The Evangelical Universalist Forum

The Secular and Sacred in Human Communication

Practices Christian Living
#1

Once upon a time, most public art – whether literature or visual, aural or etched in stone – was centered around the religious. In Europe this meant the Christian church. Recently however, much public art has become secular. Sometimes secular art is bawdy and offensive. Some would style it “raw and honest” in an effort to be kind. But lets face it, there is some art out there that is completely void of merit. On the other end of the spectrum, one can find art – whether secular or sacred – that communicates a breathtakingly clear vision of the holiness of God.

I think there is one STORY and we are all reacting to that story in one way or another. That is the story of the King who dies for his bride – for his people – who feeds them on Himself and who brings them into life/brings life into them. I hear echoes of the dying and rising King in so much of secular art. In fact, I often see it more poignantly in secular art than in art intended to be sacred. Now I don’t mean to say there’s no bad art out there. There is a whole slew of bad art, and not only because the artists are inept, but also because the story they are telling is a lie. (so to speak) Nevertheless, there is an amazing quantity of GOOD art out there in which, though the artists may not have intended it, Christ is portrayed.

Last night my husband put on one of his many pawn shop acquisitions – Next – a SF romantic thriller starring Nicholas Cage. I’m not a big movie fan. You just about have to strap me down to get me to watch a movie I haven’t seen because I’m afraid it’s going to anger or depress me and honestly I can do without that. I liked that movie. To me it tells a story of Christ and His church (bride) and the lengths to which He’ll go to shepherd and protect her. Sure there are things in the movie that do not conform to this theme – plenty – but it’s there and it’s bold and anyhow I do like the genre.

I don’t want to limit the thread to movies. [tag]edwardtulane82[/tag] (Matt) was talking about being inspired by secular music on another thread and while his comments weren’t on-topic, I thought they were the most interesting thing in the thread. (This is probably because our satellite server has decided we are hogging the bandwidth and has put us on probation for the balance of the month :frowning: and I can’t watch the songs because they won’t play at the tortoiseian speeds they’ve reduced us to!) I do think there is a lot of the sacred in much secular art. Even if it ISN’T sacred, artists sometimes do expose their own deep struggles and inspire us to work through these things in our own lives.

So . . . share, if you would, some of your own thoughts on sacred or secular art and what it means to you – or thoughts about the topic if you prefer. Should Christians listen to secular music? Watch secular movies? Dance at a bar with their sweethearts (or others)? What do you think?

#2

I’ve actually thought about this quite a bit. I would recommend this book for those that are interested in the subject:
amazon.com/Art-Our-Own-Spiri … 0877733627

Anecdote: some time ago (20 years) I was listening to a radio station playing a “quiet storm” format - light jazz, mostly instrumental - when a guitar instrumental was played that I found particularly uplifting. I told my wife that I thought only a Christian artist could compose such a thing - it expressed hope, a kind of glory, a bit of mystery. I called the station and was told it was Phil Keaggy playing his composition “March of the Clouds”.

Around 3 years ago, my brother in law was visiting us, who at that time was very skeptical about Xty; I related the story to him, and he literally snorted in derision; so I put the tune on, having purchased the CD, and played it at a suitable volume - yes the windows were rattling :smiley: - and he admitted that he could understand what I was saying.

Paul Tilllich contends that music has the power to open up new levels of reality; and I think it’s true, and some of those levels should not be entered - I have in mind an internet station I ran across that was playing death-metal, but the only words were the screams of a woman being tortured. It sounded very real. I was depressed for almost a month after hearing it. The opposite of the Keaggy piece.

This is a HUGE topic, Cindy, I hope it goes in a good direction!

#3

I was recently looking at the popular art of kings, bishops, princes and nobles in the 16th and 17th century. Bartholomaeus Spranger, a Northern Mannerist painter, was one of those artists who was commissioned to paint for the Holy Roman Emperor, Rudolf II. This art is grose, IMO. It is very lewd and sexual, and almost all of the art pieces contain young children participating in intimate moments with adults. Another theme is of older men enticed by young girls and boys. I wondered how much this permissive culture gave influence to the now pandemic condition of pedaphilia amongst the church leaders of the world. It was a mixing of light and darkness. There are grave dangers of mixing the sacred with the secular. Many christians who are young in spiritual maturity get these boundaries easily blurred. The inspiration which comes from the secular is just as profound for them as the spiritual. I believe you eventually grow out of this as you push-on and develop in obedience and discernment. My youngest children have difficulty with this concept, but my older children have already grasped this subtle boundary. Although not everyone who is secular is ‘out to get you’, the secular has distinct ideas of a permissive latitude which is extremely at odds with our faith. It really needs to be treated with caution.

