Thanks for sharing that, D. 

That’s a great prospective to impart on today’s youth that tend to find the right thing to do (being in God’s sweet spot) as boring.

Brandon-

I might not be following you, so this might take a couple of posts.

I’m just trying to sort through it myself. I don’t have many answers. I’m (a) pretty confident about what a ‘person’ is, that (b) it’s only in loving relationship to God in Christ that we fully become the persons God intends us to become, and that (c) the ‘art’ we’re created to create is a free expression of the person we become in Christ.

It’s combining these three with what I think is genuine art in people I know aren’t believers in Christ that I’m trying to explore. And so far the only explanation I have is that the genuine art we see in people who are nevertheless not connect to Christ, is the just God in them, via the divine image perhaps, longing to come out, long to express itself.

I agreed with D that personhood isn’t an all-or-nothing deal. So I’m not surprised to find non-Christians connecting with ‘the divine’ within them, without consciousness identifying it as Christ. That’s how I can see all kinds of beauty in non-Christians.

--------------------

Having said that, let me see if I’m following ya…

B: I don't know how you can say “...that sort of creative expression comes from ‘connecting’ on some level to the sustaining presence of God within and that’s not part of Satan’s self-perceiving act.” Why should we believe that God would somehow remove the giftings and callings of his creatures because they are not rightly aligned with God?

T: I’m not suggesting God has removed Satan’s gifting or calling. I’m suggesting Satan is in no way THAT I CAN SEE fulfilling his calling and putting any of his gifting to use as God intended.

Do you think Satan perceives genuine beauty within himself or Creation? That’s what I meant when I said there is no perception of beauty within Satan. I could be wrong, but I’m not seeing why you’d “not know how I could say” it. I’m searching in vain for an act of Satan that I can call a work of art, even if I reeeeeeally stretch the definition of ‘art’. Do you have one in mind? Then why was my comment such a surprise?

B: Second, there is the subject matter, the perspective of the individual creator of the art and the audience which are all part determiner of the morality of the art.

T: How does my observing Neon’s dance on Youtube partly determine the morality of her art?

But like I asked D. If according to 1Cor a person can give to the poor, sacrifice their life, etc., and be in total despair and those acts not be ‘loving acts’ (act of genuine personal quality) per se, then can we really look at any work of art and say “That’s a creative and personal act”? It seems not. Only God would be in a position to render such a judgment. But how can we NOT be touched by something like Neon or Falsetto or, etc. And isn’t acknowledging that ‘touch’ as good and positive essentially the same as rendering a judgment on the morality of the act? See? So let’s assume Neon is in total despair, then WHAT is touching us when we watch it?

Or is the comparison of art to 1Cor. not valid? Perhaps the fact that we are touched spiritually by Neon’s dance is an indication that she isn’t in total despair and her art is not completely void of genuine value. I guess what I’m asking is, how can we submit ‘art’ to what Paul has to say about the ambiguity inherent in our observation of human acts of (so-called) kindness?

B: Lastly, I thought that Falsetto ROCKED.

T: So did I.

B: You seem to want to give way too much power over to Satan. What do you mean by Satan perverting every potentiality?

T: Give him TOO much power? I mean to say that he keeps blowing it every chance he gets. The general picture of Satan I get from Scripture is that he’s evil, void of all goodness, the father of lies, in whom etc. etc., blah blah blah. But if he wasn’t perverting every potentiality, if he was actualizing some possible goods, that wouldn’t be the case, would it?

B: Is not the piece of art itself and expression of the potential? If what we ought to admire is what one makes of his/her potentialities (the art itself) then what would be problematic with the givenness of something?

T: Because ‘givenness’ is not an accomplishment. What I ‘give’ you is not what you ‘do with what I give you’. ‘Givenness’ is what you’re ‘given’, what you’re born with for example. Say you’re born with a face like Elizabeth Taylor. That’s ‘given’ to you. It’s not the result of your taking what you’re given and creating something new and beautiful with it. See what I’m saying?

T

Brandon: In all honesty, I don't know how you can say what you say about modeling competitions and the modeling industry and not say that about Neon.

Tom: Take some beautiful model who makes money just because she was born with a face that’s perfectly symmetrical, flawless, nice complexion, etc. Now take Neon’s dance.

You don’t see any difference between them? You’re going to put the ‘shape of a model's face’ (something she was born with and had nothing to do with) on par with Neon’s dance? Neon’s dance is the accomplishment of years of hard work, study, sweat and tears, and in the end a creative act of choreography. The shape of some model’s face is…is what? She was 'given' it. It's not an 'accomplishment' of hers. Neon wasn't 'given' her dance. It is an accomplishment of hers.

T

Post Edited (Tom) : 7/21/2008 11:09:00 AM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Shekinah) : 7/22/2008 6:50:11 AM (GMT-5)

D: So if there were two dancers...and one was gifted prodigy and talented just simply by how she was born (a 'given' to her)...and one got to her proficiency primarily through many years of persistence and much "hard work"...and they danced with the SAME PROFICIENCY pretty much...

You would say that the second dancer's performance would be "more beautiful"?

Tom: You’re not following the distinction between “givenness” and “creative accomplishment.”

No prodigy springs from the womb with a Stradivarius in his/her hand and in possession of the knowledge of ‘how’ to play Bach’s “Chaconne.” Prodigies enjoy a good bit more “givenness” than the average person, but they still have to work hard to achieve perfection. And who knows what prodigies never attained notoriety for want of practice. Prodigy is a “given.” But performance is a creative achievement.

So D, you’re joining Brandon in putting the mere ‘shape of a model's face’ (something she was born with and had nothing to do with) on par with Neon’s dance as both being a work of creative accomplishment, of the model on the one hand and Neon on the other?

D: Perhaps the same thing could be said for "savants" or "geniuses" that sometimes create works of beauty WAAAAAY beyond their years or believed capacity.

Tom: Not without effort at developing the ‘givenness of natural capacities’. Prodigies require a minimum amount of effort to development those capacities to a high level of proficiency. The rest of us have to work a lot harder to get to the same level of proficiency, if we even reach the same level.

Having said that, your question is, Supposing a prodigy plays a violin piece and a non-prodigy plays the same piece at the same ‘level of proficiency’, are they ‘equally beautiful’?

My answer? I don’t quite know. Perhaps ‘proficiency levels’ level off and the non-prodigy really put the work in to raising his level of play and equalled that of the prodigy. Perhaps the prodigy got lazy and that explains why they’re at the ‘same level of proficiency’. In the latter case I’d say the non-prodigy was more beautiful. If a really smart person slacks off in a preparing for a final exam and gets an ‘A’ with 90% (instead of the 100% she could get with more effort) and another person of very average abilities works extremely hard to prepare and the best he can do is a ‘B’ with 89%, I’m inclined to admire the latter student more. What WE do with what’s ‘given’ us shapes the beauty of creative accomplishment. I’m surprised to find nobody agreeing with this. But I don't doubt it any less.

But who among us is ever in a place to render a judgment about ‘comparative’ beauty where so-called equal performances are concerned? You have to know the state of givenness, the history of opportunity for practice and improvement, the effort put into perfecting those abilities, etc. That’s not my concern. My concern is to distinguish between “givenness” and “creative accomplishment,” not debate the relative beauty of different kinds of creative accomplishment. I can admire the prodigy's performance as a creative achievement because of the work she put into it. And I can admire my son's piano playing because he, though not a prodigy, nevertheless put work into making his playing a creative achievement as well. What I cannot admire is the 'givenness' of the shape of Rachmaninov's hands (which I understand were 'naturally' quite large and perfectly suited for the piano), or the 'givenness' of a prodigy's IQ (which is amazing by comparison to the rest of us but which does not itself offer the beauty of a creative achievement), or the 'givenness' of the mere shape of a model's face.

Tom

Post Edited (Tom) : 7/22/2008 9:37:04 AM (GMT-5)

Tom: Brandon-
I might not be following you, so this might take a couple of posts.
I’m just trying to sort through it myself. I don’t have many answers. I’m (a) pretty confident about what a ‘person’ is, that (b) it’s only in loving relationship to God in Christ that we fully become the persons God intends us to become, and that (c) the ‘art’ we’re created to create is a free expression of the person we become in Christ.
It’s combining these three with what I think is genuine art in people I know aren’t believers in Christ that I’m trying to explore. And so far the only explanation I have is that the genuine art we see in people who are nevertheless not connect to Christ, is the just God in them, via the divine image perhaps, longing to come out, long to express itself.
I agreed with D that personhood isn’t an all-or-nothing deal. So I’m not surprised to find non-Christians connecting with ‘the divine’ within them, without consciousness identifying it as Christ. That’s how I can see all kinds of beauty in non-Christians.

Brandon:That’s cool. I can go for that.

--------------------------------------
 

Having said that, let me see if I’m following you
B: I don't know how you can say “...that sort of creative expression comes from ‘connecting’ on some level to the sustaining presence of God within and that’s not part of Satan’s self-perceiving act.” Why should we believe that God would somehow remove the giftings and callings of his creatures because they are not rightly aligned with God?
T: I’m not suggesting God has removed Satan’s gifting or calling. I’m suggesting Satan is in no way THAT I CAN SEE fulfilling his calling and putting any of his gifting to use as God intended.
Do you think Satan perceives genuine beauty within himself or Creation? That’s what I meant when I said there is no perception of beauty within Satan. I could be wrong, but I’m not seeing why you’d “not know how I could say” it. I’m searching in vain for an act of Satan that I can call a work of art, even if I reeeeeeally stretch the definition of ‘art’. Do you have one in mind? Then why was my comment such a surprise?
Brandon:  What it seemed to me that you were talking about was that there was “another level” at which creative expression was taking place. In other words, some extraordinary art is birthed out of connectivity with God as opposed to something less extraordinary which is birthed because of the divine presence and grace of God common to all. For example, why should I believe Eddie Van Halen could get any better because of his connectivity with God? You say that Satan isn’t an artist in ANY sense of the word. But if you say that God has not removed any gifting or calling of Satan, then I don’t know how you can say:“The divine, the beautiful, the creative, none of the things that fuel the artist’s creative act, appear anywhere on the horizon of Satan’s perception of things.”

Sure. Satan can use his creative capacities for evil, but it is the capacities themselves that are good. So yes. In that sense, I think Satan does perceive something good in himself, but uses it to try to hurt God and frustrate his telos for creation. Satan may even have a distorted perception about his capacities and about creation. Whether Satan is actually creating at this moment, I dunno, but its possible that his perception of creation could be distorted as well.

----------------------------------------
B: Second, there is the subject matter, the perspective of the individual creator of the art and the audience which are all part determiner of the morality of the art.
T: How does my observing Neon’s dance on Youtube partly determine the morality of her art?
Well it’s kinda what D said when he said that beauty was in the eye of the beholder. A person can assimilate a work of art in a positive way that is contrary to the artist’s intention, but the reverse of this is possible as well. Immoral readers, can twist a work’s inherent moral tendencies or seize upon isolated scenes that portray immoral behavior in a perverse way. I mean, people can treat the Bible as a pornographic book or use it to rationalize immorality if they really want to. And if that is your response? Then, just as all education is ultimately self-education, the only effective type of censorship is self-censorship.

Brandon:  Hmmm…What matters is how something is being treated, whether music, movies, literature or dance. And you can usually tell that by how it’s portrayed. As Harry Blamires said, “there is nothing in our experience, however trivial, worldly, or even evil, which cannot be thought about Christianly.” Now think about that for a moment. When something shows say, sin for what it is, then it will be good. So the question you seem to be asking is how does art embody an immoral perspective toward it’s subject matter? It seems to do this via offering an immoral attitude for the audience’s approval. So to say that one can be “touched” says nothing about the work of art in itself. The work of art, the subject matter, does not determine the morality of it. As immoral as porn is, there is SOMETHING CHRISTIANLY that I can think about concerning it. I remember people talking about the JackAss movies. How can you be touched by that? How can you see God in that? Well, check this out. Here is what this reviewer said:

How — especially after two movies — is he or someone from his crew not dead eight times over? Something about these movies blows my mind, and maybe it's that, as crude as they are, they make me believe in the existence of a watchful God.

- Gregory Kirschling, Entertainment Weekly

--------------------------------------

Brandon:  But why should that matter? Why draw the bifurcation in the first place? The fact that it is given means that it is a gift. And I’m not too sure that those who have to work at their craft or art means that it is no less a gift.

Post Edited (Tom) : 7/23/2008 2:01:50 PM (GMT-5)

Y'all feelin' me on this?