I finally decided that I needed to complete a whole song today, here it is.
Saturday, November 26, 2011
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Beauty: God's creation vs. man's
The topic of beauty has been brought up once again, and once again I find my opinions to be in the minority. Instead of saying that art should not be allowed to surpass nature, they are saying that art is by it's nature unable to surpass nature in terms of beauty.
Their argument is quite simple. This is my understanding of them. "God is perfect(ly beautiful), and man is not, therefore what God creates must be more perfect and beautiful than what man creates." Also "man's art is an imitation of God's art, therefore the most perfect it can be is no more beautiful than what it is trying to imitate." Before countering these with my own theoretical arguments, I would like to bring it to the practical level.
Which is more beautiful, an ancient forest, or a cathedral that was made from it? The bird singing, or the cello? The raindrops or the fountain? Don't let mundaneness get in the way of beauty. It may be hard to pick one side over the other. You find a tree in it's natural state, you think it looks quite good but it could use a trim. You trim the tree, and you think it has become even more beautiful than it was. But how is this possible, did you just improve upon God's design? Or did you make it worse? Here is my answer.
God designed the tree so that it would look better after you pruned it.
And he designed you, so that you could prune it, and make it look better.
This shows how incredible God's design is, not only did he design the trimmed tree, the fountain, the cello and the cathedral. But he also designed the way they would be built and designed. So, can we create art more beautiful than God can? No, clearly not. But we can create things more beautiful than what God gave us here on earth. I'm sure that heaven is more beautiful than human artist's renderings, but that doesn't mean that nature must always be more beautiful than art.
Apparently, if I make this post too long, no-one's gonna wanna read it. I think I have sufficiently rebutted their arguments, but if I didn't, drop a comment and I'll try to clear things up.
P.S. If you haven't yet, read my last post "Art and the idealist."
Their argument is quite simple. This is my understanding of them. "God is perfect(ly beautiful), and man is not, therefore what God creates must be more perfect and beautiful than what man creates." Also "man's art is an imitation of God's art, therefore the most perfect it can be is no more beautiful than what it is trying to imitate." Before countering these with my own theoretical arguments, I would like to bring it to the practical level.
Which is more beautiful, an ancient forest, or a cathedral that was made from it? The bird singing, or the cello? The raindrops or the fountain? Don't let mundaneness get in the way of beauty. It may be hard to pick one side over the other. You find a tree in it's natural state, you think it looks quite good but it could use a trim. You trim the tree, and you think it has become even more beautiful than it was. But how is this possible, did you just improve upon God's design? Or did you make it worse? Here is my answer.
God designed the tree so that it would look better after you pruned it.
And he designed you, so that you could prune it, and make it look better.
This shows how incredible God's design is, not only did he design the trimmed tree, the fountain, the cello and the cathedral. But he also designed the way they would be built and designed. So, can we create art more beautiful than God can? No, clearly not. But we can create things more beautiful than what God gave us here on earth. I'm sure that heaven is more beautiful than human artist's renderings, but that doesn't mean that nature must always be more beautiful than art.
Apparently, if I make this post too long, no-one's gonna wanna read it. I think I have sufficiently rebutted their arguments, but if I didn't, drop a comment and I'll try to clear things up.
P.S. If you haven't yet, read my last post "Art and the idealist."
Friday, January 28, 2011
Art and the idealist
Before I say anything else, I should say that I can be a bit of an idealist at times, so I admit I might be a bit biased here. Also, I will attempt to explain the difference between an idealist and a perfectionist, then I will define art, and finally I will show why idealism and art fit each other so well.
To my mind, a perfectionist is someone who examines things, sees their flaws, and tries to fix them. And idealist is someone who examines things and looks around their imperfections and admires the ideal, or the icon, of the thing. Although the difference between the two are quiet small, the outworkings of that difference can be great, here is an example. An idealist and a perfectionist watch a SAICFF film, the perfectionist sees some poor acting skills and thinks about how they could be fixed. I, the idealist, don't even notice any lack in acting quality even after it is pointed out to me, instead, I see only what it was supposed to be, the icons, or the essence, not the actors, really, I can't see the actors unless I try hard.
