it's possible that the mere combination of those names has left your head swimming and you're thinking "what in the world could they all have to do with each other?". in a word: art. in four words: the gospel and art. i recently taught on the gospel and art and how the two relate to each other. i'd like to suggest each of the first three men in the title as a paradigm for different approaches to art in light of the gospel.
first it's worth stating that there are basically two views in the world, two answers to the question: why art?
the first answer is the answer of modern western society, so proudly roared by the MGM lion (until he filed chapter 11 bankruptcy): ars gratis artis, or "art for art's sake". the highest purpose in art, it is said, is self expression. art should have no didactic purpose, no lessons or messages, lest it be decried as cheap propaganda. this view looks at art through the lens of art and so folds in upon itself. the abstractionist movement took this concept to new heights when things like a plain, black square, soup-cans, or an unmade bed were unabashedly paraded as masterpieces. even classic aesthetics were not most important. of course, the catch in this approach is that to say there is (and should not be) any didactic purpose in art is to engage in didactics: it is to say that the most important thing, the only acceptable goal in art, is the glorification of self. it is the absolutizing of the individual. propaganda at it's best, i'd say.
the more classic answer to "why art?" was "for the sake of beauty." as far back as aristotle, aesthetics were seen as something objective and as the purpose of art. often aesthetic beauty was even tied to moral beauty. this view attempted to look at the world through the lens of art.
each of these approaches encapsulates an important part of the light that the gospel sheds on art. the story of the very first Artist and His very first masterpiece gives important insight into this question. in Genesis, we read of God creating the universe with all of it's glorious stars and planets, trees and flowers, birds, fish, animals and the like. God's refrain upon creating these things is a recognition that "it was good". not "well, I think it's nice, but then again, beauty is in the eye of the beholder." we find in the very creation an undercurrent of a true and objective aesthetic value. however, that is not the end of the story. the great favor the abstractionists have done us (whether you like soup-cans or not), was to underscore the question: "and who gets to define beauty?" as it turns out, there is only One who can: God. the point that is thrown back in the face of modernism's classic aesthetics is that aristotle or da vinci have no more right to define beauty that malevich, warhol, or pollock. they are absolutely right. the abstractionists have removed man from his pedestal as the ultimate judge of beauty. man never did belong there. but God always has. therefore the gospel approach to art on the one hand recognizes there is an objective beauty in the universe, of which God is the source and judge. however, in humility we should also realize that no one person has the monopoly on that definition, just as no person can exhaustively define God, and therefore our approach should be to discover or strive for beauty in art, rather than arrogantly proclaim we've monopolized it (and bottled it up for sale in christian bookstores.)
but how should we as believers in Jesus "do art"? the truth is that, despite the supposed aversion to didactic messages in art in modern society, no art lacks this element. another (and far more aesthetic) way of saying this is: all art tells a story. whether its a song, painting, dance, movie, book, etc. so the question we are really asking when we say "how should we do art?" is "what story should we tell?" as christians the answer to this should be obvious: the gospel. the narrative of creation, fall, redemption, restoration through and for Jesus Christ. (not that every work of art has to capture all of these aspects at once to be formed by the gospel.) the question then is how do we tell the gospel in and through art? i suggest there are 3 main ways that christians attempt this. here's where we get back to the figures from the title who epitomize each approach:
1) kirk cameron: now, i watched growing pains in my childhood just like any 30-ish american. but for the sake of illustration, i'd like to focus on a little series of "christian" movies called left behind in which cameron was the lead. to continue the lens analogy, this approach is looking at the gospel through the lens of the world (not of art). that is, in order to get our message across, we are willing to stoop to popular forms of art (usually movies more than anything). we try to "copy" the world's forms to get unbelievers to hear our story. this approach is, first of all, mercenary. there is no real value in the art produced. rather, it is just a means to an end. i'd argue that's not even a biblical approach. when God made the first flowers, He didn't say "well, that'll be good one day if it leads someone to pray the sinner's prayer." nope! He said it is good in itself. it has intrinsic value and worth as art, as a small reflection of God's own beauty and glory. secondly, this approach produces bad art. art is merely a means to another end, and so, because it is second priority, ends up being second rate (no offense to those of you who really think the left behind movies are flawless examples of cinematic mastery.... pfwhahaha! sorry, that's too funny. okay, honestly, i think you're nuts. :) lastly, this approach rarely even accomplishes our mercenary goal, because the art produced is a) bad, so people who aren't being paid to go by their youth pastor are likely to skip it and b) blatant (notice that these kinds of movies almost always have someone uber-schmaltzy sharing the sinner's prayer with an open Bible or something to that effect), so an unbeliever who does wander in is doubly turned off (by bad art and blatant "propagandizing".)
2) savador dali: dali was a surrealist artist in 20th century spain. though he was raised catholic, he was, as far as we know, not a christian. however, he did not escape his upbringings as, at the very least, themes in some of his art. one of my favorite paintings of his is corpus hypercubus (pictured at the top of this post). the second paradigm, illustrated in this painting, can be described as looking at the gospel through the lens of art. in this approach the gospel is blatantly the subject, but it's different from the first approach, in that the art itself is valued and actually adds something to the presentation of the gospel. dali's painting shows Christ on the cross, yet the cross is unusual. it is actually a three-dimensional representation of a hypercube, a four-dimensional figure. in using this figure as the cross, the statement is that the death of Christ transcends human understanding. all art in this second category could be considered "devotional art." but when this kind of art is done well, it draws unbelievers much more than the first approach. for something to be good christian art, it first has to be good art. any art which is intended to be used for devotional purposes should most likely be done in this second approach (hymns, illustrated bibles, etc.) interestingly, catholics, orthodox and anglicans (and sometimes non-believers) tend to be better at this approach than many evangelicals. perhaps it is because they have a continued tradition of devotional art, where we as evangelicals (and our predecessors) have taken iconoclasm to an extreme and rid ourselves of artistic appreciation and ability all together.
3) jrr tolkien: if you don't know by now, i will tell you: the lord of the rings is by far my favorite fiction book ever. tolkien was a devout christian (catholic) who actually led cs lewis to Christ. tolkien used a very different method than the first approach in his creative writing. rather than looking at the gospel, he used the gospel as his lens to look at the world. tolkien was fascinated by languages, mythology, ancient culture and in writing his masterpiece, choose to look at that part of the world that interested him through the lens of the gospel. it is no coincidence that the lord of the rings is the best selling single fiction story of all time (after a tale of two cities). a little investigation shows how the story echoes the gospel: aragorn, the peasant king, rises from humble obscurity to be the king of the whole realm. gandalf, the human who is more than human, fights a demon, falling into the abyss and at last defeats him on the mountain top. in the fight he loses his life, but it brought back to life as a glorified gandalf. the whole story echoes the gospel, which is why people are so drawn to it. it is subtle and so doesn't push away non-christians. it is great art and so reflects the glory of God. the art, therefore, that has the most potential to reach the hearts of people who do not know Christ is when we look at the world through the lens of the gospel, make great art to the glory of God and allow Him to use those hints of the Great Story in our art to draw many to Himself.
i'd love to hear people's thoughts on this, especially if you are an artist of some form yourself.
(btw, an audio version of this teaching is available in russian here.)
