Christian Art
I don't think the term "christian art" is theologically or logically defensible. However, for sake of argument, how might the term be defined? There are four options. One, the piece of art has somehow obtained salvation. Two, it was made by a christian. Three, it is owned by a christian. Four, it conveys truth about christianity.
As far as the first option, only humans can obtain salvation.
The second option might merit more than one sentence at first glance. However, if you agree with the idea that if something is made by a christian (or a hindu or a moslem or a whatever) that the main cultural and social definers of that person then are somehow transmuted into the created article, you then arrive at odd and ludicrous conclusions such as, a christian ham sandwich (made by a christian cook) or a hindu lawn (a plot of grass laid down by a hindu gardener), etc. Furthermore, if this truly is the proper definition of "christian art," the term is quickly rendered meaningless by the fact that any and all kinds of art created by christians would then have to wear the term. For example, the dutifully ecclesiastical painting of Christ on the Cross done by Sally Christian would be called "christian art" as would the painting of a snoring cow done by Sally's equally observant twin sister Shelly. To further stretch the point, what if a dreadful alcoholic, wife-beating arsonist atheist who happened to be an absolutely brilliant painter executed a breath-taking depiction of Christ on the Cross (displayed in the same gallery and side-by-side with Sally Christian's crucifixion scene)? Would his painting be refused the term "christian art" due to his private excesses and shortcomings? Obviously, the term does not work with this definition.
The fourth option is possibly the most widely used: "christian art" refers to that art which conveys some overt truth about christianity. However, even this definition breaks down under scrutiny. One of the obvious problems is determining how much truth and what kinds of truth are necessary in order to qualify. If a painting or a book or a whatnot conveys the fact that marriage between a man and a woman is a good and healthy thing (an idea that is underscored at great length in the Bible), is that enough to qualify? If not, then why not, as heterosexual marriage is certainly a biblical truth. If a movie conveys the dynamic of redemptive, sacrifical love, does that qualify it? Would a work of art need to contain all the necessary talking points that detail the theologies of sin, redemption and salvation in order to qualify?
The other problem inherent with the fourth option, if you accept the idea that, regardless of the difficulty of determining how much and what kinds of truth are necessary in order to qualify a piece of art as christian, art can be termed christian due to the christian truth it conveys, what do you do with the Creation itself as art? For example, would a simple oak tree growing in your garden (obviously a work of art created by God who is the founder of what we term christianity, as well as being the personage who all christians are supposed to desire to emulate and grow more like throughout their lives) not be termed "christian art" due to the fact that it does not convey overt truth? If you back-pedal at this point and say, "oh yes, of course, the oak tree is holy art because of who made it," then you're back at square one and you haven't solved a thing.
I think the real answer is that there is no such thing as "christian art." There is only art, and some of it is bad and some of it is good. And, of course, some of it is quite very bad and some of it, though not very much, is quite very good.
As far as the first option, only humans can obtain salvation.
The second option might merit more than one sentence at first glance. However, if you agree with the idea that if something is made by a christian (or a hindu or a moslem or a whatever) that the main cultural and social definers of that person then are somehow transmuted into the created article, you then arrive at odd and ludicrous conclusions such as, a christian ham sandwich (made by a christian cook) or a hindu lawn (a plot of grass laid down by a hindu gardener), etc. Furthermore, if this truly is the proper definition of "christian art," the term is quickly rendered meaningless by the fact that any and all kinds of art created by christians would then have to wear the term. For example, the dutifully ecclesiastical painting of Christ on the Cross done by Sally Christian would be called "christian art" as would the painting of a snoring cow done by Sally's equally observant twin sister Shelly. To further stretch the point, what if a dreadful alcoholic, wife-beating arsonist atheist who happened to be an absolutely brilliant painter executed a breath-taking depiction of Christ on the Cross (displayed in the same gallery and side-by-side with Sally Christian's crucifixion scene)? Would his painting be refused the term "christian art" due to his private excesses and shortcomings? Obviously, the term does not work with this definition.
The fourth option is possibly the most widely used: "christian art" refers to that art which conveys some overt truth about christianity. However, even this definition breaks down under scrutiny. One of the obvious problems is determining how much truth and what kinds of truth are necessary in order to qualify. If a painting or a book or a whatnot conveys the fact that marriage between a man and a woman is a good and healthy thing (an idea that is underscored at great length in the Bible), is that enough to qualify? If not, then why not, as heterosexual marriage is certainly a biblical truth. If a movie conveys the dynamic of redemptive, sacrifical love, does that qualify it? Would a work of art need to contain all the necessary talking points that detail the theologies of sin, redemption and salvation in order to qualify?
The other problem inherent with the fourth option, if you accept the idea that, regardless of the difficulty of determining how much and what kinds of truth are necessary in order to qualify a piece of art as christian, art can be termed christian due to the christian truth it conveys, what do you do with the Creation itself as art? For example, would a simple oak tree growing in your garden (obviously a work of art created by God who is the founder of what we term christianity, as well as being the personage who all christians are supposed to desire to emulate and grow more like throughout their lives) not be termed "christian art" due to the fact that it does not convey overt truth? If you back-pedal at this point and say, "oh yes, of course, the oak tree is holy art because of who made it," then you're back at square one and you haven't solved a thing.
I think the real answer is that there is no such thing as "christian art." There is only art, and some of it is bad and some of it is good. And, of course, some of it is quite very bad and some of it, though not very much, is quite very good.
posted by ToadRocket at 12:02 PM
2 Comments:
brilliantly written. may i print it out for discussion with some friends? it's like the age old farce of secular vs. sacred. no such thing.
can you pls. tell your wife how much i'd like to meet her? i prayed for her esp. during the worst weeks you were going thru. please know you are all three so welcome to visit anytime...and i promise not to discuss politics.
Sure, very flattering! Yeah, that whole sacred-secular divide is frustrating. It generates such lousy art/communication...no wonder the church is marginalized.
Thanks for the prayers. They work! We'll have to make it up to Bellingham sometime. Lovely area. Def have to talk about politics. I get bored without it floating up every now and then.
Post a Comment
<< Home