billarnold.typepad.com

Defining God

In How (Not) to Speak to God, Peter Rollins compares God's revelation to a painting, the message of which is "not simple, singular or able to be mastered." (16) Our perspective affects our interpretation of a work of art. The same is true of revelation, which "is not reducible to some clear, singular, scientific formula but rather gives rise to a multitude of commentaries." (16-17) Rollins points out that instead of looking at revelation this way, many Christians treat "the Bible as raw material to be translated into a single understandable meaning rather than experienced as infinitely rich treasures that can speak to us in a plurality of ways." (17)

I understand where Rollins is coming from but wonder about the original intent of a piece of art or scriptural narrative. I suppose some artists merely create without thinking much about the purpose or meaning behind their work. Nevertheless, should we assume that an infinite number of interpretations can be made?

Movies as a Bad Influence

We've been talking a little bit about the importance of movies over at this post. I was wondering how my readers might respond to this question: What movies do you think have been a bad influence on society?

Here are a few I thought of:

I thought that Sin City crossed the line in terms of grotesque violence. People have talked about the cool way that it conveyed the graphic novel feel. I just thought it was yucky. I'm not that easily offended by violence, but I think at some point a film can demean the gift of human life. It seemed to me that the violence had no purpose except to look cool or be shocking.

I didn't see Cruel Intentions, but I did see the movie that it was a remake of, Dangerous Liasons, so I know the basic premise. I have to admit that I enjoyed all of the intrigue in the original. Perhaps this says something about the person I was at the time when I watched the movie, though. The point I want to make is that to tell this same story using teen characters (and thereby marketing it to that crowd) makes the whole thing that much more despicable. I could say the same thing about a lot of teen sex comedies, like American Pie (which I only saw a small portion of).

Another example I thought of is Kids. In case you don't remember this film from 1995, here's the plotline from IMDb:

An amoral, HIV-positive skateboarder sets out to deflower as many virgins as possible while a local girl who contracted his disease tries to save his next target from her same fate.

The reason why I dislike this film is that it claims to be a truthful portrayal of something, but falls short because it doesn't tell the whole truth. I think that "good" art tells the truth and the whole truth. What I mean is that if there is no sense of redemption anywhere in a film—if, for example, the film is basically nihilistic—then it fails one of the tests for good art. That's not to say that a film needs to have some sort of "plan for salvation" in it! My point is that, while I think a good film may very well shake us up or horrify us, it should also give us some sense of hope—some sense of a solution to the problem that is being presented.

My final selection is Look Who's Talking. I think someone needs to stand up and say this once and for all: Babies do not have adult-like, semi-witty inner-monologues! I feel sorry for all of the babies out there who have been made to feel inferior just because they aren't able to think like that. Everyone involved in the making of this movie should be ashamed of themselves.

Chalk Art

Happy Father's Day, everybody! We stayed pretty low key today, but we did go down to the local outdoor mall for a chalk art show. Here are some of the pieces we saw:

Safe Art?

I was listening to our local Christian radio station yesterday and was annoyed at this slogan:

"Safe for your whole family!"

What do you think?  Should safety be a goal for art?

Art as Recreation

Hebrews 12:2 tells us that Jesus "endured the cross" because of the "joy set before him."  Dr. Ryken quotes Norman Geisler, who wrote the following:

God is not a celestial Scrooge who hates to see his children enjoy themselves.  Rather, he is the kind of Father who is ready to say, 'Let us eat and make merry; for this my son was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found' (Luke 15:24). (Norman Geisler, "The Christian as Pleasure Seeker," Christianity Today, 25 September 1975, p.11)

Can there be any doubt that God both enjoys us and has a desire for us to enjoy the good gifts he has given us?  Certainly there are forms of mindless amusement that I think we should question.  Here's my personal laundry list of things that are a waste of time:

1. Soap operas and most "reality TV" shows.
2. Computer solitaire and other mindless games.
3. Pulp fiction such as your average romance novel.
4. Magazines dedicated to the life and times of media personalities.

That's just my opinion and I'm sure other people could think of things I do that are a waste of time.  But I do believe there is a difference between relaxing, recreation, and "vegging."  To "vegetate," the way I define it, is to put mind and body into neutral and let life pass you buy.  It is to simply bide your time.  It is a way to just get through the day.  This mentality, to me, is different from relaxing, "visiting" with people, or particpating in recreational activities.

Dr. Ryken talks about three wrong-headed attitudes that might cause us to look down on the enjoyment of the arts:

1. Asceticism: "denying pleasure is inherently virtuous"
2. "...a distorted work ethic in which only hard work is a legitimate use of time"
3. Scientific Utilitarianism: "scorn for anything that is not useful in mastering the physical world or making money." (Leland Ryken, The Liberated Imagination, p.88)

Dr. Ryken argues that the arts are, at least in part, for our enjoyment or pleasure.  There is nothing unbiblical about this.  There is a positive quality of life that arises from the enjoyment of good music, fine artwork, an imaginitive novel, or a well-conceived movie.  That is not to say that the arts are or should be purely for entertainment.  Robert Frost wrote that a poem "begins in delight and ends in wisdom...It begins in delight...and ends in a clarification of life." (Robert Frost, "The Figure a Poem Makes," in Writers on Writing, ed. Walter Allen, p.22)

Dr. Ryken suggests that Christians have "no adequate theory of leisure and play." (Ryken, p.92)  He believes that this is a stewardship issue.  What part should recreation play in the stewardship of our minds, bodeis and souls?  What part should the arts play in that endeavor?  In my opinion, these are important questions we need be asking.

Artistic Beauty...What's the Point?

Isn't truth more important than beauty?  Aren't facts more useful than a painting or a piece of music?  We often face fals dichotomies when talking about the "usefulness" of art.  Here's a common question:

Shouldn't people generally and Christians especially devote themselves to solving social problems instead of pursuing the arts? (Leland Ryken, The Liberated Imagination, p.83)

If there is truly a need to prioritize such things, we can acknowledge that basic needs of survival should come before artistic considerations.  Dr. Ryken suggests, however, that we are "hardly ever faced with the absolute alternatives of combating social problems or pursuing the arts." (p.83)  Jesus said, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength...and love your neighbor as yourself." (Mark 1:30-31)  I think that if we are to love our neighbors, we ought to love them as a whole person.  Sometimes we emphasize one aspect of the human person over and against the others when carrying out our mandate to love one another.  Yes, we need to feed people, b ut we also need to clothe them.  Will we clothe them with our out of fashion, old rags?  Or will we give them something "beautiful" to wear?  Will we house the homeless in tenement buildings?  Or will we construct housing that will enrich their lives?  Do we think that feeding someone's soul is limited to preaching to them?  Or could feeding peoples' hearts include giving them a song to sing or a photograph of their beautiful children?

I could go on and on with these questions.  Dr. Ryken makes a bold claim:

Many social problems have arisen precisely because our society has not taken the time and expended the energy to be truly artistic and to value beauty. (p.84)

What do you think?

Artistic Beauty

This post continues the discussion about creativity, beauty, and recreation I started yesterday. 

From a purely utilitarian point of view, God did not have to make a world filled with beautiful colors and symmetrical forms and varied textures and harmonious sounds. (Leland Ryken, The Liberated Imagination, p.70-71)

Dr. Ryken is suggesting that God's creative act has both form and function.  He cites various passages that clearly show the concern for beauty in the biblical narrative.

1. The Lord is beautiful. (Psalm 27:4)
2. we can use beauty for good or for evil. (Ezekiel 16:14-17)
3. God wanted the Temple to be beautiful. (Ezra 7:27)
4. God made trees "that were pleasing to the eye and good for food." (Genesis 2:9)

Scripture demonstrates that we do not need to value art only for its usefulness or "ideational content." (Ibid., p.75)  This brings us to an interesting question.  How do we, as Christians, approach the disparagement of beauty (form) in art?

The biblical attitude toward beauty...stands opposed to a movement within contemporary art...that disparages beauty and form in the arts.  At its most extreme, this impulse results in the cult of the ugly and grotesque.  In its milder version, it produces art that deliberately attempts to destroy form in art.

By means of this assault on beauty and form, artists are "making a statement."  But what kind of statement is it?  (Ibid.)

