Ran across the article, Christianity and the Arts by Brian Thomas.  I appreciate the article.  Seems like the term beauty, though, is used in a narrow but really broad sort of way (kind of like this statement).  Here are some excerpts and my thoughts:

Aesthetics is the branch of philosophy that is concerned with beauty. Throughout history philosophers and artists have sought to answer the question, “What is beautiful?” The tired cliche, “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” is taken as gospel truth without a second thought today. But this is actually an attempt of marrying the philosophy of relativism and aesthetics. What is beautiful? The relativist answers: Whatever I think is beautiful, because I am the measure of all things.

I do not agree that beauty is that "black and white."  I do not think one group of people, one individual, or just one religion has the market on what is and what is not beautiful. The antithesis to the cliche should not be "beauty is in the corporate eye of the religious."  Isn't this what happened, maybe indirectly, in the protestant reformation?  Protestants believed they had the proper aesthetic, reducing art to the margins of the Church.  Though it seems that the eye of the beholder cliche is married to relativism, I would not throw out the cliche or even regard it as false.  Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I'm not too convinced that anything is necessarily wrong with that.

This philosophical mindset has taken over the established art world today and has led to an uncritical acceptance of art that is debase, technically poor, and created with the purpose of shocking. In short, art that is ugly. Defenders of such art often express a personal distaste for it, but then they raise questions that reveal their own aesthetic uncertainties: “Who is to say what art is... Who is to say what is beautiful and good?” The Christian must not shy away from such questions, because we are the only community that has a viable answer.

Should Christians be the sole critics of art? Should the Church be the only community to endorse what is and is not beautiful and good? And do we really have the only viable answer when it comes to art? The evangelical church in 20C would tout that it should be. Much like we handled faith and apologetics, if we answer yes to these questions, I can see evangelicals arguing with artists over why their work should not be classified as art, why it is not beautiful, why it is not good. I hope the evangelical church in 21C would approach art differently than how we approached defending faith in the late 1900's.

A lot of the discussion on beauty (aesthetic) and meaning (interpretation) is part of modernism.  Moderns were consumed with defining beauty and obtaining knowledge or meaning.  Though these aspects of culture and the arts have their place and warrant some discussion, the Church needs to embrace a mysterious and ugly aesthetic, as well as the sensation art provides.  To look at just beauty and meaning, while not other dimensions is a lop-sided approach to the arts.  More and more, the arts are not limited to the beautiful and to knowing.  As a Church, we need to address these new paradigms, especially as we champion the arts fully in our churches.

---

I was wondering if anyone has read, "Good Taste, Bad Taste, and Christian Taste" by Frank Burch Brown
I just started that book this past week. I haven't gotten very far, but its a scholarly discussion of this topic.
--Leah Englund ( missleahcf at hotmail dot com ) on 1/16/2005; 5:12:38 PM

>>> Unfortunately, this is just the introduction to a much larger work, so many of your questions/concerns are answered, Aaron.

I cannot wait to read your entire article. Looking forward to it.

>>> What is beautiful and good must originate with God and Him alone. Ultimately, if I say that something is beautiful (and according to the Scripture it is not), then my opinion or judgment is false.

Wow, that seems like a strong conviction. I think this is where we differ though. Beauty is subjectively interpretive. I do not see any basis in Scripture that prescribes what is and what is not aesthetically beautiful that interferes or contradicts the subjective interpretation of beauty. What I do see described in scripture is what I’ll coin, a "moral beauty" (like purity or righteousness, maybe even the death on the Cross). Because we have separate definitions of what beauty is (mine based on aesthetics and yours based on a religious moral), we differ. Simply because I think beauty is nowhere defined on the basis of a moral in Scripture or in the arts. Therefore, it’s possible for art that goes against a religious moral, Christian principle/tradition or Scripture to still be beautiful. Lastly, I wouldn't necessarily be so gutsy to say anyone's judgment is invalidated because of this difference and great caution should be used as we engage the arts that our beliefs are far from arrogant. But then again, maybe this seems pompous as well.

Humbly, I’m glad to walk with you in this moment. ~Aaron
--Aaron Flores ( aaron at thevoiz dot com ) on 1/13/2005; 5:29:26 PM

Unfortunately, this is just the introduction to a much larger work, so many of your questions/concerns are answered, Aaron. But I will say that my point was not that we as Christians, or unbelievers for that matter cannot discern or judge what is beautiful or not, but that what is beautiful and good must originate with God and Him alone. Ultimately, if I say that something is beautiful (and according to the Scripture it is not), then my opinion or judgement is false. For example, if I believe that Mapplethorpe's homoerotic photography of naked gay men throwing feces at one another is good and beautiful, my judgement is invalidated by the fact that God judges this as ugly and the promotion of sin. But a postmodern proponent of Mapplethorpe's art would say, "You have know right to judge his art because the artist's opinion is all that matters, because he is the one who created it." Veith's "State of the Arts" is very good here.
--brian thomas ( brian at kaleochurch dot com ) on 1/8/2005; 5:38:13 PM

I think we need to ensure things like determining 'what is art' and 'what is beauty' separately. (on that matter: Finding God in Abstract, Absurd and Postmodern Art)

The Christian community should accept ANY person's claim that something is art. BUT it is at this point that we should be involved in discussing the beauty & commentary of the art.
--Drew Goodmanson ( drew at goodmanson dot com ) on 1/8/2005; 3:18:02 PM

Print-friendly version of this page
Mail this article