of the Word (and musical expression) above the sacraments and the mystery of symbolic expression. Unfortunately, the baby may have been thrown out with the bathwater. Artistically and creatively, Protestants have certainly been poorer for it.

Is it just the American bottom line and assembly line mentality that has made its way into the Church?

No, I don’t think so. Much of modern “high Art” (painting, sculpture, and architecture) fails to resonate with contemporary culture. While some have said that the modern art gallery/museum is the cathedral of today, that seems to be true for a select and educated minority. The masses favor the applied arts (graphic design, industrial design and technology), no doubt because of their affordability and ease of expression made available by computers. Many suburban non-denominational “meg-churches” broadly utilize the skills of electronic graphic designers to enhance overhead materials and as a vital part of their worship. In these churches, creativity is abundant in music, theatre, and even dance. And people are flocking to them. As long as there is accountability and community established through small group ministry I’m all for it.

Or are cookie cutter churches and Hallmark Greeting cards your idea of high art? Why or why not?

Having made the above comment, I find myself sitting in a pew on Sundays, not theatre seating or stacking chairs. I much prefer the beauty and tradition found in my urban denominational Presbyterian church. I majored in Art history in college, and I have been an interior designer for many years. I appreciate the best of “high art” and wish there was much more in my church. Stained glass windows, a full throttle organ, colorful banners, projected medieval paintings and an ambitious Christmas pageant are not enough to satisfy my thirst for excellence in artistic expression! I suppose I will never be satisfied. I am encouraged by talk of a gallery space being added and I’ve noticed a trend toward incorporating gallery spaces at seminaries and churches around the country. I know Regent College in Vancouver, Canada, has a thriving artist community and gallery. So, no cookie cutter churches and Hallmark Greeting cards are not my idea of high art.

Women of the modern culture might value art galleries, but clean their homes? They might turn up their noses at that... at least at those who celebrate it as a fulfilling activity.

I’ve been a student of Biblical motivational gifting theory for some time. Some of us are “speaking gifts” oriented and others are “serving gifts” oriented. Women who love to work with their hands, are naturally oriented toward homemaking, creating beauty in their environment and offering hospitality. Historically, “traditional women” fell into this latter group, while women who were gifted intellectually became teachers. Of course, all of that changed with the women’s movement. Society now trumpets the accomplishments of women who excel in pursuits outside the home.

.... and what does all this have to do with the usual woman's occupation with beauty?

I believe a woman’s pre-occupation with beauty is innate. It’s tied to our sexuality. I think we inherently understand that beauty attracts sexual attention, and we seek that subconsciously, consciously or both. Needless to say, purity is the other half of the beauty equation.

I’ve said enough, so I won’t try to unpack your Franky Schaeffer quote too! (A good one.) I love Edith Schaeffer’s books and recently I posted on her classic, “The Hidden Art of Homemaking.” For more on this and Eugene Peterson’s article on beauty please visit me at: http://chrysaliscom.blogspot.com.

Blessings!

I lost my comment to you in one of the many power outages yesterday and todya in my area :(

But I think I can beat the next one by just posting that I thought your comment was full of rich insights and perhaps after peak usage hours I can use my computer without fear of losing everything again! Then we can continue .... I thought many of your points were important.

Thanks! I'll check back again.

"Our mandate is to share the Word with all the world, and I think we must do it as well as any modern marketer would. “Man looks at the outward appearance…”"

I agree. The concern is that as believers we make certain that we aren't presenting an empty gift wrapping. To make our living relationship with the Lord primary is the best antidote to lots of window dressing. Maybe this is where the aspect of incorporating art and excellence is so challenging: we get caught up in the activity and lose sight of the reason we began.

I think the trouble that we now have is that the Evangelical persuasion has come to eschew the pursuits of skilled artistry as worldly and superfluous in response to this desire to restore the substance of spirituality. But the actual Biblical admonition is to have both: do all as unto the Lord. There is an elevation of our work in the New Testament that Evangelicalism has downplayed. So we have things like reading the Bible is spiritual, but reading literature and relating it to the Bible is somehow less, when they are arms of the same body in effort to serve God.
So man looks on the outward, and God looks on the heart, giving us reason to serve God wholeheartedly while drawing men towards Him by all means. Although I do have to say that God has voiced a valuing of the outward as the lesser. I just don't think that is in conflict with encouraging the arts.

So yes, I think you are right:"the baby may have been thrown out with the bathwater."

