Category — Visual

This is a little late in coming, but a recent discussion with my oldest daughter and wife about the film sparked some thoughts and I wanted to get them down before I forgot. These are just some basic ruminations based on questions my daughter was asking — she loves fantasy literature and we went and saw the film together when it first came out. My wife has not seen the film but was wondering about some of the controversy that has swirled around it within evangelical circles.

There is a sermon excerpt from Mark Driscoll that circulated around the web on the film. In it Mr. Driscoll stated boldly that Avatar was satanic and demonic. This précis is a riposte to his bloviation.

First, Avatar is that new species of the fantasy — or fairy-tale — genre known as science fiction. In other words, it is not asserting a philosophic or idealistic view of reality within our own as contradictory to the one we experience, but rather creates an entirely different place where creatures and things that we do not know exist. Pantheism suggests that known things are god. Avatar presents things, such as trees, as actual creatures- they are not trees as we know them, but exist as a wholly other kind of thing. Much like Tolkien did with the Ents in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. The story of Avatar acknowledges the existence of earth as a distinct kind of place from Pandora within the setting of the film, they co-exist as two separate, distinct kind of places. It could even be argued that, contrary to classic paganism, the story of Avatar maintains the distinction between the Creator and the creature. What we have is simply a different set of creatures within a different environment.

Secondly, the humans who experience the alien world of Pandora engage with it as a distinct reality from the one they knew on earth. They do not experience a revelation in their own minds regarding the nature of earthly existence, but rather experience the alien planet as an objective, alternative kind of place. Pantheism suggests that men do not see reality as it is, and until their minds are opened to a particular revelation of it, they remain unenlightened. This is not the notion suggested in Avatar. The experience of Pandora is not activated by a personal revelation, but is a physical reality experienced by all who visit.

Having said this, the film suggests an explicit world based on the popular notions found in the Gaia hypothesis, ideas that date back to the Hellenic search for a unifying substance or controlling aspect within nature. That search for a unifying notion is not itself Satanic, as men are religious by nature. When men pursue a unifying idea within temporal experience, they express their participation in the fall of Adam, as oriented toward the creation rather than the Creator. They do this within the realm of this world, in reality.

But, when a fantasy world is created, and the creatures within it act in accordance with the reality of that world — whatever kind of world that might be — then what we have is a potentially interesting piece of literature or film.

Finally, and as an aside, Mr. Drsicoll asserts that the film is contrary to the cultural mandate found in Genesis 1:28. He does not go so far as to suggest that the film depicts people who are fulfilling the mandate, but his words suggest that the opposition to the invasion of Pandora is a denial of something that might be close to it. Mr. Driscoll demonstrates deep confusion about the mandate in this regard. But again, I am not so sure the mandate was ever intended to include fantasy planets.

I would hope that Christians would take more time to think through these issues. We can be faithful without compromise, and still engage the artistic works of fallen men with intelligence and understanding. Reactionary and dogmatic evaluations are rarely accurate or helpful. Although we need to be circumspect, there is much to admire in the work of all kinds of men. We should strive as far as possible to see the world without a jaundiced eye.

“But as I put my head over the hedge of the elves and began to take notice of the natural world, I observed an extraordinary thing. I observed that learned men in spectacles were talking of the actual things that happened–dawn and death and so on–as if THEY were rational and inevitable. They talked as if the fact that trees bear fruit were just as NECESSARY as the fact that two and one trees make three. But it is not. There is an enormous difference by the test of fairyland; which is the test of the imagination. You cannot IMAGINE two and one not making three. But you can easily imagine trees not growing fruit; you can imagine them growing golden candlesticks or tigers hanging on by the tail”.
— GK Chesterton

“Of the music of the universe, some is characteristic of the elements, some of the planets, some of the season: of the elements in their mass, number, and volume; of the planets in their situation, motion, and nature; of the season in days (in the alternation of day and night), in months (in the waxing and waning of the moons), and in years (in the succession of spring, summer, autumn, and winter).”
— Hugh of St. Victor

Via my older brother who introduced me to the author, I am a fan of William Gibson. Gibson is well known for his predictions and applications of future technologies. The household term cyberspace is one of his babies, amongst others. I read him because he spins such fun and intoxicating tales, but also because he is somehow jacked-in (there’s another one of his ideas), to what ever is coming next. I kid you not. Earlier this year I finished reading the two newest novels by the Canadian, Pattern Recognition and Spook Country. Pattern Recognition‘s protagonist, Cayce Pollard, is a free-lance cool-hunter. She spends her time hunting down the next big thing for Brand Marketers and industrial big-wigs. I would not be surprised if this is Gibson’s alter-ego as she seems to have a radar for the next trend. She even wears Mr. Gibson’s favorite jacket.

