Artful?

Pablo Picasso mused "Art is a lie that makes us realize truth." His words speak to the complexity and glory of art; its tremendous power to transform perspectives and attitudes. Art derives its purpose and message from the artist, and therefore art is an essential vessel of worldviews. Through his article, The Creative Arts, Leland Ryken theorizes regarding the Christian outlook upon art- his words capture the treasure of art and its manifestation of God's beauty. On the other hand, a documentary named The Philosophy of Art, provides an argument against the ugliness of modern art which lacks the necessary component of God in the analysis of art's function. I really enjoyed Ryken's article; his thoughts and commentary regarding the importance of art and the effect it has were profound. The video was endowed with several thoughtful ideas, but I believe it presented a very limited and narrow view of art's purpose. In fact, I thought it was shallow. The repetition of beauty being essential to art began to become tedious and placed on an exaggerated pedestal. Whereas the article reflected upon the realities of art, noting how "People organize their lives and make their decisions partly in terms of such images as heroes and villains, cross and altar, national emblem and patriotic legend, love song and hymn, landscape painting and portrait", the video focused upon how beautiful art provided meaning to life. (Ryken) I disagreed with the video's emphasis on humanity's need of beautiful art and that this beauty fills the void of god within us. The speaker attempted to replace the God of creation with an elitist view of art. However, I did agree with the video's portrayal of the sacredness of art and the consuming peace of being overwhelmed with the beauty of art. It provides a remedy for suffering, a safe haven, and can be representative of the ideals that do not exist within these modern times. I guess my main criticism of the video is the focus upon modern's art ugliness and the narrow lens through which the commentator viewed art. He proclaimed creativity is not enough, that art must be beautiful and of the highest level of detail and skill. And while, these factors engender fantastic and awesome art, art is not limited to the best. It can be found in the idea, the intention, the imagination presented by the artist. Music remains wonderful even if it is not Bach or Mozart; art remains despite the flaws and imperfections. Mainly, I believe art is a personal gift that is enhanced in enumerable exploits. 

Despite my criticism of the film, I found many similarities between the two critiques on art. The largest difference was the absence of God and therefore the purpose of art shifted in order to "transform the ugliness of the world." Its ultimate task is too exhibit beauty. However, both articles displayed the idea of paradoxes being foundational to the study of art. Each reflection spent time musing over the ordinary becoming extraordinary, and the reality of life being found in the surreal. Moreover, both speakers revealed the importance of contemplation and the simple task of absorbing art. It requires no outside purpose. Art "has its own meaning. A work of art can stand in the art gallery and be cherished for its own sake." (Ryken) Within the trap of a hectic, busy lifestyle, art provides a respite and an opportunity to be a revelation of the beauty of the world. Both discussions explored the duality of the happiness and the tragic within art, and did not limit art to a specific emotion or aspect of life. Indeed, each piece recognized the ability art possesses to capture the glory of tragedies, such as the crucifixion. The two elaborated upon the beauty of the human form and the creativity found within the perfection of the face. The differences between the articles also extend to their examination of modern art- the video declares it a "cult of ugliness", while the article stated "Modern art also possesses its version of these formal qualities, even when the artists claim that they are not using them." (Ryken) The article describes modern art in more subdued tones, but also recognizes a dismissal of the fundamental purposes of art. Again, another difference is dependent upon the Christian worldview through which the article is written. Ryken depicts God's glory revealed through art and therefore the value of developing one's own personal gift. He speaks to the evidence of hope and sin in art and also the various doctrines affirming the goodness of art. Finally, he focuses upon the truth and worldview that art presents and therefore the audience's responsibility to approach art appreciatively and cautiously. 

 The conclusion of each piece stemmed from a relatively similar view of art- a need for sacred contemplation of its worth and an appreciation that transcends a quick glance. The article approached this message through the task of Christians regarding art- our need to reveal the goodness of God through the talents he has gifted us. A passionate fervor is basically a requirement of art. And, I agree. Art is so often thrown aside, considered unimportant, but it is was of the greatest and most powerful tools for communicating the complexities of life. Each piece concluded that art is worthy of attention. An attention that is respectful, absorbed, and aware of the value of what is being presented. It is an opportunity to embrace the joy of heaven upon earth and experience the profoundness of human life. Art spreads hope.