"connects beauty to holiness"

Actually, the Bible verse I think of gives the idea that holiness has its own distinctive beauty. There is going to be a watershed difference between where something is sourced in what we call beautiful. I think we can see this clearly in where the art world has gone with this today. There are things called art, and which might have a type of beauty which are spiritually speaking very ugly. And while we should understand what that is saying, as Christians, I question that we should be producing it. Focus of intent gives a sort of self-censoring, or maybe editing is a better word, without caging creativity.

"Much of modern “high Art” (painting, sculpture, and architecture) fails to resonate with contemporary culture."
hmm, but hasn't that usually been true?

"Some of us are “speaking gifts” oriented and others are “serving gifts” oriented." I don't know if this would categorize us in our vocational pursuits of whether we are homemakers or not. Any woman who marries, and then particularly when she has children, is going to be a homemaker. Skill in serving others is something enjoined for all... but our gifts would certainly give direction and expression in how that is carried out.
I thought alot about this aspect of giftings, too. Our gifts make certain spiritual fruit easier to produce than others, I think and that is how I personally agree with your insight here.

"I believe a woman’s pre-occupation with beauty is innate." our type of pre-occupation, certainly, but love of beauty is a human characteristic and men's expression of that probably produces alot of a women's response. But in the larger sense I think as humans we have a core response to beauty in its many variations and aspects. I think that is what the research mentioned here shows.

Your thoughtful response really got me thinking- especially in how beauty relates to holiness, and how that defines real beauty ( which is something that I have struggled to properly define- I feel it rather than think in defined terms about what is or is not beautiful)

Thanks for your thoughts and discussion! It's been fun to visit these ideas in the midst of all kinds of other activities going on in my life.

"The concern is that as believers we make certain that we aren't presenting an empty gift wrapping. ... Maybe this is where the aspect of incorporating art and excellence is so challenging: we get caught up in the activity and lose sight of the reason we began."

Perhaps you're expressing the classic Martha/Mary. scenario: Activity for God vs. Listening/sharing his Word. I believe our gifts determine our strengths... but also our weaknesses. If we are gifted artistically (sounds like we both are) it's easy to over-focus on that aspect of expressing truth, without ever opening our mouths and speaking it. My concern is not whether we should seek excellence in our artistic expression (as I believe we should), but we must also verbally share the truth too. I've seen a lot of creative women who think their loving service toward others is enough. It's a good beginning, but "faith comes by hearing"
--not seeing. I think we're agreed on this one!

"I think the trouble that we now have is that the Evangelical persuasion has come to eschew the pursuits of skilled artistry as worldly and superfluous in response to this desire to restore the substance of spirituality. "

I agree with your thoughts here. The modern elevation of the spiritual over the physical in Evangelicalism is indeed unfortunate. Not pointing any fingers, but isn't that exactly the gnostic heresy? Biblically, both body and spirit are equal. Jesus is in fact God incarnate! You can't get any more flesh-affirming than that. In fact, in eternity, we will not be floating around as disembodied souls. Rather, we will be given glorified bodies! Again, as my quote from Peterson above says, "Disincarnation is the work of the devil.”

"So man looks at the outward, God looks on the heart... God has voiced a value in of the outward as the lesser." I must say that I respectfully disagree with the latter half of your statement here. I believe this Scripture is expressing a factual observation about the differing perceptions of man and God. I don't believe it places any value on outward as lesser over inward. I say this based on what the rest of Scripture teaches... that flesh is very good.

"connects beauty to holiness"

"There are things called art, and which might have a type of beauty which are spiritually speaking very ugly. And while we should understand what that is saying, as Christians, I question that we should be producing it. Focus of intent gives a sort of self-censoring, or maybe editing is a better word, without caging creativity."

Agreed here. Well-said. Maturity is also important as are discernment, and audience. Young artists can lack maturity in discernment about what they should or should not be producing. I think the key is audience. For whom are we producing our art? And more importantly: What do they need from us?

" 'Much of modern “high Art” (painting, sculpture, and architecture) fails to resonate with contemporary culture.' hmm, but hasn't that usually been true?"

I don't think so. When I was studying European art history in college as a very new Christian, I was suprised that much of what we looked at was ecclesiastical art--we waltzed from cathedral to cathedral. Even in Greek and Roman times, "high art" was right out there in the public sphere, in pagan temples, grand palaces and so on. I haven't thought much about this lately, but no doubt modernity in general (defined by rationalism and Mies' "less is more") has played as much a role in modern Evangelicaism's eschewal of beauty as the Protestant Reformers. Hans Rookmaker's book "Modern Art and the Death of a Culture" comes to mind. (Have you read it?) The other thing that comes to mind here is the grand cultural pendular swing between romanticism and classicism that has occured with great regularity thoughout history. If I'm not mistaken, post-modernity seems to be defined by its return to more "feminine" or "romantic" values. It will be interesting to watch how that plays out in the Evangelical church. I am just now delving into what the post-modern "emerging church" is all about... the jury is still out on that one.