Steve

#4

Interesting! I thought the very same thing about the compositions of Chopin. Who but a person in touch with God could compose waltzes of such beauty!

However, I have encountered no evidence that he was a Christian—I found only that (to put it positively), he was quite a “lady’s man”.

#5

Link to March of the Clouds:

youtu.be/ktUqHjXmk2Q

#6

Someone told me to look at this thread – and although I don’t have time to join in posting here I do have my side of an email conversation I’ve recently had with James that might be useful for a wider audience.

In Plato - the physical world is an imperfect copy of the spiritual world. So we live one steps removed from the Real. Art by imitating an imperfect copy takes us two steps away from reality. In his ‘Republic’ Plato suggests that in an ideal state poets and artists should be crowned with laurels and then banished (if reluctantly). So figurative art and drama (and by extension film) have always been suspect in Christianity when inspired by Platonism.

In Reformation England Puritans argued that all drama is wicked because it is a false imitation of God’s creation - which is fallen anyway - so art is two steps removed from the real thing (and they got this idea more form Plato’s Republic than from the Bible). So dramatists like Shakespeare had to put certain things in the plays to signal all of the time ‘this is not real’

First - the players spoke largely in verse rather than prose. Only companies composed of boys were allowed to speak in prose - because boys playing adult parts were clearly ‘unreal’ (and actually these boys plays sometimes were dangerous rivals to Shakespeare’s theatre and he often takes the ‘Michael’ out of boy’s troupes)

Second - men played women’s’ role - which did lead to lots of ambiguities but the original intention was to show ‘this is not real’.

Third illusion was referenced throughout plays as a reminder.

Last at the end of a play - no matter how tragic and no matter how many bodies littered the stage - the cast would all join in a gigue - a bawdy song and dance routine - to show that everything had been a complete illusion. (The censors preferred smut to the danger of confusion of illusion and reality)

Probably the reason why Plato had this influence during Shakespeare’s’ time - apart from the new influence of the classics in the Renaissance - was the separation of the sacred and the secular in the Reformation. The sacred plays of the Middle Ages - the mystery and miracle plays - were banned by the Reformers. So the secular tradition of drama began with writers drawing initially on Seneca the Roman playwright and Stoic (and tutor of Nero ). The themes of these plays are secular - all about blood soaked power. But the Reformers were keen to hedge the secular about with taboos despite being the midwifes to it.

Plato has informed some post modern thinking about hyper reality which argues that the connection between the sign and the thing signified has been broken in the modern world. Once upon a time we had heroes - people of fame who exemplified virtues of courage compassion creativity (whether or not these heroes actually did exemplify these virtues in their private lives is another matter - but we knew what our yardstick was).
These days’ people are often just famous for being famous - so that’s a weird one. It’s hyper real as opposed to being real.

However, there is another side of Christian cultural tradition that affirms the everyday world because of the incarnation and sees the secular as a perfectly valid vehicle to communicate deep scared truths, as a space in which to celebrate the good things of life, and as an arena to explore virtue and vice (as long as the vice is not gratuitous).

Those who believe that we are made in the image of God and that this has not been completely destroyed by the Fall would also argue that an artist - whatever their personal life - when creating great art, is creating from the best of themselves and the truest in themselves.

