Posted by fieldfinearts 05th 2007 August
Categories: Art & Design, Culture
Are art and beauty synonymous?
Are art and beauty synonymous from the Christian perspective? – that is the question. It is a commonly-held view amongst Christians that art has to be beautiful. Interestingly, Jon Thatcher, bassist to Delirious, said as much in his interview published in the latest edition of the Veritasse Magazine –“Art is always about creating something beautiful. I wonder if it is heretical to challenge this point of view?
Can paintings of the crucifixion ever be ‘beautiful’? They may be extraordinarily well painted with exquisite brush strokes and a perfect balance of colour and form. But the Crucifixion scene is of an ‘accursed tree’ and a tortured death.
Picasso’s Guernica and Goya’s ‘The Executions of the Third of May 1808’ are accepted as great art, they are wonderfully executed, but their subject matter is war and man’s inhumanity to man. Is Macbeth great art? It deals with witchcraft, murder and betrayal.
I believe Christians who are artists (I am uneasy with the term ‘Christian Artist’) have an opportunity, perhaps a responsibility, to comment on the human condition – to counter the argument of the ‘ascent of man’. Each picture may not be beautiful. Beauty has been helpfully defined as “ .. that which in a work of art, lifts us up heavenward, that which transforms or transfigures our souls if only for a moment towards a glimpse of the greatest truth, that is God”*. Each individual picture may not be beautiful, but taken as a whole I concede, the work of an artist who is a Christian, should focus on redemption not on the fallen state of humanity. In other words it should strive for beauty. That ‘whole’ will encompass the life’s work but also the balance of works in an exhibition. Never the less, to restate my case, there is a place for darkness and light in our art – for social commentary and the Grace of God. Discuss!
Jo Field
*p.49, Dawtry and Irvine, Art and Worship, SPCK, 2002
August 5th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Somehow my posting was clipped. Here is the rest of it.
But the Crucifixion scene is of an ‘accursed tree’ and a tortured death.
Picasso’s Guernica and Goya’s ‘The Executions of the Third of May 1808’ are accepted as great art, they are wonderfully executed, but their subject matter is war and man’s inhumanity to man. Is Macbeth great art? It deals with witchcraft, murder and betrayal.
I believe Christians who are artists (I am uneasy with the term ‘Christian Artist’) have an opportunity, perhaps a responsibility, to comment on the human condition – to counter the argument of the ‘ascent of man’. Each picture may not be beautiful. Beauty has been helpfully defined as “ .. that which in a work of art, lifts us up heavenward, that which transforms or transfigures our souls if only for a moment towards a glimpse of the greatest truth, that is God”*. Each individual picture may not be beautiful, but taken as a whole I concede, the work of an artist who is a Christian, should focus on redemption not on the fallen state of humanity. In other words it should strive for beauty. That ‘whole’ will encompass the life’s work but also the balance of works in an exhibition. Never the less, to restate my case, there is a place for darkness and light in our art – for social commentary and the Grace of God. Discuss!
Jo Field
*p.49, Dawtry and Irvine, Art and Worship, SPCK, 2002
August 10th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
I suppose the short answer is “Art” may be painful and you DON’T want to look at it.
” Beauty” makes you gasp a different way and you DO want to look at it.
But they actually can combine!!!
It is a Friday afternoon !!!
