The following post was first posted on the Q Ideas blog:
On a recent visit to New York City, I stumbled upon a outdoor art market in Soho. Intrigued by the organic “New Yorkiness”, I stopped to encounter gritty “starving artists” with musty suitcases full of original artwork. I couldn’t help but purchase a couple of pieces and as I was leaving, I noticed one lonely artist with violent depictions of animal slaughterhouses with renderings of Jesus superimposed over them. “That is not art,” I thought, averting my eyes. “That guy shouldn’t be allowed to show that.”
On the subway ride back to my hotel, I began to question my initial reaction to the graphic photos. An important question rattled around my mind. How should Christians respond to works of art we initially find offensive?
Artists have been violating sensibilities for some time. In fact, they’re known for it. Critics found much of Picasso’s unorthodox work completely unacceptable. Salvador Dali, a Spanish surrealist in the mid-20th century, disgusted many with works including his 1929 “The Great Masturbator” featuring nudity and sexual overtones that would make even a progressive hedonist blush. In addition, his work often depicts grotesque images of corpses and rotting animals, which serve as outrageous metaphors intended to shock observers out of their everyday complacency. Today, both artists are considered geniuses.
Not much has changed in recent years, as artists continue to push the limits of public tolerance. Art can be unpalatable, even repulsive, for followers of Jesus, and we may be tempted to disconnect from art altogether. After all, our Scriptures instruct us to fill our minds with “whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, [and] whatever is admirable.” (Phil. 4:8) How then should we respond to art we find reprehensible?
Sometimes the easiest way to respond to objectionable art is to disregard it or criticize it, but I’m not sure this is the most helpful response. Perhaps we should do the hard work of engaging both the artist and the work itself. Some art serves only to distress the masses, but what is distasteful prima facie often turns out to be a light by which we are instructed and matured.
Chris Ofili’s 1996 collage, “Holy Virgin Mary,” illustrates this point vividly. This controversial work is a linen rendering of the Virgin Mary, which incorporates elephant dung and cutouts of female genitalia. The piece was immediately condemned by many Christian leaders when it went on display. One’s first reaction may be to dismiss the piece altogether, but further research is illuminative. Upon researching Ofili, I realized that the controversial British painter is of African decent. In the African context, elephant dung is not negative; it is a symbol of fertility. Rather than defaming Mary, Ofili uses the dung to illustrate a certain sacredness.
It’s very easy to condemn progressive art—or any element in culture for that matter—out of hand without doing one’s homework. But the engaged Christian must be in conversation with culture. We must be wise in the things we consume and support, we must also do the hard work of discernment. Informed engagement and cultural conversations can transform, enlighten, and lead us into new relationships.
Maybe the artist I encountered in Soho was a dime-a-dozen Jesus-hater, but perhaps he was making a profound statement about religious ambivalence to evils such as animal cruelty. If the latter is true, my lazy reaction to a potentially penetrating work of art robbed me of an opportunity for introspection and edification.
____________
What is your take on art? What determines if something is indeed art? How do you believe Christians should respond to art they find offensive?
____________
Q Ideas addresses pressing issues involving culture, future, church, and gospel through a conference, blog, and online resources. Highly recommend.
David Neff said:
First, Christians (and secularists) need to learn how to "read" art. It has a traditional visual vocabulary. If you don't know the vocabulary, you're likely to misunderstand.
Second, if the art is truly offensive, think evangelistically/missionally. Francis Schaeffer and his art-historian sidekick helped evangelical Christians to think in these terms. To the degree that an artist is capturing a contemporary mood or sensibility, what aspect of the gospel message addresses that sensibility? How can we best communicate that?
Third, remember that art, like preaching, should sometimes comfort the afflicted and sometimes afflict the comfortable.
Fourth, don't be intimidated by art. If after you've given it a fair attempt at understanding it turns out to be bad art, then it's bad art. No need to make a fuss. Just ignore it.
