UTT - Blog Post 16

Read the essay, The Creative Arts, in your student manual.  Watch the following 6 videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjhVaLbBglQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAZDiKJIroU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfEOtcH3Lk8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRfuyOM_jYg&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsLk6DrHktc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqiHEmejxNA&feature=related

Write your interactions down.  Where did you agree with them and where did you disagree with them and why?  Where were they similar, where were they different?  What conclusions did they draw?  Did you agree with the conclusions?  Why or why not?  Due March 12th by midnight.

        I would say, first of all, that I paid a lot more attention to the movie than the reading just because I found the reading so dry—it’s not in my style of thinking and really isn’t something that I believe I will deal with on a regular basis in my future. The movie, though, raised some interesting points, and I’d like to talk about some of those.

        There were obviously some things that the movie dealt with that I truly did agree with—like the change in art styles and the death of beauty. When we think of beautiful art, we think of things that, today, are no longer created—most of the truly wonderful art to see was made a couple hundred years before now, because of how “art” has been defined since the imposition of evolution over creation. Honestly, I think the movie creator said the right thing when he said that today’s art isn’t beautiful—I wouldn’t even call it art because it doesn’t make me care about it. A crucifix in a jar filled with urine? Not exactly beautiful or something I would want to be around, and definitely forget about calling it art.

        But that raises another question which the movie-maker dealt with, at least in passing. Does art have to be beautiful? I would say no, it doesn’t, but it does have to be acceptable in society and serve a purpose. Does defaming a person or history serve a purpose? Nothing worthwhile, so it shouldn’t be, in my opinion, art. Now, at the same time, beauty does lend itself to art because beauty can make art serve a purpose, and is more appealing to a general crowd. So, there’s another place where the movie and I agree.

        A third point that we agree on is that the “traditional” view of beauty is one to be admired and that it is worthwhile. Even though it may seem old and quaint and outdated, I’d personally much rather see skill in drawing and a beautiful expression of nature or an object than something offensive and disgusting that claims to serve the same purpose. Honestly, if it’s not appealing to my eyes, than I’m going to go somewhere else and look for “art” that truly is worthy of the name.

        Now, one point that I obviously will disagree with from the movie is that the pursuit and appreciation of beauty can replace religion. Now, I can see where he is coming from, because he sets up the whole movie up to this point as a proof that beauty is our means of finding fulfillment—enjoying and creating beautiful things should be enough to satisfy us spiritually. And since beauty is universal and transcends cultural boundaries, why shouldn’t it serve the purpose of religion? It doesn’t create the same conflicts and battles that religion does, and more people can agree on things that are beautiful. Now, I would say that is a truly seductive line of reasoning. But, it’s not accurate. Beauty can be destroyed, maligned, perverted, and offers no hope of salvation—it’s an enjoyment of the moment rather than an acknowledgement of what is to come. Religion offers so much more. But, let’s be honest: True Christianity isn’t a religion, it’s a lifestyle. How we live is true Christianity, not what we claim to follow.

        The book, from the little that I was able to take away from it, says that true beauty comes from a Christian worldview, and that there is a distinctive lack of Christian artistry in the world today. While I found it dry, long, overblown, and honestly I couldn’t pay much attention to it, I’ll bet that it does deal with some important issues. Now, I don’t believe that true beauty can only come from Christians, because the world is so much larger and presents a talent pool that dwarfs our own—but that’s how it’s supposed to be. The difference is in our promise of a lifestyle change, rather than living however we want.

        I guess, overall, that both the video and the book have good points and deal with some very real issues in the world today, but both don’t quite hit all the points right in the middle of the target. If you were to combine the two, I think you could come up with a very real opinion of art that mirrors my own (as much of one as I have formed—I much prefer the logical, analytical sciences because they make so much more sense). Mine is more based off of scripture and what I have developed in my own personal variation of the Christian worldview—beauty is the representation of skill and the appreciation of the “something more” that we all know is there, in my opinion. But the world has run far from that, and nobody really knows where it’s headed next. It’s kind of scary, really.