Intellectuelle

Any artistic expression that acknowledges the realities of life is far more likely to be Christian or to have Christian implications than some of the bland banalities that pass for "Christian art" these days.

Well, maybe an objective definition of the realities of life is in order.

Does this image acknowledge the realities of life? Link
Objectively?

Theology is a “Victorian” enterprise, neoclassically bright and neat and clean, nothing out of place. Whereas the Bible talks about hair, blood, sweat, entrails, menstruation and genital emissions.

So what? If his point is that 'theology' per se is not the whole of the Christian life, or that the Bible is not a theology textbook - that's kind of obvious, isn't it?

A lot of the blood, sweat and so forth has to do with the old Law or with actual happenings. And interestingly, when modern Orthodox Jews concern themselves with such things as menstrual blood - which they do, quite a bit (links not for the squeamish), they don't call it theology.

Also, isn't it a bit silly to criticize Christian theology by saying, compare this with any Christian theologian you care to name - except that really, really, really important one over there?

Rusty,

Perhaps we need to define "objective" as it relates to "reality" in order to answer your question.

Atlantic,

If his point is... that's kind of obvious, isn't it?

Yes and no. It ought to be, but is it always, to everyone who calls themselves Christian, as far as what they concern themselves with? I don't think so.

I think the last part of your 2nd paragraph illustrates the concern. A simple definition of "theology" (as I understand it) is, "the study of God." Expand on that a little and you add "as He relates to the universe and it to Him." (The universe being all of creation, including bodily functions) I think that theology may be understood and used by many in a merely academic sense, which in essence is rather gnostic -- it dwells in the first part of the definition to the neglect of the second. At least that's what I understood Leithart's comments to be getting at.

Thanks for your comments.

Bonnie,

So how does one determine whether or not a piece of art "acknowledges the realities of life"?

Rusty, Mark’s statement was made in reference to so-called art that calls itself “Christian” but presents an overly-glorified, airbrushed, kitchy, or token portrayal of something – be it an object, person, office, relationship, or whatever.

It could probably be argued that there is time and place for such art, and perhaps there is. But it’s the “fake” or dishonoring portrayals that are bothersome – those that present a false picture of what “Christian” is, or of what anything is. (A portrayal might be of an object, or might say something about the object, or a relationship, or whatever.) A false portrayal dishonors God and His creation and does not edify. It's manipulative.

It’s a complicated matter, for sure. There are many different types of artists and many different types of audiences. I think that, as with any endeavor, the motive behind the portrayal is a large determinant of whether a work of art glorifies God or not. This motive will probably manifest in the work. How and why is the subject being treated?

Gifting – whether the artist is a good craftsperson – plays in as well. Are all mediums acceptable? No, but Christians may differ as to how to decide. Are all styles acceptable? I think it probably comes down to how the style is used.

Thanks for your question. I'm curious, how would you answer it?

Bonnie,

Okay, I guess my issue has to deal with how we attempt to make objective statements which are ultimately grounded in subjectivity. Consider your first sentence in which you refer to "so-called" art which calls itself ""Christian"". Well, right off the bat it appears that you're passing judgment (which is okay by me) on the particular creative work as to whether or not it is "art" and as to whether or not it is "Christian." To oversimplify the issue it seems that people are arguing that art that is dark (as in mood) is "real" and "honest," whereas art that is light is considered "fake" and, consequently, "dishonest."

Let's take the example that everyone is probably thinking of... Thomas Kinkade. He's relentlessly criticized by "artzy" Christians, among others, about the lack of "art" (real, honest, true, honorable, etc.) he produces. How does his work not qualify as "art"? Because it presents an overly-glorified, airbrushed, kitchy, or token portrayal of something? What if that is his (the artist's) intent? Where do I, or anyone else, get off telling him that his work is false?

I participate in a weekly photo shoot, online, in which photogs submit photos to match a particular theme. One week the theme was "orange." I submitted this image and received this critical comment, Im not sure I see much of a story or an attempt to capture something beyond what was in front of you. i just see an orange pipe sticking out of a dumpster. I had placed the photo on my photo-blog previously, and received the following comment, Great catch Rusty! The blue and red look great together, and I like the combination of straight parallel lines and the one curved object.. So which is it? Is it art? Is it real? Is it false? Shoud I just flip a coin?

