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.
- The Lord is beautiful. (Psalm 27:4)
- we can use beauty for good or for evil. (Ezekiel 16:14-17)
- God wanted the Temple to be beautiful. (Ezra 7:27)
- 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!
Comments