In Spook Country, a follow up to PR, a new kind of geo-spatial, public installation is making the rounds, and Gibson calls it “locative art” (he did not invent the phrase). It is based on a complex relationship between the internet, GPS (a product of released military technology, just as the internet is) and cell-tower triangulation. The viewer gets to see the art via a headset and computer hooked up to the system. One installation entails a memorial to River Phoenix which is a reenactment of his death outside the Viper Room in LA. The idea is that these invisible installations will eventually take up the space around us, placed there by the digital artists who claim the territory first. The preservation of historical moments and the iteration of memory is at the heart of the idea.

Having said all that, I nearly dropped my coffee when I saw this. Although it is not the full-blown thing, it is a step towards Gibson’s vision, brought to a very public level. Gibson’s vision is very much DIY and underground, but real research (think MIT) and experimentation has been going on for a while. This kind of user friendly app could make this the next big thing in terms of media exploration and communication. Here is a brief essay on the phenomenon.

Before I get started again on this little project, let me say up front: these ideas are preliminary, they are unfinished. I do not in any way claim any of this to be the last word, just my own start on a massive subject. Dooyeweerd’s aspects are empowering, not limiting. I would love to see this list grow. If you read back over earlier posts, you will see I have covered the pistic, ethical, juridical, aesthetic and economic aspects of the arts. Please, feel free to add to these lists and make any suggestions you have. There is much more to be said and done. 

Social aspect
1. Every sphere of life might be enriched by the arts, and benefits from the application or performance of artistic works. Art happens at various levels and in varying forms, and these considerations should be taken into account and attuned to the various social spheres. Being appropriate is normative. Led Zeppelin at a ladies luncheon might not work very well. Jazz is better experienced in more intimate settings, and does not translate well in an arena. 

2. The arts are a unique social sphere. The church is not the foundational center for the arts, neither is the state, neither is the family. The arts are a distinctive social sphere that exists cooperatively with the other spheres. Today there is a movement to make the church the center for the arts, or a holding tank for artistic work. Any work that is done outside this sphere is not deemed useful or purposeful. This betrays a denial of the other social spheres as established by the Creator. It is wrongheaded, based in the same magnetic Nature-Grace ground motive of the Middle Ages. Pastors should stop trying to be dictators of art. The idea that we should have “art-pastors” is based in the same “sacred-secular” notion. The church should encourage people in their vocations outside the doors of the church. Pastors, stop ripping the heart of your people in two!! 

3. Artistic production is based on various social interactions that are normative: collaboration, friendship, cooperative initiative. Mentorships and apprenticeships ought to be encouraged and pursued. Students of the arts should be with older, more experienced persons as they pursue their work. The older should take the younger under their wing. The younger should seek out relationships with older artists. Gallery work or doing a load-in/ load-out with an established artist is a simple but powerful way to get young people involved. This was something regularly practiced by jazz musicians, and still is today. Jamaican musicians have a long history of mentorship and training.

4. Some social interactions are of necessity confrontational. There may be at times a prophetic element to artistic works. This is especially true during times of social confusion and state dominance. The period of American Hardcore music, although short lived, was born out of a frustration with the absolutist attitudes regarding social status that predominated in the 1980’s. It may have lacked a well thought out articulation, but it had a heart that expressed a youthful rage toward a growing bourgeois attitude toward the poor and disenfranchised. The film “Wall Street” represented the decadence and way of assent presented to young people in that time. American Hardcore was a response to that. 

5. A social relation is created between the artist and the viewer/ listener. The artist offers their work and the viewer or listener openly receives it or rejects it. The medium of the work creates a connection in one way or another. In some cases, the audience identifies with the work, and as such, identifies with the artist. This has powerful ramifications, both for good or evil. The symbolic power of an artistic work shapes attitudes and values. 

6. Artistic production is socially formative. Art can create harmony among a large group; it can also create disharmony, a bourgeois attitude and cliques based in taste or styles. Inclusive and exclusive attitudes can be shaped and informed by artistic works. 

7. Local artists should be free to form their own associations and unions for the work of production and promotion. Artists should seek to build up the artistic community as an institutional sphere in society. Artists should encourage leaders in their midst and seek further development for the sake of social influence. 