That makes me think of another, different question: Are we sometimes too quick to judge the beauty of artistic expressions from other cultures?  I often wonder how many hymn lovers would think ancient Hebrew worship music was beautiful, for example.  I remember playing some British worship music for a group planning a special service and some commented that it sounded "scary."  The music had a "club" feel that I don't think these people had the cultural experience to understand.  I'm sure I could think of many other examples.  We have to be careful that our cultural bias does not make us jump to conclusions about the form of a work of art!

The Liberated Imagination

The Liberated Imagination, by Leland Ryken, is a great examination of the arts from a Christian perspective.  I was just reminded of it because I was asked by a prospective church to talk about books that have had an impact on my view of worship.  I would like to take the next few days to blog through one of the best chapters, which is entitled "Creativity, Beauty, and Recreation."

Dr. Ryken, who is an English professor at Wheaton College, starts his discussion of creativity in Genesis 1.  "Artists create because God created first," he writes.  God is depicted as the creator of all things and as the One who "saw that it was good."  Abraham Kuyper wrote, "As image-bearer of God, man possesses the possibility both to create something beautiful, and to delight in it." (Abraham Kuyper, Calvinism, p.142)

Some Christians have traditionally had trouble justifying the pursuit of the arts.  The tendency has been toward utilitarianism.  Some act as if art is only "worth it" if it teaches some spiritual truth.  On the contrary, Dr. Ryken insists that "works of art have value because they are imaginitive and creative." (p.69)

This is not to suggest that we cannot pass any judgement on artistic creativity.  Dr. Ryken suggests three standards we should pay attention to:

1. The purpose, or intent, of the artist.
2. The effect it has on its audience.
3. Aesthetic excellence.

I wonder if readers agree with these three categories.  What do you like or dislike about them? 
   

The Perfect Portrait

I was driving by the mall tonight and I passed a van that said something about one of those portrait studios.  I'm not sure what the name of the place was, but it had something like this phrase on it:

"Perfect portraits in one hour!"

We really need to work on this whole concept of perfect in our society.  What do these people mean?  Do they mean it'll be in focus or that the heads of the people won't be cut off?  What are the qualities of a perfect portrait?

I have a feeling that such things do not get produced in an hour, if they're even possible.  Again, I guess it's how you define perfect.  The reason I'm going on about all of this is that it reminds me of a discussion I had about God's creation being perfect.  Brian McLaren has pointed out, in the "The Story We Find Ourselves In," that our notion of perfection has been heavily influenced by the Greeks.  It has become this concept of something that cannot be improved upon.  Therefore, it cannot change really, can it?

Actually, God never said creation was perfect.  He said (or saw) that it was "very good."  This is something we need to think about.  What's the difference between something being very good and perfect?  Maybe perfect can be done in an hour, but I think perhaps very good cannot!

will the real girl with the pearl please stand up

I need to post a correction to my article from June 23rd.  I took a picture of what I thought was "Girl With a Pearl Earring" at the Metropolitan Museum of Art.  Turns out it was actually another painting by Vermeer entitled "Study of a Young Woman."  Shows how much I know.  Click here if you want to see what the actual painting looks like.

At least I know I'm not going crazy anymore.  My wife and I watched the movie the other night and when they showed the finished work I thought to myself, "That's not how I remember it."  I knew there was something fishy going on but didn't do anything about it till this morning.

The movie was pretty good, by the way.  I especially appreciated Scarlett Johansson's performance as the "girl."  Colin Firth was good, I suppose, but I'm getting a little tired of seeing him play every leading male who has a British accent. 

There was some great lighting, including a scene where party guests are arriving by boat.  The scene was apparently shot using only real candlelight.  I was intrigued the lighting of some outdoor scenes, where the girl is walking with the butcher's son.  The shots were all really burnt out (very bright).

Toward the beginning of the film, there was a nice matte painting—a beautiful aerial view of the city.  I wondered what it must be like to put all that time and effort into something that will be seen for a few seconds.  I wonder if I can have that kind of dedication to my art.

Another scene that struck me involved Vermeer asking the girl what color the clouds were.  At first, she automatically says white.  But then she looks closer and thinks about it more.  "Yellow, blue and gray" is her final answer.  I got to thinking about how we are taught to see the world.  Do we just see clouds as being white because that's what somebody told us to think?  What do we miss out on because we don't look closer?  In what ways do we miss reality because we think we already know what's there?

It's kind of like my picture of the wrong painting!