From: ajw@cbnews.cb.att.com (andrew.j.whitman)
Subject: Re: TANGENT: Christianity and art
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 20:09:54 GMT

In article <87594@netnews.upenn.edu> crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford) writes:
>In article <1992Sep1.151957.3254@cbnews.cb.att.com> ajw@cbnews.cb.att.com (andrew.j.whitman) writes:
>>
 
>Well, one definition of art ( I realize there are many) is that which
>brings order out of chaos.  In other words, there are loads of notes
>and sounds and rhythms in the universe, but music is by its very nature 
>an order imposed on all that stuff.  Without the order, there is no
>music.  Schaeffer made that point rather eloquently in his "How Should
>We Then Live" film with the piano player in the middle of Times Square
>(or somewhere like it), who sits down to play.  Everyone waits expectantly.
>And waits.  And waits.  Eventually, he just closes the piano lid, bows,
>leaves.  Everyone applauds.  His point:  There is no order.  Therefore,
>there is no music.  
>
>I think one can make the same argument for paint thrown at a canvas.
>Is that art, or a celebration of chaos?  What about a blank canvas,
>or a black canvas (both of which I've seen in museums)?  They're
>anti-art.

I agree that one of the central functions of art is to bring order
out of chaos.  That's what creating *anything* is all about, and 
to the extent that we seek to uphold God's image in us we will
indeed strive to take that which is formless and void, whether it
is a blank screen or a lump of clay or an empty canvas, and mold
it and shape it into something beautiful.  On the other hand, to 
create chaos is to dishonor the image of God and to deny who we are.  

But I also think we have to be careful in defining our terms.  I
sometimes get the impression that Francis Schaeffer turned off his
critical abilities when he considered any art, music, or literature
produced after 1900.  For Schaeffer, "order" meant linearity and
adherence to chronology in literature, adherence to strict 
counterpoint and harmonies in music, and photographic representations
in the visual arts.  Given that, it's not surprising that his 
artistic heros are Shakespeare, Bach, and Rembrandt.  

Obviously I'd be foolish to downplay the astounding achievements of
Shakespeare, Bach, and Rembrandt.  But order didn't cease to exist
at the end of the last century, as Schaeffer would have us believe.
It simply took on a different form.  Thus, for example, in 
William Faulkner's "The Sound and the Fury," we have four 
separate segments narrated by four separate characters, a story
that leaps back and forth across the decades, and a style
that telescopes events to such an extent that we're never entirely
sure if we're reading about something that is happening now, something
that has already happened, or something that is happening only in
someone's imagination.  Faulkner takes Schaeffer's love of linearity
and adherence to chronological sequence and blows it to hell and back.  
Did he destroy order?  Of course not.  He created an entire family
history and an extended commentary on the disintegration of 
American southern culture, and he wrote some brilliant prose in 
the process.  

The same kinds of arguments can be made for some of the innovations
that have taken place in the visual arts and in music.  I *do*
think that a line needs to be drawn between order and chaos, and I'd
agree with you that blank canvases and John Cage's 4'33" (from
which Shaeffer borrowed heavily for his scene of the piano player
in Times Square) fall on the "chaotic" side of the line.  I just
think that the dear knickered one was a little *too* disdainful
of modern culture. 

>I think people can make music about despair.  They can create art
>about despair.  Dostoyevsky wrote eloquently about the dark night of
>the soul.  But the point is that he wrote words, created characters,
>translated tremendous thought and perception into works of fiction that
>transcended and broadened those with whom he communicated.  Had he taken
>a pen and paper and written gibberish -- idhheksh $$33 #ksi9!,, --
>it wouldn't have been art.  It would've been chaos.  That's what I think
>Schaeffer was arguing.

Well, okay.  I certainly agree with those ideas.  But I don't think
you'd find many artists who would claim the creation of gibberish
as one of their central aims.  You'd probably find quite a few, 
though, who would claim to be representing a particular ideology.  
It seems to me that a lot of bad art is focused on communicating 
a particular philosophy or world view, and I suspect that the twentieth 
century has had more than its share of philosophic proselytizers 
masquerading as artists.  Some of these folks were disciples of
Nihilism.  Others were disciples of Existentialism or Communism.  
Others were Thou-Shalt-Do-Lots-Of-Drugs-And-Be-Sexually-Liberated 
Hedonists. Some were even Christians.  But the common denominator is 
that the art was subsumed by the message.  That's always bad news for
art, as far as I'm concerned, and the twentieth century has witnessed
a proliferation of earnest, fanatical hacks.  God save us all from
Artists with a Cause.

>>Bob tells us (and Francis Schaeffer would agree) that certain forms of
>>art are inappropriate for Christian expression.  The witness and work  
>>of Christian artists tells me differently.  So which themes/styles
>>are inappropriate?  And why?
>
>Good question.  For me, the overarching theme is the most important.
>Is the point of this book/painting/song that despair is all there is,
>there is no hope?  Does reading/seeing/listening to this lead me to
>despair?  If so, it may be art but it's not "of God" except that it
>has created a certain order out of mayhem.  I don't think "there's
>no hope, lay down and die, scumbags" is an appropriate theme for
>Christian artists.  Neither is a glorification of hatred, which so
>much art I see today seems to be.  Those are a couple of ideas, at
>any rate.

I agree on all counts.  But you're talking about the message of
art, not its form.  What I'm really trying to get at is whether 
there are certain genres of music, literature, or the visual
arts that are more appropriate for Christian expression than
others.  Realizing that this is sometimes an unresolvable
dilemma, I'm trying to keep the message separate from the 
form, at least for this discussion.

To bring this down to at least a semi-practical level, I'm interested
in questions such as:  Is it appropriate to present the Christian
life using a) surf music? b) rap?  c) punk?  d) industrial?  e) free
jazz?  f) reggae?  And so on.  I'd argue that it's appropriate. 
And if there are certain forms or genres that are more appropriate
than others, I'd like to know why that's the case.

Thanks for your comments, Lauren.

>Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu
>
>I believe we are on the irreversible trend toward more freedom and
>democracy -- but that could change.   -- J. Danforth Quayle  

Andy Whitman
AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus, Ohio
att!cblpn!ajw  or
ajw@cblpn.att.com
Newsgroups: rec.music.christian