"We used to know this: one need not sacrifice moral convictions and public appropriateness to create good art."
Yes! Yes! Yes!
I have been so grieved by so many artists in the "Christian" sphere who seem to be loosening from their mooring too easily, and it seems they all have something in common. They seem to feel that art necessitates some kind of autonomy from boundaries, as if being an artist somehow gives a person a license to be free of all responsibility to established truth, or to others, as long as you're being "true to yourself". Recently I heard someone who I used to deeply respect say that he tries on-purpose to make art that is not Christian, whatever that means. In the context it seemed that he didn't want to associate with the uncool factor of Christianity. Does he want to separate the fruit from the tree? Is that even possible?
I understand the backlash agains much art that is truly not very good, and unskilled, and un-nuanced. But in protest, let us keep making good art and putting it out there where art is!
Keep up the awesome work and telling it like it is.
Thank you for sharing this, Mary, and apologies for the slow response. Yes, I think artists have been led to think expressing what's ugly and breaking boundaries for the sake of breaking boundaries is how we become creative, and it's not. Often the boundaries set us free, as per the Lewis or Chesterton analogy of a fenced in space, or the reality of the limits of civilization.
Goes the other way too - sometimes artists, especially Christians, can be too afraid of the inherent risks of creativity and the need to dabble in some darker themes and touch on the human reality which is messy. We have to be willing to extend grace and let things grow as well. It's a tight rope, but one we have to learn to walk to create truly good things.
"We used to know this: one need not sacrifice moral convictions and public appropriateness to create good art."
Yes! Yes! Yes!
I have been so grieved by so many artists in the "Christian" sphere who seem to be loosening from their mooring too easily, and it seems they all have something in common. They seem to feel that art necessitates some kind of autonomy from boundaries, as if being an artist somehow gives a person a license to be free of all responsibility to established truth, or to others, as long as you're being "true to yourself". Recently I heard someone who I used to deeply respect say that he tries on-purpose to make art that is not Christian, whatever that means. In the context it seemed that he didn't want to associate with the uncool factor of Christianity. Does he want to separate the fruit from the tree? Is that even possible?
I understand the backlash agains much art that is truly not very good, and unskilled, and un-nuanced. But in protest, let us keep making good art and putting it out there where art is!
Keep up the awesome work and telling it like it is.
Thank you for sharing this, Mary, and apologies for the slow response. Yes, I think artists have been led to think expressing what's ugly and breaking boundaries for the sake of breaking boundaries is how we become creative, and it's not. Often the boundaries set us free, as per the Lewis or Chesterton analogy of a fenced in space, or the reality of the limits of civilization.
Goes the other way too - sometimes artists, especially Christians, can be too afraid of the inherent risks of creativity and the need to dabble in some darker themes and touch on the human reality which is messy. We have to be willing to extend grace and let things grow as well. It's a tight rope, but one we have to learn to walk to create truly good things.