by mr willowExhibit A:
The Return of the Prodigal Son by Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn (oil on canvas)
Exhibit B: "Jesus died for my space in heaven" by Kerusso Inc. (Ink on textile fabric)
Call me elitist, but I think one of these exhibits is a better artistic expression of Christianity than the other.
And when it comes to impacting the culture, well, one of these is regarded as a masterpiece of art even by people who don't respond to its message. (If you can't guess which one I'm referring to, look a little harder. You'll get it.)
It seems like whenever you hear Christians talking about art or culture, they're either criticizing it ("There's so much violence in the movies!"), blindly capitulating to it ("I was so edified by this week's episode of
The Sopranos") making lame-brained mediocre knock-offs of other people's art ("Jesus is my American Idol!"), or else wondering aloud why there aren't more Christians making art that impacts the culture in positive ways.
I've always thought there's a better approach. And finally somebody else agrees with me. I found this article in the
Chicago Sun-Times, of all places; once again, religion columnist Cathleen Falsani gives us some food for thought (
full article):
Andy Crouch, a savvy culture watcher and commentator who runs the
Christian Vision Project at
Christianity Today, has a pretty brilliant
idea that's rooted, in some ways, in Shelley's idea of poet as
unacknowledged legislator.
Speaking
at the Catalyst Conference, a gathering of more than 12,000 young
evangelical Christian leaders who run the gamut from very liberal to
uber-conservative, outside Atlanta last weekend, Crouch urged the
religiously minded among us to start thinking about culture making
rather than culture battling.
It's the theme of Crouch's new book,
Culture Making: Recovering Our Creative Calling,
where he traces the pattern of his community's (i.e. evangelical
Christian) engagement with culture (to use the term broadly) over the
last 100 or so years.
Crouch, who for 10 years served as a
campus minister at Harvard University, says Christians first engaged
culture by critiquing it, sometimes viciously. Then they began copying
culture, which explains the emergence of profoundly bad "Christian" pop
music from the mid-'70s until the mid-'90s.
Of late, many
religious folks, Crouch argues, have become blind consumers of culture.
And none of these approaches — critiquing, copying or consuming — will
do anything toward changing the culture for the better. People
of faith need to start earnestly cultivating culture. If you want to
see something good, create it. Or support those who do.
The God
of most religious traditions is a creator. And we, as God's creation,
are called to create as well. It's a divine activity.
Rather than war against each other or the things in culture that we
abhor, we should create what we want to see and put it out there in the
marketplace of ideas. The good, the everlasting and eternal, will rise
to the top.
At last! Somebody gets it! As a composer and writer myself, I've often wondered why more people don't see it as obvious. Sure, it's high time for Christians to stop being mediocre imitators of whatever the secular world happens to be doing. But the way we break out of that cycle is not by saying, "We need to make good art that will impact our culture with the message of Christ." It's by saying, "I want to make good art, period."
Nobody ever made great art by starting with a message and then deciding to draw, write, or compose something that puts it across. (And even fewer people ever made good art by complaining that no good art puts across the message they like.) If you're an artist, you make art because there's something in you that
has to make art, like an itch needs to be scratched or a tickle in your nose needs to be sneezed. And of course, if your art is honest and genuine, your personal beliefs and feelings naturally wind up reflected to some degree in your work. But that's the effect: the cause is the act of artistic creation.
Don't get me wrong; I'm all about giving a positive image of Christ to the world. I just think that the way we do that is not by, say, complaining in print to our Christian brothers and sisters about the dreadful influence that MTV has on society, still less by making an MTV-inspired program for church youth as a "wholesome Christian alternative". We do it by finding Christians who are gifted TV producers, and supporting them as they make quality programming that can beat MTV at its own game on its own playing field. When people want good examples of creative work, shouldn't they look to the work of people who worship the Creator?
In other words, I'd rather see one Christian painter making a painting like
The Return of the Prodigal Son than see a hundred Christians writing pamphlets about why Christians need to impact the culture by making a painting like it. I don't want to see more people making "Christian art"; I want to see more Christians making
good art. We have enough pamphlets – let's get out there and find the artists so we can support them.
Alternately, let's be
the artists. If you don't think God approves of making great art, I really wonder how you explain sunsets.
Do you know of any examples of Christians who are producing good quality artwork? How can Christians encourage people to use their artistic gifts?
Comments (28)
The question is whether or not Rembrandt's painting of the prodigal son "impacts our culture with the message of Christ."
Do you think that it doesn't?
Hear, hear! This has been one of my soapboxes for years, and I am glad to read your and Falsani's sentiments.
@sirnickdon - That is really not the question at all, and based on what I know of him, it is not the question Rembrandt asked himself before beginning on this or any of his paintings.
One's worldview and faith are BOUND to come through on any work of art they produce; it does not, indeed ought not, to be some contrived attempt to "influence the culture for Christ." It ought instead be an honest and earnest attempt to express oneself, whether it be a photograph of a leaf, or whether it be a depiction of the Prodigal Son returning to his home. Your faith will inevitably and subliminally embed itself in your artistic works, just as C.S. Lewis' and J.R.R. Tolkien's did in theirs.