Finally in the Art of the Middle Ages you get plenty of bawdiness – and you get it in writers who are also capable of deep religious sentiments like Chaucer, and there are even earthy jokes in Mystery and Miracle plays. The same is true of the Renaissance – Shakespeare and Rabelais etc are famous for their bawdiness. Bawdiness proper is laughter at the paradoxes of life in the body – excessive and foolish desire coupled with aliments, indigestion and bodily functions etc There has been a distinction between this sort of humour and lewdness or obscenity whose purpose is to inflame lust and degrade the object of lust. Bawdiness and lewdness became conflated later on by Puritans as bodily functions became more taboo – once people no longer had to wash and dress publicly and share two seater toilets for example. But in the Middle Ages and Renaissance bawdy humour was more seen as affirmation of one of the good things of life – how to live easy with the contradictions of being both bodily and spiritual

#7

Dick wrote : “affirmation of one of the good things of life – how to live easy with the contradictions of being both bodily and spiritual”

For me, that contradiction has been the source of great trouble and great happiness. I’ve spent most of my adult life attempting to solve that contradiction; it seems to be warp and woof of human existence.

Good post Dick.

#8

Hi Dave - when I read some of your posts you remind of Chaucer’s’ Franklin how was ‘Epicurus’s own son’ (and he doesn’t tell a bawdy tale but rather and old fashioned romance :laughing: ) I remember Lewis talking a little about this in either The Discarded Image or the Allegory of Love - that to a medieval Christian the good things in live were not ultimate but they were still good in their place and were a sort of refracted light from the ultimate Good. So Chaucer did not see old Epicurius as a glutton and a gourmand but rather as a man who enjoyed the good things in their rightful place.

One thing I do notice is how Science Fiction has become very popular with Christians these days - it is the inheritor of the tradition of spiritual allegory (and thus has a Platonic basis). I like allegory - but I like the conventions of realism too. The two are often mixed together of course even in science fiction. Allegory and realism - spirit and flesh - incarnation…you get my drift :laughing:

#9

A really fun sci-fi read with implicit Christian themes is Roger Zelazny’s series The Chronicles of Amber.

The gist of the stories is that nine princes, from the ideal city of Amber, are exiled and must find their way back. They are exiled many worlds away from Amber, in the sense that though spatially they do not move away, there are shadows of Amber in each succeeding world, until one gets to Chaos where there is no shadow. From there, one has to make one’s way back by remembering something of Amber that is true; the world then changes around you to more resemble Amber; then you must fight the battles in that world as you travel further along, with each true remembrance getting you closer to the true City.
Of course these are secular protagonists, seeking power and, well, to get laid. But there are some interesting parallels to the Fall and the spiritual path.

I may be wrong about a few of the details; here’s a wiki slice that 'splains it pretty well:
The Chronicles of Amber is a series of fantasy novels written by Roger Zelazny. The main series consists of two story arcs, each five novels in length. Additionally, there are a number of Amber short stories and other works.
The Amber stories take place in two “true” worlds: Amber, and the Courts of Chaos, as well as the shadows that lie between them. These shadows, including our Earth, are parallel worlds that exist in the tension between the two true worlds of Amber and the Courts. The Courts of Chaos is situated in Shadow at the very edge of the pit of Chaos itself, a seething cauldron from which all that is or ever will be comes. Royals of Amber who have negotiated the Pattern can travel freely through the shadows. By shifting between shadows, one can alter or create a new reality by choosing which elements of which shadows to keep, and which to subtract. Members of the Courts of Chaos who have traversed the Logrus are also able to travel through shadow.

#10

Great post, Dick. I didn’t know much of that history so I really appreciate it. And everyone else, too. :slight_smile: Stef, I agree that there is dangerous art out there. Not least some of the more violent video games available. (There’s some amazing artwork in some of the video games, though, which is nevertheless more design than any kind of expression of the soul, as far as I can see. :wink: ) Some art is just plain scary, and I hope, for the sake of the artists, that they’re only in it for the money and that THAT is not a true expression of their souls. :confused: Either way I think maybe they will have some answering to do . . . .

Dave, your book about an art of our own sounds interesting . . . I’m thinking about it. I have such a stack (plus a HUGE virtual stack) of books eagerly awaiting my attention just now. I’ve been feeling I should cut back at least for a while, especially since I’m not a fast reader. I’m eager to listen to your link though – just as soon as we get out of the satellite internet dog house. And when I do, I’ll listen to some Chopin too, since you recommend it, Paidion. I probably have some on a CD somewhere. I’ve been thinking I need to bring some music up to my studio to help me paint. Maybe something like that would be good. :slight_smile:

I just saw the post about the Chronicles of Amber. I haven’t read any good SF for a long time (it’s so hard to find). Now that is really tempting. I might see if I can find one or two for cheap . . . see what you did?