August 11th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
It is an interesting statement “Beauty has been helpfully defined as “ .. that which in a work of art, lifts us up heavenward, that which transforms or transfigures our souls if only for a moment towards a glimpse of the greatest truth, that is God”*. Each individual picture may not be beautiful, but taken as a whole I concede, the work of an artist who is a Christian, should focus on redemption not on the fallen state of humanity”. If we do not consider the fallen state of man we will struggle to bring him to the one who can bring him/her to a redemptive state. I believe if we are to create paintings as a means of getting the gospel accross then we must show sin for sin and salvation for the gloriouse truth that it is. By all means paint the crucifixtion but do not stop at the cross move to the empty tomb and the risen Glorious Christ. We are called however also to whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely whatever is of good report….. so clearly there is a place for both. The difficulty as i see it is to accurately portray what we have not seen!!! And so we have to resort back to the living word which is able to quicken and inspire us beyond that which we are able. so as to visually exhort and encourage those looking at our works of art to look higher even than this and to desire to see and know the one who has gifted and inspired us Our creator and redeemer.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:16 am
I don’t think that beauty be part of the definition of art. As Joseph and Shoshona say some art makes you want to look away because it confronts you with an uncomfortable and unpalatable truth. Artists definitely need to address the fallen state of the world in their work, whilst somehow avoiding being voyeuristic. I agree that the fruit of the Spirit should be a key characteristic of a Christian’s whole body of work.
August 15th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
This is leading to the “Beauty” debate which is difficult. Yes the crucifixion can be beautiful if you think what it achieved. Christ’s death opened heaven. What can be more beautiful? Sacrifice in the world today is beautiful. When I give something up for someone else then their is an aspect of beauty “transfered”, we can benefit others. How this relates to Damien Hirst’s dead shark again makes us ask the beauty question. Is death beautiful? Is Hirst onto something? Is he showing us someting as ugly as death to question the beauty of life? As a Christian how should we react?
August 16th, 2007 at 11:12 am
Mmm! We are getting into some profound issues concerning art and Christianity. I am afraid that I find it very difficult to see sacrifice as beautiful - it raises within me pain and deep sadness, even wonder, that particular circumstances ‘required’ that sacrifice. It is a thing of beauty that has been taken away in a fallen world.
Damien Hirst’s dead shark reminds me of the wondeful intricacy of created beings but also of mortality - the inevitability of death - it is a statement of hopelessness.
For me the beauty is in the empty cross - God’s plan of salvation achieved - Christ who endured the physical pain but also the unimaginable pain of separation from God the Father died for me but is risen with a promise that I shall rise too.
August 31st, 2007 at 1:23 pm
We see things physically because of contrast. There is a contrast between light and dark. In the same way, we see and understand spiritually because of contrast. We can’t really understand the amazing things that God has done for us, unless we are aware of how far we have fallen from his perfect standards. Artists can cause people to reflect on how things actually are (the pain, suffering etc) and can draw them towards the beauty and completeness of God.
August 31st, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Thanks Sue - I agree with that. Of course we all look forward to The Day when there won’t be any contrast - no darkness only light.
September 3rd, 2007 at 9:01 pm
That really will be beautiful!!
September 5th, 2007 at 10:56 am
I couldn’t understand some parts of this article , but I guess I just need to check some more resources regarding this, because it sounds interesting.
September 16th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Daniel, I bought a copy of ‘Art and Soul’ by Brand and Chaplin at Greebelt. I have just found the time to begin reading it and it covers the subject we have been discussing very well. It is an IVP Academic published by Piquant. I would recommend it.
September 26th, 2007 at 2:22 am
Remember our concept of beauty is shaped and formed by our culture and inparticular our media. Certainly this has been molded by our artistic traditions - but the worldview of these traditions needs to be challenged by our artists. As much as I like Michaelangelo I need to be wary of his aesthetic. I need to be on guard against an eighteeth century enlightenment that produced the “Beauty” of the pre-Raphaelites and the Holman Hunt images of Jesus we so closely associate as “Christian”.
Here is a test of your concept of beauty. Next time you are in public stop and look at the faces of the people passing by. Then say to yourself “That person is beautiful” Think on them as grand parent, characters weathered by age, people who are loved by others and importantly loved by God. Continue to say that person is beautiful, stop look that person is beautiful and enjoy the diversity and richness of the people you see. Soon you will find that the mask of deceit of our media falls apart. You will find yourself looking at a world of the characters in a Piet Brugal painting.
