Ads


The Challenge of Art

Recently, I was fortunate to have an engaging conversation with a young, talented, and sincere Christian playwright. We were having a splendid discussion about her new project, when I revealed my lack of sophistication by asking the utterly un-artistic question: “What’s the point?” A graduate of a prestigious art school, she was, of course, ready with an answer: to challenge x, y, and z. But when I asked her why on earth I should pay good money to go and have my views challenged by a playwright—well, she hadn’t thought of that. And people wonder why the arts are suffering.

Art schools teach students to challenge the audience, but they do not teach them why they should—and no one, certainly, has taught the audience to appreciate it. Many critics even decry this fact, blaming the poor state of the arts in our country on an audience that just doesn’t “get it.”

The notion that the artist’s role is to challenge the audience is offensive to the audience. It is arrogant and condescending. Learning how to paint, sculpt, write, or compose, does not make one a moral authority on art or anything else. There is no moral value in being transgressive for the sake of transgressiveness. And there is no merit in challenging people just for the sake of a challenge. The old “devil’s argument” is, after all, a very poor argument.

It is noteworthy that this aim of the contemporary artist is absent from most great art. Whatever the point of any great work of art, it certainly is not to challenge people. Of course, no one will dispute that art does challenge people: The moral difficulties in Shakespeare and Aeschylus are challenging, Hardy’s war poems are challenging, Górecki’s Third Symphony is challenging; any great work of art demands an appropriately great response, and that is always challenging. But the real challenge of art is not just some point of argument—there are no shortages of those. The real challenge of art is something immeasurably greater. The challenge of art is beauty. And the challenge of beauty is truth. Truth is challenging. But it is also inviting. It is also glorious and liberating. Truth is wondrous, not scandalous.

When trying to figure out what the real point of art is,
I find it always a good idea to consult the poetry section before the philosophy section. Did Homer aim to challenge? Did Pindar? Dante? Milton? They are all challenging, to be sure. But one would be a fool to say that the point, the telos, of any great art or artist is primarily to challenge. What, after all, is the challenge in Mozart or Bach?

So what is the point of art, then, if not to challenge? Rilke (remember to consult the poets before the theorists) gives one of the finest answers; in a dedication to a book of poems, he writes:


Oh speak, poet, what do you do?
           - I praise.

But the monstrosities and the murderous days,
how do you endure them, how do you take them?
           - I praise.

But the anonymous, the nameless grays,
how, poet, do you still invoke them?
           - I praise.

What right have you, in all displays,
in very mask, to be genuine?
           - I praise.

And that the stillness and the turbulent sprays
know you like star and storm?
           - because I praise.

(translation by John. J. L. Mood)

Praise. Celebration. Despite any self-satisfaction, any arrogance, and rebuke or condemnation, you find always in great art something to celebrate.

Rilke is not unaware of the moral failures of his culture; he is not blind to the Great War around him. Rilke, and every other great artist, had to confront the same sorts of tragedies, hypocrisies, and injustices that today’s artists confront. But there is a world of difference between the way great artists and many contemporary artists respond to these problems. The artists who endure do so because they see beyond the problems they face, they look to what is eternal, realizing that the evils of today are here but for today. Today’s artists would rather hold up—almost celebrate—the evils.

Take, for example, one of our finest playwrights, whom I generally admire both as a playwright and a person: Stephen Adly Guirgis. In his plays In Arabia We’d All Be Kings and Our Lady of 121st St., he gives us a gruesome, heart-wrenching picture of the underbelly of our society, of the often (willfully) unseen results of corporate and political malfeasance, of drugs, of hope and lost hope, of dignity shrouded in darkness; and he does this with great empathy and humanity. But he stops there. There is no solution. There is nothing to be praised. He gives this hell to the audience, and we are supposed to ‘do something’ about it—that is the challenge. The difference is that in great art, when Dante gives us Hell, he also leads us through Purgatory and into Paradise. It is precisely this which is lacking in art today. Our artists are content to give us hell.

