Intellectuelle

Most of the time we are referring to the topic rather than the process and the essence ( or creative factor), when I wonder whether that is the most appropriate use of the term. Much of the great art of the Masters had religious themes, sometimes sponsored by the Catholic Church. In discussion of the artists and their models however, we know that at times the mistresses of personages (Fra Lippi, Caravaggio, Fouquet’s Virgin and Child) were models for the Virgin Mary and done with a very sensual mode of depiction, for example, which is a contradiction in terms . Is this Christian Art in the sense we would call by that term now? Why have we changed our perspective if we no longer accept the former one of rendition of a topic ( although we all 'grandfather in' the works of the Masters).

The grain of thought in Natalie's original statement almost carries the same idea as Paul's teaching on the tithing that the son's of Levi did, by proxy within the loins of Abraham. That God's original plan was to include us, and all creation within Christ...
"I believe God created us all originally to be “Christian” in essence, even before Christ, so art in itself would be Christian by default"
I can agree that God's purpose was that all was to express "the all in all" in Christ, predestined to this purpose, all our works ordained (Ephesians 2:10). Following on the footsteps of viewing our "works" is a verse in Hebrews,13:21 Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

The Greek word for 'works' is eµrgon, or transliterated "ergon", with one meaning of " any product whatever, any thing accomplished by hand, art, industry, or mind" ( StudyLight.org )

Within this thinking I find the larger view of giving glory to God. There are so many ways and magnitudes of giving God glory that we could see the broader aspect that art created from the raw resources within us is meant to have all the components of glorifying God, which is what we are trying to express in the term, 'Christian Art'. But if we narrow the view to the works themselves, we are further defining them not only by our modifier of 'Christian" but by the noun that we call "art". Skillfully executed, with originality and the unique genius of the artists.

Then, this thought (from Bonnie) interjected, "Is it possible for a Christian to make art that is not Christian? (I think it is.)" And in the sense of topic, surely this is true, but do we have a moral dilemma in this statement? If we take out the qualifier of "art", do Christians have any business making something "not Christian" in the sense of "anti-thetical to"? If we are to do all to the glory of God in any facet of our lives, we have no business in what is contrary to that, and if in harmony, then isn't Natalie's statement of the utmost sense to how we view our art and the making of art by Christians? It reminds me a bit of Brother Lawrence's philosophy as he presented it in the little tome, "Practicing the Presence of God". No matter what we do as Christians... in that broadly encompassing "'works', eµrgon" connotation ... we are doing what we do as expressions of our Christian faith. And that breaks down the categories of how we view "Christian Art", especially when working from the world's definition ( admittedly vague and problematical- carried by the whim of society) of art.

Dana said "I don't think we ARE in "that mindset" all the time." That is true. I ask myself then, "should we be?" And if so, then is Christian art a matter of degrees- of more or less imperfect expressions of our desire to glorify God? We are trying, yet sometimes failing of that "mindset". And do we set unnatural criteria for whether it is Christian by our own view of what makes for a perfect expression of "Christian"?

Then, perhaps, we are running into disappointment with Christian Art either because it is artificially bound by narrow perspectives ( which I personally think is what we complain about most when bemoaning the state of the arts in the Chistian community) or we have problems based upon our fragmented definition of what is Christian. Some art qualifying as Christian by virtue of its purpose and intent, even though not discernable by its subject matter- is that discounted? And back to Bonnies ideas...

""Christian essence," though. Is it always recognizable, and can it only be exhibited by a true Christian?"

Offhand...maybe not always recognizable, but I would think if it were bona fide it would be exhibited only by true Christians, but then this creates problems with the universal idea of art and, as was said, music. We see all the time that those without Christian belief create beautiful and inspirational art. And at this point I am left thinking that we must make distinctions between the human capability to glorify God with their works, by giving expression to talents and genius, and that which is Christian in intent and purpose... devoted entirely to the revelation of Christ. That last narrowing of the definition still leaves great magnitude if the complete spectrum of the gospel and the new creation is included.

I am also left with this thought.... are we wrong to use the modifier "Christian"? Is it perhaps the purpose of all art to depict something of truth somehow? And I mean this in the broadest sense... fantasy being the truth of hopes and aspirations that need symbolism, for instance? And while we know Christ as "The Truth"... the bits and pieces of reflecting that truth may not always be understood in its complete form unless lit from above, but may be seen as true in their context. Is this a possibility? Or is this idea too infused with worldly wisdom? I wonder: Is art too fully human to be drawn into such categories that 'spiritualize it"? Rather, it is produced by men and then seen for its effect on the hearts and minds of men. We then use our Christian revelation to say " It uplifts the heart to God, this is Christian in intent and form" ...even when the artist may not have consciously worked from that basis? That it is then used to portray a spiritual reality? In music this has been done when borrowing what was plainly something secular and transposing the intents into a Christian understanding..."Bridge Over Troubled Waters", etc.

And should Christians who are artists be simply constrained by those artistic endeavors of creating something of excellence, of their own artistic vision ... as all artists are defined, by their skillful and talented efforts to touch something within the souls of men? Knowing that their own "Christian essence", their own regenerated being, is what marks their works as "Christian"?

Maybe that will separate what actually becomes Christian art from what is essentially Christian kitsch.
=====
Visit Natalie Jost's site
Godly Creatives
Mary Yerkes–Releasing the Artist Within