![]()
"Christianity and Culture" Monthly
Column
August 2011 -- Purpose of Art: Part Eight
back to Charlie's Lookout essays
|
Purpose of Art: Part Eight: Judging Art by Experience Last month I began discussing how we can tell good art from bad art? First we should judge art based on whether or not we view it in a way which glorifies God—are our hearts in the right place? Then we should judge art based on whether or not we like it—is it appealing to our imaginations’ sense of beauty? But our enjoyment of art can be both mis-trained and improved so that we might like things we shouldn’t but can also learn to like things we should. This month we continue to talk about how we know whether art is good or bad. Experience Good
art shows rather than says. It’s not preachy or teachy. It doesn’t
have a moment when it says, “And the lesson I’m trying to teach
you is….” The great biblical example of this approach is in the
last few chapters of the book of Job. When God finally appears to
reply to Job’s demand for an audience with Him, God never once tells
him about the cosmic conflict between God and Satan in Job chapter
one. He never explains where Job’s suffering came from. God just
recites poetry about Himself. He paints a picture of His glory in
relation to the creation of the Earth and all things in it. And
the longer He speaks, the more Job understands till Job concludes, Honest Experiences Though I have said good art should entertain us, I don’t want to end there. Art that entertains isn’t necessarily also good. Let’s take an action film with a revenge plot as an example. There’s something very satisfying in a movie where an outnumbered out-gunned hero whose life has been destroyed by his enemies takes revenge on and defeats everyone of them. But from such films we get little more than the emotional satisfaction of our simplest sense justice. Our school yard cries of “That’s not fair!” are placated, but any understanding of justice tempered by mercy, or of our need to forgive our enemies and surrender our desire for vengeance to God, is not to be found. The experience is a bit dishonest. We might even say it’s there to feed a lust rather than a desire. This doesn’t mean the movie is automatically immoral. If it doesn’t pretend to be anything other than an afternoon “escape to the movies,” a blockbuster intended for the sole purpose of entertaining our simplest tastes, then so be it. Eat some popcorn, have fun, and be aware of the artistic limits of the film. Die Hard gives us a rollick, but Gladiator, which certainly includes a revenge theme, both entertains and gives us an honest experience by raising questions which aren’t easy to answer, by treating characters as human beings and not caricatures (which often happens with villains in a story), and by presenting a picture of noble heroism. Do I Mean Realism? I’ve
used the phrase “honest experience” because I don’t want to confuse the idea
with what is called “realism.” Those who say good art should be realistic tend
to dismiss any supernatural or fantasy elements in a story. They also tend to
dismiss happy endings, something which God promises to us—and that’s very real.
The Lord of the Rings puts us through an honest experience by giving us glimpses
of the heavenly reality through the glory of a magical, fantastic world. Conversely,
art which is honest in its portrayal of evil and ugliness, so long as it doesn’t
end in saying these are all there is to life—movies like Schindler’s List or
The Passion of the Christ, for example—such art is also good, even if it’s hard
to watch. The torture of the cross was not visibly beautiful, but there is a
glory to the sacrifice of Christ on the cross (read Isaiah 53 and 2 Corinthians
4:4-6 together) which we should neither ignore nor fear. |