The artist encounters obstacles and enemies on the journey. He faces trials that must be overcome. But these trials refine both the art and the character of the artist. These trials have the potential for spiritual formation.
I want to share with you the rest of David Taylor's dangers from the Transforming Culture symposium. (Side note: they are planning on having the mp3 files of the main sessions on their website at some point in time.) I think it's important to identify these dangers so that we can see how they affect our lives and art. I won't go into all his points--you'll be able to hear them on the talk. His talk centered around the dangers of art within the church, within the worship service. Personally, they were important to me to hear (1) as I pray about how to get involved more with my church and (2) to consider as my development as an artist. What I'm interacting with here is the latter--how his points affect me in all my art, but mostly that which I'm doing outside the worship service.
With that in mind, here's what hit me:
- Manipulation. This was not one of the points proper, but something he talked about under another point and something that was touched on in another breakout session I attended. Dictionary.com says about manipulate, "to manage or influence skillfully, esp. in an unfair manner." What struck me is the term "skillfully." Which brings us to the question of bad art v. good art. Both can have skill. It's how the skill is used. This is a hard balance--how to awaken emotion without manipulating it. I want to make people think. I want to make people feel. I want to compell people to action. However, I want to do it because they've made a thoughtful decision to change, not because they feel forced or brainwashed or sappy. This point for me is something I know when I see, but I can't explain well. The gospels are frought with pain and hope (emotion) and a call to a change in thinking and acting. However, they are not manipulative. They demonstrate ways to respond to Jesus: rejection, following, loving, betraying. They point to which responses are godly and which are ungodly. But they aren't manipulative. There are no Pavlovian bells ringing.
- The utilitarian subjugation of art. Art can be used for evangelism, to raise awareness for social justice issues or political questions. It can be used to teach. But it doesn't have to. Good art is worthy in itself. The act of creating is worthy in itself. I desire to draw people to God through my art. I desire to embody, to incarnate Christ and theology in my art. But that doesn't mean that my art has to be useful for evangelism or a theological lesson or social justice in order to be beautiful to God.
- Immaturity. Oy. Emotions are good, but loss of control is bad. Let's be honest, art is a touchy subject. So is theology. Bring the two together, and Armageddon threatens. We artists tend to be (although not always) emotional people. So are fights can be ugly. And as much as I'll fight (haha) for my belief that there's more objectivity to art than we've allowed (separating our preferences from our evaluations of good art), there is an amount of subjectivity both in defining good art and in our preferences. For example, the movie Sweeney Todd. We had a good discussion about it over at Intersection. I think it's good because of the theme and message (not to mention the incredible music and lyrics). Someone else has problems with the gore. This is where forgiveness and permission come into play. As believers, we give others permission to do what they believe with conviction. Of course, there are limits, and these limits are found in Scripture and understood in the context of the Body of Christ, but this bleeds into another day's discussion of our allies along the journey...(Like my cliffhanger?)
... I loved that little phrase... "bring the two together, and Armageddon threatens." A way with words!
Platitudes to me are indicative of an acceptance of formula. We hear a lot of them from the pubishing industry. Only "the great stories" are published. Uhh, yeah, the "great" ones which fit into the particular formula embraced by a particular agent/editor/pub board. "Hone your craft" is another favorite which often translates to "Play by our rules" unless you happen to be so-and-so or so-and-so. Then you can write whatever and however you want.
Books have sold millions and have been "poorly" written. The story or intrigue caused multiple sales.
I still maintain that "preference" does ultimately determine the definition of art in the general sense. This is effectively borne out in the situations where long after the particular "artist" is dead and gone his art is canonized. Even learned critics cannot agree on what is truly art at times.
The ability to create is an extension of God, His giftings/talents. Someone who writes with devotion to serve Him is creating a "masterpiece" for Him. Is that work for public consumption and examination? Not always and not necessarily. Does God consider it art? I would say He does because it is done in obedience as an offering to Him. I'm willing to suggest it will hang in His art gallery, show up in the heavenly library, or be played in His private sanctuary.
Amen to that last paragraph!
Being called to be an artist and having the ability to create are two different things just as being called to be a professional pastor and pastoring (ministering to) those around you are. In both cases, we are expected to do the latter as those made in God's image and as Christians being restored to "truly human." But in the former case, God calls specific people to serve Him.
I'm always saying I prefer not to have a message in art. I just want to enjoy it.
I don''t want to go to a concert to hear a musicians political or whatever message.
Same with visual art... I want to see something beautiful that gives me smile wrinkles.
But... that is too simple, isn't it? Christian music obviously has a message -- but you know that going in. And poems and books -- I guess the author has to have a mission and an outline.
Now I'm confusing myself. Are you, too? ô¿ô
That's what I felt watching The Cider House Rules.
Great acting, nice cinematography, etc. etc. But in the end, I felt backed into a corner by an agenda. I'd developed an attachment to certain characters. I sympathized with them, rooted for them, wept with them. I'd been emotionally massaged to the point where I'd (by design) feel that the only valid choice in their crisis was the choice my favorite characters were making to get out from under their pain. I was (supposedly and hopefully going to be) willing to accept that the compassionate and humane thing to do was to, in fact, sin.
I was being prodded to call evil good, and to decide that (at least in this specific case) Biblical righteousness was actually a harmful thing. And I resented the massaging and prodding.
If I were to stand up and say that the conclusion drawn by the movie went directly against Scripture, well, then I'd be unfeeling, naive and callous. My favorite characters even said so themselves.
Skillful use of media, that.
So, as a Christian artist, I must reflect on my agendas. There is always an agenda to a piece of art- even if it to simply familiarize myself with my materials and play a little bit. (Though typically I operate under a slightly more focused purpose than that, I hope.) I think many non-believers sour toward Christians because they feel duped by something that seems to sincerely address the plot of living on this fallen planet, then get fed some kind of syrupy "Jesus is all you need" lullaby.
Yeah, he is all we need, but throwing that around to the world at large is not an incarnational message. it's so far removed from how Christ looked into the eyes of those whom he healed. Those for whom He died.
How can I incarnate and flesh out the love of Christ? How can my art bring those questions to the surface in someone? Can I stick around to answer them with my presence in their lives? Or at least offer them more than a Christian-ized platitude? This has made me think, thanks.
Post new comment