Good Art Gives -- but Doesn't Always Sell (Part 1, by Melvin Bray)
I've been on a real art binge of late. Reading, watching, listening to, experiencing, and creating as much as I can. Good art isn't just creative, it's generative -- that is, it inspires creative acts in others. It gives us hands to shape the world in new and living ways. And I've been thinking a lot about how much this world we share needs more of it.
Like any other act of love, I believe art is fundamentally contributive, not transactional. It's not an if-you-do-this-I'll-do-that proposition. By my experience, as soon as it becomes transactional, art more often than not simply becomes entertainment. The difference is the bottom line. The bottom line in entertainment is to perpetuate the transaction. At least they're honest about it, those who transact in performance art. They call it "the biz," show business, business being the operative word. I was chatting with an Atlanta-based artist friend of mine, Patdro Harris, who used to choreograph for Stevie Wonder. He mentioned Stevie once noted that the great thing for him was that when he broke on the scene in the '60s, the industry and the public were transacting for the very art that was stirring inside of him. Sadly, that is not often enough the case. More often, people transact for (give back to) that which affirms and leaves them right where they are, good, bad or indifferent. Art -- love -- says, "Even if you don't give back to me, I'm going to give to you, and it's going to be an attempt to seek your best."
As much as I'm extremely protective of people's right to create and contribute, I'm not one of those anything-for-art's-sake and all-things-are-art kinds of guys. For example, perhaps counterintuitively, I don't find a lot with the marketing label "Christian" to be good art. Don't get me wrong (I can hear some readers' blood pressure rising), brand-Christian has great Jesus-and-me-God-is-awesome-way-to-go inspiration and encouragement (which definitely has its place), but not enough ears-to-hear-tongues-to-taste-new-possibilities for my palate. Like this Christian comedy duo I recently saw on national network television. Fun, campy, entertaining, audience-participation act, but rather than subverting the Christian kitsch that has become the popular caricature of the way of Jesus, they seemed to be promoting it as adorably goofy and secretly cool because ultimately (shhhh!) "We're gonna win." Such triumphalism makes me nauseous. And we also can't overlook how often brand-Christian buys into notions that the Christian narrative totally overthrows. Take, for example, the alternative extreme, tragic hero/ine. Why are there so many tragedies of redemption (one dies a spectacular death so others can live) on brand-Christian shelves, but so few stories of resurrection (one succumbs to death and defeat, to be composted into a new iteration of life)? (I bet there are fewer than you think.) Resurrection (the anti-conclusion that manages to subvert every possible anticipated ending -- triumphant, tragic, cleverly ambivalent -- while being a bit of each and then something more, all at once) is the gift of hope-for-all that those who know the Jesus story have. However, many of the compelling tellings of it are currently coming from outside the brand. While we vacillate between Left Behind and The Passion, some have chosen a more/less _______ path (I couldn't think of a fully accurate word that would be worth the offense).
I don't find degradation very artful either. With art being quintessentially generative as far as I'm concerned, that which is degenerate doesn't do it for me. I can abide the grotesque and dark, but once I heard the story of an exhibit that was closed because of a piece debasing a graphic of The Virgin by placing it in a toilet with feces. I wholeheartedly agree with that decision. On the other hand, I was dismayed when the Secret Service shut down Yazmany Arboleda's installations The Assassination of Hillary Clinton and The Assassination of Barack Obama--which though provocatively titled, are purely symbolic portrayals of the media's treatment of these figures. . Assuming the best until evidence to the contrary surfaces, I think they are brilliant, though undeniably disturbing (á la The New Yorker). Sometimes a good gut punch is the only thing that will blur our vision long enough for us to see.
[to be continued...]
Melvin Bray is a devoted husband, committed father, learner, teacher, writer, storyteller, lover of people, connoisseur of creativity, seeker of justice, purveyor of sustainability, and believer in possibilities. This post is one of a series of essays titled Home-Training.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
I get more out of a Bergman film than out of the Passion, Glory Road or Jesus Christ Superstar combined.
Posted by: I and I | July 22, 2008 4:25 PM
Melvin,
It's interesting that you reference The Passion. If someone who knew nothing about Jesus' message went to see the film, they'd leave the theater still not knowing Jesus' message.
Mel Gibson's blood-fest says more about America's fascination with graphic torture than it does about Jesus' gospel message.
Posted by: Quetzal | July 22, 2008 5:11 PM
Quetzal: "It's interesting that you reference The Passion. If someone who knew nothing about Jesus' message went to see the film, they'd leave the theater still not knowing Jesus' message.
Mel Gibson's blood-fest says more about America's fascination with graphic torture than it does about Jesus' gospel message."
An apt observation. Though Garry Wills sometimes exasperates me, I found his commentary on The Passion in the New York Review of Books to get it just about right. His opening sentence: "If you relish the sight of a healthy male body being
systematically demolished, beyond the farthest reach of plausible endurance, 'The Passion of the Christ' is your movie.
Later in the review Wills notes: "In Gibson's film the union of the divine and human in
Jesus is not explored or explicated. He is just a
sponge for punishment. Which makes one wonder why so many call their viewing of the film a conversion experience. From what, or to what, are they being converted? From Christianity to philoflagellationism?"
Posted by: carl copas | July 22, 2008 5:55 PM
The most God-honoring thing I've ever seen was Les Miserables on Broadway. Having been raised in the Church to a ridiculous degree, very few things catch me by surprise-- but that said things to me thta my heart has longed to say.
Posted by: frankie | July 22, 2008 6:20 PM
carl copas,
Thanks for sharing comments from Gary Wills. What a refreshing response in light of the uncritical fundamentalist drool since the film's release.
Posted by: Quetzal | July 22, 2008 7:51 PM
Melvin,
As a long time classical musician, I, like you, have seen much passed off as art. In the past 10 years or so I increasingly lean towards James Joyce's definition of art as he wrote in "A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man." I paraphrase, but simply put, there are only two kinds of art. The first is designed to generate some kind of response. It may be to buy a product, or it may want the viewer to become involved in an activity. The end result however is for the viewer/listener to respond in some way. Joyce calls this art pornographic. The second type of art does not require action, but rather, the opposite. The viewer/listener is held in a state of arrest, perhaps overwhelmed by the art itself. I think this has much to say about our experiences of God. Like art, which is a medium to see into something else, our experience of God (the experience, not God) may be nothing more than a generative moment to move the "Christian" into action, or it may overwhelm us into non-action.
Posted by: Brian | July 23, 2008 7:54 AM
that's beautifully insightful, brian. thanks for sharing. like rain, i hope such moments of grace fall on both Christian and Other alike.
Posted by: melvin bray | July 23, 2008 8:32 AM
"Mel Gibson's blood-fest says more about America's fascination with graphic torture than it does about Jesus' gospel message. "
Roger Ebert gave the film his highest rating. Is he fascinated with graphic torture? If so, how do you explain his poor reviews of the Saw movies?
For that matter, how would you explain my appreciation of the film, and rejection of the latter?
Martin Scorcese is regarded as one of the greatest directors of all time. Is that simply so because America is fascinated with graphic violence?
What you fail to address, and what will require you to drop the "I am so smart and everyone else is so dumb" meme, is that violence in film serves a purpose.
In (most) PG-13 blockbuster action films, that purpose is primarily to create or resolve a conflict. The death of a supporting character creates conflict. The death of the bad guy resolves it. A car chase scene ends in death before it exceeds budget. A bloody nose in real-life elicits more bloodshed than three shots to the abdomen in most movies.
Directors like Scorcese and Cronenberg (and, in this case, Gibson) create an authentic illusion of violence. In Scorcese's films, violence serves as a specter over the lives of his characters. We are forced to analyze every action in light of the potential disastrous consequence (think Harvey Keitel in "Taxi Driver", or Joe Pesci in "Goodfellas").
Cronenberg is more interested in the violence itself. It usually accompanies a transformation in his characters (think Jeff Goldblum in "The Fly", or Viggo Mortenson in "A History of Violence").
In each case, the purpose is to heighten our awareness of the narrative, and asks ourselves how each character arrived at this point. This is what Gibson is attempting to accomplish.
Had Gibson not proven himself to be an able filmmaker, we might not give him the benefit of the doubt. But "Man Without a Face" is certainly competent, and "Braveheart" is an excellent film.
In my view, the critics who dismiss "The Passion" as a fixture to sate bloodlust had written their review before they had seen the film.
Posted by: kevin s. | July 23, 2008 11:01 AM
Kevin S.,
I agree with Melvin. Frankly, that doesn't necessarily validate my opinion; nor does it negate yours.
Melvin's article includes a thoughtful, faithful reflection on a movie I found emotional but not really profound. People fainting at the sight of blood aren't automatically evidence of a soul-felt conversion.
Nevertheless, your comments were almost a good counterpoint and chance to reflect on the value of art, particularly "Christian" art.
The minute you made the insulting personal digs, though, your comments lost all credibility with me. Absent a spirit of respect and with a need to throw in putdowns, your whole entry becomes tainted.
Another U.M. clergyman told our congregation that "The Passion" was the most significant spiritual experience he'd ever had in his whole life. I'm glad he found it powerful, and yet I wish he were talking about some real-life personal encounter with the Holy Spirit instead.
Posted by: openeyes | July 23, 2008 3:21 PM
Art is the eye of the beholder. We all have our tastes. As I sat and watched The Passion in the theater I couldn't help but notice the emotion the film evoked. The facial expressions and body language of the patrons leaving the theater was evidence that this movie communicated more than torture to these people. How often, if ever, do you see art move people so powerfully?
I do agree with Melvin about Christian brand art. As a pastor I've had to carefully let people know I don't like cute, kitschie stuff. Some people are inspired by "footsprints in the sand" stuff. That's the beauty of art, one mans art is someone else's junk. Art is open to critique, but critiquing someone else's taste in art can easily cross into being judgemental. It goes from judging the art to judging the person.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | July 23, 2008 5:12 PM
"The minute you made the insulting personal digs, though, your comments lost all credibility with me. "
Well, how else would you describe the attitude that everyone who appreciated the film is obsessed with graphic violence?
Posted by: kevin s. | July 23, 2008 5:51 PM
"Well, how else would you describe the attitude that everyone who appreciated the film is obsessed with graphic violence?"
That would be a good example of the judging of art slips to the judging of people.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | July 23, 2008 10:54 PM
'Triumphalism'!
If the triumph were Christ's ultimate Triumph… (Hopefully foreshadowed in us in our living here and now as loving, joyful, peaceful, patient, gentle good, faithful, meek, self-controlled subjects of the kingdom, 'letting our light shine', NOT trying to jam the Faith down anyone's throat!)
… Well, Paul says orinthians 2.14 'Thanks be to God who always causes us to triumph in Messiah, and shows the savor of His knowledge by us everywhere.' Or 'leads us in a Triumph.' I'm not sure whether we're going to be led into the Holy City as His triumphant army, or as his captives! Or both; probably both. Any old way will be fine with me. Right now His word to us is 'Keep busy till I get back.'
Posted by: Ted Voth Jr | July 24, 2008 12:04 PM
From the consumer's point of view, art in the primary sense is nonparticipatory, vicarious entertainment. All art can be enjoyed while sitting and letting your mind get engaged. Literature, music, dance, painting, sculpture, drama are all the same.
Of course, there are wide differences of opinion over what art is "good" and what art is "bad." For some a picture of Jesus on the Mount of Olives that glows in the dark is a thing of beauty. For others, it would be kitsch of the lowest sort.
To each his own, I say.
Posted by: jsens3 | July 24, 2008 9:37 PM
Ironic thing about The Passion: the film was decried as anti-Semitic, and many of its defenders gave very thoughtful reasons why it should not be seen that way. Then what does its creator do? Get drunk and make anti-semitic comments to a policeman. So I guess we can say the film was not anti-semitic despite its creator's anti-semiticism.
For years I refused to watch a Roman Polanski film becasue he is a pedophile. But I finally broke down and rented "Chinatown," and will probably rent "Knife in the Water" in the near future. I looked for any clue of pedophilic content in Chinatown and couldn't find any.
Posted by: I and I | July 25, 2008 4:45 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?