Rambling on Art

I’ve been wrestling with the question “What is Art?” for years, and I can’t say I have a good answer. The difficulty is going from an example of something everyone knows to be art — say, Dante’s Commedia — to setting up some kind of boundaries for the subject. A couple of years ago, I would have said that art must be Christological, because art must point to the essential truth of the universe. Goodbye Homer, Beowulf, Joyce, Faulkner, and O’Neill. So maybe art must only show us some true thing about the universe. Don’t we say that the purpose of the liberal arts is just that, to give us a little corner of truth?

Complicating the problem is whether bad art is the same as un-art. I tend to think that Chris Tomlin does a really bad job, theologically and musically. But his melodic/harmonic lines bow to the natural patters of music, and while he may damn his God with faint praise, he doesn’t tell lies about Him. That’s something fundamentally different than a modernist composing a piece from recorded sound effects of trashcans and car engines. In other words, I think there is a distinction.

Maybe it’s easiest to start from the realm of un-art, and with the crassly obvious. Pornography is not art. I don’t think anyone with a semblance of taste will disagree with that. But film is art. Some films are technically really bad. I imagine that some pornography is technically very well made (though I may be showing my ignorance here). The two share the same forms: film crews, actors, directors, editing, costumes. The difference is that film, speaking generally, tries to tell us something true about the world. A drama only wins Oscars if it is insightful. A comedy only makes us laugh if we can relate to the humor. At the heart of pornography is a lie about the human condition — that lovemaking is not a covenant between a bride, a bridegroom, and their God, but is a cheap fix for lusty pimple-faced boys of all ages. Film, Christian or not, seeks to understand the humanity (some would call it the imago Dei) from homo sapiens. Pornography casually strips it away.

To apply it, then, perhaps Art is that which speaks some truth about humanity and our world. Un-art is anything that tells a lie as its fundamental assertion. Of course, that still requires judgment, and brings us to the hazy realm of interpreting the artist’s intent. But let’s take an Andres Serrano’s “Piss Cross.” I believe that this photograph is very honest about Serrano’s belief that the crucifix belongs in a jar of urine. I believe Serrano, however, is lying, because I believe that it’s probably wrong to urinate on a symbol of love. Art, then, can only be defined as self-expression if the artist is truthful. The Un-artist has a soul that naturally expresses itself in lies.