Well said. I am a composer, poet, and singer. I may not be a Christian, but I have felt for a long time like "christian" pop culture often is badly made. Songs in church use the same chords and scales over and over again and it drives me crazy. To me, art is about creating beauty, not trying to get a message across. And I agree with you that one's personal beliefs naturally come out in our art, even if we don't try to make it happen. It just seems more genuine if you start with the art and let the message speak for itself rather than thinking, "ok, I need a song that says this." That's a surefire way to make it sound forced.
you should check out Makoto Fujimura.
I definitely agree with you here, especially how Christianity tries to provide a "Christian alternative" to every secular thing known to mankind. I remember a while ago, Revelife posted a bunch of "Christian versions" of different popular products. While I think it is really funny how the Christian market tries to copy these things, it is also very sad to think about.
I agree with the perspective of this post. I think many ideologues create art to promote their cause. I know I've certainly written some bad poems trying to make points that would have been more appropriate in an essay.
Eudora Welty in On Writing has a chapter on writing that addresses these issues entitled, "Must the Novelist Crusade?"
ooh! Read Roaring Lambs. It's a good book that talks about this subject.
Good article and it is quite true. With that idea, you might want to check out www.art4god.com specifically look at his "Calvary" paining. It really is thought provoking. Everyone I have shown my little copy of it to has either loved it or hated it.
That T-shirt isn't exactly what I would call "art." Then again, I don't think you need the artistic skills of Michelangelo or Rembrandt to be considered an artist, either.
The first example is definitely something that took a lot of effort to do. In the case of Rembrandt, we see an illustration of a classic parable; it is the artist's way of honoring the story and its lessons. He paints the image he sees when he thinks about the story to help convey it to others so that they may understand it as well. Good artwork.
The second example is just a statement. It's not art, it's just a phrase playing on a current trend to try to sell something to Christians. There's no thought here except for marketability. I was going to say "bad artwork," but I don't even think it qualifies as artwork.
@SecretNeverTold@xanga - @sirnickdon - For both of our sakes, I'm fixing a grammatical error here: I said, "One's....they..." Obviously those two pronouns do not match. It should be: "One's...he/she..." or along those lines.
@EccentricSiren@xanga -
I know what you mean. As a musician myself, I find that most church songs are relatively simple compared to secular music. Perhaps the reason why its like that is because secular music are designed to be listened to, whereas church songs are designed for people to sing along to.
Perhaps the reason why church songs use the same chord progressions and scales is because they're easier to sing to?
Not everyone is musically and vocally gifted enough to be able to sing more complex songs.
I'm not a professional, so my analysis might not be right though.
I personally dislike those "catch phrase" slogans that people wear on their shirts and stick on their bumpers. I've never seen anyone convinced about the Christian faith through those. In fact, some of the might be unintentionally offensive.
For example, in response to the slogan "Real men love Jesus", some men said, "What? If I don't love Jesus, that means I'm not a man?"
I'm a musician, so I can probably say more on the music side of things. I think I get the gist of what you're trying to say there. Some megachurches and Christian artists churn out music like a production line in a factory... just for the sake of it. Of course, there may be real stories behind each song composed and I'm not denying the usefulness of such songs for usage in church.
What I'm lamenting is that often these songs "come and go". We do the songs in church, get sick of it after a while and long for more new songs. I'd rather see songs that are more "classic" that lasts and lives on as classics. Think of songs like "Amazing Grace" which has stood the test of time... amongst Christians and non-Christian alike!
Perhaps its a maturity issue, where the Christian grows and becomes more aware of his/her role in this world. Maybe there are stages of self-awareness to this maturity:
1. Living "worldly"
2. Resisting the "worldly stuff"
3. Living the "alternative Christian lifestyle"
4. Creating something new and changing the world
I understand and agree with these critiques for the most part, but whenever I hear a critique of Christian art or music (as a worship leader/songwriter, that's my passion), I want to ask "What have you made that's better than what you're criticizing?"
I mean it's easy to say Christian art sucks, and I've thought many times "man, these G-C-D-Em songs sure get old" or "this phrase appears in 50% of our worship songs," but until I consistently put out better art, I'm hesitant to criticize.
Although I agree that Christian products stealing logos and making a Christian 'parody' is awful. These companies spend millions of dollars to create a recognizable brand, and Christians simply 'steal' all their work by making a parody, instead of coming up with something original. It's one thing to make art that sucks, it's another to not even try and simply copy someone else.
I like a lot of the prophetic art here @ Bethel Church.
The best artists tend to converge where the money is; that's just a fact of life. Attracting them will require funding first and foremost.
I don't necessarily agree that great art doesn't start with a message; Rembrandt's painting does have a message, but it's above all a human message that can be understood whether you're a Christian or not. That's what makes it a great work of art.
Then a philosopher entered the room and asked:
"What is art?"
