I haven’t been feeling particularly philosophical or theological recently so that is part of why I have been so slow to post in the last few weeks. Some of the things we talked about tonight in my school of theology class got me thinking though. It has been an interesting journey for me since I joined the photo team when it comes to how I think about art. I would say in college, especially my Freshman year, art was something that was very inaccessible and by and large wasn’t very interesting to me. I didn’t get the point. It was something that English majors and art geeks did. And as a Political Science major at a conservative Christian college, I just had a general distrust for the radical leftist tendencies of most artists through history. That said it is rather odd that I now find myself an artist. I write, play music, and take photos. Occasionally I try my hand at sketching or poetry but most of that stuff I burn or destroy for the sake of anyone who might find it and feel an irresistible urge to then gouge their eyes out. Still, I take my photography very seriously and if I ever got up the guts I think it would be fun to be part of a worship band. What we discussed tonight in class touched a little bit on this subject. We were talking about “kitsch” art and what the difference is between art that can be categorized as kitsch and art that is just bad art.  There was also a fair amount of agreement over the fact that one of the major dividing factors between what is kitsch and what is art is whether or not it is being done for money. This I definitely agree with, though I almost am at the extreme end of the spectrum. I’m not a big fan of art that is done for arts sake (like Damien Hirst) but I also don’t think artists should be commercially motivated. If someone wants to buy your art, fine, great, I’m happy for you. But I don’t think artists should define their work by what they think will sell. I would love it if someone were to pay me for the pictures I take, but if no one ever does, I’m not going to stop. I take pictures and enjoy those taken by others because I believe photography has the ability to uniquely capture truth.  I liked what Eric said about brokenness in art also.  Even though we live in a country of excess and are surrounded by wealth and capitol, people are still drawn to art that highlights the brokenness of creation.  Look at, of all places, the superhero movies that have been so popular over the last few years.  The subplot through the Spiderman movies is how much being Spiderman has cost Peter Parker (rocky relationship with MJ and death of his uncle).  In Batman Begins we see a Bruce Wayne who blames himself for the death of his parents.  Even Superman Returns shows how Clark Kent has failed all of his friends in Metropolis.  We like seeing superheros who are less than perfect because it gives us hope that we can still do great things in spite of our broken nature.  As Christian artists, I think it is our responsibility to point to the Creator as the one who endows us with that ability to overcome.

Another question that was raised is whether or not art that starts out as art can become kitsch.  One of the examples brought up is Van Gogh’s painting Starry Night.  I think it is important to separate kitsch from art that repackaged or repurposed by someone other than the artist.  Maybe though there is also a distinction that can be made between good and bad kitsch.  Maybe the fact that so many people buy works like Starry Night or The Persistence of Time to impress their friends dilutes the perceived uniqueness and value in the eyes of art snobs, but that doesn’t take anything away from the inherent truth of the artist’s creation.  Van Gogh did not paint for commercial success, he was supported for most of his life by his brother Theo.  The fact that people now look at his works, specifically Starry Night, as something that if owned makes you an art fan is not Van Gogh’s fault.  Maybe owning a poster of Starry Night (as I will admit I do) doesn’t make you an aficionado and isn’t as “cool” as owning an original work by a local artist, but it is unfair to discount the work of Van Gogh or Monet or Escher or Dali because of its meaning attached to it by the general populous.

Filed under: life by Jonathan Assink