How would you distinguish between art and culture? I dont disagree with your thesis, and share a similar experience vis a vis consuming unhealthy media. But do we make art with the intent of having a moral impact, or does the cultural context of a piece of art affect how that art is perceived? Can art be considered independent of culture? Is art upstream or downstream of culture?
Curious what you think! Thanks for this thought provoking article.
Hi there! I apologize for the delay in my response! That is a great question…actually great questions!!! I do think art and culture are contingent upon each other in the sense that if we are imbedded in a type of culture, our art will reflect it. So, if we are entrenched in the culture of the darkness, the art we create will mirror that and as well as set the parameters for how we view art/understand the message. Similarly, if we are entrenched in the culture of the Church, which is the ultimate Culture, then our work will exude those truths and principles contingent upon the Faith.
That being said, I don’t think art and morals can be separated! Even if you are a carpenter, a leather-maker, an earring designer or a painter all these things, I believe in some way, reflect the truths of the culture you put your stock in. If you are Catholic, then, like St Paul says, “…whether you eat or drink, or whatsoever else you do, do all to the glory of God, “ (1 Cor 10:31, DRV). Thus, whether the intention is implicit to glorify God or explicit, as in the case of making an oil painting of the Holy Family or simply exemplifying the “good, the true and the beautiful”, it all can have a moral impact. I hope that helps!
Thank you for your reply! This idea of the "moral impact" is popping my brain. I wrote a lengthy reply and then erased it because my ideas were evolving as I was writing. Here's what I'm settling on.
1) "You are what you eat". I think this is an unshakeable law of the universe, even if it is expressed kind of humorously. If you feed into your mind bad quality music, images, intentions, words, deeds--you will be predisposed to create bad quality music, images, intentions, words, and deeds. In this sense you are correct in as direct a way as Art, and as indirect a way as building a chair.
2) I think what's missing from the conversation is some idea of *formation*. The premise for this is based on the idea that not all art needs to have a holy SUBJECT but it helps for all art to have a holy INTENT. And some art has neither a holy subject nor a holy intent and yet is not EVIL. So the goal of formation is about cultivating discernment of these distinctions, and the capacity to make choices about what one consumes so that one can indeed become what one eats. Important to the idea of formation is that, in the same way that you wouldn't put a big flintstones-steak in front of a baby and expect them to eat it, you also wouldn't let a child make their own choices about what music to listen to without A) forming them to make choices and B) applying your own filter to their choices while they are in the process of being formed. (A corollary here is that we don't always have a choice about what is blasted into our eyes or ears, and formation and discernment help fortify us against those times when bad things are force-fed to us.)
Culture then is kind of the aggregation of the collective choices of what a society chooses to eat, and art's *basic disposition* is to reflect that culture. It takes formation and discernment to create (or choose to consume) art that is different from, that is contrary to, or which transcends that basic cultural disposition.
Wow very well stated! Totally agree on the second point, especially of art being disposed naturally to reflect our times… the question of formation of art/artists that has holy intent (not necessarily in the imagery) i think will begin when we start to create spaces where even thinking about art as having a divine purpose are established
How would you distinguish between art and culture? I dont disagree with your thesis, and share a similar experience vis a vis consuming unhealthy media. But do we make art with the intent of having a moral impact, or does the cultural context of a piece of art affect how that art is perceived? Can art be considered independent of culture? Is art upstream or downstream of culture?
Curious what you think! Thanks for this thought provoking article.
Hi there! I apologize for the delay in my response! That is a great question…actually great questions!!! I do think art and culture are contingent upon each other in the sense that if we are imbedded in a type of culture, our art will reflect it. So, if we are entrenched in the culture of the darkness, the art we create will mirror that and as well as set the parameters for how we view art/understand the message. Similarly, if we are entrenched in the culture of the Church, which is the ultimate Culture, then our work will exude those truths and principles contingent upon the Faith.
That being said, I don’t think art and morals can be separated! Even if you are a carpenter, a leather-maker, an earring designer or a painter all these things, I believe in some way, reflect the truths of the culture you put your stock in. If you are Catholic, then, like St Paul says, “…whether you eat or drink, or whatsoever else you do, do all to the glory of God, “ (1 Cor 10:31, DRV). Thus, whether the intention is implicit to glorify God or explicit, as in the case of making an oil painting of the Holy Family or simply exemplifying the “good, the true and the beautiful”, it all can have a moral impact. I hope that helps!
Thank you for your reply! This idea of the "moral impact" is popping my brain. I wrote a lengthy reply and then erased it because my ideas were evolving as I was writing. Here's what I'm settling on.
1) "You are what you eat". I think this is an unshakeable law of the universe, even if it is expressed kind of humorously. If you feed into your mind bad quality music, images, intentions, words, deeds--you will be predisposed to create bad quality music, images, intentions, words, and deeds. In this sense you are correct in as direct a way as Art, and as indirect a way as building a chair.
2) I think what's missing from the conversation is some idea of *formation*. The premise for this is based on the idea that not all art needs to have a holy SUBJECT but it helps for all art to have a holy INTENT. And some art has neither a holy subject nor a holy intent and yet is not EVIL. So the goal of formation is about cultivating discernment of these distinctions, and the capacity to make choices about what one consumes so that one can indeed become what one eats. Important to the idea of formation is that, in the same way that you wouldn't put a big flintstones-steak in front of a baby and expect them to eat it, you also wouldn't let a child make their own choices about what music to listen to without A) forming them to make choices and B) applying your own filter to their choices while they are in the process of being formed. (A corollary here is that we don't always have a choice about what is blasted into our eyes or ears, and formation and discernment help fortify us against those times when bad things are force-fed to us.)
Culture then is kind of the aggregation of the collective choices of what a society chooses to eat, and art's *basic disposition* is to reflect that culture. It takes formation and discernment to create (or choose to consume) art that is different from, that is contrary to, or which transcends that basic cultural disposition.
Wow very well stated! Totally agree on the second point, especially of art being disposed naturally to reflect our times… the question of formation of art/artists that has holy intent (not necessarily in the imagery) i think will begin when we start to create spaces where even thinking about art as having a divine purpose are established