It turns out I took the photo because I liked the juxtaposition between the orange conduit and the blue background. Believe it or not, I wasn't trying to make any statement whatsoever (other than the statement that I liked the photo enough to post it on my blog).

Now, does that particular image acknowledge the realities of life? Yes. Some dumpsters in front of blue and yellow buildings have orange conduits sticking out of them.

Perhaps the crux of the issue has to do with whether or not the artist is mandated to make a statement with his work? It also seems that being an excellent craftsman (e.g., Sting and The Carpenters) is objective, whereas being an excellent artist (e.g., Sting and not The Carpenters) is subjective.

A simple definition of "theology" (as I understand it) is, "the study of God." Expand on that a little and you add "as He relates to the universe and it to Him." (The universe being all of creation, including bodily functions) I think that theology may be understood and used by many in a merely academic sense, which in essence is rather gnostic -- it dwells in the first part of the definition to the neglect of the second. At least that's what I understood Leithart's comments to be getting at.

Then I rather think that he's playing bait-and-switch word games. One certainly can define theology in a very wide sense, but the fact is that in normal usage, the unqualified word theologyusually means doctrinal theology of one sort or another. If Leithart wants to use a very broad definition of theology (and frankly I'm not at all sure he does - he's already specified that his theology is Victorian/neoclassically neat and bright and clean), then it is only fair to define theologians in the same very broad sense....in which case it's absurdly easy to find as much messy, icky stuff as you like. Lives of the saints, accounts and investigations of healing miracles, life issues and bioethics discussions, how to do NFP...

Thanks for tip on Jan and Daniels.

Rusty, you ask very good questions and your points are well taken.

It's a challenge, for sure, to determine just what is objective and what isn’t when it comes to art and what art glorifies God. The issues are very complex.

I used the term “so-called art” to acknowledge that not all work that calls itself art actually is art, in the sense of being artful or technically well-done (both are part of craft). Some call any sort of decoration or picture or musical piece “art,” but I think this is mistaken. This is not to decide just how each and every thing will (or should) affect each and every person, but there are some objective standards. The deciding of these standards (by those who know enough to decide) has varying levels and considerations, however. There are also varying levels of quality.

(Might art that’s not very good edify someone? Of course.)

Perhaps you are asking, “Who has the right to decide what is art, what is good art, and what is Christian art?” If so, those are difficult questions, but I think they have at least partial answers. (Not that I have all or even most of them, or anyone does, or everyone together does.) Such questions could be asked of a lot of things. I think that Christians are called to proclaim truth, and that includes truth of all sorts, in the whole of what is Truth. Some people are more qualified to proclaim certain aspects of truth than others, due to gifting, study, and experience.

While artfulness is certainly more variably assessed than pure technique, it is not purely subjective. Art has to do with skill and mastery. Creativity, inventiveness, cleverness, intelligence, originality, knowledge, and inherent respect for the medium and the subject are, for the most part, recognizable and assessable characteristics. Matters of taste, on the other hand, are entirely subjective. But taste cannot judge artfulness; it can only indicate like or dislike, or preference. The line where the two overlap is not entirely clear, though.

Likewise it is very difficult to speak of craft (or rather, technique and style) and artfulness separately. In many ways they are inextricably intertwined. Mastery of both is necessary for art to be good art. (Good, not Christian – I think it behooves Christian art to be good, but not all good art glorifies God – completely, anyway. By its sheer goodness of craft or art, though, it still testifies to the glory of God.)

I am coming to this discussion from the perspective of the artist. I speak in the interest of artistic integrity and responsibility (accountability). There are ethics inherent in artistry, and there are ethics involved in the production of art. Also in art as a business or commodity. If art is consumer-driven, there will often be compromises. Whether these are acceptable depends on what those compromises are. For Christians it ties in with evangelistic and discipleship concerns -– what is the true intent of the artist, or the evangelist, or the disciple-trainer? This does matter, I think.