"Skill in serving others is something enjoined for all... but our gifts would certainly give direction and expression in how that is carried out.
I thought alot about this aspect of giftings, too. Our gifts make certain spiritual fruit easier to produce than others, I think and that is how I personally agree with your insight here."

Definitely. I've finally arrived at a place in life where I accept that I'm not going to be good at everything! While I have natural gifts in art, writing, thought, and on... I am not gifted in music for example. Or humor. I'm not an athlete. God has purposefully limited my talents, so I must depend on the skills of others. This is freeing, but also scary! It puts me in a vulnerable position. Ultimately though, that is why community is so important. We need each other!

On this subject: I make a distinction between natural/motivational gifts and spiritual gifts. I believe spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 14) are supernaturally endowed by God after salvation, whereas our natural/motivational gifts are innate and present in all humans. Regarding the former, we're not all prophets, miracle-workers and so on. We need the rest of the body of Christ to experience true spiritual fullness.

I believe spiritual fruit (character development) is something else again. Discipleship (or spiritual formation) is a process of maturation all Christians should be involved in through study, prayer, fellowship and so on.

"I believe a woman’s pre-occupation with beauty is innate." our type of pre-occupation, certainly, but love of beauty is a human characteristic and men's expression of that probably produces alot of a women's response. But in the larger sense I think as humans we have a core response to beauty in its many variations and aspects. I think that is what the research mentioned here shows.

Agreed. We can only hope that we're in the midst of a grand shift back toward a appreciation for art & beauty at the cultural level.

One more thought on feminine preoccupation with outward beauty in regard to sexuality. Scientific research shows that in general, women are better expressing emotions and in speech, whereas males are better with imagination and actions. Could some of our feminine pre-occupation with outward things (clothing, make-up etc.) be a result of our unconcious perception that we are WEAK in this area? Food for thought.

"Your thoughtful response really got me thinking- especially in how beauty relates to holiness, and how that defines real beauty (which is something that I have struggled to properly define- I feel it rather than think in defined terms about what is or is not beautiful)"

I agree there is difference between sensory beauty (or ugliness) and the felt /intuited beauty of holiness (or the lack thereof). In physiological terms it's the difference between what we perceive with our right eye (sensing) and our left eye (symbolic/intuiting). Cover one or the other up, and our perceptions change dramatically! Eye dominance is a study in itself (most peope are R eye dominant) but certain environmental factors and psychological states do trigger a switch. Way too much to go into here... but suffice to say there's a lot that can be learned about our subjective perceptions from a physiological point of view.

Thanks for listening. I look forward to your comments, if you have an interest in continuing.

Blessings, e-Mom

"It's a good beginning, but "faith comes by hearing"
--not seeing."

Yes! That is on point.

"Perhaps you're expressing the classic Martha/Mary. scenario: Activity for God vs. Listening/sharing his Word."
I don't think I was expressing that- for me, Martha/Mary is a distinction in where we source our activity and how we relate to God. What I meant originally is that we can be so enamored with wrapping up the spiritual message in something we consider attractive, and then fail to follow through with the substance of "Christ in us". Maybe this is why we sometimes downplay the beauty of the homely ( in the original sense of that word). But this is not to take away from the excellent point that you followed with. It stands on its own, I think.

"isn't that exactly the gnostic heresy?"
Could well be approaching it, anyway.

"I must say that I respectfully disagree with the latter half of your statement here. I believe this Scripture is expressing a factual observation about the differing perceptions of man and God. I don't believe it places any value on outward as lesser over inward. I say this based on what the rest of Scripture teaches... that flesh is very good."

Ok. I do think it expresses the difference in perceptions, however, we have to recognize that all that is under the "flesh" designation is in need of redemption. I beleive that has to be taken into account. And I also think that there is a heirarchy at play within man. We are to live and be ruled by our spirit under the direction of the Holy Spirit. Man will always try to sneak the works of flesh in there as primary concerns, because the flesh does not "see" or perceive the value of the spiritual oftentimes. I just think in balancing the ascetic and the aesthetic, both of which are physical expressions, we have to keep that in mind. We aren't disagreeing as much as having our emphasis points in different places.

on high art resonating with culture
Because many of the examples you use are those of art patronized for public purpose by powerful individuals. Some great art was not recognized in the lifetime of the artists- which speaks of a delay in the culture in recognizing the mode of expression or the quality of the art. This is true in both music and art, but probably more obvious in music. Popularity and value are not always interchangable. Popularity gives a perceived value that sometimes stands and sometimes fades in the light of time.