What we find in truly great art, however, is not the challenge of hell, but a glimpse of heaven. The artist does not come with demands and accusations, but comes offering praise, delight, beauty, hope, truth. The artist’s vocation, like all vocations, must be understood as a call to love and humility. This should be at the forefront of the artist’s mind: love your audience as yourself.

This is especially true for the Christian artist. When I talk with Christian artists, I always ask: “Where are the beatitudes in your art?” Now that is a challenge. Christ is always the real challenge. We, artists and audience, are called to serve, to be last, to carry a cross for our neighbor. We are not called to challenge or accuse, to point out the splinter in the audience’s eye, but we are called to love - that is the challenge! And art will only regain its proper and necessary place in our culture when artists begin to meet that challenge, when they no longer see themselves as judges, but as servants.

But that will not happen unless we, the audience, also do our part: we must also serve the artists. We must support good art when it is found, and we must cultivate in our schools and communities the sort of environment in which great art can flourish. Beauty is relational; and great art requires a great audience, which requires a great culture. So the real challenge of art belongs to all of us.

Christopher T. Haley is the Director of Communications for the Dietrich von Hildebrand Legacy Project. He lives in Texas.

RESOURCES

Matthew J. Milliner, The Art of Transgression

Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.

Comments:

10.3.2011 | 9:53am
One of my favorite moments in life was when I first saw Raphael's La Belle Jardiniere in the room at the East End of the Louvre's Grande Gallerie. (A similar moment was my first view of the Madonna of the Magnificat in Sala 7 of the Uffizi). Was I challenged? I was challenged to appreciate the glorious life I have been given and to do more with it. Beauty should make us rise up out of ourselves and be more than we have been. I will never be the Great Mother of God, but I should be more than I have been.
10.3.2011 | 11:21am
DVO says:
"A tree growing out of the ground is as wonderful today as it ever was. It does not need to develop new and startling methods."
- Robert Henri
"The Art Spirit"
10.3.2011 | 2:01pm
While it is enjoyable and thought provoking to talk about art, what makes art so fascinating is that it ultimately transcends our ability to articulate.
10.3.2011 | 2:21pm
Vacogito says:
I do not agree your premise that art should uplift; or that art is praise or even informative like it is an education. What art must always be is truth. This is it's only requirement. This means that art is not propaganda. If it is truth than it serves the Creator because he is 'the Way, the Truth, and the Life.' If it is not truth than it will be seen for the shallow pretense that so much art is.
10.3.2011 | 2:24pm
Cecilia says:
I have often had this thought, but was unable to articulate it so clearly. Thank you for this.
10.3.2011 | 2:34pm
Tony Esolen says:
Wonderful essay -- thank you.

A couple of years ago I gave a talk at the U of Minnesota on Shakespeare's Tempest and the virtue of wonder. I argued that if you did not recognize and enter the wonder of Miranda's and Ferdinand's falling in love -- a love that shows us where true freedom lies, in the bonds of self-giving and humility -- then you really had no business saying much of anything about the play. The headline in the student newspaper that week read, "Professor Discourages Critical Thinking."
10.3.2011 | 2:37pm
Vacogito, truth is too big for a work of art to encompass. In any situation there are many truths -- depressing truths, uplifting truths, uncomfortable truths, comforting truths. The idea of presenting "truth" is the excuse bad artists give for their works which show only the ugly side of things. As I read the post, I thought that any modern critic or consumer of art would hate it, because it denies the modern almost-religious belief that the only truth is an ugly or twisted depiction of reality, and that to show anything uplifting or positive is to be shallow and unserious.
10.3.2011 | 3:17pm
Thank you very much for this insightful reflection on the nature of art. It does seem to me that, of your examples, Milton is problematic. Paradise Lost is a thesis-driven epic (“to justify the ways of God to men”), and if Milton's political sonnets aren’t meant to challenge x, y, and z, I don’t know what is. And yet, I think we still value these works because the poetry manages to transcend both its historical moment and Milton’s immediate, political intent. Aesthetic beauty and political polemic need not be mutually exclusive, though they frequently are.

