ZEDS: The "Spiritual Poverty" of Modern Art

ZEDS Blog

I enjoy the essays of Dafoe, Addison, and Samuel
Johnson, all of which were published in pamphlets. Pamphlets were in vogue from 1650-1800, providing writers a forum to express views on politics, society, religion, and art. This has been revived in modern times in the form of blogs.

This is now a slight revamp of my blog that started in 2008.
My reading has become a little more specialized, although previous books commented on show I was heading this direction. At this point I will review mainly Christian texts or other texts from a Christian perspective. I intend to post more regularly with book reviews.

I consider reading and writing as part of the spiritual
journey toward maturity and, I hope, wisdom. These are postings of what I’m learning along the way.

Rod Zinkel, August 19, 2015

Sunday, November 28, 2010

The "Spiritual Poverty" of Modern Art

William Barrett writes of modern art that it stabs the "Philistine's sore spot, for the last thing he wants to be reminded of is his spiritual poverty" (Irreation Man 49). This is why so many Christians have little use for 'culture' of the past fifty years -- whether visual art, music, film, television -- not because it reminds them of their spiritual poverty, because they are not spiritually bankrupt, but culture is. If I am angered, as Barrett takes pride in prompting, it's because I may have paid for this art by taxation. Pity, or sorrow, is the more dominant feeling, for the artist is bankrupt. Christians still have the value for art that Horace and Sir Philip Sidney espoused: that it should delight and instruct. When both of these qualities are instilled or evoked, art reaches its zenith, and we are edified. It seems so much modern art has little to teach, other than to deconstruct what was once established, and there's little delight in disillusionment. The anger Barrett relishes is no longer in the audience, it's in the artist. The artist's message does not stab my sore spot; but I wonder why he is so proud to display his wounds.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Chapbook: Two Natures

The Neville Museum series has published a chapbook of 15 of my poems. They are of human and spiritual natures. Here are two poems from the book:

Two Natures

On still water of the pond
two natures you may notice--
where scum has been gathering,
there also grows the lotus.

One Way

There's a boy
who stands knee-high
to a July cornstalk.
He stares one way
down the dirt road
his mother has gone.
He find Fortune
has desrted him,
like the poverty-stricken,
society-forbidden parent.
"I can't take care of you," she said.
I am the child who mirrors
his mother's tears without knowing why?

A Moral Approach to the Arts

The arts and entertainment industry has flourished by a great lie: people should not judge their work by moral standards, except for those standards they advocate. Many in the industry discard what may be called traditional or Christian morality. Christianity in the arts has become relegated to genre, not only as subject matter, but as a perspective. Christian art is on the periphery of the arts culture, found only in those places designated for such, like Christian bookstores. I contend the Christian perspective, or approach, to the arts is every bit as valid as a number of other approaches used today. While there are those in the arts who would love to see a Saul-like conversion of Christians, to lose their blindness of religion to become enlightened to the salvation of art, they have actually have only replaced it with a new morality, such as that which the Marxist, Feminist, Post-colonialist, African-American, or Gay/Queer theories prescribe.

The Christian approach to art did not need to be called such in the past, as it was widely accepted for the centuries between the Renaissance, when art and literary criticism in the modern sense began, and the twentieth century. For all that time, and to the present day, there has been conflict between the Christian and arts cultures. Sir Philip Sidney defends literature, which included drama, in his Defence of Poesy, as early as 1579. He defends poetry by stating, as Horace had thousands of years earlier, that poetry should “teach and delight.”1 In teaching the poet surpasses the philosopher because

...he coupleth the general notion with the particular example. A perfect picture I say, for he yieldeth to the powers of the mind an image of that whereof the philosopher but a wordish description.2

To delight, the poet may fictionalize, adding to nature:

...making things either better than nature bringeth forth, or, quite anew, forms such as never were in nature.... Nature never set forth the earth in so rich tapestry as divers poets have done.3

This was at a time when people accused poets and dramatists of lying in their writing of fiction. Stephen Gosson condemned certain plays and called for discarding theater altogether, though he wrote comedies himself.

Let us but shut up our ears to Poets, Pipers and Players, pull our feet back from resort to Theaters, and turn away our eyes from beholding of vanity, the greatest storm of abuse will be overblown, and a faire path trodden to amendment of life.4

Sidney could defend poetry and drama as forms, on moral grounds. He sees both as useful for instruction and entertainment. He argues Jesus taught by parables – a poetic form and fiction to illustrate truth. Sidney sites a truth churches still deal with – how to present the Word in forms other than the sermon, especially relevant in our multi-media culture today. In defense of poetry Sidney appeals to moral sensibilities.

As centuries passed the appeals to Christian sensibilities became less frequent, but moral appeals still reflected what had been established. For instance, John Ruskin, in his lectures to students at Oxford, draws on the image of the English gentleman in 1873. He states, Of all classical writers, Horace is the one with whom English gentlemen have on the average most sympathy; and I believe, therefore, we shall most simply and easily get at our point by examining the piety of Horace.5 Ruskin goes on to write about Horace’s piety, which is largely defined as humility. Horace, writing before the birth of Christ, is obviously not Christian. But Ruskin is still able to appeal to people’s sense of morality -- showing humility and truthfulness as virtues -- in philosophy and art.

