Rey's A Point

Toward Criticism of Christian “Art”

I’ve been critical of what is usually perceived nowadays as being Christian art. Recently, I got into a conversation where some folk were defending the validity of this or that style of art and stating, quite emphatically, what right do I have to preside judgment over them (citing the Most Well Known Verse of the 21st Century: Matthew 7:1). I’ve given it some serious thought, and I think that not only do I have to be critical (in the classic sense) of such art: we all, especially Christians, should.

Art, by its very nature, is accomplishing something in its process and final expression. It seems to say “This is serious. You are touching the inner workings of Man; traversing the very realm of God.” The creative, as an outworking of the divine, screams the very image of the Being in which we’ve been molded. Historically, art poured outwards from the individual, wafted upwards and resonated within everyone watching. When expressed, it told a story—from every taught muscle of Michelangelo’s David to the elongated forms of El Greco, through the violence of Caravaggio and to Picasso’s cubist vision of the nightmare in Guernica; a story was expressed.

It was the arts that first taught theology to the layperson; that were used to turn the hearts of the people against another people for whatever cause; that made history accessible—Babylon is remembered, says Herodotus, for her hanging gardens and the strange golden statue of a Man, Egypt for her pyramids and Sphinx, etc. It was the arts that experientially delved into the teleology (the study of purpose and design) of the world. Today, we find that previous cultures speak to us in their arts.

But art has, currently, become too accessible:

  • Firstly, that is not to say that in ancient Greece, a jaunt to the local temple resulted in a failure to interact with art—not at all. The ancients were exposed to art, but in the ways I described above. In a society where the common man may have been illiterate, or at the very least didn’t have access to papyri or scrolls, the arts spoke.
  • Secondly, this accessibility is directly related to the Industrial Revolution. After Guttenberg’s Press, the arts no longer had to speak: that was the realm of writing and anything else was woefully redundant. Art started to function as garnish—by no means the main course, it was to be thrown on top for color and that’s about it.
  • Thirdly, the Protestant Reformation, in rejection of many practices in the Roman Catholic Church, threw art out of her sanctum. The back-to-the-Scripture campaign was surely necessary but the overreaction added to the empty accessibility we have today.
  • Fourthly, the American Revolution, in underscoring the freedom of speech and the availing to all individuals ( molded in God’s image) the right to pursue happiness, added to the shift from the arts speaking outwardly to the arts only addressing the inward and doing so equally.
  • Fifthly, commercialization. Yes, art always had a commercial component attached to it but the Printing Press made it possible for the arts to be mass reproduced and sold.

So with this accessibility, the modern world has become painfully egalitarian and individualistic as the mass mantra becomes “I can do it just as well as anybody else”. The very tight relationship of Master to Pupil is a ridiculous notion when Michaels is down at the shopping center and has everything anyone needs to Do Art. The arts then suffer from the same things that affect many of our scholarly pursuits today: commercialism, anti-intellectualism, internalization, individualism, egalitarianism and entitlement.

The Critic (especially of Christian Art) finds that his (or her) judgments are no longer perceived as commenting on the so-called arts, but rather an attack on individuals. In shock, that someone dares traverse on the holy ground of the Personal Opinion, the Anti-Critics stand tall and condemn the Snobs.

If the arts always document culture’s story, and people know it, the people doing it will automatically feel the burden of what it means to invoke The Arts.

People don’t get this. In all honesty, People don’t want to get this. Dare hold someone responsible for what they paint and it’s not a hobby anymore. This kind of Critic is stating that the importance of the Arts has not been outright forgotten; they have been rejected and all that remains is that empty husk.

So, I want Christians to look at the modern Christian Art print on their wall (or sofa, or ashtray or desk calendar) and honestly tell me that they want it to speak to future generations about the theological content of the Church, commentary on the world, and a record of Today’s culture. Then I want Christians to go to a Museum (or a Greek Orthodox church) look at a wall of Byzantine Art: struggle with what’s being said, reject whatever theological content they think is wrong and walk away knowing that although they disagreed with what the Art had said, they knew that it had spoken.