Posted: October 21, 2009
Jim Williamson said:
Read it... and found it interesting. Hiding away does no good, it merely confirms what the artist or their audience believes. Confronting in a "get in your face" way does nothing but build walls. Actions always seem to cause equal and opposite reactions, just look at anti-abortion rally's outside of abortion clinics.
However, as Stephen Covey says "First seek to understand AND then to be understood" is expresed in a respectful, clear, strong but loving manner becomes our only weapon.
A straight line will show the line that is crooked.
Posted: October 21, 2009
Jonathan Merritt said:
David,
EXCELLENT POINTS. I actually thought about recommending Schaeffer's "Art and the Bible" on this piece, but cut it for space.
http://www.amazon.com/Art-Bible-Two-Essays-C
Good thoughts!
Jm
Posted: October 21, 2009
Travis Mamone said:
I think all great art strives for some strong audience reaction, whether it's disgust or delight. And I think both reactions are equally valid; as the old saying goes, it's all in the eye of the beholder.
The thing that bothers me is when the Church tries to stop a movie from being seen, or a record from being heard. Yes, there are certain movies and CDs that, because of my faith, I find tasteless, like that new movie "Antichrist" (which is a shame because I like Willem DaFoe). However, why should I keep someone else from choosing to either see a movie or listen to an album simply because I don't like it? I'm not saying that Christians shouldn't boycott art they find offensive, but the bigger the outcry the more attraction it gets.
Posted: October 23, 2009
Denise Mayo said:
The questions you're asking (at least implicitly) are difficult: What crosses the line? Is there a line? Where is the line? Do Christians stay far from the line, or cross over it into distasteful (sinful?) territory?
An analogous problem arises for judges and lawmakers in the context of the First Amendment, which is perhaps the murkiest area of constitutional law. Our Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression, but certain types of expression can be curtailed or prohibited if it is, for example, "obscene." Courts must determine whether an offensive image or publication has sufficient artistic or educational value to avoid the "obscenity" label and be deemed permissible. This has been a tricky legal struggle because…Whose standards do we use? How much artistic or educational value is enough to redeem an otherwise "obscene" creation? (Supreme Court Justice Stewart famously characterized the difficulty of determining what qualifies as pornographic, saying such things are hard to define, but "I know it when I see it.")
I think Christians should instinctively recoil from those things that are not good, pure, holy, and the like. And we should guard our hearts from absorbing ugliness and sin we encounter in the world. But while keeping our hearts guarded—-wearing the armor of light—-I think we should also engage and inquire, as you suggest. We should look for educational, philosophical, or artistic purposes, always remembering the ambiguous nature of art (I probably would have seen the same animal-slaughterhouse-plus-Jesus painting and thought the artist was saying something about how Jesus had taken away the need for those gross animal sacrifices!). And we should seize any opportunity to share the Gospel with artists who are Jesus-maligners and Jesus-misunderstanders.
Posted: October 24, 2009
justin said:
Jonathan,
This is a good post for this reason - I have found that in general outrageous or ridiculously stupid things have more to them than on the initial hearing/seeing. Just to take one example - the infamous McDonald's coffee case, which is so often used as an example of a ridiculous law suit. (And I won't go into the details, if anyone cares to look a little deeper they can.)
Posted: October 27, 2009
Mikkel Moller said:
I have been an amateur artist since I was a small child more than 60 years ago. I have owned an art/fine crafts gallery, managed another and still dabble in various art forms. I did not take Christ as my savior until the age of 65, 3 years ago, although I have attend church ever since we came to America in 1947.
Over the years I have collected a variety of art, none of which I have found offensive, although my tastes have certainly evolved. It would be a very dull world if everything were the same and in black and white. Not that I have not viewed some art as offensive to me for a variety of reasons, even before becoming a Christian. Now as a Christian I am trying to not be judgmental, but to comment to the artist or gallery owner in such a way that there is no doubt as to my opinion.
Posted: December 1, 2009