By the twentieth century the moral approach to art and literature is expressed by few. The dominant approach becomes evaluation of art by technical standards – the techniques used in creating the art. Messages become more individualized by the artists and less agreed upon, as common morality requires. The technical approach is taught within the academic world for decades. It is one in which I still largely subscribe to. Modernists like T.S. Eliot, Virginia Woolf, William Butler Yeats, and James Joyce work to perfect the English language. The forms, themes, and approaches change dramatically. Eliot changes significantly the language of poetry; Virginia Woolf writes of the intellectual woman’s perspective at a time when the women’s movement is in its infancy; Yeats and Joyce resurrect Irish literature; all of these authors contribute to a new form called stream-of-consciousness. New Criticism, in which each work of art is evaluated and appreciated only for itself, not for its place in social or political or religious contexts, evolves from the Modernists and dominates academics through the 1950’s. With such changes morality becomes marginal; Christianity becomes irrelevant, (with a few exceptions).

The near-objective approach developed from these authors and critics, (the ideal attempted), has had tremendous impact. Each Christian today knows of the dilemma when considering arts and entertainment. Should I have a moral reaction to art, or only look at the technical aspects? Should I be offended by the message of the art? The question is whether to overlook morality, as the subject is just a painting, or just a movie, or just a TV show, or just a book. We look at art and entertainment differently, as some self-contained aspect of our lives, because in America we have such luxury and access to arts and entertainment that we’ve developed our own technical standards. I would not argue that a moral evaluation is the only way to judge a work of art, or always the best way. Study of the arts, (and it does not require formal study), develops technical knowledge and standards. Each book I read or song I hear or movie I see is adding to technical knowledge and judgment. That may sound like an overstatement because some works do nothing more than kill brain cells. But each new work is compared to and judged by the whole knowledge made by every work of art studied prior. That is why sequels and spin-offs will not do as well as the original, because people remember the original and judge by it. Did anyone need the atrocious Madonna remake of the rock classic, American Pie? Would anyone argue the sequels to and remakes of the movie The Pink Panther improved? (Although I think A Shot in the Dark, the second film, is by far the best.) The examples are numerous. The technical knowledge is useful, and I think Christians need to know standards of excellence in the arts.

I may judge a work of art, with technical knowledge, to be so good that I am willing to supersede my moral standards in judging the work. W.H. Auden had in mind the same standards when he read poetry. In his inaugural lecture at Oxford, he stated:

Speaking for myself, the questions which interest me most when reading a poem are two. The first is technical: “Here is a verbal contraption. How does it work?” The second is, in the broadest sense, moral: “What kind of a guy inhabits this poem? What is his notion of the good life or the good place? His notion of the Evil One? What does he conceal from the reader? What does he conceal even from himself?”6

One example in which I place the technical standard above the moral is in evaluating James Joyce’s works. For Joyce, religion “paralyzed” Ireland. The religious figures in his stories, such as in The Dubliners, are deviants, especially sexually. Joyce’s outlook on life is often bleak. I disagree with his perspective and philosophy, but Joyce’s art is so well crafted that I will read and re-read his works.

Then there is art and entertainment that cannot redeem itself by technical standards, or by any standard. It’s difficult to apply the word art. Many TV sitcoms strike me as porn without the nudity and sex. It’s the lame writing that strings together sex scenes; the stuff people fast-forward through. Recently I saw the first twenty minutes of Wedding Crashers. I found it so repugnant, by moral standards, that I could not watch the rest. I judged it not only by the morality of Christianity, but by morals that the arts and entertainment industry eschew. If the film was realistic, both protagonists would have STDs, if not AIDS, because of their scoring more than Wilt Chamberlain. But AIDS isn’t funny, so they’ll just omit the consequences. I can’t wait for a sequel, Crystal Meth Users in Love.

Some would consider my condemnation an over-reaction, or too serious a response to a comedy. (By standards of comedy I thought the movie, what I saw of it, was awful too.) Such a statement is a reiteration of the message by the arts and entertainment industry that judging by moral standards is wrong. Evaluating any art on such grounds is simply dispelled as Puritanism. Objection is labeled as censorship. Those who may object are portrayed as stuck in the Victorian Age of hypocritical virtue and piety, repressed sexuality, and the small-mindedness of hoping art might be useful; the very things that prompted the Aesthetes to promote “Art for art’s sake” by the end of that age. But the issue of whether art should be useful is not dated; it will never be settled. I cannot settle it for myself. I have argued against the Marxist approach to literature that writings should be valued for the art itself, rather than as just another method of propaganda to fit into the political/social theory. Yet I cannot ignore the impact of art on individuals and our culture; I cannot deny the power some messages have had on myself just by their artistic presentation. I can read the phrase “carpe diem” or “seize the day” and think it useful, but it has impact because of the movie Dead Poet’s Society. Because of the great impact art may have on people, I must ask to what use it is being put. It’s not just entertainment, with no real bearing on life.