On this subject: I make a distinction between natural/motivational gifts and spiritual gifts. I believe spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 14) are supernaturally endowed by God after salvation, whereas our natural/motivational gifts are innate and present in all humans. Regarding the former, we're not all prophets, miracle-workers and so on. We need the rest of the body of Christ to experience true spiritual fullness.

I so agree with you on this. Yet, in my own thoughts I have connected the two- but it is an unproven theory in my own mind- so I am not going to argue it. It is more just the idea that if God formed us with natural qualities, wouldn't it make sense that He manifest the Holy Spirit gifts in harmony with those? Not that He must, so I could make argument for the opposite, as well. Just thoughts!

"Could some of our feminine pre-occupation with outward things (clothing, make-up etc.) be a result of our unconcious perception that we are WEAK in this area? Food for thought."

Something to chew on! ;)

"Eye dominance is a study in itself"

Fascinating! I would love to hear more about this.

"suffice to say there's a lot that can be learned about our subjective perceptions from a physiological point of view."

Is this what we see in the art of Monet?

"We can only hope that we're in the midst of a grand shift back toward a appreciation for art & beauty at the cultural level."

that would be a great joy- however I am not optimistic about that for certain resons, I do beleive in the value of education, however, and the Church can be a vehicle of example in hwo beauty of spirit can be evidenced throughout many expressions . I think that is what we aim for when we try to create the artistic or encourage its creation by others.

You had some things here I would love to know about how you think on it:
1)" feminine preoccupation with outward beauty in regard to sexuality"
2)"no doubt modernity in general (defined by rationalism and Mies' "less is more") has played as much a role in modern Evangelicaism's eschewal of beauty as the Protestant Reformers. Hans Rookmaker's book "Modern Art and the Death of a Culture" comes to mind. (Have you read it?)"

-especially.

I have not read that book but now my interest is whetted. Seems like time to visit the library and see if they have it on the shelves:)

Actually you have me wishing for a guest post so you could develop the ideas in a way that comments don't allow.

First, I’m enjoying this conversation. Keeps me chewing on interesting ideas as I go about the mundane.

Also, I have just read your bio… so glad you’re here! A little about me: I’m 50ish, married nearly 30 years, 2 children, born-again in 1973, Canadian expat. Besides a B.A in Fine Arts and doing commercial Interior Design, I ran a private Montesorri-style pre-school which evolved into a neighborhood Art school. I just completed a certificate program in theology. What’s next? Serving as a Titus 2 woman through my blog Chrysalis, and hopefully, more graduate-level study in Christian Art Therapy.

So now, we carry on.

"Ok. I do think it expresses the difference in perceptions, however, we have to recognize that all that is under the "flesh" designation is in need of redemption. I beleive that has to be taken into account. And I also think that there is a heirarchy at play within man. We are to live and be ruled by our spirit under the direction of the Holy Spirit. Man will always try to sneak the works of flesh in there as primary concerns, because the flesh does not "see" or perceive the value of the spiritual oftentimes. I just think in balancing the ascetic and the aesthetic, both of which are physical expressions, we have to keep that in mind. We aren't disagreeing as much as having our emphasis points in different places."

I think we’re agreed on this one. Sorry this may be repetitive, but I think a little clarification (if only for my sake) is necessary here. Yes, both the ascetic and the aesthetic must be under the direction of the Holy Spirit. I think of the ascetic as any expression that is involves thought (prayer, study, writing, teaching). I think of the aesthetic as expression that is felt emotionally (art, music, dance etc.) Right, all of it is in need of redemption. The Biblical hierarchy is God’s will/Spirit over man’s will/spirit. In my view a “work of the flesh” is any activity whether ascetic or aesthetic that is characterized by self-effort in trying to earn salvation. “Works of the Law” is another way of putting it. As you know, salvation is a free gift. I don’t automatically define art/beauty as a “work of the flesh.” (Although some do—your previous quote from Franky Schaeffer comes to mind.) I don’t put art/creativity—activity pertaining to matter—any lower on the scale than study, thought and sharing the Word—activity pertaining to spirit. (The Gnostic heresy.) I don’t think the Protestant Reformers intended to either—which is the point I want to emphasize and is most relevant to this discussion. One of the main reasons for the Reformation was the drift in the Church toward a works-based legalism. Also, to compensate for the errors in the Church’s idolatrous use of art (plus the sale of indulgences to builds gorgeous St. Peter’s) we agree that unfortunately for Protestantism, the baby went out with the bathwater.