As W. H. Auden said, “Poetry can do a hundred and one things, delight, sadden, disturb, amuse, instruct—it may express every possible shade of emotion, and describe every conceivable kind of event, but there is only one thing that all poetry must do; it must praise all it can for being and for happening” (Dyer’s Hand p. 60). He was a big fan of Rilke.
10.3.2011 | 4:23pm
habeas says:
Have you tried to play Mozart or Bach, and play them well? There is a challenge. Have you tried to perform in one of Guirgis' plays? The beauty lies in finding the truth within the roles he created. Your essay assumes that all art should be audience-centered, when many artists produce work, at least initially, because of the challenges inherent in mastering their own art. Piano lessons. School courses. After-school programs. These artists are making art for the pleasures (and yes, challenges) of doing so, not for the audience's sake. And this is not, necessarily, a flawed approach. Are Emily Dickinson's poems somehow less beautiful because she didn't care if they ever left her drawer? Is popular culture "great art" because of its narcissistic celebration of youthful beauty and its constant audience/ demographic market monitoring?

Artists in training produce a lot of work that isn't very good, on the way to getting better. Audiences for emerging artists' work, especially, need to recognize that you don't get great art without supporting the arts in all their stages of progress in schools and communities. But perhaps that is too didactic an approach to take to a public that views the arts as just one more entertainment possibility.
10.3.2011 | 4:27pm
Tara says:
Christian artists have the particular challenge, I think, of showing the ugliness of our fallen world in the light of Christ's Redemption. Contemporary art has a tendency to celebrate the ugliness because our culture has a hard time seeing anything beyond the here and now. Much of today's "Christian" art, however, tends to show redemption without suffering. Both approaches insult the audience equally - one because it leads to despair, the other because it denies the reality of sin and suffering.
10.3.2011 | 6:47pm
At this point to say that art must challenge its audience is to mouth an empty cliché. Artist should vigorously challenge the notion that art must be some sort of challenge.

The official object of art in Renaissance Italy was to instruct and delight, a notion that was inherited from the Ancients. Back then, art had a recognizable subject matter, most often Christian stories — they were for instruction. The other goal — delight —was beauty, a beauty, it was believed, that reflected or embodied a divine order, a universal harmony, underlying all of Nature. The artist's ego wasn't much appreciated, but his or her skill was greatly prized.
10.3.2011 | 9:48pm
Unfortunately, for every Tree of Life, there seem to be ten movies like Fireproof or Flywheel (the worst work of art of any kind I have ever experienced). Now that I think about it, Of Gods and Men was very good.
10.3.2011 | 11:56pm
Jim Wilhelm says:
A statement always bandied about by many artist is: "I love it when art imitates life." I wish more artists would analyse that statement and what it really means in regards to the article above. If you really want to show "life" you must always have light and darkness, hope and despair, love and hate, anger and forgiveness. These are all part of who we are. To have art without struggle without darkness is to deny the world as it is. We would have nothing to fight for without it. To have art without hope is to deny the very reason we continue to live. Regardless of what happens, there is always a small kernel of hope that exists. Without both, there can be no honest, no reality in an art. We must show both the chaos and the cosmos; the hope of reaching for the stars and the fallacy of sticking our heads in the sand. To be a great artist one must be willing to fillet themselves and examine their own light and darkness. The work by that artist then becomes not something that is used to challenge but to enrich by sharing the lessons of another life.
10.4.2011 | 3:27am
joshua d says:
In reality, truth can be scandalous, but it also requires empathy and humanity. That is the beatitude which is scandalous and wondrous.
That empathy and humanity is itself a praise.
10.6.2011 | 3:50pm
Eli says:
Tagged: http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2011/10/looks-like-someone-cant-handle.html
type the text above in the box below

Links

Blogs

Find Us

Contact