#11

And art thread! :smiley: Thanks, Cindy!

When I think about my own drawings, I could either say all or none of them are sacred. That is, I draw primarily secular things – nature, people, animals, household nick-knacks. But I see God clearest in the everyday, so to me, these subjects are sacred, indeed.

As I’ve mentioned before, drawing makes me sit down and study a single thing – say, the vein in a leaf, the refraction of colors in a raindrop, or the tufts of fur on a kitten’s feet – for an inordinately long time. I would miss so many opportunities to appreciate God’s handiwork if I didn’t attempt my own piddly renditions of the Creator’s perfection. In a way, it’s like a child saying, “Look, Daddy! I drew you!” It’s quite unlikely that the child’s portrait looks anything like the father, but the parent treasures the sketch anyway. After all, children draw what’s important to them, and research shows that their first subjects are usually themselves with their families-- the center of their little universe.

It is my reasoning, then, that artists – from the world’s greatest Michelangelo’s to its proudest preschoolers – make things precious in the eyes of our Heavenly Daddy, assuming the art is made in love and reverence toward Him. As Max Lucado says, “If God had a refrigerator, your picture would be on it.”

Now, I’ll be honest and say that I don’t understand many less “tangible” forms of art – surrealism, cubism, and abstraction, to name a few. I feel that, generally speaking, much modern art expresses hatred and contempt of something–So many artists seem to strive to focus on dissatisfaction and agony in their world. As an art major, I find this rather tiresome, because for me, art is worship, not agony.

But I express my more negative feelings in other ways. I will write, talk to others, and share my anger, frustration, and angst directly with God. Perhaps many artists simply deal with their negative feelings through art. Personally, I have never found this helpful. If that approach works for others, I understand. It is a vague understanding. (After all, art makes me so happy.) But I try to understand why I see so much antagonism in the artwork of my fellow classmates.

And I doubt I’ll ever be “cultured” enough to see the merits of the likes of Duchamp’s Fountain. :open_mouth:

Hmmm… Maybe it’s just me… But isn’t this *just *a urinal? :laughing:


As for the secular in the sacred, I think loads of “high” art – even the most esteemed pieces from the Renaissance masters – have heavy secular overtones. While religious art was originally used as an educational tool for the illiterate, it evolved into an entirely different entity. (It still contained many sacred elements, I think, but man did much to secularize it.) Men of the courts would often commission voluptuous “Venuses” in order to “admire the artist’s talent.” Yeah… right… :unamused: What good nudity added to Titian’s Venus of Urbino or Giogione’s* Pastoral Concert*, I’m not sure. So I suspect this was mainly a way for rowdy noblemen to get an eyeful under the guise of “elegance” and “taste.” :laughing:

Since, during the Renaissance, the Church and upper-class society were intrinsic to one another, noblemen’s secular preferences spread to church-commissioned art. Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel, for example, is filled with *ignudi *-- random nude figures with no background story. They’re just there, chilling on the ceiling. Now, I understand reverence for the human body in art, but something tells me that “random nude dudes” are not quite following God’s interior design wishes. :laughing:

Nonetheless, I think the Sistine Chapel and other works from history’s artistic greats are highly sacred. They show amazing human dedication and skill for building something for the glory of our Divine Creator. Like all human efforts, however, the arts are tainted by the simple fact that humans are human – even Michelangelo.

I spent a cumulative of thirteen hours today drawing – for homework and in class – so you’d think I’d feel a bit burnt out on art at the moment. But, for some reason, I enjoyed this rambling session.:slight_smile: Thanks to everyone who listened!

