https://g3min.org/art-that-accords-with-sound-doctrine/
This G3 article represents yet another attempt to formulate a Christian theology of art. It's clear enough that since the Scriptures don't speak to this - and verses have to be grasped at, the exercise is not one of doctrinal elaboration but philosophy cast in theological terms.
Once again after beating around the bush a bit, the appeal is made to an aesthetic of truth, beauty, and goodness which far from being a derivative of sound Biblical doctrine is instead an expression of Greek philosophy.
And so for contemporary Dominionist-minded thinkers who seek to sanctify culture, art must be specifically Christian and concrete - definite as opposed to abstract. In most cases it must be in the realist vein and as I've repeatedly pointed out the aesthetic is in keeping with what one finds in many authoritarian frameworks - the art must serve the purposes of the order and communicate its ideals.
Now as Christians, we would support the notion that art must serve the interests of the Church or Kingdom, right?
Well, this is always cast in socio-political terms and yet if (following the New Testament) we completely reject this line of thinking, we can approach questions of art from a completely different vantage point. Further, if we understand that art and all the works of men are (as part of this age) due to be destroyed at the eschaton, our investment in the question of art will be limited at best.
This is not to say we need be philistines. On the contrary, my shelves are filled with art books, poetry, and the like. I thoroughly enjoy the arts and my interests are fairly broad but as with all things of this world I retain an air of detachment. Far from being a fanatic, I'm more an interested dabbler and one who often views these things and these questions through a different lens that places me outside and alien to the kind of polite art-driven conversation one would encounter at a mixer, soiree, or salon.
Art can be many things and it can serve different purposes. Since there is no such thing as sacred art - God does not set apart art for holy uses in the New Covenant, then we need not get too worked up about it either way. It can certainly promote and celebrate evil, or sometimes to a limited degree the good. It can portray reality to point or it can communicate ideas or categories of thought. A great deal of art can said to be of mixed value - containing both good and bad, positive and negative elements. Though some wish to eliminate this reality, the truth is there's a great deal of subjectivity to art and how it is seen. A girl can appear sweet and innocent and perhaps curious while someone else might see impish pride amid the trappings of decadence - and both interpretations might be valid.
The art that interests me and has value is transcendent - it pushes the viewer beyond the mundane. Sometimes this is accomplished by the arrangement of common everyday elements that when placed in a specific context can drive one to think of greater concepts such as love or courage - or death. Death is not 'the good' but inhabits, yea dominates the realities of this age and so it is appropriate for it to be depicted. With a few rare exceptions it is universal and yet as Christians we will see death in a different light than the lost. It may occasion sorrow but depending on the circumstance it has no sting. We need not fear it and yet even Jesus wept at the death of Lazarus and the sorrows of a fallen world. And for those who have lost loved ones that were outside Christ - it remains a bitter pill, even though the righteous, holy, and just purposes of God are accomplished. And how much more therefore should we cherish His grace?
And so even that which is 'not good' has a place and utility in art. It can be used as a foil or contrast or in some cases, some artists may simply depict it without a wider contextualisation or explanation. We know there's more, but does that mean the story they told is wrong in itself? Does every work of art have to communicate a holistic picture?
A young man just recently died a pointless and tragic death in our area. He stupidly went out on the river ice, fell through, and drowned. It is has upset the community. From what I know of him, there's reason to believe he was a Christian. I still feel bad for his family and yet their bitterness must be assuaged by the blessed hope granted by the cross of Christ and the empty tomb. But for those who are not Christians, the episode is testimony to the futility of life and it sounds like a peal of doom, reminding them that they know not what hour death will knock at their door. This kind of death and doom can be portrayed in art and unless one is willing to say that only Christians can produce art, and only Christians can understand it - then a great deal of the Dominionist discussion is effectively pointless.
When we as Christians partake of 'lost' arts, whether it be painting, literature, or even cinema, we are reminded of the state of the world and we see (for a moment) through the lost and foggy lens of those who do not know the grace of God. For some of us it's a reminder (maybe an unpleasant reminder) of what we were at one time in our lives when we used to rise from bed in the morning thinking only vain and futile thoughts, chasing shadows and fleeing from them. As such, it's not a good place to be, or to spend a great deal of time. I think it wrong to prohibit all inquiry and experience - especially in a legalist framework. We need to be reminded sometimes, but it's definitely a mistake to immerse ourselves in that world. I have art on my walls - bits and pieces of things I've picked up over the years at second-hand stores and as stated, I have books and I thoroughly enjoy perusing them with some nice Respighi or Debussy on in the background and a cup of tea or a glass of wine. Of course I will do the same with my old photo albums harking back to my years in Europe. I don't mean to sow seeds of confusion regarding what is good - but when it comes to art this question is a little more complicated than some would treat it.
