Here are some of my thoughts on the definition of art from my paper on "The Philosophy of Art: According to the Works of C.S. Lewis" in case you are interested:
There are obvious theological and philosophical themes in the works of C.S. Lewis, which were integrated consciously, such as his thoughts on free will, the afterlife, creation, evil, and suffering. In contrast, C.S. Lewis’ views on the definition and value of art, and appropriate motives of its creation, are more apt to be unconscious, and may exist only as a vehicle to better illustrate these and other more predominate themes. Regardless of the author’s intentions, an artist may consider his inadvertent advice. Due to restraints on time and length, in addition with a personal bias, I will focus on the studio arts, most specifically painting.
In his biography, Surprised by Joy, C.S. Lewis writes that he and his brother were always “incessantly drawing” as children. Upon examining these drawings at a later age, Lewis admits that although he had the better talent, “…nowhere, either in my brother’s work or my own, is there a single line drawn in obedience to an idea, however crude, of beauty.”[1] To Lewis, there must be some correlation between art and beauty. Art should be “obedient to an idea…of beauty.” There is a need for Art to be aesthetic and beautiful. Art is beauty?
In his Oxford years, Lewis makes the mistake of labeling Joy as an “aesthetic experience.”[2] He defines an “aesthetic experience” as a gratifying, pleasure-filled encounter with Beauty. For Lewis, such an experience was a natural response to either Nature or Art, such as well written verse or his acquired taste for Titian’s paintings.[3] Lewis stresses the significance of the error in his thinking. He writes:
"All that such watching and waiting ever could find would be either an image (Asgard, the Western Garden, or what not) or a quiver in the diaphragm. I should never have to bother again about these images or sensations. I knew now that they were merely the mental track left by the passage of Joy—not the wave but the wave’s imprint on the sand. The inherent dialectic of desire itself had in a way already shown me this; for all images and sensations, if idolatrously mistaken for Joy itself, soon honestly confessed themselves inadequate. All said, in the last resort, “It is not I. I am only a reminder. Look! Look! What do I remind you of?”[4]
According to Lewis, art (“images” if you will), like Joy, runs a similar risk of being mistaken for Beauty itself. To Lewis, art is merely a reflection, a reminder, or “the wave’s imprint on the sand,” of what is Beauty, or more accurately Who is beauty. Joy Himself. Or in this case, Beauty Himself.
I fear Lewis’ definition of art can be misleading if taken to an extreme. However, before I begin I will kindly admit that all definitions of art are relative, limiting, and nearly impossible to formulate. That being said, if we agree with Lewis that art is a reflection or reminder of Beauty Himself, we must be wary of the frightening possibility of limiting beauty to what is flawless, holy, lovely, ideal, or heavenly. These are just a few among many adjectives used to describe God.
We cannot exclude the non-conventional beauty found in (or resulting from) weakness or brokenness (commonalities of the human race), especially for reason of Beauty Himself not being weak or broken. Artwork which illustrates human suffering, weakness, and/or deprivation has the possibility of indirectly (and often more effectively) reflecting overtones of God’s grace, unconditional love, and provision. Art does not have to be perfect, idealistic, or happy, to be beautiful…or Christian.
I feel this misconception often contributes to the stream of “bad art” often associated with Christianity. Bad art is just as powerful as good art and can leave a sour residue. C.S. Lewis writes: “It was also perhaps not unimportant that the externals of Christianity made no appeal to my sense of beauty. Oriental imagery and style largely repelled me; and for the rest, Christianity was mainly associated for me with ugly architecture, ugly music, and bad poetry.” [5] Artwork does not need to reflect or remind us of the Beauty that is God directly, for it is very difficult (and slightly cheesy) to paint holiness, or perfect love, or selflessness. I feel this is because we cannot understand such Beauty. On the other hand, every human being understands pain, brokenness, helplessness, and suffering, and it is these aspects of human nature that best (and indirectly) reflect, by contrast, the aspects of God.
[1] Surprised by Joy, pg 6.
[2] Surprised by Joy, pg 205.
[3] Surprised by Joy, pg 198.
[4] Surprised by Joy, pg 219-220.