Love,

Kate

#12

Hi Kate

I so appreciate your thoughts, especially regarding art. :smiley: Lot’s more to be said on this thread but in light of your recent questions about GMac, thought I’d direct your attention to a story of his, The Cruel Painter, it’s not very long and if you get a chance to read it I’d love to hear your thoughts. There 's quite a bit, in GMac’s work, about “art” including poetry, painting, music and theatre. I mentioned his thoughts regarding Percy Bysshe Shelley in a couple of posts and he’s written extensively about Shakespeare and music, but he also wrote about painting in several of his works. The Cruel Painter might not be the best example of his thoughts regarding painting, but it is an interesting story and would give you an introduction to his short stories. The title character is one who of those who “… seem to strive to focus on dissatisfaction and agony in their world” as you said, but learns an invaluable lesson. I think you might enjoy it. :wink:

Steve

#13

Lucky girl! I spent the day cleaning the house and making a birthday dinner for my sweetie (which isn’t all bad, and if I HAD spent the day drawing – this day anyhow – I’d feel guilty anyway and that would spoil the fun). :wink: Tomorrow I will make pottery and maybe I’ll do some drawing or painting too, if I’m lucky. I wish you were here. I’ve moved my art room. Maybe you could help me figure out where to put some of this stuff!

As for your display piece, I agree. It’s a urinal. I saw an “artwork” entitled “brick” once. Yeah . . . I figure I could do that, but all I have is a cement block. Will that work? I admit bricks are prettier, but cement blocks are more raw and certainly more powerful, so they balance out, don’t you think? I guess what I see in that sort of thing is the idea that the sacred is everywhere (but perhaps the urinal is a bit too far for me all the same) and that we can find beauty even in the commonplace (but that urinal is still really ugly – just sayin’). :laughing:

I know the kind of abstract art you’re talking about and I also find it repulsive. I suppose that’s the point. Of course good luck getting the average executive to buy that as a present for his mum to hang over the sofa. :unamused: If you want to make that kind of art it’s helpful to have a spouse with a job. Not that art should be about making a sale, but people do like art that brings them good feelings (whatever that may mean to each one), and red with angry streaks of black stabbing the ground is not something I’d want in my house. My house should be a place of peace even if the artist is expressing his anguish – he’s not going to do it in my house. IMO if you need to put that into your art, you’d be better off writing poetry. That way you get the benefit of the therapy and no one has to see it if they don’t want to. It’s just disturbing.

I do like abstract art though. If it’s done well (in other words, if I like it! :laughing: ) it distills design down to its essence. There is color and there is a path for the light. It’s the light that’s important – everything else is just a frame for the light. My preference is for a convergence of the abstract with reality though. I do love well-done representational art too, but not too photorealistic – that spoils the whole point of having a paintbrush, imo.

The whole point of art, for me, is to portray God and reveal Him to others, whether it’s a cup that comforts you with hot coffee in an early morning or a landscape with an air of mystery that draws you in, promising secrets if you can just get past that misty tree in the background. Right now I’m working on a portrait of my sister-in-law and her new husband. What could display the Lord, our Bridegroom, better than a happy newlywed couple? And she has such a beautiful smile. You know, just painting a smiling face makes ME feel happy too. I don’t understand portraitists who are proud of not painting smiles :confused: How can they paint all those bleak expressions without getting suicidal?

Well, I’m rambling. It’s so nice to talk with someone who understands, though. :slight_smile:

Blessings – Cindy

#14

Steve:

I will definitely have to read “The Cruel Painter.” I just picked up “The Golden Key” and “The Light Princess,” which were the only two GMac books I could currently find at the library. (And considering my two-hour round-trip bus-ride, I’ll probably finish them today, as well.)

Cindy:

Happy Birthday to your hubby! Oh, I wish I could see your art room! (Mine is currently just a sad little corner in my basement, but I suppose I could still call it my “studio.” :laughing: )

That sort of hyper-melancholy abstract art is usually the type we’re forced to discuss in art school. But, there are some more abstract pieces that I like. (However, I am yet to find anything super-abstract that are my cup-of-tea.) I stumbled upon this contemporary painter online, and I think his abstract work is beautiful:

eddiecalz.deviantart.com/gallery/

That’s how I see it.:slight_smile: For instance, my last class assignment was to draw a still-life about my favorite meal. I picked out “get-well” soup and a warm cup of tea, two things my mom makes for me when I’m home sick. To me, God is there in human compassion and comfort. And I’d love to see your portrait when it’s finished!