The true is that which is eternal and while we have access to the Eternal Kingdom by means of the Holy Spirit it is a concept we wrestle with. We are confined by the limitations of finite categories and fallen sense experience. This is why philosophy is ultimately futile and the theological methods which incorporate it and rely upon it are also flawed. The doctrinal categories presented to us must be taken on faith. A great deal of what we believe relies on revealed mysteries which can only be properly understood by the Spirit. Our knowledge is analogical, modest, and restricted. It is however sufficient and transformative. Art that attempts to depict the eternal will more often than not end up promoting idolatry - so it is with most so-called 'sacred' art. Secular art that attempts to elaborate on the eternal can also fall very quickly into error. This is why sometimes art that leaves things in nebulous terms and contains a quality of mystery can in fact be more provocative and emotive. For some this can be interpreted as esotericism which we must reject. But our Christian eyes might view the same painting and see something else - maybe even something the artist did not necessarily mean to communicate. Yes, we as Christians can glean things from art, even the art of the lost that they did not intend. We can extract 'good' from their shipwreck of thoughts and fog of understanding.
There is also a great danger when the eternal is wed to the temporal particularly in the works of man, the state, war, and idealised depictions of history. A great number of Christians love such art and I'm not saying it is valueless or need be dispensed with but there are dangers - the primary peril is once again that of idolatry. In fact I would prefer not to confuse such categories. As much as I might appreciate pre-Raphaelite works such as Leighton's 'The Accolade', and I have seen it on walls in Christian homes, it represents a kind of confusion. I have no doubt the Christians who appreciate it do so for its supposed Christian qualities. It's a wonderful piece of art but in terms of Christian ideals - the ones being presented are false and anti-Scriptural. I much prefer his Faded Laurels, In Time of Peril, The Hostage, and his depiction of Abelard and Heloise - a painting which requires knowledge of their tale to fully appreciate. The latter point is also noteworthy - some art requires contextualisation to be appreciated, which means learning history which itself is both complicated and here's the point - subjective.
The true (in the absolute sense) cannot be accurately depicted and what is true in terms of this life or this age must necessarily reflect the effects and results of the fall - which itself results in death. And so there's a tension here, between the truths of a fallen world which are only true until the eschaton and that which is ultimately true which cannot be depicted and cannot even be properly conceived of - as Paul indicates in 1 Corinthians 2.9ff - a passage referencing Isaiah 64.
Realism would actually demand the effects of the fall to be depicted - which is not in keeping with the Hellenistic aesthetic of the good, true, and beautiful. To depict the latter would actually demand the artist resort to symbolism and abstraction - and thus to reject realism. It seems the Dominionist aesthetic has tied itself into something of a Gordian Knot.
Further, as suggested above with regard to Leighton's 'The Accolade', because it has a Christian or perceived as Christian theme, we must evaluate it in different terms than say a Böcklin work. The coat of arms suggests it's Henry VI or a member of the Polish Piasts. Others immediately assume its Launcelot and Guinevere. Either way the picture clearly celebrates the medieval order and notions of chivalry - neither of which can be justified or defended in terms of the New Testament. The knights were often far from noble or expressive of honour. Their code was not Christian, nor was the order they served. The Crusading/Crusader ideal was even worse. All too often the knights and men-at-arms were brutal and brutalizing and for many of the underground Christians of that time, they represented the harsh hand of the sacral State and Church system which persecuted them. Those that embrace this order as Christian (and the art that reinforces it) may be standing with centuries of tradition vis-a-vis Christendom but this is not in accord with the revealed religion of Christ and the apostles.
Thus far we've suggested that the notion of the 'good' is complicated and problematic and the 'true' will in fact be necessarily (in part) false do to its limitations and worse there is the real danger of idolatry.
This brings us to the beautiful and the commonly held notions of harmony, proportionality, and outstanding quality. When the standard is applied to women, we think of idealized femininity - though not all will agree on what this means as tastes and cultural contexts differ as to what constitutes beauty. Is it the young virginal ideal or the matriarchal? Is it the carefree unhindered spirit or tamed domesticity? It all depends of course. The combination of qualities in face and form can said to be beautiful and yet this is merely outward. As Christians we know better. We know that true aesthetics are in fact transcendent and reading 1 Peter 3 we find that outward adornment (and thus aesthetics) are secondary and easily subject to corruption. It is the inner man that is what truly matters - the meek and quiet spirit in woman is what is esteemed by God.
