Art is
My Church is in the midst of trying to develop a more coherent vision for Music and Arts ministry, and a vision is not complete if it cannot be articulated. To that end a vision statement has been drafted; I’m fortunate enough to be one of those on which the statement is “tested.” I’ve posted the statement below and my response to it:
The goal of the Music and Arts ministry of Heritage is:
To CREATE inspiring works of beauty that
ENGAGE the congregation with God,
EXPRESS the God-given gifts and talents of individuals in the church, and ENHANCE the presentation of the message.
Now the statement sounds pretty good. While I certainly understand the need for a pithy statement with plenty of action words, sometimes statements like this one bother me. To me, the way the statements are stacked on top of each other gives the message a cumulative final point in the last line: “ENHANCE the presentation of the message.” I don’t think that the main point of any Music and Arts program should find its end-all or ultimate purpose in enhancing the message. Music and Arts have stand alone value, they are intrinsically important and have existed long before Sunday morning lectures came into vogue. Clearly, however, the spoken word does sit alongside artistic expression in a well-rounded service; yet artistic expression is worthy of its own venue too.
I don’t necessarily think that the statement was crafted from any value set that is contrary to mine in regard to the value and place of Art; I just think the statement potentially gives the wrong impression.
I have another issue. The first line reads: “To CREATE inspiring works of beauty,” but I would argue that any serious artist or thoughtful individual who actively engages with Art realizes that not all Art is beautiful; not only that, I don’t think “inspirational” is the best word to describe it either. Thomas Kinkade is “inspirational.” But Kinkade is not an artist, he’s a liar. He’s a man who makes a living producing sh*t to be sold to soft and happy naivetés, there’s no truth in his “inspirational” insipidness. Rather, the “painter of light” embraces a dangerous representation of a false ideology–it reinforces cowardly western materialism and the god of comfort.
It’s not “inspirational,” though it may in fact inspire, and it’s not beautiful, though it may in fact contain beauty.
REAL art is gritty; it challenges preconceptions and forces people to see things differently–and it might cause some discomfort. Art posits nuggets of truth, not truth that finds itself in realism, but truth that is metaphysical in nature and engulfs our puny existential reality along with the entirety of the far more resplendent spiritual reality. Truth that transcends and simultaneously envelops factual reality is what art is. It’s not “inspirational,” though it may in fact inspire, and it’s not beautiful, though it may in fact contain beauty. Art is far more fundamental than that. Art is.
What do you think? Am I going overboard here?
I’m coming back to this, but I left your questions for the interview on the contact page.
Cheers.
Two things (and apologies in advance for the length of this comment):
1) Like you. I’m suspicious of that word “enhance.” It smacks of that dreaded term “illustration”–the sort of pictorial rendering that doesn’t enter into dialogue with the text but just comes along for the ride. It’s akin to the effect of colorizing It’s a Wonderful Life: it doesn’t exactly ruin the film, but neither does it add vital information to the original. “Enhance” does not appear to leave much room for an artist’s personal response to God. Like you, I’m of the opinion that art at its best arrests the viewer’s attention: sometimes with its beauty, yes, but sometimes when it confronts us with an imagining of something that, well, might be communicating some ugly reality.
Case in point: Years ago my old church (Lutheran, for context; an educated congregation) one Good Friday, after the pastor’s sermon, had a multi-media presentation consisting of slides of different paintings and sculptures depicting the Crucifixion from various eras and cultural traditions, accompanied by a very elegaic organ piece. Each image stayed on the screen for a generous time, then would dissolve and be replaced by the next image. It lasted maybe ten minutes. Some of these were, yes, difficult to look at, but that was the idea; besides, there were plenty of other images that were not, in my judgment, difficult to see. It was beautiful, one of the most affecting experiences I’ve ever had in a church sanctuary. It could easily have stood in place of the homily; indeed, the sheer range of images made it more complex in its message than just about any homily could ever be. But: afterward some in the congregation complained, apparently loudly, to the pastor and the Worship and Music committee. Too upsetting, they said. Too graphic. Please don’t show that next year. Well–you can write your own response to that; I’ve gone on long enough.
2) It’s funny you mention Kinkade; I recently posted something that addresses the very things you mention here. Here is the link, in case you’re curious.
Hi Tim, found you via Randall’s Hinterland musings…
Just wondering if this “mission statement” of the music and arts ministry is aligned with that of the church’s mission statement. Shouldn’t whatever “mission” of this ministry be aligned with the church’s mission? If it isn’t, then there’s a danger that this ministry could move in a direction that the church itself isn’t headed.
While the statement itself sounds nice, I fear that such a statement could potentially create an insularity of the ministry separate from the rest of the church body. Granted, I don’t know much else about your church, but I do believe that it is important that all church ministries, whether age-related, gender-related, or music, or arts, or any others, are aligned with the church’s overall vision.
Just a couple of pennies from the Pacific coast…
John B, Andy, welcome! I was out of town and away from technology over the weekend; sorry I wasn’t able to respond earlier.
John B: Your example bears out some of the practical difficulties involved with showing real art to a congregation. I think that difficulty can be overcome, but it takes extra work on the part of the church leadership. Thanks for the link to your post on Kinkade. I’ll go read it now.
Andy: I agree that each individual ministry should be aligned with the church as a whole; and I think that at my church that is true for the most part. You mentioned the danger of an insularity; I think that is a good warning, particularly for a ministry that has a higher concentration of “artsy” people. I think that artists may have more of a tendency to isolate themselves and their groups than non-artists.
Good comments, thanks!