[5] Surprised By Joy, 171-172.
There are obvious theological and philosophical themes in the works of C.S. Lewis, which were integrated consciously, such as his thoughts on free will, the afterlife, creation, evil, and suffering. In contrast, C.S. Lewis’ views on the definition and value of art, and appropriate motives of its creation, are more apt to be unconscious, and may exist only as a vehicle to better illustrate these and other more predominate themes. Regardless of the author’s intentions, an artist may consider his inadvertent advice. Due to restraints on time and length, in addition with a personal bias, I will focus on the studio arts, most specifically painting.
In his biography, Surprised by Joy, C.S. Lewis writes that he and his brother were always “incessantly drawing” as children. Upon examining these drawings at a later age, Lewis admits that although he had the better talent, “…nowhere, either in my brother’s work or my own, is there a single line drawn in obedience to an idea, however crude, of beauty.”[1] To Lewis, there must be some correlation between art and beauty. Art should be “obedient to an idea…of beauty.” There is a need for Art to be aesthetic and beautiful. Art is beauty?
In his Oxford years, Lewis makes the mistake of labeling Joy as an “aesthetic experience.”[2] He defines an “aesthetic experience” as a gratifying, pleasure-filled encounter with Beauty. For Lewis, such an experience was a natural response to either Nature or Art, such as well written verse or his acquired taste for Titian’s paintings.[3] Lewis stresses the significance of the error in his thinking. He writes:
"All that such watching and waiting ever could find would be either an image (Asgard, the Western Garden, or what not) or a quiver in the diaphragm. I should never have to bother again about these images or sensations. I knew now that they were merely the mental track left by the passage of Joy—not the wave but the wave’s imprint on the sand. The inherent dialectic of desire itself had in a way already shown me this; for all images and sensations, if idolatrously mistaken for Joy itself, soon honestly confessed themselves inadequate. All said, in the last resort, “It is not I. I am only a reminder. Look! Look! What do I remind you of?”[4]
According to Lewis, art (“images” if you will), like Joy, runs a similar risk of being mistaken for Beauty itself. To Lewis, art is merely a reflection, a reminder, or “the wave’s imprint on the sand,” of what is Beauty, or more accurately Who is beauty. Joy Himself. Or in this case, Beauty Himself.
I fear Lewis’ definition of art can be misleading if taken to an extreme. However, before I begin I will kindly admit that all definitions of art are relative, limiting, and nearly impossible to formulate. That being said, if we agree with Lewis that art is a reflection or reminder of Beauty Himself, we must be wary of the frightening possibility of limiting beauty to what is flawless, holy, lovely, ideal, or heavenly. These are just a few among many adjectives used to describe God.
We cannot exclude the non-conventional beauty found in (or resulting from) weakness or brokenness (commonalities of the human race), especially for reason of Beauty Himself not being weak or broken. Artwork which illustrates human suffering, weakness, and/or deprivation has the possibility of indirectly (and often more effectively) reflecting overtones of God’s grace, unconditional love, and provision. Art does not have to be perfect, idealistic, or happy, to be beautiful…or Christian.
I feel this misconception often contributes to the stream of “bad art” often associated with Christianity. Bad art is just as powerful as good art and can leave a sour residue. C.S. Lewis writes: “It was also perhaps not unimportant that the externals of Christianity made no appeal to my sense of beauty. Oriental imagery and style largely repelled me; and for the rest, Christianity was mainly associated for me with ugly architecture, ugly music, and bad poetry.” [5] Artwork does not need to reflect or remind us of the Beauty that is God directly, for it is very difficult (and slightly cheesy) to paint holiness, or perfect love, or selflessness. I feel this is because we cannot understand such Beauty. On the other hand, every human being understands pain, brokenness, helplessness, and suffering, and it is these aspects of human nature that best (and indirectly) reflect, by contrast, the aspects of God.
[1] Surprised by Joy, pg 6.
[2] Surprised by Joy, pg 205.
[3] Surprised by Joy, pg 198.
[4] Surprised by Joy, pg 219-220.
[5] Surprised By Joy, 171-172.
posted by yogeert at 2:32 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home