Threatening Art

I'm both pleased and apologetic to be responding again to LivingPalm. I love this dialogue, and the thinking is causing me to do, but I almost feel like I'm cheating because I've not had an original topic on which to expound of late. I'm sure I'll get back to that, but in the meantime, please check out LivingPalms's recent post: Transforming Culture Symposium #4: THE ARTIST. It's a really engaging read.

There's a lot to digest, but a few things things lingering in my mind right now:


Precious Moments.

Those crosses... wow. I feel mean to say so, because I'm sure their creators are well-meaning, but, to me, they are really disgusting. I loved Barbara Nicolosi's description of what art is not. It's a thought I have had many times and never put to paper.

She says about art:

It’s not cute.
It’s not easy.
It’s not banal.
It’s not silly.
It’s not facile.
It’s not sweet.
It’s not non-threatening.

Sometimes I'm listening to the radio and I hear a song written about picking up girls at a bar, or some Christian music with a message that basically says: "be nice to people, cause what goes around comes around." I feel like they are using something very valuable - in this case, music - to say something of very little value. I know I'm not the gatekeeper of what is valuable, and I note with distaste that my reaction has a bit of hubris in it. Be that as it may, my reaction is is not unfounded.

Music is so important to me. It effects me, it has real power to communicate, to enrich, to, as Nicolosi has described, communicate God's own heart. She doesn't put it exactly that way, but I believe I am following the spirit of her thoughts as she describes the artist straining to hear from God in the creative process. If something can, in one setting, communicate something so extremely weighty, can I be blamed for feeling disgust at it's use for stroking one's ego in regard to sexual exploits, or in a somewhat stealthier perversion, using it to assert bumper-sticker slogans as theology?

The second thing I loved was the letter. I have long lamented the church's fall from patron of the arts to refugee of the media. It speaks of that loss that I find myself often in the place to educate people about the fact that the majority of music and art in our history was commissioned by the church! It's understandable that a culture who has seen the church forbid movies and TV and many types of music to be surprised to know that this same church was major force in art for most of our history.

I have long lamented that about-face. I too feel strongly the absence of true representation of the church in our culture. I love this line from Nicolosi: "We are sorry for allowing the entire Christian community to be defined in the popular culture from the outside, by those who do not understand us, or who disdain the Gospel message. From those who might be Christians now, had we presented ourselves and what we believe in a powerful way, we ask forgiveness." How true!!! Has God not gifted his own chosen people to represent ourselves? We have squandered our gifts, and we have oppressed those who tried to make use of theirs. This is shameful.

I'm pleased to be at a church where I believe, while not yet having achieved the ideal, there is a sincere attempt to be a part of the solution to this problem. I too want to claim my own responsibility for this problem. I'm sorry for the state of art in the church, and I'm sorry for my role in it, both actively and passively.

Lastly, I was interested in her description of artists and our responsibility toward them. I'm not sure I buy into it entirely... I haven't processed it yet. Please feel free to weigh in. She talks about the difficulty of the life of an artist. I have artistic tendencies... I'm musical, and I have a bit of that detail obsession - particularly when it comes to communication, which, while not often considered art, feels like art to me. Still, I don't think I'm an artist. I would consider myself an interpreter of sorts... someone who can take art and help to bring it to someone else. I do a similar thing with ideas when I communicate. Perhaps, that is why I have trouble accepting her understanding of this artist/other relationship. I was interested in her research about individuals paired with great artists. Perhaps I need to have more generosity for a person with the "artistic temperament." Perhaps the gruelling process does bring out this traditionally difficult personality. If her points bear out, then, in all honesty, I think I've been impatient, dismissive, ungracious. This one I'll have to mull over.

Comments

OH, you read the prayer!! I'm so thankful. I think that is astounding and felt badly that I could only link it in an already-lengthy post. I was truly hoping people would take the time to do that.
I hear you, Lael, on everything you've said here. I, too, am processing the description of the artist and believe it is crucial to follow her thoughts all the way through to the 'crosses' of the artist. People who allow themselves to be identified by only the first set of descriptors and choose not to embrace the suffering of the remainder of their calling may be artists, but they are not mature. Since the Church stepped out of the picture the stereotype of the raging, brooding, lustful, anti-social, addicted, etc. artist has been glamorized. This is not God's intention. Anyway, I don't know if that helps you process; I just thought I'd throw it into the mix. : )
From one bridge-building artist to another, press on to the prize of God's calling on your life. And, thanks for joining me in the conversation. I am grateful.
ps. I forgot to say that I loved the use of the word "hubris"...
Lael Beckwith said…
I hear what you're saying about the stereotype. I admit, that is some of what I was picturing when I was imagining the "artist." Even beyond that I was comparing art history and music history - the "madness" that sometimes comes along with genius - to my individual experience.

It's a lot easier to feel indulgent when thinking about Van Gogh or Mozart, or Tchaikovsky, than it is when dealing with a contemporary artist. I think this has two sources (beyond cost - let's face it, excusing Van Gogh costs me nothing): Scale and Longevity.

I'm unlikely to interact with an artist of quite the caliber of Tchaikovsky... does this mean they deserve less lattitude?

Of course it's easy to recognize genious in hidsight. It seems, however, that society/individuals is/are rarely able to fully recognize contemporary talent... but does that excuse me from my responsibility?

This is all easy to accept when we take it on the large scale, but there is a lot of risk/discernment involved to apply this to the individual congregation and friendship.

Still processing...
Oh, YES! Discernment is exactly what we need. How does this relationship/support/affirmation look outside the church walls? How does it look within our church family? God's guidelines for living in community are not preferential based on a person's temperment. But at the same time I don't think he leaves us incapable of working alongside someone's temperment to love them toward maturity. I think blasting away the stereotypes is a good place to start, though. And that might include re-thinking some of the legendary stories we tell of some of the "madness" of the artists of the past. sheesh...who wants to sign up for that job?!? [must. stop. writing. but. i. can't!] In the past I might have been tempted to think about that task as taking on a stance of condemnation toward those legendary artists, but now I think I need to learn how to look through a lens that is equal parts grace and truth. Ummm...you got me started on something now that I'll have to get to in a post soon. Thanks, Lael!