---
I agree with the essential premise that trite crap is, in fact, trite crap. However, there are some especially trite persons who require it in order to understand the concept that is, however poorly, portrayed.
I want to stress "however poorly."
Everything that is said or shown is ultimately done poorly; can any truly satisfactory definition be given for something, even if it is understood perfectly well? Take a chair for example. Can a definiton be formulated that excludes everything that isn't a chair, but includes everything that is?
Since all of language (and more to the point, Art) is but a crude gesture at the true meaning of a thing, what sort of valuation are you asking for us to place on trite crap that we shouldn't also place on profound crap?
I agree with you of course, I'm just getting to the point-behind-the-point that I gathered you were gesturing at, though you might not have realized it.
Here it is:
Ethics is Aesthetics.
Good entry and good article. I agree. We are "talking" a lot, but not doing much. At least at a widespread level.
I think Churches could do somethings in comissioning some works of art. I think there are those of us who seek to do art, but not sure "what or how."
I used to attend a church that was in an "artist" community and build the church to allow for works to be shown (approved by the church in that they were appropriate) and be a part of the art hop nights where people could come and see the art and hang out.
"There was a time when the
church was very powerful—in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at
being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days, the church
was not merely a thermometer that recorded ideas and principles of popular
opinion; it was thermostat that transformed the mores of society" (Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.).
@SecretNeverTold@xanga - I don't know. I'm part of that pansy, liberal, minority school of thought that assumes in advance that within fifty years or so, 'they' will be used freely as a singular or plural pronoun, so we may as well incorporate it now.
amen, fellow artist. ;]
Agreed. Shirts like that make me cringe. As a designer, my cheezy-radar is rather acute. A bad parody is a bad parody, whether Christian or not, but when it's supposed to have that "alternative" Christian message, it's even worse. We need to be original, not just poor copies of a culture we're trying to counter.
However, I must disagree with the statement, "Nobody ever made great art by starting with a message and then deciding
to draw, write, or compose something that puts it across." That's really the definition of graphic design and advertising. It's all about communicating a pre-formed message appropriately. (Granted, a lot of ads and designs in this world are pretty crappy, but a good professional designer can make almost anything beautiful.)
@NoHeroesForTomorrow@xanga - sometimes products (such as guitar hero) are awesome games, but often have objectionable content. So, "Christian" versions of the products are created so people can enjoy the basic idea without being subject to things they find offensive.
Amen
Great art is truthful, or at least the closest approximation to truth that the artist can create. I've heard songs written by nonbelievers that were far more truthful and penetrating than many, many songs written by Gospel music performers; "The Eve of Destruction," "Dust in the Wind," for instance. (Both of those guys became believers shortly thereafter, by the way. Unfortunately, their "Gospel" songs were rarely as penetrating as their earlier music.)
I went to a Larry Norman concert in the early 80s in Kansas City. The warmup band was called Witness, and their big song was "All I Ever Want to Do is Praise Jesus." I remember listening to it and thinking, "That's certainly not true for me. I don't know if I even want it to be true, to be honest." Then Larry came out and sang his gut-wrenching songs about painful human experience, like "Pardon Me," which included these lyrics:
Pardon me, kissing you like I'm afraid
But I feel I'm being played…
Close your eyes, and pretend that you are me
See how empty it can be
Making love if love's not really there
Watch me go, watch me walk away alone
As your clothing comes undone
And you pull the ribbon from your hair...
The artist's worldview will show in his or her art. At the Art Institute of Chicago, I walked into the Impressionists gallery, and my breath was literally taken away by Renoir's painting of two sisters (On the Terrace). It was glorious, exuberant with color. I spent fifteen minutes just staring at it. As I looked around at the rest of his paintings, I realized, "This guy has a really cheerful view of life!" His work reflected optimism and a deep affection for most of his subjects.
Etchings by Rembrandt were also on display at the Institute. I was fascinated to learn that Rembrandt was delighted by the effects of deterioration of the etchings. The scratches and hazing that appeared as the plates were repeatedly used added new and unpredictable textures to the prints.
Much so-called "Christian art" is tawdry in comparison: nature photos with captions, kitschy paintings full of heavy-handed symbolism or moralism, cute songs composed of catch phrases.
Obviously, Hollywood also produces much art that is untruthful. Oliver Stone's JFK, for instance, includes blatant distortions of history. The Lord of the Rings movies departed from Tolkien's storyline where Peter Jackson and the actors didn't understand the characters' motivations because they didn't share Tolkien's worldview. And I've rarely seen a movie portrayal of a missionary that is anything like the many missionaries I have known.
A true artist is painfully honest. Depictions of gut-level wrestling with doubt have far more impact than kitsch and slogans that gloss over fears and struggles. God didn't make a mistake by including in the Bible the book of Ecclesiastes and the very dark Psalm 88, which ends with: "You have taken my companions and loved ones from me; the darkness is my closest friend."
The first is art.
The second is an idiotic pop-culture reference that caters to the crowd of "hipster" elitist Christians who have to flash their "Christian pride" everywhere for some feeling of betterness because they're promoting Christ.