We have to move from this very bad area, which ultimately dabbles (if not invokes) Gnostic expressionism, and rediscover the Arts for what they were; not what they currently are. Our society, like the rest of human history, is heavily driven by traded commodities, but even so, we should strive to reclaim the importance of the Arts in our culture and future history. That necessitates being Critical (in the classic sense) and it should be Christians, molded in the image of the future humanity, who should realize that they’ve always led this charge even if they’ve currently stopped.

Rey

,
, , ,

27 responses to “Toward Criticism of Christian “Art””

  2. Rey, you are dismantling my photography hobby.

    Just kidding. I think Eliot wrote something on the art critic also. I have a collection of his essays I’ve been meaning to get around to reading, and it’s been difficult to get there for the past couple years.

    Thanks for prompting me to get that volume out (though I’m not sure when it’s going to be read…).

  3. Having always coupled formal art criticism with accountability for what an individual has created in my lessons to my students, I couldn’t agree more, but I believe Christians should also speak to the current state of the arts today in general, both by example (which should be a standard of excellence) and by daring to say that the Emperor is naked when he in fact, is. I use as but one example the genre of transgressive art, which is, in some cases, nothing more than psychopathic acts protected by the First Amendment. If we are going to have any prayer of imparting any kind of culture at all to succeeding generations, then we have to be able to push aside the noise of artspeak and cut a swath of truth through the lies, and we need to begin with ourselves and our irrelevant ideas about art.

    JMHO

    Well said, Rey.

  5. Marv,

    David is a product of classical antiquity (the protector of Florence)…besides, there are some scholars who think he actually IS, um, within the covenant, but that the method changed over the years, and what is depicted would have been consistent with what a young Jewish man would have looked like in David’s day.

    The sculpture itself is incredible. I love the sneer on his face.

    And all that coiled, implied movement…

  8. Ha dressed like Isaiah.

    Rey you said the G word. I was trying to refrain so I didn’t offend Marv.

    But the G word is totally appropriate.

  9. So, Rey, let’s pretend you showed me a painting that you had created and I TORE IT UP. If I told you all of it’s weaknesses and it’s inabilities to speak to anyone with a brain… how’s that going to help you grow into a more mature and more thoughtful artist?

    I’m not suggesting that we don’t critique with an honest eye. I am suggesting that we don’t do it to the detriment of the artists growth. There’s always more than one way to say the same thing.

  10. Actually, Raquel, that’s the way I work. In our magazine, when we decide on Redesigns we put it up on a wall and tear them up. Not stupid critiques like “I don’t like green” or “it’s ugly” but addressing real concerns. If the concerns don’t make sense, the other designers speak up. We used to do the same thing in school.

    Even so, I don’t know how your point addresses what I said in this piece. I’m saying that we’ve stopped critiquing, period. It’s become about everyone having a say in art and not about what they’re saying.

  11. I don’t think we’ve stopped critiquing, I think we genuinely don’t have much faculties for critique anymore. Under any other circumstances, this warmed-over hash that’s being peddled off as art wouldn’t get by the starting gate. I don’t think this is because people are afraid to speak their mind concerning art, I think it’s because they have no mind concerning art. That part of us has been wasting away for quite some time. It is being starved to death for want of nourishment.

  12. One of my earliest encounters with breaking down this individualistic, internalized and exceedingly detrimental view of the nature of art was this old Italian guy name Perruchi. Stout, bearded and bald, the man looked like a dark-haired Santa. He joked like him too. But when in the studio, the man was a bear recalling images of KGB Bond Villains. The Guy walked up to one of my sculptures said “That is not muscle!” and ripped off half of the torso of my sculpture, threw the clay in the bin, and said “Again!” before storming off. He stopped at my friend’s station, and stared at his sculpture.

    Perruchi’s fist shot out, smashed the thing (my friend gasped and I snorted), ripped up a hunk of clay, slammed it a few times and revealed a mouse (well, more generally the shape of a mouse than my friend had: it was fast after all). He then placed it on the piece and stared at my friend before telling him to remove the clay and get more. Start Again.

    It was bloody great.

  13. Rey,

    I had an anatomy prof like that. He made me to know the meaning of sacrifice – giving up what was adequate to attain what was better. How long it took was irrelevant. LOVE those teachers. “No excuses! Don’t lie to yourself and try to deceive others!”

    There can be such a thing as artistic integrity, and a good, nay, an excellent teacher will impart it to his/her students.

  14. So, as I’ve read through your article, Rey, I’ve had a question come to me.

    I’m wondering if and how we can faithfully critique much of postmodern abstract art of today. Within today’s ‘rules’, encouraged by postmodernism, anything is art. So, though I agree that Fireproof (only saw the trailer) or Left Behind (books or films) or even Sheldon’s In His Footsteps might be bad art, could we not possible say they are a part of good art within the abstract postmodern framework of art?

    For me, I want to group in something like Duchamp’s Fountain (urinal) or Warhol’s Campbell’s Soup in with the aforementioned works, labeling them as bad art, because I think it’s just ridiculous. I feel like that kind of ‘art’ takes advantage of and lies to my artistic self, though I admit I am not as artistic as other. Yet, if the postmodern view is that all art is worthy art for its expression alone, then can one not claim anything as worthy artistic expression?

    Or, here it is fleshed out a little more: Do my concerns above present a double standard? Is there a double standard by some when they look at paint splashed on a wall and declare, ‘Masterpiece,’ because of an postmodern framework of art in their minds while at the same time watch Fireproof and proclaim, ‘Terrible’? Couldn’t we just group all the bad stuff into a postmodern framework and be ok, since this framework seems quite accepting of almost anything?

    I don’t agree with this thought. I’m just bouncing some ideas and questions around to you (and others).

  15. You guys do make me feel better about life.

    Holly I love your phrase-giving up the adequate to attain the better. That’s it. If you have great potential no one wants you to settle for less. So they push you as hard as they can, not because they don’t think you can do it, but because they think you can and you will. Anything worthy is gained through a lot of work and some pain.

    I remember one argument I had with someone who’d had tough art teachers in university. She just couldn’t get over that they would be so mean. In fact she called them “soul-sucking”. Why couldn’t they tell her what was good about her work? Why’d they always have to say what was bad?

    Nothing I said could convince her that they weren’t out to get her or belittle her. They were doing their job and wanted nothing less than her best. One of the other members joked that it was just like Simon on American Idol, yeah he’s a jerk but everyone agrees with him because he’s right. She did not like that either and in the end decided we were against her too.

    I wonder how much of this is due to “artistic” and “sensitive” becoming synonymous. Not that artistic people are sensitive, but that sensitive people think they should be artists. You know the whole romance of the “artist’s temperament”. When they are hit with the cold reality of what creating art really means, they react unhappily.

    There’s another side to that. Chad said we don’t have the categories for critique. I think that’s true too. Instead of saying what is actually wrong with a piece people will say “that’s crap and I don’t like it.” To which one can reply “that’s just your opinion.” and in fact they are right. But that sort of dismissive and subjective hating seems to be all we can do. Actual critique is such a different thing.

  16. Rey –

    Any thoughts to my question posed above?

    Is there a double standard by some (not necessarily you) when they look at paint splashed on a wall and declare, ‘Masterpiece,’ because of their postmodern framework for art that exists in their minds while at the same time watching Fireproof and proclaiming, ‘Terrible’ all in the name of constructive criticism? Couldn’t we just group all the bad stuff into a postmodern framework and be ok, since that framework seems quite accepting of almost anything as art?

    (Might read the whole comment above to more fully explain my question, though it might remain as clear as mud.)

  17. Actually it was an awesome question and I meant to answer it today when I had read it over the weekend but I forgot. What’s great about it is because it really gets to the heart of what’s going on here. Chad made a great point that we’ve lost the category for properly critiquing anything—but I think, just as you noted, it’s not a problem inherent in the Church but in the entire cultural context.

