a collaboration of thoughts on art
by Gary Bradley and Donald McGilchrist
Long before men could articulate their ideas in written form they captured the divine experience, the mysterious, with art. Cave paintings, rituals, voice sounds, instrumental sounds and gestures were among the many attempts to convey the
abstract.
In “Art: A New History,” Paul Johnson writes, “The first point to grasp is the immense fecundity of humans producing objects of art.” It’s arguable that art predated not only writing but that it was closely associated with the ordering instinct which makes society possible, and therefore, that it has always been essential to human happiness.
“The artist was the first professional,” says Mr. Johnson.
It’s fascinating how God could have so trusted the spirit and ordering instinct of man to engage in His truth and convey the spirit of it to his neighbor. One wonders, “Why didn’t God invent structured writing ‘in the beginning’ so there would never be error about those mysterious eternal essences?” Somewhere in the human spirit there emerges a longing to express the divine artistically. Perhaps error was not God’s big concern with man.
What role did Christendom play in celebrating and/or crushing the iconographic urge?
For, to represent God in form through the arts seems to be inevitable, irresistible.
As I reflected upon the verses below, it thrilled me to see that God has entrusted the revelation of His being, though the ages, to the hands and hearts of those who longed to see Him.
“God, after He spoke long ago…in many ways…in these last days has spoken to us in His Son…through whom also He made the world…And [the Son] is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power …” Hebrews 1:1-3
Apaugasma (a- pow’-gas-mah); Greek word that expresses the visual radiance from a source; or effulgence: brilliant light radiating from something.
This has helped me to see that through both the written word and art, and many other ways, the radiance of the Divine shines forth and is seen.
What has been the history of the church in lifting up the works of the artist to express such radiance? But more importantly: What will our role be in this endeavor? Have we paid so dear a price in our pursuit of error free living that we have placed the artist at the rear of the room of truth?
April 1st, 2008 at 8:29 am
The idea that God endorsed art from the very beginning, and that “Perhaps error was not God’s big concern with man,” is wonderful. Maybe it’s even what allows us to draw near to him as Father. Our weakness is swallowed up in - even magnifies - his strength! He is so much bigger!
I like what Madeleine L’Engle says about the orthodox iconographers: “The figure on the icon is not meant to represent literally what Peter or John or any of the apostles looked like, nor what Mary looked like, nor the child, Jesus. But, the orthodox painter feels, Jesus of Nazareth did not walk around Galilee faceless. The icon of Jesus may not look like the man Jesus two thousand years ago, but it represents some quality of Jesus, or his mother, or his followers, and so becomes an open window through which we can be given a new glimpse of the love of God.”
And a few questions expanding on these ideas…any thoughts?
Isn’t it true that an over-emphasis on error-free living places all of God’s gifts to his children in jeopardy; not only art? But is art especially affected, and if so, how? Also, what about the danger of confusing error - the result of weakness, ignorance - with the results of pride, greed, in a word, sin? Isn’t God’s radiance also lost to the world when his children are careless about their own integrity? Is there a more concrete and helpful distinction to make here? I have struggled on both sides.
And rather than making a dichotomy between the two, what about words AS art? (This is something I’d like to see more of in these pages, which I read regularly…how is writing like and unlike the other arts? Is it the stepchild? The culmination?)
April 3rd, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Thanks for this comment … Gary is out of pocket but will respond soon! I am looking forward to how he and Donald may handle your questions!
April 15th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Dear Theber - this is Donald’s reply to you:
“Through both the written word and art…” is what we say in our Para 8. Words are often art.
Poetry and rhetoric and just plain stories are definitely part of our artistic heritage.
From Homer onwards, words carry and describe our deep engagement with reality and our deep longing to transcend our daily contexts.
“An emphasis on error-free living….” What kind of error, one must ask? First, perhaps,
we can distinguish error in describing/defining from error in performing/doing.
The former is a lack of accuracy, the latter a lack of accomplishment.
Then, one can go on to ask whether this lack of accomplishment (that is, poor performance) is in the moral sphere.
If so, it may well be sin. The principal NT term for sin is hamartia…missing the mark or falling short of a goal.
Generally, one sins against a person such as God or oneself or another. Thus, sin is a relational failure.
Also, one sins against God’s requirements.
To miss the mark morally or to offend against God’s holiness is therefore very different from a lack of theological or artistic accuracy.
Most of life cannot be reduced to watertight propositions or exhaustively described. Our finitude guarantees error,
whether or not we realize our mistakes. Sin, however, is corrosive.
These are some thoughts, in response to your helpful and instructive posting.
Donald
June 8th, 2008 at 12:02 am
“What role did Christendom play in celebrating and/or crushing the iconographic urge?
For, to represent God in form through the arts seems to be inevitable, irresistible.”
Obviously, this question cannot be answered in a short way, as Church history (even from Israel of old) has had both aberrant and holy expressions of images. Images were likely looked down upon in the early Christian Church because of the Hebraic mileau from which the faith sprung: “Thou shalt not make for thyself any graven image… to worship.” And yet, even Moses instructed Bezalel and Aholiab in the crafting of the images of animals and angels for the ark and tabernacle.
Later, “the inevitable, irresistible iconographic urge” was so influenced by the orthodox concept of the incarnation of the Immortal, Invisible, Uncircumscribable God in Christ becoming man—the Son who is the exact image of the Father, as you quoted from Hebrews 1:1—that images of Christ and His holy mother, His Forerunner John the Baptist, His saints and martyrs filled the Churches. But this tradition would be condemned for over 100 years from the 8th to 9th centuries, with the rule of iconoclasts, likely influenced by the rise of Islam. It was not until 787 AD when the 7th Ecumenical Council was held, that iconoclasm was first condemned by the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. But another wave of iconoclasm prevailed until the iconoclasm was again condemned as heresy and the holy icons of Christian history were restored (those that had not been utterly destroyed), and Christian iconography regained its previous devotion, in 842 when Orthodoxy prevailed.
The next wave of iconoclasm came as a result of extreme low church movements of the Protestant Reformation in the 1500s. Lutherans and Anglicans retained images, among some other movements, but many of the low church movements still to this day condemn the use of holy art. Their bare walls make their churches feel less like a home where family pictures ought to hang.
God spoke in various times and ways through the word of the prophets, but in these last days has spoken through His Son, the exact respresentation of His glory. So He, Christ Himself, is the foundation upon which art should reflect the supernatural becoming natural, the image acting as a window to the heavenlies. God the Creator with us that we may be like Him, creatively working His thoughts after Him, since we are being restored into His image in Christ.
—Andrew Kercher, http://anglicanorthodoxy.blogspot.com