By the way, in my view both the ascetic and the aesthetic are active. Jesus does assign a hierarchy to active vs. receptive activities, placing receptivity in the ascendant position. For instance, he commended Mary (over Martha) for quietly listening attentively to his teaching. The message for us is that we cannot bear any kind of Godly fruit, whether ascetic or aesthetic without drinking deeply from his Word.

Well, the Reformation is over! Help for bringing Art back into the Church can be found here. (I own both books, but I’ve yet to apply them!)

"The Arts in Your Church: A Practical Guide" by Fiona Bond

"Beholding the Glory: Incarnation Through the Arts" edited by Jeremy Begbie

"on high art resonating with culture
Because many of the examples you use are those of art patronized for public purpose by powerful individuals. Some great art was not recognized in the lifetime of the artists- which speaks of a delay in the culture in recognizing the mode of expression or the quality of the art. This is true in both music and art, but probably more obvious in music. Popularity and value are not always inter-changeable. Popularity gives a perceived value that sometimes stands and sometimes fades in the light of time."

So what causes certain styles of art/music to go in and out of fashion? What influences the public perception of “good art” vs. “bad art?” Why don’t the masses recognize great art when it appears? Why is modern culture apparently indifferent to “high art?”

Part of the answer is purely economic. In this fallen world, great art (in all forms) is a luxury. We don’t NEED “high art” to survive. Post-Eden, food, clothing, and shelter are more difficult to obtain. I think the old adage “art is born of leisure” is quite true. The hard reality is that not all talents are equal in their ability to command a living wage. Unfortunately, artists have always been at the lower end of the food chain. He/she who is closest to the money and power generates the most wealth—and possesses the power of patronage. Powerful people have always been the arbiter of fashion and taste. Historically, the masses simply could not afford to own art or dictate its substance.

However, I think the economic argument is only part of the answer. I think gender plays a role too. With the rise of the merchant/middle classes, art as a commodity became affordable for many. This freed artists to create what they wanted. No longer dependent on a wealthy patron, the market became their master. So in our time, why are thousands of people willing to pay outrageous prices for non-necessities like tickets to spectator sports events, while symphonies fold, and dance companies struggle along? Perhaps it’s because the one who controls the money in most households is a male. Or if it’s a joint purse, perhaps men aren’t interested in attending concerts and visiting museums. On the whole, I think you would agree that for whatever reason, men are less interested in art (in all its forms) than women. Ergo, good art is not recognized because it is overlooked by the masses when it appears.

But I think there’s more. And maybe this is the real answer for 21th-century America. Perhaps the apparent indifference to art is not indifference at all. Perhaps the masses are actually voting against many forms of modern “high art” with their aesthetic sense. Maybe people find much of modern visual art (and other artforms) distasteful, unapproachable, and “in-your-face.” Given that art is a reflection of life, it could be like looking in a mirror and being shocked and repulsed at the image staring back. And that takes me back to Hans Rookmaaker’s book, "Modern Art and the Death of a Culture." Is it possible that cutting-edge modern “high art” is not commonly found in the Evangelical Church for the simple reason that people find it ugly? In fact, could we have things backwards? Maybe, we have incorrectly identified this phenomenon as the eschewal of beauty, when it should be recognized as quite the opposite: an eschewal of ugliness!

Your thoughts?

On Hans Rookmaaker: He's a Christian Art historian who ran the Dutch branch of L’Abri in his home, now deceased. I first ran across this book in college. It’s a classic and worthwhile read, recently republished by his daughter as part of "The Complete Works of Hans Rookmaaker."

A newer book that is also highly relevant to this discussion is "Visual Faith: Art, Theology, and Worship in Dialogue by William A. Dryness."

"'Eye dominance is a study in itself' Fascinating! I would love to hear more about this."

Perhaps you’ve heard of Betty Edwards’ classic book, "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain." She touches on eye dominance theory there. If you’re interested in the very different ways our two brain hemispheres perceive and process images (or you want to improve your drawing skills!) this book is a must-read.

"suffice to say there's a lot that can be learned about our subjective perceptions from a physiological point of view." Is this what we see in the art of Monet?