    Postmodernism (not in the philosophical sense but in its artistic sense) was really birthed in the 1914’s European idea pool and the 60’s American idea pool. That doesn’t demarcate if anything is necessarily wrong with it, per se, but it is to show that its relative newness makes defining it very difficult. For the last 80 years or so, this form of art has paradoxically been anti-art. It might contain aspects of video and performance art, definite items of pop culture for the purpose of saying that art is not merely for art’s sake but rather asking the question “What is art? Who says it has to be This or That?”

    But even in that state, art was still producing. I mean, things like the surreal aspect of Dadaism or the motion and energy of Futurism are things that wouldn’t have been positively explored without Postmodernism coming into play. And yet, Duchamp’s Urinal Sculpture stands up as well; indifferent to the changing times.

    I mean, adding to this time we have things like the performance art of 4:33broadcast on BBC Radio Live. Cage said, sound and the lack of sound, are musically important: so he didn’t play. Four minutes and thirty three seconds. You hear the piece between a couple of scores and you can feel the silence. At one point its funny, then it’s uncomfortable, then you’re nervous, then you almost dare to laugh—but you’re not sure.

    The thing is, Postmodernism acts like the H-Bomb. In the aftermath, everything is scattered and we don’t know what to think. Technically, I think that’s why we’re still here and people are employing Transgressive Art. With the loss of The Actual, the existential chasm winds up infinitely deep. Someone, standing on stage and masturbating to mild applause is the insane door that some of this wound up opening and which can’t currently be closed.

    I read a book a while back (well, more like sat down, perused the major points and left it on the shelf) called Critiquing Modern Art or something like that. It may have been called “How Is That Art?” I don’t remember any of the points from it but I do vaguely remember thinking “Christians have something to say here.” See, with Christians I think we can be grateful that PostModernism happened—as well as later Transgressive Art—because we can look at it and say “Here’s the explored and traveled road and what you’ve been left with.” Minimalism had to be explored—art had to take that road and examine shapes in space; Futurism had to be explored; Silence had to be explored: but Christians should be able to step into the room, look at the mess and say “Who is going to clean this up?” as it were.

    I don’t think we can go back to some ancient ideal of art. I think the Arts have to incorporate what it has learned in the now and do something with it. The emptiness of postmodernity (in regards to the arts) has not been answered by the Christian community, but rather ignored with its own version of similar emptiness.

    I think this is all a way of saying that I don’t think Christians should be grouping arts into the category of Postmodern Art and that way giving these artists a pass. There’s just no warrant to say “Ah, you did fine for a postmodern”.

    The solution, though, is beyond me. I seriously don’t know how to get out of this one. If I did though, I think I’d be famous (years after I die, anyway).

    A secondary concern you raised would be asking if things like Thomas Kincaid or Fireproof can fall into the category of Postmodernity at all. Ignoring that I think most movies have a problem falling into the Arts due to the way the Movie Machine is structured, I think there’s a question of intent which comes to the fore when dealing with the Arts, specifically Postmodernity and Christian Arts. Postmodernity is, even in its confusion, trying to say something. Even Transgressive Art with its offensiveness thinks its saying something that needs to be said. I’m sure, they’ll say the same thing at the first public exhibition of a snuff film. But the Christian Arts don’t seem to be saying anything at all.

    I mean, almost leaning on a painting called White On White in MoMA in New York, I understood what Malevich was trying to say without verbalizing what he was trying to say. Depth perception was gone, the subjectivity of absence came to the fore and there was sensation without someone being portrayed to invoke sensation. Even the slight tilt of the second white object made you ask a question “Why are you doing that?”

    But Modern Day Christian Arts don’t even aim at that. They don’t really address any contrived sentimentalism. They don’t even try to evoke the idea of how color works in nature. A cottage, next to a bridge, with the shadows and light playing and effectively saying nothing but “I match with your décor.”

