CalvinandHodges
Puritan Board Junior
Greetings:
Below is an excerpt from a paper I wrote on Aesthetics. I am interested in the valuation of Art: Why do some value certain art-forms and others do not? Is there an intrinsic value to an artwork, or, is it simply in the eyes of the beholder? Should we judge a person "lesser" if he/she does not appreciate the same kinds of music or painting? I wish to engender thoughts on this subject.
Axiology and Art: Towards a Christian Aesthetic.'
Axiology is the task of assigning value to beauty. As such it is a broad category that encompasses many different philosophical disciplines. Dr. Wilbur Urban writes:
Francis Schaeffer in his book, How Should We Then Live? traces the flow of art as it relates to the presuppositions of the artist and the culture around him. Art is an expression of the metaphysical values of the culture, and these values are predominately expressed in the moral views of the artist. A “Goth,” for example, will be attracted to art that reflects the 19th Century Gothic Romantic Novels. Death and the macabre are consistent themes within the “Gothic culture.” A Hedonist considers only his own personal pleasure as the determinant for the judging of good or bad to an artwork. The Pragmatic will judge something beautiful if there is some means to an end or consequence reached by the work.
What is value? Why do we value what we value? What is the relationship between value and knowledge? In the strictest sense of the word “value” can be equated with “worth.” When we place a value on something we are indicating the relation of that something to what we hold to be dear. To a scientist the batting average of Mickey Mantle in his rookie year of 1951 is a worthless piece of trivia. However, to an adoring fan of the New York Yankees it may be a valuable piece of knowledge. Knowledge itself is determined by value-systems. And these judgments ultimately lead us to our knowledge of reality.
What is the relation of values to reality? The subjectivist would claim that values are entirely dependent on human experience. The objectivist, on the other hand, understands values to be metaphysically real, objective, and integral to the universe around him. The phrase “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” is a statement focusing on the subjective element of art or beauty. Art, from an objective viewpoint, is the selective re-creation of reality based upon the artist’s metaphysical value-judgments. Art, true art, in its true form follows the created order from the perspective of the artist. In this sense art is both objective, as it represents reality, and subjective, as it is an expression of reality from the value-judgments of the artist. Francis Schaeffer points this out when he writes:
It is not simply the artist, though, that is represented, but those also who appreciate and/or patronize the artist. When an art observer places a value-judgment upon a work of art he is acknowledging the work as somehow reflective of his own world and life view. Not all men are creators of great art, but all men express the image of God within them through their appreciation of art. For the Christian living in the secular world the question must be asked: What principles should be used when creating or making a value-judgment upon a work of art?
God is the most beautiful being in the world. There is none like Him. One can stand and gape with awe for a millennia at the wondrous beauty of the manifestation of the glory of the Lord and still be filled with wonder and awe forevermore. When the Bible uses the term “beauty” it is often surrounded with synonyms such as “glory” and “holiness”:
However, in reading the New Testament the function of the Temple decorations becomes perfectly clear: The people of God are the Temple of the Lord (Eph. 2:21). The beauty of worship is found in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit granting to the believer in Christ holiness, and a reflection of the Glory of God. The Temple of Solomon in all of its glory was simply a shadow of better things to come. The Regulative Principle requires only accapella Psalm singing in worship. Consequently, using artworks to adorn a place of worship is counterproductive to the work of the Holy Spirit. It is the Word of God skillfully applied to the soul that beautifies the believer in Christ. Anything else does not satisfy. The Puritans had it right.
That God has limited the use of art works in worship does not restrict the use of art in all other areas of life. As he is an aesthetic creature the Christian man, being renewed in the image of God, can both make and appreciate works of art. Such would not only include creations made by fellow Christians, but also art works made by unbelievers. When considering any art work the primary text in Scripture to be applied is:
Ethics in Christian Axiology demands the artwork to be “true, honest, just, and pure.” These principles are essential parts of the Moral Law. In epistemology they reflect the true knowledge of God. And, that which is “lovely” is found in the very being of God who is beautiful beyond measure. How then do these principles relate to secular art?
From the Iliad to Huckleberry Finn from Greco-Roman Sculpture to Caravaggio’s: Paul on the Damascus Road secular artists have been thrilling Christians with their work. How can this be when secular artists have no true vision of the one true God? A clue to this can be found in the Westminster Confession of Faith:
Any thoughts?
-Rob
Below is an excerpt from a paper I wrote on Aesthetics. I am interested in the valuation of Art: Why do some value certain art-forms and others do not? Is there an intrinsic value to an artwork, or, is it simply in the eyes of the beholder? Should we judge a person "lesser" if he/she does not appreciate the same kinds of music or painting? I wish to engender thoughts on this subject.
Axiology and Art: Towards a Christian Aesthetic.'
Axiology is the task of assigning value to beauty. As such it is a broad category that encompasses many different philosophical disciplines. Dr. Wilbur Urban writes:
To assign a value-judgment to a work of art as being either “good” or “bad” is, in essence, a judgment from an ethical viewpoint. Consequently, one’s views on ethical matters will greatly determine what one accepts as artistic or beautiful. Dr. Urban also notes that there are epistemological questions concerning the valuation of Art. Such questions might be: What is the knowledge of value? Is it intrinsic, or, extrinsic? Finally, values are related to Ontology: the study of being-as-such. What is the relation of values to reality independent of man?