Monet—divine! What you say is insightful. Art historians say that the advent of photography played a major role in shaping Impressionism (and modern Art). With the advent of cameras, there was no more need to try to depict reality as it actually appeared to the senses. So Renoir, Monet and others began to experiment with their subjective perceptions of light. At first they were hated. Eventually though, their rivals--the realists of the French Salon--fell out of fashion.

"You had some things here I would love to know about how you think on it:
1)" feminine preoccupation with outward beauty in regard to sexuality"
2)"no doubt modernity in general (defined by rationalism and Mies' "less is more") has played as much a role in modern Evangelicaism's eschewal of beauty as the Protestant Reformers. Hans Rookmaker's book "Modern Art and the Death of a Culture" comes to mind. (Have you read it?)"-especially.
Actually you have me wishing for a guest post so you could develop the ideas in a way that comments don't allow."

Thank you. I’m honored. I’d like to re-read Rookmaaker (and Dryness) before I commit to writing on the second topic. The first topic would be fascinating too. May I think on these?

Blessings, e-Mom

Out surfing and discovered you all....

After my first tour in Iraq I met a lady who was an assistant editor for a fashion magazine. She dismissed her work as frivilous compared to my recent experiences. I wish I had the quickness of mind to say what I later thought: Art, and beauty, and beautiful and Godly things are critical to our civilization. There is a lot of ugliness and brutality and evil just around the corner, and just under the veneer of civilized human behavior. I think we need art and beauty to elevate us, to remind us of what is possible, and that God gives us good things to sustain us on a fallen earth. We can debate the forms, but each of us needs to find the God inspired beauty that will sustain us.

What is humbling: to be on the receiving side of both e-Mom's comments rich with discovery on the topic and Michael's comment which is a quite profound thought, in my estimation.

I'll return to continue to conversation later today, hopefully.

I apologize for not reading this whole thread yet; hope my comment isn't redundant. Just two quick things:

1) I wonder sometimes what would happen to me if the world were to become bleak and dull due to some strange blight or cataclysm. I think I would die. I draw so much strength from the natural beauty I am so blessed to have around me where I live. I even linger by the cut flowers section at the grocery store sometimes, because the color, beauty, freshness and fragrance of the flowers is such an encouragement. It reminds me that, just as nature grows on in abundance and lavishness, God's abundant provision and care go on too.

2) I used to be overly dependent upon aesthetic beauty. I used it as an escape rather than an appropriate source of encouragement; it was an idolatrous pursuit. I have had to discover and live by deeper and more important beauty: the transcendent beauty found in all things through dependence upon the gospel. Of course this is an ongoing discovery :-). It puts things in proper perspective though.

Bonnie,
not redundant at all!

Actually eMom's and Michaels comments got me thinking along lines of meaningfulness. How beauty is not the same as meaningfulness, but it is important in our assimilation and understanding of meaning. We were made to have both an appreciation and hunger for the beautiful. There are truths about beauty throughout the Bible, so it is something that we know impacts our spiritual lives.. as well, as you said ( and eMom referred to in thoughts on Protestantism), as something that is so often used in idolatry.

The more se go into this converstiaon the more I see we are approaching ideas of parameters. This is the same thing I see when looking at the concept of freedom. Use and misuse... but the underlying need for the reality of the essence of the thing. We need beauty, we need freedom, but not always in all the modes that we see these things used.

=====
eMom,
"Hans Rookmaaker: He's a Christian Art historian who ran the Dutch branch of L’Abri in his home" Connected to L'Abri? If it wasn't previously on the must read- it certainly is now.

I did read 'Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain' so many years ago and have looked over some of the ideas in the past, but the 'eye dominance' didn't stick with me, because I don't recall anything particular about it. You have given a great book list, however. This is what I love about the internet :)

"Art historians say that the advent of photography played a major role in shaping Impressionism (and modern Art)."
I had always read it was the influence of Oriental, especially Japanese art, in the case of Impressionism.
There is also the impact of philosophical views of reality- the bending of the idea that we don't necessarilly know what is realy there through our senses. Schaeffers ideas on the influence of philosophy on society and how artists are often the first line in experiementing with and disseminating those ideas could apply here. Also, realism in art reached an airbrushed epitome in Pre-Raphaelites, where else could it go?

Even photography as art had to move from mere depiction, so I think art moves through its quest to find an expression of something true. Like some philosophies, sometimes they give up thinking that it is possible. That is when art becomes it's ugliest, I think- when it works off that despair.
===
"Is it possible that cutting-edge modern “high art” is not commonly found in the Evangelical Church for the simple reason that people find it ugly? In fact, could we have things backwards? Maybe, we have incorrectly identified this phenomenon as the eschewal of beauty, when it should be recognized as quite the opposite: an eschewal of ugliness!"