    That’s problematic to me. It makes Arts no difference than the latest issue of Hustler. There she is, forever captured in that pose so that you can use her for what you want and discard when she no longer serves a purpose, or better yet, begins to embarrass you. Mondrian might fit your décor, but then you find that your décor starts to be molded around Mondrian—not so with modern day Christian Art. Use and abuse, praise the Lord for all the refuse.

    I think I’ve rambled.

  18. Transgressive art is a form of nihilism. And the snuff pieces are already in the museums – using animals – for now. I have written letters of protest about these so-called artists who actually wouldn’t matter if the escalatingly violent nature of their “work” wasn’t still able to appeal to an increasingly desensitized, numbed-down, bereft culture. Transgressive art is exactly what it claims to be and it is the anti-art; it is a bleak landscape, a blank stare from vacant, lifeless eyes and an indictment of an increasingly sterile culture. So are the works of such as Kinkade; they are twin sons of different mothers.

    Rey: Familiar with Otto Dix and his war portfolio Der Krieg? Meeting a Madman at Night , although it is about horror existing alone, beyond boundaries and in a place of babbling, gleeful, irredeemable idiocy, sums up much of the Transgressive movement, for me, in visual terms, although Dix was an Expressionist commenting on the insanity of WWI.

    I think I’m rambling too.

  19. Rey –

    Thanks for the brief thoughts. ;) But really, thanks for the thoughts. I agree with the tenets of what you’ve said.

    You had said:

    The emptiness of postmodernity (in regards to the arts) has not been answered by the Christian community, but rather ignored with its own version of similar emptiness…But the Christian Arts don’t seem to be saying anything at all.

    It’s not there isn’t something being said, it just seems to lack meaningful interaction with the current culture. It’s all couched in religiously cheesy overtones which make the world cringe. Now, there is a sense in which the world will mainly reject the gospel. But, such people are creating things to ‘reach the lost’, but then they don’t reach the lost, and so when they fail in reaching them and drawing them in, the easy thing is just to explain it as, ‘Well, they are hard-hearted to God’s truth. We can’t expect them to like it.’

    Instead, as we know, the answer is to consider how to meaningfully present the gospel in the current day and culture. But because so much seems to be lacking, we find ourselves drawing on Gladiator or Dead Poets Society or fantasy fiction or Coldplay, which have no gospel intent to draw upon the eternal longings of others. But we use these to get people interested in something bigger than themselves. But, then, we have to consider the line. Does this mean that every evangelistic event begins with a Coldplay song followed by a heroic clip from Gladiator? Maybe, maybe not. Anyways, I digress.

    Our best attempts are still stories about Esther (One Night With the King) or Fireproof or Left Behind of The Last Disciple. Now, true, much of this can be specifically for Christians, though that could possible be more of a fall back statement if non-Christians are not interested. But, even then, we, as resurrected new creations, are not drawn in to these stories and art forms through the deep longings and recesses of our souls. We are found lacking through them.

    Anyways, I am rambling, but not as long as you did. ;)

    But, in the end, I do want to be constructively critical of our art. But, and you will agree, I want to remain humble. And when I see bad, cheesy stuff, that is hard. And, especially when my brothers and sisters in Christ love that cheesy and bad stuff. It is a tender and difficult issue.

  20. I don’t know. Could be a nice home embedded into the Shire, making us dream of ‘another world’. Makes me long for a quiet holiday away.

  24. Crap art is not art that should be applauded just because it is Christian, in fact the Christian artist should understand better than anyone his relation to God as a creative person and hold himself to a higher standard. Christian artists are not imbeciles that we have to applaud every time they make the smallest effort. They are equally capable of making good films as secular filmmakers, and we are not doing any service to them by letting them away with swill and sucking it back happily.

    They create the banal not because it’s all they can do but because that is what pleases us.

    The problem is that they are trying to make a Christian movie, not a good movie. One ends up precluding the other. Durer made “good” art. Bach made “good” art. However Christians won’t face enough of life to make good art these days. Their view is stilted and so is their work, and as I said in the other thread is equal artistically to pornography, because both begin with a certain intent-and it is not to make art. It is to bring in a certain crowd who may then indulge in some sort of unrealistic fantasy that involves only a small part of the self. Both are pure utilitarianism, using people and the medium as commodities with respect for neither. Both give some empty sense of pleasure through abasement. People laugh, but they do so because this usually has Christian “art” dead to rights.