For all of the dissuasion contemporary critics might make of a Christian or moral approach to the arts, many of them take a moral approach themselves, but with a relatively new philosophy, therefore not in conflict with their own artistic precepts. Marxism, Feminism, Post-colonialism, the African-American and the Gay/Queer approaches to art have each provided their own set of values by which to judge art. All of these doctrines have certainly dominated over any other moral or religious approaches in the arts in the last forty years in the industry and the academic worlds. For instance, I read a recent movie review for The Chronicles of Narnia in the New York Book Review recently. Very little was said about the movie, except that it was funded by a wealthy Christian, and Disney allowed for the representative of the Religious Right to lure them into distributing the piece of propaganda. Think I’m using a lot of buzz words? They’re not exaggerated. Alison Lurie praises the book, Revisiting Narnia, in which

...former fans (it includes a Catholic, a liberal feminist, an agnostic, a New Age witch, a postmodernist, and several popular authors of fantasy) both praise [which we do not read in this review] and criticize Lewis. Other readers have been wholly negative. One is the immensely gifted and popular British writer Philip Pullman... who has described himself as a Christian atheist. Last year he denounced the Narnia books as religious propaganda, and called the series “ugly and poisonous.” He summed up their message as “Death is better than life; boys are better than girls; light-colored people are better than dark-colored people; and so on.”7

Another portion of her review of the book and Lewis himself:

Other critics see The Chronicles of Narnia as anti-feminist. In Narnia, as Philip Pullman points out, girls almost always come second to boys. They have fewer adventures, and none (unlike Shasta in The Horse and His Boy and Caspian in Prince Caspian) has a book named after her.8

But Lurie also takes this opportunity to review Christians, especially the evangelicals, whom she portrays as idiots. “They suggest that we should and will admire and fear and obey whatever impressive-looking and powerful male authority figures we come in contact with.”9 (By the way, her comment describes quite well the feminist’s refusal to condemn Bill Clinton’s behavior.) Lurie’s contempt for male authority is obvious throughout this so-called movie review. She dislikes the message that God is essential to life, as portrayed in The Chronicles of Narnia. She states, “They also suggest that without the help of Aslan (that is, of such powerful figures, or their representatives on earth) we are bound to fail. Alone, we are weak and ignorant and helpless.”10 Her contempt comes out in another passage:

This is, of course, the kind of mindset that evangelical churches prefer and cultivate: the kind that makes people vote against their own economic and social interests, that makes successful, attractive, and apparently intelligent young men and women want to become the apprentices of Donald Trump, or of much worse rich and powerful figures. This mindset could even be called deluded....11

What? I’m sorry, but I don’t know how else to respond to her last comments. Huh? I’m dumbfounded. But then I’m Christian; how could I be anything but?

My point in providing so much of what Lurie writes is to show that critics such as her don’t really want readers to give up a moral approach. It just has to be from their perspective. Well, I will take a moral approach, when I feel it is appropriate. And if they would ask me, which they would not, I think God has a little more authority then they do when it comes to defining morality.

1 Sidney, Philip. “Defence of Poesy.” The Oxford Authors: Sir Philip Sidney. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989) 217.

2 Ibid., 222.

3 Ibid., 216.

4 Gosson, Stephen. The School of Abuse. 1579.
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~rbear/gosson1.html

5 John Ruskin. Val D'Arno. 1873.
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext05/7arno10.txt

6 W.H. Auden. “Auden’s Prose.” New York Book Review 1 Feb. 1963. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/13750

7 Lurie, Alison. “The Passion of C.S. Lewis.” New York Book Review 9 Feb. 2006. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18672

8 Ibid.

9 Ibid.

10 Ibid.

11 Ibid.

ZEDS

Search Blog

Rod Zinkel dba ZEDS

Reading Nook

Blog Archive

Vaporetto 13

Wisdom and Eloquence

Foundations of Christian Art

Triumphs of the Imagination

UWGB's Journal of the Arts

Favorite Literature Resources - offering free e-texts

Favorite Links to Literature - sites about books

About Me

Total Pageviews

ZEDS Blog

Sunday, November 28, 2010

The "Spiritual Poverty" of Modern Art

No comments:

Calendar

Chapbook: Two Natures

A Moral Approach to the Arts

ZEDS

Search Blog

Rod Zinkel dba ZEDS

Reading Nook

Blog Archive

Subscribe To

Vaporetto 13

Wisdom and Eloquence

Foundations of Christian Art

Triumphs of the Imagination

UWGB's Journal of the Arts

Favorite Literature Resources - offering free e-texts

Favorite Links to Literature - sites about books

About Me

Total Pageviews

ZEDS Blog

Sunday, November 28, 2010

The "Spiritual Poverty" of Modern Art

No comments:

Calendar

Chapbook: Two Natures

A Moral Approach to the Arts