for glory and for beauty

You shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother, for glory and for beauty. For Aaron's sons you shall make tunics; you shall also make sashes for them, and you shall make caps for them, for glory and for beauty.
-Exodus 28:2, 40

i really don't know how to start this. my writing skills are a little musty. the nascent joy of photography has recently superceded my drive to compose with words, and composing with light and color has suddenly become far more pleasing. the result is that i have forgotten how to write (and have neglected my blog). :) so please forgive me if this is unclear or disorganized. i'll do my best.

lately i have been thinking a lot about art, beauty, creativity, and christianity. my mind keeps coming back to those verses above, i think because they demonstrate that some things exist only to be beautiful, and that those things are approved by God. so here are some of my thoughts about all of this.

not only is beauty a reflection of God, i would say that it glorifies him in merely being beautiful. beauty doesn't have to be symbolic or explicitly meaningful to be valuable. Keats might have been a little carried away when he said "Beauty is truth, and truth is beauty...that is all you need to know," but i think he was onto something. beauty isn't only truth, but beauty reflects truth, because neither truth nor beauty can come from anywhere but from God...and God is truth. not every truth will be beautiful, because sometimes truth is ugly (for example: the crucifixion, the selfishness of humanity, the reality of failure or betrayal). but everything that is beautiful is true already.

how is this idea of beauty related to art? disagree with me if you'd like, but i'd say that art, in a similar vein to beauty, always attempts to capture or communicate an element of truth. art points to truth just like beauty points to God. often, a work of art will use beauty or aesthetics in general. so beauty is not the same as art, but rather art can use beauty to promote its message.

side note: it's a point well taken that art has recently tended to neglect beauty and treat ugliness and absurdity as the major truths to be conveyed. (This viewpoint is not totally illegitimate, but neither is it modern.)

since we're talking about art, there is another element to art that can't be ignored. it is skill. God gave two men the broad skills they'd need to work on the art in his temple. he appreciates the skill involved in creating and if it is done for him, it must be done well. so i would say that art reflects God only to the extent that it is truthful and is done skillfully. in other words, it needs to be good...not just done well, but something worthy done well. so the idea behind the art needs to be truthful, and it also has to be communicated well. BUT...going back to what i said before: it still doesn't have to be pleasant. some truth is just plain horrible.

an example of this would be a painting of a gruesome rape or murder. perhaps the artist was highly skilled, masterfully weaving color and emotion to communicate the horrors of the scene. who would want a painting like that? it might be communicated well, but the thing being portrayed is ugly. yes, but i would say that it is still art, because in all reality people are raped and murdered. and it is a highly skilled work: is there anything missing? does this mean my definition is off? (i didn't say i'd buy it.) tell me what you think. i'm told that Rembrandt's paintings often convey tragedy or sorrow, yet he is one of the best artists in history, and many of his works are biblically-themed.

ok, so let me try to distill all of that (i know it's a little confusing). beauty is not the same as truth, but it points to truth. art is not the same as beauty, but art (like beauty) tries to capture or communicate truth, often using beauty as the means to accomplish that end. art must not only point to truth, but do it in a skillful manner to be truly "good" and to be the most glorifying to God. and although truth is often effectively conveyed through beauty, a work of art need not be beautiful to be truthful.

so assuming you both read and comprehended everything so far, you are probably asking, what's the application here? think about these questions. if art is something worthy done well, is the church any good at it? are you any good at it? is entertainment all to be considered as art? here's a clue as to the content of my next post. try applying that principle -- something worthy done well -- to the mass-production "christian art" that hangs on our walls, or the cookie-cutter "christian worship music" coming from our iPods, or the "christian movies" that barely pay for themselves. if you couldn't tell by now, i rather think the state of "christian art" is pathetic, as is the existence and use of the term "christian art"...and i'll talk more about that (and human creativity) in my next post.

in the meantime, please tell me what you think of this, especially if you disagree. these thoughts haven't been "bounced off" anyone yet...so i might be all wrong. i hope not, because this took a long time. :) talk to me!