Some Thoughts on Art, Part 1



If you boil it down, what we call "art" is just communication. Symbols that represent ideas. A medium (images, shapes, or sounds that represent ideas) and a message (the idea that is communicated). Paintings, music, film, writing, preaching, talking to your friend — all consist of a medium and a message. Even if a piece of art is just for entertainment or decoration, it still communicates a nonverbal message that causes recreation or a feeling of comfort. Now of course, it helps if you understand the language of the medium, else you don't receive the message. Some works of art take research to figure out what the artist was trying to say, by learning the language, context, etc. Likewise, an artist has to learn the language in order to communicate his message to his audience.

So instead of asking of a piece, "Is it art?" (because it is), perhaps a better question is "Is it good art?" How technically skilled is the artist in manipulating the medium? How well was the artist able to use the medium to convey his idea? How novel is the piece, and/or how well was the artist able to use or combine concepts in an original way? Has the artist created a new medium, language, or set of symbols in which to communicate his ideas (which would mean the audience has to learn the new language as well)? And so on.

Now, some mediums are better at communicating different messages than others. Blueprints are good for communicating how to build things. Music can convey emotions in an amazingly efficient manner. And when the style of music matches the message, all the better (for example, Rage Against The Machine is good art because it takes an intense style of music and matches it to a message of not-always-peaceful social upheaval.)

What I find interesting is that God, in His sovereign plan for history, decided to make His Word in a text-based format. Not film, painting, sculpture, or music, but prose and poetry, narratives and treatises. Hmm. Easily portable, easily reproducible, and not requiring too many resources, when compared to say, paintings and film. After all, sometimes a word is worth a thousand pictures. Text/speech has a clarity that music and paintings don't always have, and as Christians, don't we want to make our message as clear as possible to as many people as we can? When was the last time that you heard of a genuine revival occurring as the result of movement in the world of music or painting? Oswald Chambers realized this early on, and gave up the life of an artist to become a missionary (and posthumous author of the best-selling My Utmost for His Highest). As Paul says, "But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, 'How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!'" (Romans 10:14-15)

Now, just to clarify, I am both a visual artist and a musician. I have a BA in art and I make a living as a graphic designer. I paint, write songs, and make short films. I like "art" (by that I mean what we typically mean by "art": painting, music, etc.).

If you like making "art", great! God has gifted you with those abilities, and if you want to, you have the freedom to use them as you see fit. But remember, we are Christians first, and "artists" second. When we seek to communicate the Gospel, we must take care to never let our medium obscure the message.

Thoughts and comments?

EDIT (3-23-2005): Link to Part 2 (click here).

Labels: film/tv/books/arts, religion/theology/philosophy