Not too long ago, in response to a comment I made about a particular piece, a fellow writer told me, "That's because you're a modern reader."
I've been thinking about that statement. What does it mean? What does it say about me? What does it say about my writing?
Here's my working conclusion: Art holds in balance three things--reflecting the culture in which it is written (and communicating to that culture), transforming the culture in which it is written, and transcending the culture in which it is written.
Reflecting and Communicating--Art learns from that which has gone before it. As a musician, I learned from Bach, Beethoven, and the Beatles. I learned from Sondheim and Bernstein. Art builds on the masters and may take elements from their music: ideas, quotes, forms. As a writer, I learn from Dickens, Austen, and Russo. But it's always changing. This is not to say it's progressing or improving (although I hope my personal writing is). Today's art isn't better than the art created in the 1600s, nor is it worse. It's different because it exists in a different culture. It's different because of the nature of art itself. When art remains static, it dies. (This is part of the reason why we learn and heed the rules but also break them when necessary.)
Art also communicates immediately to the culture around us. In one sense, art is personal. In another, it's communal, and that community in part is the culture (and subcultures). (Side note: we artists sometimes are in danger of wanting only to communicate to each other rather than the broader culture.) (Side note two: I don't think this necessarily means every artist will be widely known or will want to be published/displayed/performed.) (Side note three: I think a lot of what I have to say about art in this post can also be said about Christianity, but that's a different discussion for a different day.)
Transforming--Art is a way of finding meaning in life. It helps guide the culture in this. This weekend, I began reading The Shape of Mercy by Susan Meissner (a beautiful book, by the way). In it, the main character says, "Abigail pounced on any opportunity to discuss a book we had both read. Dissecting a book was the same as making sense of life. You have to find a way to interpret life, or you'll go nuts" (p. 43). Others interpret life through movies or paintings or sculpture or photography or any number of artistic mediums. As artists, then, we have the opportunity to help shape this. To be honest, this is scary. It's a heavy responsibility. I think of James, who in his letter tells us teachers are held to a higher standard. They influence others. In the same way, our work can influence others. And while God can use any art to do this (and often does: How often have I been drawn closer to him through a piece created by a non-Christian?), we have a responsibility to have a healthy spiritual life that influences our art.
To this end, while we write to communicate to the immediate culture, we do not write (or create art) to cater to the immediate culture.
This does not mean every piece has to be overt in our beliefs. We don't need to paint only crosses or write about only conversions. It means that in the same way our everyday life is guided by the presence of God, we allow our art to be guided by the presence of God.
Transcending--I suppose this is connected to the previous idea of transforming, but it is different, too. Dickens (and he is on the brain because I recently finished Bleak House--a feat in itself!) wrote in a culture different from mine. But his themes transcend to my culture. They are universal. This is why the Bible holds so much meaning for us today, why Beethoven's third symphony moves us, why I can stare at one Chagall painting for an entire afternoon. In one way, the themes we write are connected to our culture (looking again at Dickens and how much of his writing reflects the classism and social injustices of his day). In other way, the are connected to humanity at large.
I won't know if my art transcends culture. I won't know if I pass this test. Only future generations will know.
I've written these thoughts down for the first time today. They've been swirling in my head like salt water taffy pulled and stretched and twisted. I'd love to hear from some other artists regarding these ideas as I work through them in community.
What do you guys think?
some good points. i just finished reading god in the gallery by daniel siedell, and it was a good reminder that art always has a context. it may be personal, it may be political, it is always social and historical. the individual can't help but reflect a cultural view - we are embedded within it.
i think that we make far too much of the individual artist since until vasari started the whole "art star" process as a marketing and political agenda (subsequently anchored in the romantic tradition) the artist was most often in the service of someone else, whether through patronage or commission. i think something crucial for the artist was lost when we were removed from a larger social context as participant and interpreter rather than the current model as individualist expression.
i think we probably all have models or manifestoes for art (or writing or film or dance...) with lovely alliterative trios - but certainly the social context (as both creator and consumer) and the declaration of Truth (making art universal) are core.
Because of my background in cultural anthropology and communications, I think it's easy for me to focus on the social and communal context of art. And I agree that the Western Romantic movement has made too much of the individual artist (along with other notions, such as the starving, half-crazed artist). But neither do I think the individual personality disappears (a more Eastern thought).
I also think we've gotten too caught up in the "message" of art. It's funny you mention God in the Gallery--I just started it yesterday. In his introduction, he says something about that--how we judge are on some propositional message. It refreshed me to read that. I think we feel the pressure doubly as Christians--how am I relating the gospel message in my story?
One of the things I appreciate with the rise of this art movement in churches is how churches and pastors are evaluating how to best do spiritual formation for the artist--and this means the artist has to take responsibility to commit to a larger community (something I know can be difficult for me) and the church has to commit to loving the artist and holding him accountable while at the same time freeing him to express Truth in fresh ways.
To recommmend another book:
I'm currently reading Culture Making by Andy Crouch. He is hitting on similar things, and applying it to the Christian story and how we respond to culture. There's a lot to think about with this - kind of like chaos theory or the uncertainty principle. As soon as we critique, create, copy, etc culture, we have in some way changed culture.
Definitely food for thought. I like a spaghetti metaphor - slurping and trying to find the end of a noodle (and more nutricious, though taffy is always good stuff...)
Oh how I enjoy getting a small bite of that taffy -- you wrapped this piece of it up very well!
You've packed so much into a few words here...I'm digesting. I have a thought that I'm not sure I can articulate yet, so I'm going to try and if it doesn't make sense, well, let me know and I'll try again.
I think I'm wondering where the individual artist is in all of this. Because art reflects culture from a certain perspective. And that perspective seems to be of infinite importance in determining what is communicated, how it transforms, and what and how things are transcended. I think I see the individual artist as of equal importance or possible of more importance than his cultural milieu (they can be separated, but how to do that...?), and I'd be fascinated to see where that fits in your schema.
i think it's more of a "both/and" than an "either/or" situation. for myself, if i am to attempt to communicate something, i will need to take into account the cultural context for its reception. i'm not sure that that "individual perspective" is more important than the context of its reception. after all, if that message doesn't somehow address and shift the cultural ideologies and practices it engages with and through, the work can't transform anything. then again, the relationship between artist and viewer/reader (read: culture) is complex and reciprocal. i think we may also have to differentiate between the individual as having agency and responsibility as opposed to individualism as a glorification of the existential condition (a moral, political, or social outlook that stresses independence, self-reliance and individual liberty) - a crucial difference, i think.
just spouting off, too...
I've not been ignoring you. I've been thinking about this part of art. I think the individual is infused in the whole process. It's something else I've been thinking about for a while. Western art has a much higher concept of the individual than art in other places in the world (not that that's bad or good--it just is).
On the one hand, separated from the individual, it has no meaning (and no emotion, no mark). On the other hand, separated from the community, it has no meaning (meaning is determined in community).
So I think this manifesto isn't necessarily about the individual v. the larger culture because the individual is assumed throughout. Obviously the piece itself is created by the individual and influenced by his unique experiences. Yet exactly because those experiences are shared can they mean something else to the broader culture and all of humanity.
Don't know if I'm making sense. Just spouting off stuff.
Post new comment