Who would have thought that an orchid, upswept hair, a black cat, and a bouquet of flowers would enhance the sexual explicitness of an artwork? Well in the day of Eduoard Manet's Olympia, 1863 these objects were recognized symbols of sexuality.
Art has been and will remain to be a source of cultural reflection, critique and confrontation.
So how are we to engage with art that we don’t agree with? Personally, I think we learn more about ourselves when we discover things we disagree with or find offensive. Controversy provokes a response and impassioned to stand up about truth. Pushing boundaries helps you know what you really think.
Since the arts have become less of the prerogative of the church, Christians have stepped back from debates and forums where art critiques, argues and searches for meaning in humanity. Rightly so have we taken a step back, but perhaps a too far back where there is no Christian voice being heard. After all, isn't this the very stuff that we were so good at talking about?
Steve Turner in Imagine:A vision for Christians and the arts 2001; says
… Consistently, Christians didn’t consume much art either. On the whole they didn’t own televisions (“the devil’s box), collect art or go to the theatre. Fiction, like dancing, was okay for children but not for adults. Rock music was worldly. Movies were suitable only if they were cartoon, family entertainment or, oddly enough, fact-based war epics. The reasoning was that most art was created by nonbelievers and could therefore damage our spiritual health...Is this type of response the right reponse to 1 Thessalonians 5:1-22's threefold command for a discerning mind:
Judge everything, Cling to what is good, shun what is evil.And...
...whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. Philippians. 4:8How far back do we need to stand?
But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. Ephesians 5:3
Discernment is out of fashion. We all think we should have exactly what we want, with little regard to the effect it may have on ourselves and on others. As we discussed said last night: some images are just impossible to erase from your memory... and it is in our senses that much of our memory is stored in".
So how do we make clear distinctions and judgments to live lives worthy of the gospel, especially when we are labeled for going against accepted modern culture values.
At the same time, Christianity brings freedom and what suppose you don't find Manet's Olympia sexually stimulating, it doesn't envoke evil thoughts or desires - must you not view it because?
Personally, I think it depends.... may seem like a cop out but isn't that what discernment is all about? It's the tension we all live with in our everyday life... what is the godly choice?
And so " … we need to bring any work of art before the bar of moral criteria. We must ask questions about the moral intention of the artist. Is the purpose of a work to deprave or corrupt? If a work contains immoral behavior or evil, what is the context? It should be evident to us that the Bible contains many accounts of wicked behavior, sometimes very graphically portrayed. Works of art must not necessarily be condemned because they contain such violence, but context and intention have to be considered. (Christianity and the Arts - Jerram Barrs)
And so with all this in mind...
What say you about the Statue of David?
Is this work reason for concern - is it art controversy?
No comments:
Post a Comment