    This is a statement I think that needs to be made to Christians more often if only to shake them. Your “art” is no better artistically than porn. Your attempts to keep things wholesome and shiny so other Christians will approve are theologically unsound, and make poor films with false ideas.

    I do not and will not applaud efforts that I feel set back art in the Christian world, nor that which presents a “family friendly” alternative. It is pure escapism, just as porn is. Everything appears just about as easily and is as fake as a boob job. People then have equally unrealistic expectations. But the Christian faith is grounded in reality. The REAL. The messy. The painful. Show me the ostensibly “Christian” film that shows this (not that I deny there may be a few out there, but I certainly have never seen one). That is where you will see the gospel truly and powerfully worked out.

    One of our problems I think is that we no longer really know what art is, and therefore have difficulty judging it. This is one of the losses of our culture that Christians should not be on the forefront of. We dislike the decay we see elsewhere, but we embrace this decay wholeheartedly. One would ask why. Why does truly great art often disturb us, cause a protest and turn us back to our banal garbage? This is at least in part the result of our hatred of critical thinking. And such anti-intellectualism is something that several historians have traced back to Christian movements.

    Abstract art is hated by many Christians for the same reason. There is no easy, trite answer in it. Music must have lyrics explicitly stating the song’s Christianity. The film must not have any immorality and include a gospel invitation. The painting must be a representational picture of fuzzy kittens. This makes it easier to swallow wholesale without thinking. Spoonful of sugar and all that.

    We are capable of better.

  25. Just wanted to say stumbled upon this website while looking up Modern Christian Art and love the dialogue and the questions and answers put forth.

    I’m a christian that happens to do art part-time.

    As to the painting above the sofa I do not have any of that type of art in my home and I think in many years down the road if and when my art is looked at.I hope people are going to see and artist struggling with the idea of being caught in this world and how I was trying to break away from being stuck in one place like my gargoyle series is driving at.(Whenever I have mentioned to other christians that I have painted a series of whimsical gargoyles on the sides of buildings they have said “you know gargoyles are evil,scary,” etc… most of my art would be a very hard sell to most if not all churches) but I am trying to engage a conversation with my modern world, and wrestle with being a christian and being artistic, and the issues of are time.

    The other problem with art within the church now a days is that it has to meet with approval of many people therefore almost causing a knee jerk reaction with artist that want to work within the church and be seen as a “christian” art. This then can cause some artist to then create a piece of art that is very “Kitsch” or
    soft, sugary etc…. sometimes this art is fine the only problem is that it becomes the standard and if you try something different from the standard it gets tossed aside to a later time this happens with all forms of art and in every culture not just the christian realm.

  27. Rey,

    No problem with the contribution, thanks for visiting my site and the compliment.

    I did not mention my art for self promotion but just as a reference point and that I understand why some artist just make art and do not try to explain the work.

    I think art is neither christian or secular it all depends on what the person viewing it brings to the table, without all the verbage and writing about a piece of art I wonder if most people would see what the artist is aiming at if not explained I find it ironic that a visual medium has so much writing attached to it.(unless we are talking about sequential art, but thats something else entirely)

    In no other form of art (the visual that is) do people, artist feel the need to write about there intentions or there meanings. I include myself in that group as if me explaining the work helps it along, sometimes I wonder why some of these visual artist do not just become writers.

    The writer… lets say, Hemingway never said my book is about this or that then uses a painting to say this is what is meant.Sorry that all my words got in the way.

    I think great art is being made by artist that are Christian, its just being done under the radar or in small pockets, in communities around the globe.

    Thanks for having a blog like this to discuss such subject matter,also went back and read some of your other post.

    Which makes me ask what are your favorite comicbook stories, issues, and series.

    and favorite art, artist, in the comicbook realm. past or current.