8. Art creates social moods, feeling and atmospheres. Events are enhanced by artistic works. Art introduces a multi-perspectival element into a single event, enhancing social interaction. Art can take people out of themselves and provide the freedom for discourse over a shared experience. 

9. Art has a physical aspect that can enhance an atmosphere. Music is physical and has the power to sooth and stimulate the senses beyond simply hearing. Low and high frequencies in music create various kinds of sensations and moods. 

The Aesthetic aspect
This seems to be the central aspect when discussing the arts, although this is not to say it dominates. It is mutually supports and is supported by the other aspects. I say this because art is often reduced to this aspect, and as such it takes on a very limited notion, wholly removed from everyday life. One of the consequences of this is the idea that “Art” exists in museums and music is something that is done by “professionals” in concert halls. When taken in context of every other aspect, art will be understood more broadly as an everyday event and entails all created objects, something in which we all participate. The mundane can be artistic as well as the “high-end”. 

1. It is related to beauty, but is not identified with it.
2. Dooyeweerd suggests that the kernel notion is harmony.
3. Aesthetics entails rhythm, contrast, progression, growth, and proportion.
4. Coherence or a unifying central theme is often at the heart of a memorable object or piece of music.
5. Seerveld suggests allusivity and suggestiveness, or nuance and allusion.
6. Broken expectations and surprise.
7. Play and fun, which might include improvisation and spontaneity. Jazz provides numerous examples of this. 
8. Tonal fluctuations in both color and sound. These are culturally identifiable across the planet (phrygian, mixolydian, dorian, etc). Each musical mode is dominant in various social settings- Middle East, Japan, the West.

Basden writes: “Art and music is not always qualified by the aesthetic. Much art and music is, but in some logic or mathematics is the driving force, e.g, perhaps twelve tone music”. In this regard, the early work of Brian Eno comes to mind. Peter Gabriel as well. Tones and their inner relationships are the basic musical structure in their early work. 

The Economic aspect 
1. The kernel notion is a frugal use of resources.
2. The poor are not outside the boundaries of artistic expression and very often lay the groundwork for culturally formative works. There are many examples of this, but two that come to mind immediately are Appalachian and Jamaican musicians. I recently read a book called “Dub” about the history of Jamaican studio-based creation. King Tubby was one of the main characters. He was an electrician by trade, but did recording and created “cuts” of songs. He is responsible for the creation of spring reverb- an effect so common we take it for granted in modern music.
3. Leisure (via riches or through a sponsor) might provide more time and energy directed towards artistic production, but does not necessarily need to be present. Nor does it always result in the best work. Bob Marley worked as a welder while writing music; Elvin Jones worked in a tire plant while playing the drums in the evenings.
4. Materials may be limited; time may be limited. But both may be fully exploited by a disciplined and highly creative person. Lee Scratch Perry comes to mind. His early work was done with a two track cassette recorder. He lived in extreme poverty, but he utilized what he had and created music that is still admired for its depth and creative power.
5. Investment in materials and instruments or equipment is a legitimate long-term investment of income. Are the most expensive, high-end instruments necessary? No. Nowadays what is considered a low-level instrument is of the kind of quality that was considered high-level twenty years ago. 

As an aside: a couple of years ago I attended a “worship conference” near Seattle, WA. The general line of thought was “using the best, most expensive, custom made instruments brings glory to God”. This is, of course, a deeply wrong-hearted notion. Blind Willie Johnson is more moving than twenty of those “worship” musicians put together. He sometimes played with one string. Some of the more profound and moving music has been created by artists who used broken down, old or cheap instruments. Jamaican artists once again come to mind. This is not to deny the place of craftsmanship, and quality instrumentation. But, in the case of the so-called “worship” musicians it is a confusion of ownership with artistic expression. 

6. Leverage newer, inexpensive technologies for the sake of the poor, and lead people out of poverty via creative formation. That is a calling in and of itself. Any one want to start a non-profit?
7. Investment in the arts is a long-term commitment that may or may not have any monetary returns. Returns may take many other forms. 

Next… the Social and Symbolic aspects. 

I Before continuing the discussion, I want to point to a current post at Between Two Worlds. Seems the question of aesthetics is on a number of peoples’ minds, including Justin Taylor’s. By the way, his blog is like a survey of current evangelical interests; very helpful stuff. If you want to know the latest trends and evangelical fads, he will point you to them. 