Art is anything created by man which gives glory to God primarily through it's beauty. To further convince you, I shall give examples as to what is not art, according to this definition.
1st. Nature is not art, it is beautiful, but was not created by man.
2nd. Paintings drawn by humanists and atheists are much less likely to be art than paintings by a Christian, because those who purpose to give glory to God are more likely to do so than those who don't.
3rd. A plow is not art, it gives glory to God through industry. Similarly, a vaccine is not art, it gives glory to God primarily through healing.
Now, some would say that art should never surpass nature, and when an artist has done so, he has, in a sense, tried to be greater than God. I completely disagree, nature, as we see it now, is fallen, and the imagination of man can surpass it. We are clearly called to make nature more beautiful, that is one of the tasks Adam had in the Garden, and one of the tasks we still have today. But how can we reach a goal if we do not know what we are aiming for. If the artist only draws nature as it is now, imperfect, than we cannot see our goal. So, I submit, that the artist should strive to make his art as beautiful as possible.
Now, I admit that as fallen humans, we cannot comprehend perfection, so we should not fall into the temptation of calling the art of Thomas Kinkade "too perfect". To do so shows a misconception of perfection. However, we should be able to say that it is be better than are current reality, and that's okay.
Now, who should have the task of creating this art, which will be used as a blueprint for Christians taking dominion over nature? The perfectionist, who only sees the defects, or the idealist who only sees the positive attributes? My answer is the idealist, because he is more likely to be optimistic in his portrayal of perfection, while the perfectionist can't help being somewhat of a pessimist. Also, the idealist is more likely to be more imaginative.
PS. I admit that I am a bit late on this post, the topic was suggested to me several years ago after having written an essay response which went somewhat against the current "public opinion". And I was only inspired to write tonight because one of my sisters told me I needed to post.
To my mind, a perfectionist is someone who examines things, sees their flaws, and tries to fix them. And idealist is someone who examines things and looks around their imperfections and admires the ideal, or the icon, of the thing. Although the difference between the two are quiet small, the outworkings of that difference can be great, here is an example. An idealist and a perfectionist watch a SAICFF film, the perfectionist sees some poor acting skills and thinks about how they could be fixed. I, the idealist, don't even notice any lack in acting quality even after it is pointed out to me, instead, I see only what it was supposed to be, the icons, or the essence, not the actors, really, I can't see the actors unless I try hard.
Art is anything created by man which gives glory to God primarily through it's beauty. To further convince you, I shall give examples as to what is not art, according to this definition.
1st. Nature is not art, it is beautiful, but was not created by man.
2nd. Paintings drawn by humanists and atheists are much less likely to be art than paintings by a Christian, because those who purpose to give glory to God are more likely to do so than those who don't.
3rd. A plow is not art, it gives glory to God through industry. Similarly, a vaccine is not art, it gives glory to God primarily through healing.
Now, some would say that art should never surpass nature, and when an artist has done so, he has, in a sense, tried to be greater than God. I completely disagree, nature, as we see it now, is fallen, and the imagination of man can surpass it. We are clearly called to make nature more beautiful, that is one of the tasks Adam had in the Garden, and one of the tasks we still have today. But how can we reach a goal if we do not know what we are aiming for. If the artist only draws nature as it is now, imperfect, than we cannot see our goal. So, I submit, that the artist should strive to make his art as beautiful as possible.
Now, I admit that as fallen humans, we cannot comprehend perfection, so we should not fall into the temptation of calling the art of Thomas Kinkade "too perfect". To do so shows a misconception of perfection. However, we should be able to say that it is be better than are current reality, and that's okay.
Now, who should have the task of creating this art, which will be used as a blueprint for Christians taking dominion over nature? The perfectionist, who only sees the defects, or the idealist who only sees the positive attributes? My answer is the idealist, because he is more likely to be optimistic in his portrayal of perfection, while the perfectionist can't help being somewhat of a pessimist. Also, the idealist is more likely to be more imaginative.
PS. I admit that I am a bit late on this post, the topic was suggested to me several years ago after having written an essay response which went somewhat against the current "public opinion". And I was only inspired to write tonight because one of my sisters told me I needed to post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)