![]() ![]() Roger Scruton, The Face of God (London: Continuum, 2012), 132. Nicholas Wolterstorff, Art in Action (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), x. Susan Sontag, Against Interpretation and Other Essays (New York: Penguin, 1961). I also wonder if Siedell might reconsider the language of use as it seems unhelpful here, particularly in relation to his discussion of meta-narratives. Smith’s The Fall of Interpretation (watch Smith’s summary of the book here). Are they idolatrous or are they grace (i.e., “the mysterious unity of God’s story”)? Or is the issue really one of interpretation? And if so, I wonder what Siedell makes of James K.A. I am a bit unclear as to what Siedell means by and thinks of meta-narratives as he seems to equivocate. But what of Anthony Monti or David Brown? Brown is an explicit advocate of “listening” (i.e., to culture) as opposed to just trying to “contribute.” Siedell notes: “The responsibility of the Christian critic is to preserve that distinctive space that art can create, a space that allows us to feel his grace, which only exists and comes to us in the present moment, a glorious moment that needs no interpretation, explanation, or justification.” Here, it seems as though Siedell’s reading of “theology and the arts” is limited to those in the “what passes for” category. My fear is that theologians might get short shrift here, especially when compared to Siedell’s “Christian critic” who gets the final word. Returning to Siedell’s suspicion of “what passes for … theology and the arts,” I wonder if, here again, he might be more specific. ![]() While I would want to say derived instead of intrinsic values, I think that Scruton is right when he says that friendship, or in our case art, is supremely useful so long as we do not think of it as useful. Friendship is supremely useful, so long as we do not think of it as useful. And yet friends are useful: they provide help in times of need, and they amplify the joys of daily living. To treat him as a means – to use him for your purposes – is to undo the friendship. Your friend is valuable to you as the thing that he is. He notes:Īlthough, by definition, intrinsic values cannot be translated into utilitarian values, this does not mean that they have no utility. Here, we would do well to consider Roger Scruton’s analogy of friendship in The Face of God. Here, in his suspicion of “what passes for … theology and the arts,” Siedell echoes Nicholas Wolterstorff, but Wolterstorff, of course, argues over and against the idea of art’s most evident characteristic being its uselessness, “that works of art are objects and instruments of action.” And I think Wolterstorff is right when he says that “art plays … a diversity of roles,” including, but not limited to, “contemplation for the sake of delight,” and this, contra Siedell, without any deprivation of goodness. Unfortunately, what passes for Christian art education or theology and the arts is in fact an idolatrous worship of a particular ideology or meta-narrative which art is enlisted to support (i.e., The Christian Worldview) and grace is forgotten. ![]() To enlist art into my own justifying efforts risks depriving the work of art of what it can be, that is, a harbinger of a ‘deeper magic’ at work in the world, the magic of grace. The failure to do so results in idolatry. Instead of making “a work of art work for me” (i.e., “as a tool for my own justifying work”), I ought to recognize “the mysterious unity of God’s story” (i.e., grace). This is, according to Siedell, a “manifestation of the old Adam” (i.e., law). The issue, for Siedell, is that, when taken up into an all encompassing meta-narrative, works of art, which “exist in own glorious singularity,” are deprived of their integrity. Siedell begins with Susan Sontag’s Against Interpretation, noting: “In the hands of interpretation, art becomes, at best, merely the visual illustration of an idea best expressed through other means.” He goes on to suggest that the “implications are considerable for writing about art from a self-consciously Christian perspective.” Here, in Part 2, Brewer responds to Siedell’s “Art and Explanation.” Brewer will continue his response with Part 3 – A Response to Siedell’s God in the Gallery: A Christian Embrace of Art (19 November) and Part 4 – Of What Use Is Story? Further Reflections Upon a Storied Theology of the Arts (30 November) before Siedell’s final response (10 December). Part 1 – A Response to Siedell’s “Art and Culture, or Politics by Other Mean–Evangelical Style” was published 24 September. Editor’s Note: Transpositions is currently featuring a 5–part series on Daniel A.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |