Art
My friend Eloprah recently raised three very interesting questions:
- What is art?
- What is the purpose of art?
- What distinguishes good art from bad art?
Well, I will attempt to clearly state my opinions regarding the answers to these questions (note the phrase MY opinions! The answers I am about to give may not line up with dictionary definitions of things, because, as you have hopefully noticed, I’m not overly interested in cookie-cutter answers to questions! If you want “real,” “accurate” answers, check the encyclopedia. If you want my opinion, read on!)
- Art is anything that was designed to communicate emotions. When a cartoonist creates a comic with the hopes of conveying a message of joy and laughter, that is art. When a musician composes a song in order to comfort you, that is art. When a painter splatters paint randomly on canvas with the goal of portraying confusion or disillusionment, that is art.
- The purpose of art is to produce an emotional response from people. Art is like a question — a question is designed to produce an answer from the person being addressed. Similarly, art is designed to produce an emotional “answer” from the audience. Sometimes the audience is simply the artist himself/herself (in this case, the artist communicates with himself/herself by way of the artistic medium). Other times, the audience is a much larger group, in which case the artist hopes to obtain an emotional response from other people. The artist may have a certain response that he/she would like to receive (just as the question “do you like my outfit?” often expects an affirmative answer), or he/she may be posing a more abstract, open-ended “question” like “what is your opinion on so-and-so issue?”
- Good art is art that was designed to communicate with people’s emotions in a way that is helpful to them. Was an industrial-rock song about death and destruction written to inspire suicidal or homicidal urges in people? If so, it’s bad art. Was it intended to instill a healthy fear of death in people and cause them to think about the afterlife? In that case, it would be good art. Obviously, using this definition, it’s very difficult to pin a “good” or “bad” label on art, because we often have no way of knowing the artist’s intended emotional “message” (and, we often have no way of knowing whether we are even an intended part of the audience of that work of art). Thus, when we don’t have behind-the-scenes information about a work of art, I think the best we can do is establish personal opinions (NOT definitive labels) based on how that art speaks to us.
Please do not jump to (false) conclusions about what I’m saying here. I’m NOT saying that everything is okay and acceptable. I realize that there are some absolutely disgusting, repulsive, and evil things that would fit under the aforementioned definition of “art.” I am not in any way condoning those things!!!
What I am saying is that God is the ultimate judge of what’s “good” art and what’s “bad” art, not us! We know that murder is wrong (God’s Words tells us that), but does that mean a movie about murder is “bad”? Not necessarily. For example, I personally view the Mel Gibson movie The Passion as bad art. To me, it is nothing more than commercialization of an extended scene of gruesome brutality from the most horrible moments of Jesus’ life on earth, and I think a graphic depiction of that is absolutely pointless and unnecessary. However, you may view The Passion as good art, and that is perfectly okay. If the movie influences your life in a helpful way, that’s great! So I’m not going to officially judge The Passion as a “bad” or “evil” or “sinful” movie, because I don’t know Mel Gibson’s heart (perhaps he really did make the movie with the intent of speaking a Christ-centered message to people’s hearts, in which case the movie would qualify as good art).
Of course, the BEST art is art that helps bring people closer to God! As a Christian, that is the type of “art” that I attempt to produce.
I hope this makes sense. I would love to hear everyone’s thoughts on this!!
Posted: January 19th, 2008 under Art.
Comments
Comment from Eloprah
Time 2008/01/21 at 7:21 pm
How does this eliminate anything in the world as art? (Garbage is thus art; my clean room is art; conversation is art; this web page is art; my younger brother’s sawing away on “Twinkle, twinkle, little star” on the violin is art; spanking is an art.)
Also, is art an actual absolute? Or is it merely something that is left to us to decide? (As in “To me” or “I wouldn’t judge this as art, but someone else might – therefore it could be art.”) Isn’t art a thing – a state – that we recognize, and not something that we recognize and then make a state? I mean, I look at a painting and say “That is art; not because I like it, or think it is art, but because it fulfills certain criteria – criteria that I may not even be consciously aware of. It is art in itself, regardless of what I think it to be” not “I think this is art; therefore, it is.” It’s rather like, “I believe the Bible is true; therefore, I believe all it contains” versus “The Bible is true; therefore, I believe all it contains.”
Also, how does the reflection of God play into art? What is art’s purpose in light of Who God is? How does the Incarnation play into what artists should portray? What about the fact that God called the world “good” (before the fall)? What about the Person of God – the Unity (the Trinity), Design, and Order? How does ability determine what is art? What about technical efficience? Technical ability? Surely, there is a difference between my drawing with my left hand and my drawing with my right in terms of the quality of the art, and whether it is art at all.
What about art as telling a story – not conveying an emotion, but telling a logical story that demands a logical response from the viewer/reader? The Bible is the greatest art (indeed, it is above it); yet its purpose is not merely to evoke an emotional response. What about teaching a moral lesson, or representing reality? What about representing beauty? What about showing forth the glory of God?
What about “goodness” or “badness” of art? Is there a standard? If there is a standard, then art is a thing to be recognized, not created by recognition, and we must hold art to that standard. If there is no standard beyond our individual judgment, then there is no such thing as true art – anything I want can be art (whether, in the other view, it actually is or not). How does God view it?
Is there a difference between art and beauty? Is there an Ideal Beauty (see Keats’ work on the matter.)?
These are questions…..Not that I’m trying to be an instructor, or anything of the sort. 
Comment from Josiah
Time 2008/01/22 at 12:38 am
Think not my comment was fallacious… rather, consider it facetious. Indeed, it would be furacious to claim that the world was infinitely feracious in art! In my opinion, no true art could be fascinous, for example — though it could be produced by farceuses. Lest you think me fastuous in claiming my fancies are golden threads in this filaceous discourse, I shall attempt to refrain from being fractious. However, in an attempt to shed light on this fuscous topic, I will say thus:
Art is that which is beautiful (“beautiful” as defined by God).
Comment from Eloprah
Time 2008/01/22 at 11:38 am
(Actually, Josiah, I wasn’t responding to your comment, rather the article. Sorry about the unintentional miscommunication there.)
Comment from Josiah
Time 2008/01/19 at 3:06 pm
According to the original usage of the word, “art” means “skill or craft.” From this viewpoint, art could be considered to be anything that is effective — anything that does what it was designed to do.
Thus, an evil song with evil motives that does indeed produce evil results could be considered to be extremely “artistic” — though it may not be “good.”