Sadly, I think it is indicative of the apathy toward excellence rather than rejection of ugliness. Gnostic dualism never seems too far off in the equation.

But the fact is that beauty is ingrained in life and in objects- as Bonnie mentioned , the human soul fairly thirsts for beauty in nature, and it is resident in many mundane things and activities. I think this is what fascinates me so much with Carl Larrson and with Vermeer. It is as if they say with their art that we can see it everyday and we are able to look into their private interiors and be inspired in our own kitchens or living spaces. That begins in a realistic way of rendering, but can and does extend into the more stylized and symbolic.

I just think Evangelicalism just doesn't see that purposefulness of that. Not that they always create something mediocre- because that wouldn't be true to say either. There is something gorgeously minimalist in a New England Puritan style Church. That sensibility has impacted modern tastes, too, I believe- but then it is far gone from the auspices of the Church. And that is where I think we lose out- we don't see it's significance in the production of the arts.

One thing we haven't touched upon here is the role of education in what constitutes our views of the beautiful. The eye that discerns beauty is an often an educated eye- which is why we often overlook different types of beauty than what we are used to ...until something breaks through that.

Maybe we require this process, because that which is fresh to us stimulates our thinking. And that brings us back to that scientific research- we create better solutions when our everyday things are designed with beauty in mind as well as utility. There is more to the idea of a "muse" than I might have thought.

...but as you said- the topic is huge :)

"I think it is indicative of the apathy toward excellence rather than rejection of ugliness."
I thought I'd better further explain this comment of mine.

If it were an eschewel of ugliness, wouldn't we find a production of the Christians own view of what is beautiful? Wouldn't we produce our own cutting edge? I think we do this more successfully in music, if for the very reason that we beleive our music will glorify God. I just don't think we have parlayed that into the other arts very well. Which is why I attribute the present Evangelical view to be from apathy.

So much to say, too little space!

First, I want to say thank you, Ilona, for putting forth this worthwhile topic.

Also, I really appreciated Michael’s comment. So timely and beautiful.

And Bonnie’s comment is so relevant too. Lingering by the flowers at the market uplifts me as well. Also, I realized a number of years ago that my (then) regular habit of viewing “shelter magazines” was quasi-pornographic. It was an escape and idolatrous. I seem to have found a better balance latterly--but that may be because I have the real thing (a fully furnished home) when then I didn’t.

I am going to respond to a few of your thoughts Ilona, and then I must leave this conversation. I need to re-read some of these books!

Yes, Hans Rookmaaker was associated with L’Abri in the Netherlands. I quoted Piquant, the publisher of his complete works, above. Incidently, I gleaned some terrific resources (including Piquant’s brochure) from a recent seminar on “Christianity and the Arts” offered through Koinos (Pacific Association for Theological Studies). The presenter, Laurel Gasque is a Christian art historian and adjunct faculty member at Regent College, Vancouver, Canada. She is married to Ward Gasque, a NT scholar and one of the original founders of the seminary.

“Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain:” To clarify, Edwards touches on eye dominance theory in the book, but she discusses brain hemispheric dominance in greater detail. This is really the more relevant subject, since the eyes are merely the portal to the brain. Very briefly, the left eye (and left hand) is the “art” eye, since it connects to the right brain. The “right mode” is non-verbal, synthetic (puts things together), concrete, analogic (sees connections), non-temporal, non-rational, spatial, intuitive, and holistic. Some people call this the “feminine” brain. The right eye (and right hand) is connected to “left-mode” thinking, which includes words (to name, describe, and define), it is analytic (perceives the pieces or parts), symbolic (as in writing), abstract, temporal (keeps track of time and sequences), rational, digital (using numbers), logical, and linear. This is sometimes called the “masculine” brain.

I suggest you google for eye dominance theory if you want more specifics on that topic. I have read that the right eye dominates in most people, and therefore, as humans we are “left-mode” dominant (and most people are right-handed.) This inborn “masculine brain” orientation may also explain some of Evangelicalism’s eschewal of beauty that we’ve been discussing. A sidenote: You may have heard of Dale Chihuly, the famous blown-glass artist. I’ve noticed he wears a patch over his left eye. I have no doubt that this forced right-brain orientation has contributed to Chihuly’s international success as an artist.

On photography and its influence on Impressionism: Yes, Japanese woodblock prints did influence the Impressionists stylistically. But the advent of photography played a huge role in ushering in Impressionism and what we think of as “modernism” in art.

