Monday, December 17, 2007

  • What is Good Art?

    Currently Listening
    Christmas Offerings
    By Third Day
    see related

    Ok, so this question has been irritating my soul for quite some time...I'll admit, I come to it from a critic's, not an artist's, perspective, being but an amateur musician, a poor writer, and one having no talent whatsoever for "art proper".

    That said, I greatly enjoy analyzing these areas of creativity--music, writing, "art", film, theatre, etc., and my current lack of true skill in any of them has freed up more time to abstractly philosophize about art's true meaning and purpose, especially for the Christian. I haven't come up with much.

    "Good art" seems to be a nebulous term, at least in today's world. The masses define good art as that which gives them the greatest payoff or highest thrill, that which sells at the box office or "looks the coolest"--these are superficial benefits at best and sad commentaries on man's fallen state at worst. On the other hand, the intellectuals, for the most part, seem to laud that which tickles their personal fancies and slam anything that doesn't fall under said category.

    To use a weird analogy, the way I view good art seems to be much the same way Justice Potter Stewart thought about "obscenity" in the Supreme Court case Miller vs. California. "I can't describe it...but I know it when I see it." This is obviously a broad, nebulous perspective in itself, and I am really not sure I want this to be my sole examination for "good art." In all honestly, I would love to have the ability to put a finger on it.

    So here is what I have come up with so far as I have chased precision on this topic. It is obviously a work in progress--I haven't even scratched the surface--and my thoughts on the issue expand every day. I fully and humbly admit my ignorance in this area (hence my turning to each of you), and I would love to get your feedback as we pursue excellence in this field in an effort to glorify our Creator with the little creativity with which He has so graciously blessed us...

     

    "Art is not created purely to entertain the senses, but to enrich the inner man. If it does the former without stirring the soul or adding depth to one's character, it cannot truly be called art. Art must be excellent in touching the heart--we cannot rightly name "good art" as that which is nothing more than mindless entertainment that appeals solely to the superficial and sinful whims of fallen mankind."

     

    Your thoughts?

     

Comments (4)

  • PKforchrist

    To me Art is something you can not classify, it is impossible to put various works in boxses labled good art bad art, simply because art is so diverse. I think in many ways art is subjective in that two people look at it, one loves it while the other hates it. Which one is right? I may love a piece by picasso but all you see is a completly distorted human being. (By the way I hate most of picasso's works.) So I have started judging art by other standards, Mainly that of Philipians 4:8 if itis not wholesome than it is obviously classified as bad art. But if it is not unwholesome then it is subjective to individual taste. I might not like it but that does not make it bad art. That is my poor, feeble attempt at discerning good art.

    ps. who is that quote by?
  • OriginalSoapbox
    This definition of yours appears to be mostly negative, i.e., what art is 'not'. This may be a good place to start, but do consider as well what might be a good way to describe what art 'is'. I was actually doing some research for a paper and discovered a very interesting article by James Bernard Murphy entitled "The Workmanship Ideal: A Theologico-Political Chimera?". It was published in Political Theory journal. If you have access to JSTOR, you can access the journal here: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0090-5917%28199205%2920%3A2%3C319%3ATWIATC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0 Murphy makes the claim that God's act of creation was not an act of 'craft,' as Locke suggests, but rather one of 'art'. If Murphy is right, then it would seem that our works of 'art' should participate in the nature of God's creative act, in some way. Beauty? Purity? Intricacy? Diversity? Scale? All these things characterize God's creation, and maybe should characterize our 'arts' as well. This is a question that is near and dear to my heart as well, so it's good to see friends considering it.
  • SkyL1ght

    hmmm... good question... and, honestly, it's not one that i've really thought about before. I think that you stated a fairly good definition, though.

    hope that you and your family had a safe trip back up to roanoke! (and it was good to finally meet you in person )
  • steadfast7
    I have to say your definition of art is supremely better than anything I would have formulated.  However, being a fellow critic, I feel the definition is slightly too limiting.  You basically state that art must add to one’s character and “enrich the inner man.”  I agree with this.  However, all art cannot be put in this boundary, as I believe art is relative.  For example, if a child draws a red line on a piece of paper, this is liable to add to his parent’s character.  The parents of the child would probably not hesitate to call the line “art.”  However, a random person would probably dismiss the line as, well, not art at all.  The child’s drawing then enriches some people, but not others.  Is it then truly not art?  Therefore, I think art must be looked at in context.  Something that enriches one man may not enrich another.  All in all, though, I really do like your definition.  =)

  • Choose Identity

  • Give eProps (?)

  • New! You can now edit your comments for 15 minutes after submitting.