Then you will understand that we are not to call anthing God has made unclean. Or in this case ugly. It is Time to see with God’s eyes.
September 26th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
I am afraid this doesn’t work for me Russel. If, as I believe, Creation has been tainted by sin, as we look around us we shall certainly see beauty but also ugliness. This is what God sees. To deny this seems to me to deny the need for redemption. If all around us there is only beauty if we look hard enough, why did Christ have to die? Amongst the people we meet in the street (excuse my caricatures) will be the snarling yob, the arogant toff, the self righteous church goer (Jesus called Pharisees ,whitewashed tombs’) and the manipulative child. God has room in His heart for all of them - but they do need redemption. I continue to argue that the artist who is a Christian needs to show the world as it is - but also highlight the opportunity for redmption.
I don’t think that we need to subscribe to the philosophy of an artist to enjoy their work or accept it as great art. This applies to poets, painters and pianists!
October 12th, 2007 at 8:01 am
Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that the surd of sin, or the impact of sin is not evident on the very corpuscles of our faces. Bruegel’s world was full of sinners also. I am sure God hates the sin and loves the sinner more than we are capable of. This does not preclude Him from sovereign judging of sinner who sin. The world of our media has taught us to see beauty as at a skin level only. This is the point I was making but I was also challenging our Christian worldview that sees beauty as a similar or same beauty. Does not the super models face scream sin as much as the snarling yob? If it doesn’t then perhaps more so our bias’s are wrong. Some of the most godly people I know look like they are fallen from a Bruegel painting, and would without knowing the person be seen as a felonious Fagan. Your characters are indicative though as sin is seen in character expressed. Christian artists must be honest about the state of the world and sin and the hope of redemption. At one level there is an individual verses communal or broad view conflict embedded in this little debate we are having. I am calling Christians to see individuals as images of God no matter how marred by sin, thus definite candidates for individual redemption. At the same time Christians must be calling into account the suffering of the whole creation awaiting the redemption of the children of God.
But on the level of art and not seeing art and beauty as synonymous for Christian artists I am sure I agree with you> But I am also sure the general Christian public don’t see it this way. Just look at the stuff that sells in the average Christian bookshop.
This comes back to perceiving and discerning worldviews. I can enjoy appreciate and at times idolize the great painters, musicians and poets such as Pollock, DeKooning, Mozart, Caravaggio, Sutine and Keats but this does not mean I subscribe to their philosophy. As Christian artists we need to be wiser that Solomon here. But it is much easier to caught out by beauty as its classically or mass media defined.
October 12th, 2007 at 10:17 am
Dear Russell,
We do keep an eye on posts and edit spellings if necessary to meaning.
Admin
December 6th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Oh my, then I’m sure to draw many frowns from editors. I’m a terrible speller! ack. Well I have an interesting story that I hope will apply to this delima. I live far away in America so I don’t think it will cause any trouble to tell it.
Recently, a church that I had donated two pieces of art to, contacted me to tell me that they no longer wished to keep the crucifixion. The other painting was of the ressurection; they still wanted it. Apparently this debate was brought on by a new pastor who said that because Jesus was no longer hanging on the cross, people did not need to remember the ugliness of His suffering. (I felt this to lay fertile ground work for human pride. But, what do I know, I’m only a painter.)
I told the committee members to tell the pastor that believer’s can’t have a ressurection without a crucifixion. This is the story of Jesus’ life. If God had ment for us to only see the beautiful aspects of Christ’s life, then why did God allow the retelling of Jesus’ death in the four gospels? Well, I told the committee that I was only following the lead of the scriptures in sharing the truth of God’s blessed Son’s life. They didn’t care for my opinion apparently and took both artworks down. I retrieved them and prayed someday God would use them for His glory again. I don’t know if He ever will though. These hung for three years prior; I’m speechless about it all. (except for this blog, I guess.)