I like to find the fine-line between pure representation and the emotion surrounding the moment captured on the paper. Ironically, I find it’s easiest to achieve this with photography. I’m currently in a class about black-and-white film photography, and it is a great medium for putting some emotional essence into what would normally be “just” a photo. It’s hard to explain, but final photos just seem to have more “life” in them than those taken digitally.

But now I’m rambling, and I still need to read my art history homework for today. (Ugh – we are, indeed, on abstraction and my mind hasn’t been with the class since cubism! :unamused: )

Love,

Kate

#15

OH Dear - I once had to sit through a lecture on Marcel Duchamp’s Dadaist urinal. It was so boring and pretentious!!! This isn’t abstract art as such - its’ conceptual art. I think it’s simply a comment on ‘what is art?’ )witty or not so witty according to taste). Does something become art merely because it is in a gallery. And will people buy any old crap (or the other by product) just because its in a gallery? So in a way it’s a mickey take of art consumerism - but the joke has kind of backfired because it has become a piece of art (or perhaps it hasn’t backfired if we are playing with multi layered ironies :laughing: ). Mind you if I want to laugh at consumerism I’d go for Polly Styrene over Marcel Duchamp any day (she had more class).

But when I think of abstract art I think more of the modern Jewish artists Rothko say or even the periodic tiling patterns in classical Islamic buildings and Christian gothic pavements. all of these are inspired by religious ideas of trying to express something beyond our comprehension and that can only be represented in abstraction. Yes this stuff distils art down to its essence (very nice phrase there Cindy!).

Also abstract art of course gives you a sense of timelessness or frozen time. In art history this quality is specifically referred to as ‘iconic’ - although the word has other meanings. The opposite of iconic is narrative - that’s visual art that gives you a sense of context in change through times. Many paintings have this quality giving hints of before and after - and open rather than closed compositions are especially associated with narrative in painting and photography.

Of course film is a primary vehicle for narrative art. But the greatest films have their iconic moments too.

#16

My art history professor attempted to explain this to all, but considering I was partly comatose during his lecture, I did not catch the whole thing. Multi-layered ironies aside, I think it’s insane that this urinal sold for millions. :laughing:

Last night, I had to attend a lecture where one of the exhibited pieces a* literally* crap on a canvas. That’s too far, in my opinion! :laughing:

#17

Och it is so boring to crap on a canvas - and just a teensy weensy little bit infantile. Elvis should have written a song about it - a version of Blue Suede Shoes -

Well You can do anything
But lay off of craping on my canvas
A huh huh

or

Return to sender
'Cause there’s crap on the canvas
A huh huh

I can imagine the justification for that one :laughing: I did once see one piece of conceptual art that made me laugh. IT was a pyramid made of fresh oranges. So is this art? Aren’t the oranges going to be rotten by tomorrow? Are we part of the art through eating the oranges? So a lot of people viewing it were furtively knicking the oranges :laughing: And the artist was filming them all - unbeknown to them. All of these respectable middle class gallery viewers turned into a band of thieves and robbers. That was quite funny I thought! But conceptual art at its best is light entertainment of the candid camera variety or ironic joke variety. It’s OK in its place but its not about the Good the Beautiful and the True.

#18

You can download all of George MacDonald’s works free online.

Or if you have a kindle reader, you can download them for your kindle at:

gutenberg.org/

When you get to the Gutenberg site, just do a search for “George MacDonald”.
There are also a lot of other formats at Gutenberg besides kindle.

#19

Oh Kate! You are paying for this? :cry: Poor dear!

(My little brother did that once – right out of his diaper and all over the hall wall. It was stinky but kind of kinky . . . sorry)

Okay I’m really going now, unless there’s spam on the walls again, and if there is I’ll scrub them down again first . . .

#20

Och I’m sorry K ate and Cinders :blush: - I was only doing the ‘reductio ad absurdum’ on the conceptual stuff :laughing: ) Perhaps that’s a bit too English of me in the streaky bacon rough humour!!! :laughing:

How do you both feel about Still Life Paintings? I love Pierre Bonnard!!! Still life painting at its best can be sacramental - the compositions are iconic and through the loving attention to the material they raise matter to the level of spirit :smiley: