Presented by Tim Jacobs to the Socratic Club on September 20th, 2007.
This is essay is a reaction to the essay entitled “The Case for a Broken Beauty: An Art Historical Viewpoint by E. John Walford presented at the 2006 Wheaton Theology Conference and collected in the book The Beauty of God: Theology and the Arts[1]. In his essay, Walford critiques the common approach Christians have to art that they must display the perfection lost in the Garden and anticipated in Heaven. This idea stems from the Platonic view that the ideal is better than the material. This concept made its way into Greek art and was eventually adopted by Christians when the Roman Empire was Christianized. Christians at the time found the Greek approach of binding beauty, truth, and goodness together in art to be compatible with the faith.
Walford replies to this common Christian view by saying, “such works fail to engage the viewer because they are devoid of the substance and grit of life as we know it”[2]. Walford agrees that beauty and truth are bound together. However, he holds that truth is not displayed by the Classical approach of displaying people with perfect bodies and scenes of absolute grandeur. Walford quotes H. R. Rookmaaker who says, “Truth has to do with the fullness of reality, its scope and meaning… fairy tales can be true, if they show human action and behavior in keeping with human character—within the framework of fairy tale reality”[3].
Here, Walford asks what the most fitting function of art is. Is it to represent God, the human condition, or their intersection? The idealist, he points out, would say that art is to represent God. This is to say that idealists want to “[point] beyond the human condition to a beauty once lost and eventually to be regained”[4]. Is the current, broken creation then to be ignored in art? Walford answers by pointing to an approach to art that is centered on Christ and redemption. In this form of art, the human brokenness is not ignored. Art that ignores sin cannot portray the hope of redemption. One example Walford uses is the painting St. Agitha’s Grief by Melissa Wienman. This work shows the human grief in breast cancer but hope in Christ. Walford sums up his argument by saying, “a broken beauty is not only true to the human condition, but it can embody the essence of the gospel of redemption, or, at very least, manifest its fruits. Neo-Platonic notions of beauty convey a longing for an unspoiled Garden of Eden or a concept of idealized perfection.”[5]. Idealist beauty points to the transcendant where broken beauty points to redemption, “[acknowledging] suffering while preserving hope”[6].
In response to this, I agree enthusiastically with the concept of broken beauty. Truth is beautiful. As Confucius say, “The Master said of the shao that it was both perfectly beautiful and perfectly good, and of the wu that it was perfectly beautiful but not perfectly good”[7]. It is in identifying with a work of art that we can empathize with its message. The distant idealist art seems foreign and always just out of our grasp. Rookmaaker’s statement that fairy tales can be true only if they show accurate human character within a consistent fairy tale reality. Tolkien and Lewis come to mind in their essays “On Stories”[8] and “On Fairy-Stories.”[9] Both put forward the idea of the “spell” that is cast upon a reader to delve them into situations where those “watchful dragons” cannot prevent the reader from engaging morally into the text.
However, I think that there is a definite need and use for idealist art. Idealist art cannot be empathized with in the way broken art. That is not necessarily its purpose. When entering the Sistine Chapel, we want to be struck with the awe of God and a sense of the sacred. Indeed, sacred space is to remind us of what is above. In viewing the patriarchs of old, we often want to have a sense of awe. In viewing God, we definitely want to. If we are Greeks or Romans, we don’t want to see Zeus wrinkly and frail but standing upright with his hand stretched out in a pose of power and control. There are places where we want to focus entirely on the perfection and goodness once lost and now hoped for. Truth is beautiful. If we want to be moved by the profundity of grace, we must focus on human imperfection and the hope that we have in the context of our real world situations. For this purpose, broken beauty is best. However, for the presentation of God, kings, and perfection, and other awe inspiring things, idealist art is well placed within the Christian realm.
[1] Walford, E. John. “The Case for a Broken Beauty: An Art Historical Viewpoint.” Eds. Daniel J. Treier, Mark Husbands, and Roger Lundin, eds. The Beauty of God: Theology and the Arts. Treier, Daniel J., Mark Husbands, and Roger Lundin, eds. Dowers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity, 2007.
[2] Ibid., p. 87
[3] Ibid., p. 90
[4] Ibid., p. 90-91
[5] Ibid., p. 109
[6] Ibid., p. 109
[7] Confucius. The Analects. D. C. Lau, Trans. London: Penguin Books, 1979.
[8] Lewis, C. S. “On Stories.” in On Stories and Other Essays on Literature. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1982.
[9] Tolkien, J. R. R. “On Fairy-Stories.” The Monsters and the Critics and Other Essays. Ed. Christopher Tolkien. London: HarperCollins, 2006.