I’ve always thought the crucifixion was beautiful because of Christ’s deep love shown on that cross for me. I can imagine that many other people don’t share my opinion, though.
December 6th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
Hello Kathy,
I can understand how upset you were by this rejection. I think that the response of the new pastor fits into the historical context of the reformation in Europe and the attitude of the reformers to Christian art. The empty cross was accepted as an abstract symbol for the Christian faith but the crucifix was seen as a symbol of the hated roman catholicism - it was thought that depictions of the crucified Christ, Mary and the Saints were venerated in an idolatrous way. I cannot think of any strongly evangelical churches in the UK that I have visited that had a crucifix on display. I struggle in this area myself and that is one of the reasons I choose to work in abstract.
It is important to be true to oneself. If you feel comfortable with your art stick at it. I am sure some other church will be glad to hang your pictures.
Best wishes,
Jo
December 8th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Thanks for the kind words Joseph, I’m still a little speechless.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:24 am
On the subject of the crucifixion, it is amazing how popular Aidan Meller’s “It is finished” is with art buyers at conferences such as Spring Harvest. (For those who don’t know the picture, you can see it on his on-line gallery.) I am quite sure that at least some of them have ended up in church buildings!
I agree with Kathy that the crucifixion and the resurrection need equal focus. To concentrate on one and ignore the other is a dangerous road to go down.
Maybe our tendency to cover over the crucifixion comes in part from the tendency of our culture to avoid talking about death at all costs. (This is true in the UK, but may be different in other countries.) Newspapers report the facts surrounding deaths in graphic detail, but you try talking to someone on a personal level about death and what it means and you are in a completely different territory. Death for many people is the ultimate ugliness- and definitely not the subject for art!
December 30th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
I don’t think I can paint beauty or beautiful paintings. Not sure I want to.
January 18th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
What is beauty? Is it only in the eye of the beholder?
Sometimes collective ideas of beauty are iniquitous, as with ’size zero’ in the fashion industry and the way in which that perception of beauty pressurises people into anorexia and bulimia.
One of the fascinating things about contemporary art is the way in which it often finds beauty in the throw-away, the ready-made, the hidden or disregarded e.g. Martin Creed’s Work No. 88 - a crumpled ball of paper. In a culture of detritus, “American Beauty” screenwriter Alan Ball uncovers heartbreaking beauty in garbage with a scene in which a crummy old plastic bag floats in the wind above a dirty sidewalk.
My friend, Alan Stewart, in his ‘Icons or Eyesores’ presentation on spirituality in contemporary art shows people a photo of a sepia-tinged crucifix. Most people quite like it until they are told that it is ‘Piss Christ’ by Andres Serrano and that the crucifix is submerged in the artist’s urine. Serrano has said that the image is about the commercialisation of religious iconography (a critique of Christian kitsch!) but Alan sees it as a depiction of the incarnation, with God coming into the detritus and waste of human life, and that, it seems to me, is profoundly beautiful.
February 26th, 2008 at 12:46 am
I can imagine how controversial the crucifix you mentioned would be, Jonathan! I am not sure how I respond to it at all!
Beauty is such a difficult thing to define. Even if you look at something universally accepted as beautiful, such as a rose, it is almost impossible to draw a definition of beauty out of it. Beauty can have different colours, forms, textures, proportions……….. the list goes on. Not only that,but it is different to different people, or even to the same person at a different time!
Jo mentioned this definition of beauty - “ .. that which in a work of art, lifts us up heavenward, that which transforms or transfigures our souls if only for a moment towards a glimpse of the greatest truth, that is God”
That sounds hopeful, but I’m not sure if it always holds true. I really like ceramics (looking, not making!) I have looked at a well proportioned elegant vase with exquisite colouring and thoroughly appreciated its beauty without any reference to God at all. What do you all think?