In regards to a philosophy of aesthetics, Mr. Taylor links to a ten year old essay by a Dr. Spiegel. It is an introduction to the subject, and it has a number of good things in it, but it is based in a deeply troublesome assumption: aesthetics is the study of beauty. This is a classic hold-over from the Hellenic notion of reality. Dr. Spiegel simply imports it into a Christian framework, and goes from there. This is misleading, as it is a dogmatic and limiting notion that does not open up the subject to all the other aspects of experience. Beauty is an element of aesthetics, but it is not the entire proposition. Again and again throughout his essay he identifies aesthetics with beauty. Like I said, this is a Hellenic notion, left over from the religion of Form. Dr. Speigel, in emphasizing this one element over against all others sets up a false antithesis. If it is not beautiful, it is not aesthetic; if it is not aesthetic it is not art. There are many implicit problems with this, and they all unfold from a wrong ground motive. A well intentioned essay, but one that is sure to trap Christians in the same old religious antithesis. 

Also, aesthetics is just one aspect of our experience. It cannot summarize any experience of a work of art, or any experience at all. When I listen to music, I am not experiencing it only within the aesthetic aspect, I am experiencing it as a whole person. This includes all the other aspects of my experience as well. The aesthetic aspect might be the kernel of focus, but it can never sum up the totality of my interaction with art. 

I work as a designer and a musician. I have been doing design work for almost ten years, and playing the drums since I was eight. As a Christian I have often struggled to understand how my work should be understood. Why the struggle? The Nature-Grace ground motive which inhabits much of Western protestantism has been a major hurdle, and still is to this day. The idea that the aesthetic aspect of life needs justification is one sign of this continual tension that exists in the hearts of Christians. Herman Dooyeweerd has been of great help to me in clarifying the “meaning” of “being” and as such the place of my work in the world. 

These are some first thoughts on the arts using Dooyeweerd’s fifteen modal aspects as a constructive basis. It seems the primary modal aspect is the aesthetic, the kernel of which is harmony. I am not so concerned with what might be called “high art” as much as I am with aesthetic expression. Besides, “high art” is misleading. The Japanese have a philosophical notion called Wabi-Sabi that blows the high-browed moderns’ idea of “high art” out of the water, and rightly so. Art is not a category for experts or pundits, neither is it simply a spectator discipline, as we are all engaged in aesthetic endeavors everyday- doing the dishes has an aesthetic aspect to it. As with every other aspect of our existence, we are always engaged to one degree or another in all of them. Here, I want to focus a bit tighter on the subject of artistic works and the vocation of one who is engaged in this sort of creative process more intensely. But, I think the following applies to any and all artistic endeavors. 

Creedal/pistic aspect:
1. An artistic work is an offering of service to God.
2. Art is a reflection of the creator, who is made in the image of the Creator.
3. Art as a process is delightful and “good”.
4. Art is the re-creative or analogical reflection of the work of the Creator.
5. Art is the hymn book of the individual and the broader society of men. 

Ethical aspect (self-giving love):
1. Seek a holistic perspective, embracing the aesthetic works of all men, as created in God’s image.
2. Artistic works and the enjoyment of them is reflection of God’s delight in His creation- in beauty and goodness.
3. What constitutes “bad” art? Perhaps, badly executed? Or, art that denies the creational reality of men as well as all things?
4. We need to learn to discern the wheat from the chaff and seek to see something “good” in every work, although it might proceed from a non-C-F-R ground motive. Common grace extends to all men. Is there any art that is altogether “wrong”?
5. What part does personal taste play in judgment? What is adiaphra?
6. What part does style play?
7. Art is for others to enjoy as much as the artist.
8. Love is demonstrated in the act of an artistic production. It is a means of giving to another. “Here, this is for you”.
9. Art can be used as a weapon or tool of subterfuge, both for good and evil ends.
10. Artists need to be aware of legal issues surrounding copyright and ownership, plagiarism and authenticity. 

Juridical aspect (what is due):
As an artist
1. Given the public nature of art, seek to build up a social atmosphere of contentment, celebration, peace and harmony.
2. Give back to those who support you. Engender a thankful and welcoming spirit towards those whom receive your work.
3. Give thanks and praise to God for the gifts He has bestowed upon you.
4. Pay musicians and other in your hire a living wage.
As an art lover
1. Pay for the artists’ work.
2. Support local, national and international artists.
3. Encourage and support live performance (small and large scale). 

Coming next… the Aesthetic and Economic aspects