I had an interesting conversation with one of my sons, a little while back. Just recently, in response to that conversation, a reasonable solution came to mind.
Our conversation centered around the stark contrast between the seemingly great maturation of the arts in the west in comparison to the almost disregard of them in the east. It seems to me that the worldviews and presuppositions of the eastern Orthodox church are contrast to an emphasis on the arts. If one looks back at the previous centuries of artistic development in the west, one cannot but marvel at the works of Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Da Vinci, Rembrandt, etc. The eastern church contains nothing comparable.
This fact deeply bothered both my son and I. As we are both musicians and have a deep and wide appreciation for music, this apparent void in the east was unsettling. But as I said, there is an answer to this that I am starting to wrap my mind around.
As I am an Orthodox Christian, I believe that the church is led by the Holy Spirit, that the eastern orthodox church is "the church". Because of this, I have to believe that the church has developed like it is supposed to be developing. The western church, on the other hand, Rome and Protestants, are out of communion with the church and therefore at a disadvantage. So my conclusion is this: like children banging together garbage can lids in order to make "music", the west has sought to create and develop the arts far too soon. Lacking connection with the sanctifying tools of the church and lacking the leadership and wisdom of a unified church, those outside of the church have done too much, too soon. One needs to crawl before one walks and walk before one runs. Those outside the church have sought after things requiring maturity when they still have souls besmudged with darkness. Like making a sandwich before your hands are washed only results in a inedible meal, so too a work of art from a soul stained by sin.
I would love to hear some feedback on this. From an Orthodox perspective, I believe this makes sense. The state of the creator will be seen in the creation. The current corruption of the west and the historical lack of communion of the west with the historic Orthodox church must result in some negative fruit. This may be one of them.
Wednesday, December 16, 2015
Children with garbage can lids
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Obligatory disclaimer: I have an insufficient grasp of Orthodoxy versus non-Orthodoxy, and am perhaps also ill-equipped to deeply differentiate between denominations, so I'll just comment subjectively.
ReplyDeleteLike many, I have an appreciation for artistic talent, be it musical or visual. In addition, I consider myself obstinately and unapologetically appreciative of God. Having personally viewed old-world frescoes on the walls of Italian cathedrals or listened attentively while piano concertos have been performed, one is driven to speculate upon the inspiration for such creations of beauty and expression. As much as I would love to claim that the traits of artistic beauty and the love of God are intrinsic, evidence suggests otherwise. For all my reverence I can barely draw an acceptable stick figure, and my musical talents extend little further than having banged out some recognizable Metallica riffs on my xylophone. By way of contrast, I appreciate the artistic talent of HR Giger but by no stretch of the imagination has he even a hint of reverence for the divinity of God, just as some highly impressive musical talent I have heard is accompanied by a pronounced disrespect for our Lord and Savior. I am left to conclude that the ability to create notable art is not a *direct* result of devotion to God, but rather, an unequally distributed trait of the sliver of His essence that we have all been loaned. And with such, we express ourselves with music, painting, sculpture, etc. And probably, we are additionally influenced by different factors such as our spiritual journey and it's respective leadership, or the state of society at the time of expressing ones self, or ones own frame of mind in conjunction with their personal level of creativity and talent, etc. Perhaps the East and West are unequal in terms of quality art, but I can't say. The stylings of Western art clearly differ from those to the East, which clearly differ from those in the Orient, which clearly differ from those in Latin America, which clearly differ from the Inuit, etc. Are some "better" than others by virtue of being more known and popular? I know a fellow that's exceptional at playing the guitar but he'll never receive a fraction of the recognition given to certain mainstream artists. And I would rather have 'Dogs Playing Poker' hanging on my wall than the Mona Lisa. (*shrug*)
One might feel confident in predicting that in the end, the only art that will matter is that which glorified God and was led by the Holy Spirit but until then, it seems difficult to find parameters to gauge art by that are not subjective.
I guess the question I am trying to answer is, Why is there such a contrast in volume of art created in the East versus the West? I am suggesting here that it may simply be that the creation of art is something that should happen after sanctification, not before or during. This is not at all a commentary on what is good art or bad art.
ReplyDelete"Good art vs. bad art" is obviously highly subjective, and a separate topic. Not to discount your correlation and conclusion but I'm seeing a bit of a distinction between pondering the difference in volume of art between East and West, and speculating on when is appropriate to create art. The latter also seems subjective, whereas the former may be more objectively quantifiable...but not without its own complicating factors. Are we limiting the definition of art under consideration to paintings and statues, or can we include artistic expression in terms of architecture, mosaics, calligraphy, and other manifestations that lean towards the functional rather than merely aesthetic? I think styling differs, from the Renaissance art which was iconic but more material, to the Byzantine art which was more religiously inspired (if memory serves), etc, so we'd have to define the extent of what art qualifies as art for the consideration of determining volume. There might be a whole missing factor of art from our calculation of volume if we overlooked a whole category of artistic expression. And for all I know, different schools of thought or religious discipline simply don't focus on art, leaning more towards the austere, whereas the cup of others may runneth over with expression.
ReplyDeleteBut perhaps I deviate again from your intended point...or at least cloud the issue with complications. Obfuscation is apparently MY art, which I do not lack in volume.