March 18th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
As Christians we are called to love – unconditionally without judgement .In looking with integrity through eyes that truly love it is difficult to understand what beauty isn’t .As artists there is a constant pressure to paint ‘beautiful’ pictures and therefore define beauty or be a commercial flop! I am constantly battling to produce ‘pretty pictures’ but it never works – my paintings tell stories are thought provoking and engaging but I cannot claim they are pretty! I feel that my work is led by the Holy Spirit and therefore must conclude that there is beauty in whatever you can find love in and that should be in all things -the mere act of painting if it is done with integrity.
The only common point we have with all people regardless of their conditioning or culture is love and therein we find beauty
March 21st, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Hello Becky,
Thanks for contributing to the discussion. I keep thinking that the discussion is at an end - then someone adds a further comment and a further prompt to clarify my own ideas.
I think one needs to be cautious about claiming one’s work to be led by the Holy Spirit as that would make any criticism of it heretical! I do hope and believe that my work is inspired by the Holy Spirit in terms of the themes I follow - but I am also aware that some of my work is only fit for the bin. That’s my fault not Gods’ fault.
I would give up your battle to produce ‘pretty’ pictures. ‘Pretty’ is defined as ‘Beautiful in a dimunitive or trivial way’. Surely that’s not what an artist should be about.
Christians are called to love - they are also called to mourn - mourn for a world and humanity despoiled by sin. Today, Good Friday, is a reminder of that. Blessed are they that mourn. I don’t understand your comment that ‘In looking with integrity through eyes that truly love it is difficult to understand what beauty isn’t’. Many of our brothers and sisters in Christ in various countries around the world are being persecuted for their faith - isn’t this a legitimate subject for the artist who is a Christian? Where is the beauty in it?
Raising awareness, challenging, informing, prompting concern, grief, repentence - these are all subject areas that we should not shy away from. Then there are the times of dryness or desolation or bewilderment and anger. The Psalms are wonderful poems, the Psamists use words and phrases to technical perfection; the Psalms are beautiful in that sense (we can liken this to the visual artist’s skills with colour and technique)- but the subject matter of the Psalms ranges from fulness of praise to cries of desolation: “Eli Eli lema sabachthani” (Psalm 22:1).
So, sorry, I find myself disagreeing with much of what you have written. But I don’t claim infalibility! And I too, at times, falteringly try to reflect a little of the beauty of God’s wonderful creation in my own work.
Best wishes,
Jo
March 24th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Hi Jo
Thanks for your thought provoking reply. It has kept me thinking and clarifying what in my faith and painting I can truly stand by. I am a person who through my experience of faith has settled upon an incongruent freedom within it and I do appreciate that this sometimes sits uneasily with traditional Christian thinking and indeed my own. As my spiritual director once said ‘you could nail your colours firmly to the fence’! I hope in writing my thoughts down I have not sounded infallible for quiet the reverse is true – my relationship with God is a constant river of questions and babbling of working outs!
I once read a book that said that everything we do regardless of good intention is entirely selfish. Initially I was angry at this but came to the understanding that this was indeed true for all of us. By ‘Integrity’ I mean looking with a naked truth at intention as an equal failure in stepping truly outside of my social conditioning etc to love unconditionally. Understanding that each human being is a product of history, social influence and culture to name but a few for me is an integral part of understanding that part of others and me that I can strive to love unconditionally. The part that Christ died for and gave us such a humbling example. I know that whilst I do not achieve this that striving to see the humanity that Christ died for is important be it aesthetically beautiful or not. We are indeed called to mourn but rather our shortfall in embracing love than in sadness at perceived sin. A minister once pictured Gods view of sin for me by saying they saw it less as condemnation and more as a weeping. I find that when painting these are the themes that are on my heart.