So in other words you could have a woman such as the princess in Leighton's Accolade who is in fact rotten in her soul and I would argue since she is (in the painting) reinforcing the evil system that persecuted Christians and that she represents a false purity and piety that celebrates a system of godless violence, conquest, and false honour. Though this is not pleasing to most and certainly does not lend itself to idealized artistic portraiture - in real life you could have a woman who is unattractive and unphotogenic who is in fact (in God's eyes) of surpassing beauty.
This is not to say that beauty is wrong. We see the likes of Sarah, Rachel, Abigail, Esther, and Judith praised for their beauty - though in the latter cases Clement uses these occasions of beauty as examples for the Church, the Bride of Christ.
Beauty is associated with harmony and a series of rules in the realm of music but these too are often contextual and arbitrary as music history reveals an endless progression of experimentation and the pushing of the envelope. And by that standard only Western music is beautiful - a notion I certainly reject.
Many consider Bach's Baroque compositions to be beautiful as they reveal complex counter-point structure with melodies and harmonies which seem to flow in a seamless fashion. For the period, it was music that was undoubtedly well done. And yet others (such as this author) find his work to often tend toward monotony and it can become tedious and even boring to listen to. While the mathematical aspect of his compositions is impressive - in the same way certain poetic works can be - it has mechanistic quality that despite its evident virtuosity becomes tiresome and singularly uninspiring.
It has all the complex symmetry that suggests beauty and it certainly expresses a kind of beauty - but there are some that just don't like it and this is not due to their lack of training. Another way to put it might be - they respect Bach but don't like him.
The same is true when it comes to Handel. Messiah is musically impressive but I find the piece loathsome, superficial, and sacrilegious and cannot stand listening to it. I find its cheap and inauthentic spirit to be completely out of place in the context of a Church service - the propriety of such music in church aside. I recoil at the thought of heavenly music represented by Baroque styling and the carnival sounds of a pipe organ - an instrument that is better served in the context of a carnival carousel or even rock music.
I suppose my appreciation for Lisa Gerrard would raise eyebrows and yet in her case the ambient quality is pleasant and yet not distracting while I work. The vocals are pleasing and yet given she's rarely singing in English or any language at all for that matter - they too are not distracting. Additionally such music is wide open to interpretation. It is certainly transcendent and often sublime. Her Sanvean is deeply evocative, even haunting and yet she isn't speaking any actual language. And yet will anyone dare suggest the music isn't communicating a message? And yet what is that message? The same is true of her deeply stirring 'Elegy' from Immortal Memory. And many will already be familiar with her 'Now We Are Free' which appeared in the 2000 film Gladiator.
I suppose some would laud her talent but say she produces 'bad' music - as opposed to Handel or Bach. Others fixate on the character of the artist but I think if that standard is upheld, you might as well give up on Western art altogether. Why do we listen to music? I'm not going to fall in with pop sensibilities about hooks and catchy toe-tapping tunes and I would certainly reject the theoretical fancies of Bill Gothard and others who make much of 'pagan beats' and other nonsense. How shocked they would be to discover the Old Testament Jews were a people of the Orient! Their notions of beat and harmony were certainly different. To this day I laugh at poetry critics (many of them Christian) who tear their hair out over the fact that Hebrew poetry has no metre. Apart from its parallelisms and repetitions, it functions more like (horror of horrors) free verse. For some reason the Normans are the standard when it comes to poetry - not Ancient Mesopotamia, or even 18th century Germans (like Klopstock and Hölderlin). And yet when it comes to music - 18th century Germans are the standard and the ancient-inspired works of Lisa Gerrard are rot.
Returning to the example of music, we can point to works by artists such as Holst and his planets which are somewhat dubious when it comes to the underlying message - but they are masterful and powerful works which I would argue can be interpreted subjectively. In other words as a Christian I can look past the astrological significance and enjoy them on a different level. His Mars, the Bringer of War does not communicate ideas that are beautiful, but the piece is nevertheless stirring. For some this constitutes 'bad art' and smacks of Romanticism and all the problems associated with it. And yet it doesn't make me violent but reflective - being forced to listen to Handel's Messiah however does make me want to smash things.