For our first discussion question from Madeline L'Engle's Walking on Water, we look at the first few pages. How do people of faith view art? How does the Christian community view art?
It seems as though the Church tends to label things "Christian" and "Secular"? Why is that?
On p. 5 L'Engle writes, "Christian Art? Art is art; painting is painting; music is music; a story is a story. If it's bad art, it's bad religion, no matter how pious the subject. If it's good art...and there the questions start coming, questions which it would be simpler to evade." What do you think of that paragraph?
Think about it and respond and comment, or store in the back of your mind as you read along.
Happy reading!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
"Christian Art? Art is art; painting is painting; music is music; a story is a story."
fine. I can accept that. Here is my qualm.
"If it's bad art, it's bad religion, no matter how pious the subject."
Did she not just equivocate and utterly qualify the point she just made!?!? I was just told that art was art, but now, its its bad art, its bad religion!?!
does this mean that pre-school kids in sunday school who paint mis-shapen crosses are practicing bad art/bad religon?
help me out here.
-Lou
I see where you're going but I think she doesn't mean it to go in the direction you're taking it. Simply speaking her first comment I feel is directed at Christians primarily. We shouldn't think in terms of "sacred" and "secular", or "christian" and "secular" when it comes to art.
I think her main emphasis is the second quote, "If it's bad art, its bad religion..."
She's looking at all those "Christian" calendars in the Christian bookstore, those really bad paintings and renderings of a blonde, haired, doped up Jesus, and saying it's bad art. No matter how pious, or righteous the subject, in this case i.e. a painting of Jesus, it does the subject a disservice.
In which I agree. I don't think she would apply the same ideas towards a child in a Sunday school class, in fact I think she would encourage and congratulate their attempt at art. Especially because they have not grown in age or awareness enough to call themselves artists.
There are plenty of bad "Christian" artists though, as well as "secular" ones, whose bad figurines and calendars are just... really bad art!
I'm going to submit that we never use the terms or labels "Christian" or "secular" in regards to art, literature, film, music, and whatever else.
-Phil
This comment is from Tom Dinan ---
The author does elaborate for the entire book about the
artistic process as she views it.She does mention the gifts that children have of looking at the world with a type of awe and wonder,trusting the next moment.
On some level artists have not lost this gift entirely.I am a sub par artist.I do not know how to draw or paint well.That is OK.However I do not make substandard artwork and then try and pass it off as professional to make money.I would be decieving myself and the public.I think that possibly she is 'calling out' members of her profession who do this and call themselves artists.
--Tom
In response to Phil: Is it really possible that something as subjective like the quality of a painting is going to do a religon a dis-service? Upon deeper reading (and furious scribbling in my book) I have acertained another meaning to how she defines art. This time as in skill (maybe she meant this way all along and i just didnt see it.) But she says that these "arts" (which she says cant be learned) are gifts from God.. So if God gave me the gift/skill to draw but my drawings still look crummy (by someone elses standard) then have I really done anything wrong?
-Lou
Post a Comment