Whichever way I look at it I can’t see how it is wrong to claim to be led by the Holy Spirit? Would you expand a bit on that for me? When I paint I experience a ‘bliss’ that is only a kin to meditation /spiritual experiences I have in other ways. My constant prayer and drive is to make my highly inadequate skill adequate to reflect what God wants me to. It is the reason I strive to create something better than myself. Although on one of my earlier exhibitions I felt the normal prayer, offering to God of my pieces could be bypassed and that my own skill would be enough – how wrong I was! Let us just say it was painted over after much prayer and humbling thought! I believe the Holy Spirit through Gods grace lives in me constantly and that when I remember this and acknowledge that I am led by God? This certainly does not mean that it has to be perfection however it does mean, for me, that I must strive with the afore mentioned integrity.
I think it is my job ,I cannot speak for other artists, to paint were I am led by the Holy spirit and to find the truth, integrity , Love or beauty – call it what you will in what ever or wherever that leads me. Aesthetic beauty is just another point of view as is the more commercial ‘pretty’! At this point it is worth pointing out that I found your work even before joining veritasse to be a refreshing view point and aesthetically pleasing in my opinion!!
Thank you for your thought and for challenging my babbling opinion! I look forward to you reply
Much love
becky
March 25th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Hello again Becky - challenging stuff this!
First it might be helpful to explain where I am coming from theologically should it not be obvious. I would describe myself as a conservative evangelical - I think my theology is orthodox but one of my artist friends with whom I exhibit says my ideas are “a bit odd”! I will leave you to decide.
I would say that God loves the sinner but hates the sin. I use the word ‘hate’ intentionally. It is much much stronger than the weeping suggested by the minister you refered to. I think wrath is the appropriate word. The New Bible Dictionary defines wrath as “The permanent attitude of the holy and just God when confronted by sin and evil is designated his ‘wrath’”. And then: “It is a personal quality, without which God would cease to be fully righteous and his love would degenerate into sentimentality”.
I think it is right that we as artists should point to the wonders of this world that God has created, to his love for us and to the ways in which we reflect his love to one another. However I think that it is also the role of the Christian artist (should they be so inspired) to highlight the inequalities and injustices of this world and to challenge people to respond - repentance, sacrificial giving, social action, prayer ….. Personally I don’t feel that the serious artist should be engaged in producing ‘pretty’ work unless it is essential to earn a crust and even then it should be done in such a way that it doesn’t compromise them.
Regarding inspiration of the artist by the Holy Spirit - I have been struggling with this. Where I have arrived is that other Christians who view the work should exercise discernment - in a similar way to which the Church is expected to discern whether or not a tongue or a prophecy is from God.
Here is a section of commentary on 1 Corinthians 12: “If we have any knowledge of the truth, or any power to make it known, we must give all the glory of God. The greater the gifts are, the more the possessor is exposed to temptations, and the larger is the measure of grace needed to keep him humble and spiritual; and he will meet with more painful experiences and humbling dispensations. We have little cause to glory in any gifts bestowed on us, or to despise those who have them not”.
I hope this is helpful.
Best wishes,
Jo
March 26th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Hi jo
I think we could be friends!
Largely i couldn’t agree more with your comments and with the scripture you quote.We will have to agree to disagree on the ‘wrath’ though.I guess it’s personal interpretation which reflects from our charachters and social influence that means our God can be one and the same and yet we grapple with different reflections of what we know to be God.It is a humbling honour to be reminded that we have such a personel relationship with God and that our need as humans to explore and create by his grace is indulged.
I hope you continue to be blessed with creative gifts and few temptations!
much love
becky
April 16th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Woah! I didn’t realise you folks had added so much to the discussion! I don’t always get to check each part of the forum, so apologies for poor attention!
This is such an interesting and yet, in some ways, insoluble topic. I have read your comments Becky and Jo and have to admit that, in some places, you have gone over my head!
It underlines the mystery of God beautifully though. If every aspect of God could be listed, categorised and defined, there would be no need for, “For now we see as through a glass darkly, but then face to face:now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.” 1 Cor 13:12
God’sblessing be on you all. Sue