Francis Schaeffer in his book, How Should We Then Live? traces the flow of art as it relates to the presuppositions of the artist and the culture around him. Art is an expression of the metaphysical values of the culture, and these values are predominately expressed in the moral views of the artist. A “Goth,” for example, will be attracted to art that reflects the 19th Century Gothic Romantic Novels. Death and the macabre are consistent themes within the “Gothic culture.” A Hedonist considers only his own personal pleasure as the determinant for the judging of good or bad to an artwork. The Pragmatic will judge something beautiful if there is some means to an end or consequence reached by the work.
What is value? Why do we value what we value? What is the relationship between value and knowledge? In the strictest sense of the word “value” can be equated with “worth.” When we place a value on something we are indicating the relation of that something to what we hold to be dear. To a scientist the batting average of Mickey Mantle in his rookie year of 1951 is a worthless piece of trivia. However, to an adoring fan of the New York Yankees it may be a valuable piece of knowledge. Knowledge itself is determined by value-systems. And these judgments ultimately lead us to our knowledge of reality.
What is the relation of values to reality? The subjectivist would claim that values are entirely dependent on human experience. The objectivist, on the other hand, understands values to be metaphysically real, objective, and integral to the universe around him. The phrase “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” is a statement focusing on the subjective element of art or beauty. Art, from an objective viewpoint, is the selective re-creation of reality based upon the artist’s metaphysical value-judgments. Art, true art, in its true form follows the created order from the perspective of the artist. In this sense art is both objective, as it represents reality, and subjective, as it is an expression of reality from the value-judgments of the artist. Francis Schaeffer points this out when he writes:
In a very real sense great art is the communication of the artists’ metaphysical value-judgments in his representation of reality.
It is not simply the artist, though, that is represented, but those also who appreciate and/or patronize the artist. When an art observer places a value-judgment upon a work of art he is acknowledging the work as somehow reflective of his own world and life view. Not all men are creators of great art, but all men express the image of God within them through their appreciation of art. For the Christian living in the secular world the question must be asked: What principles should be used when creating or making a value-judgment upon a work of art?
God is the most beautiful being in the world. There is none like Him. One can stand and gape with awe for a millennia at the wondrous beauty of the manifestation of the glory of the Lord and still be filled with wonder and awe forevermore. When the Bible uses the term “beauty” it is often surrounded with synonyms such as “glory” and “holiness”:
For the Christian, then, beauty is defined by the referent – God. However, when one reads the Bible, the one thing that is forbidden the Christian to do is to make an artwork of God:
In defending the use of the arts Schaeffer , Veith , and Meyers all argue that what is forbidden concerning the making of art is the worship of it. Many argue that the church should be decorated like the Temple of Solomon – with images of: gold, angels, fruits, candlesticks, and tapestries of animals. They point out that the puritanical view of a plain church with no ornaments, no instruments, and a plain pulpit is an overreaction against the kind of voluptuous idolatry found in Roman Catholic circles.
However, in reading the New Testament the function of the Temple decorations becomes perfectly clear: The people of God are the Temple of the Lord (Eph. 2:21). The beauty of worship is found in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit granting to the believer in Christ holiness, and a reflection of the Glory of God. The Temple of Solomon in all of its glory was simply a shadow of better things to come. The Regulative Principle requires only accapella Psalm singing in worship. Consequently, using artworks to adorn a place of worship is counterproductive to the work of the Holy Spirit. It is the Word of God skillfully applied to the soul that beautifies the believer in Christ. Anything else does not satisfy. The Puritans had it right.
That God has limited the use of art works in worship does not restrict the use of art in all other areas of life. As he is an aesthetic creature the Christian man, being renewed in the image of God, can both make and appreciate works of art. Such would not only include creations made by fellow Christians, but also art works made by unbelievers. When considering any art work the primary text in Scripture to be applied is:
Insofar as a particular artwork contains any of the principles stated above, then such an artwork is an acceptable media for the Christian to appreciate. The farther an artwork strays from these principles the uglier it becomes as an indicator of the glory of God.
Ethics in Christian Axiology demands the artwork to be “true, honest, just, and pure.” These principles are essential parts of the Moral Law. In epistemology they reflect the true knowledge of God. And, that which is “lovely” is found in the very being of God who is beautiful beyond measure. How then do these principles relate to secular art?
From the Iliad to Huckleberry Finn from Greco-Roman Sculpture to Caravaggio’s: Paul on the Damascus Road secular artists have been thrilling Christians with their work. How can this be when secular artists have no true vision of the one true God? A clue to this can be found in the Westminster Confession of Faith:
Secular artists still have within their sin torn souls the light of nature that leads them to some truth about God. From this knowledge the secular artist can express some truths concerning God’s world that is consistent with Christian philosophy. Common Grace can so work in the soul that the very glory of God can be revealed through the work of an unbelieving artist.
Any thoughts?
-Rob
with Jeff Koons above, but isn’t this a 