Here’s a quote from Dyrness’ “Visual Faith” that I’ve been thinking about:

“ ‘Before modernism, painting was the noise of culture, because it attracted attention. Now the culture is the noise, and painting… attracts little attention, either in the culture at large or in the art world.’ (Laurie Fendrich, a professor of art.) Thomas McEvilley similarly noted that painting has petered out for forty years or so.’ Our culture’s long obsession wit this art form as its channel to reality has been loosening… in favor of the conceptual object.’

This change resulted in part from technological developments, such as the invention of photography and later the moving image. These advances democratized both the making and, even more, the consumption of art products. But beyond this, the current upheaval in the arts resulted from a sea change in our culture known as postmodernism, a name given to the contemporary situation of cultural and religious pluralism. Our culture no longer shares deep underlying values that can find expression in widely appreciated works of art and communal projects of architecture. Rather, each of the various ethnic, lifestyle, and generational subcultures has its own particular art values and pursuits…

The avant garde, or what might be called the cutting edge of the arts, is no longer the purview of painters or sculptors, nor of the galleries and museums that show their work. It has been taken over (at least partially) by the producers of TV commercials, the rock stars and their music videos, and even by fashion designers. This means that, for better or for worse, the dominant artistic influences in the culture today are to be found among the popular arts, not among what used to be called high art. This may explain why today everyone even remotely associated with art or design is called an artist…”

This book goes with more valuable insights, and I hope you can find a copy of it.

"Sadly, I think it is indicative of the apathy toward excellence rather than rejection of ugliness. Gnostic dualism never seems too far off in the equation."

An interesting observation… “apathy toward excellence.” Could very well be! Another aspect of this discussion is definition. I think we’re talking about two highly subjective words: “excellence” and “ugliness” (or beauty). You and I might agree on a definition of excellence (or beauty,) but does everyone else agree? Certainly we all recognize beauty in nature, but what about art, fashion, styles of music, and on. Habituation has a great deal to do with what we perceive as beautiful or excellent… and then we’re back to the brain again. I attended a lecture at our church where the presenter, a Christian scientist, Dr. John Medina PhD (Talaris Research Institute) revealed that synapses actually self-destruct in children after a certain age if they’re not exposed to certain stimuli. His example: In the west we think of Oriental music as dissonant and unpleasant to listen to. That's because we're unfamiliar with it. It’s not surprising that Asians have the same thoughts about our western styles of symphonic music! Moral of story: Subjective perceptions of beauty/excellence in art, music, etc. are highly personal, developed in childhood, and are specific to our geographic location. Hence, I think your statement below is absolutely accurate:

“One thing we haven't touched upon here is the role of education in what constitutes our views of the beautiful. The eye that discerns beauty is an often an educated eye- which is why we often overlook different types of beauty than what we are used to ...until something breaks through that.”

You mentioned Carl Laarson, Vermeer, and the simplicity of interiors of New England Puritans. I love them all! They give us a peek into their living spaces that is uplifting and compelling. My favorite painting is by the Flemish painter, Robert Campin, called the “Merode Altarpiece.” (http://employees.oneonta.edu/farberas/arth/arth214_folder/campin.html) A triptych, the center portion depicts a Dutch burgher’s sitting room. Chock-full of Christian symbolism, the work is also an unashamed depiction of domestic beauty and tranquility.

I have spent the better part of my professional life creating beauty in living and working spaces, and I (fortunately) perceive no disconnect between Evangelicalism and my work. Perhaps that’s because I am surrounded by Christian evangelicals with similar gifts and who affirm this point of view. eg. Lately, I’ve been surprised that my business-partner and husband (a 50ish Christian, college psych major and computer whiz) actually loves watching HG TV! He thoroughly enjoys the color and creativity we put into our investment properties. I doubt that he’d be as supportive if he was a lawyer, for example, which is considered a “left-brained” profession.

“I just think Evangelicalism just doesn't see that purposefulness of that… Maybe we require this process, because that which is fresh to us stimulates our thinking. And that brings us back to that scientific research- we create better solutions when our everyday things are designed with beauty in mind as well as utility.

My prayer is that you’re able to whole-heartedly embrace the notion that there is validity in creating good design in our everyday living spaces--regardless of what Evangelicalism says or doesn't say. Creativity is an attribute of God, and we are called to express his nature in everything we do.

I will leave you with one more book. I just received this from amazon.com upon the recommendation of one of my blog readers, but I haven’t read it yet. Please take a look at: “The Creative Call” by Janice Elsheimer.

God bless you!

e-Mom