What is Art and Why I Care

What is Art? 

Oxford gives what I think is the common understanding of this question's answer: "The expression of application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power" or "A skill at doing a specified thing, typically one acquired through practice."
I can't express how much I find these definitions to be unhelpful. The first is clunky and the second is not helpful for artists. I prefer the following definitions to explain what I do as an artist and how to judge my art.-

1. Art is the intentional process by which a person communicates ideas.
2. Visual art is the intentional process by which a person communicates ideas primarily through light, shadow, and/or color.

These definitions provide a useful framework by which to judge art, improve at art, and define the field of one's work.

To be an artist is to communicate God’s design. 

We, as artists, can learn from imitating great artists before our time. Furthermore, it is often said in art communities that the greatest way to learn light, color, perspective, form, composition, proportion, etc. is to draw from observing life… and who made that thing we call life? To forget who we copy and learn from is to forget why we copy and learn. “Never leave God out of the picture” I say then, and you need to be wary of the hollowness that your art will have if you forget your creator who you create after. For the question will not be whether the hollowness is filled, but with which subpar replacement you will find for God. For there is no one and no thing like Him (Psalms 86:8-10). The reality and inescapable nature of this can be followed in these steps: God upholds the laws of nature and reality. People cannot exceed the laws of nature nor communicate beyond the extent of their imagination, skill, and natural limits. Therefore, no man can ever communicate separately from or greater than God. In conclusion, to try and be an artist without any connection to God is not just hubris, its impossible.

Art is communication and much like communication it can tell lies.

You need to be wary of art like you are wary of the spoken and written word. If it claims something, if it convinces you of something, or if it demands something of you, then protect yourself from these sly and devious artworks by taking every thought captive and weighing them against what God has said (2 Cor. 10:5). For a good word is only good if it is true, and a good work of art is only good if it is true. So, forget not that God is Truth. So far as art tries to communicate life and reality, we should remember that if it does not communicate reality to the glory of God then it is a lie, and lies should be ignored. For we are not of the father of lies, we are (as Christians) of the truth, the way, and the life (John 14:6). In addition, I must also warn my brothers and sisters to be wary of throwing the baby out with the bath water. Often, we are conflicted when lies look good and the truth is ugly. So, do not pretend to know what you do not know and therefore judge an artist by his or her cover and judge an artwork merely by its strokes. Instead "judge with a righteous judgment"(John 7:24) his or her message by the word of God.

Art can be good. Art is Objective not Subjective.

Art can be good and it can be bad. Art can communicate truth. Art can communicate lies. Art can be what you want it to be, but is it what it ought to be? This is a question I often find myself (and others) avoiding when we want to do as we please and not as God pleases. In opposition to this view I hear the objection echoing from down the way , "Art is the eye of the beholder! Its meaning is found in its effect on the viewer". But, here is a thought: If art is subjective then how can artists meaningfully improve? Are artists chasing after the fancies of their viewers alone? Are Artists merely seeking fame? Is there nothing more for the artist to accomplish then the approval or disapproval of his or her viewers? I say that art, like any communication, can be for good or evil and that the communicator (not the viewer) sets the theme, message, and point. This means that the quality of an art piece is in its effectiveness to communicate and in what it is communicating and therefore not in what John Smith thinks when he sees it hanging in the museum. This is why a toddler's scribble saying "I love my family" is good art and a master's magnum opus unironically saying "sin is good" is bad art.

I understand that this is the most controversial statement I could make for art; Seeing how even my fellow Christian artists might disagree. I once asked one of my own professors, during a gallery of his work, in college what an element of his art work meant. He responded with the quintessential, relativistic, nails-on-chalk-board question: "what do you think it is?". This is, at best, foolishness and, at worst, lazy. Now what if this scenario played out again but instead of an artwork is was an email. If I asked my professor what his email meant he would tell me and clarify. Probably, because he wants to be an effective communicator. So why is it then that when I ask him to explain what he meant in his artwork he does not answer? It is because he was trained to think of art as a subjective, meaningless-meaningful conversation starter about feelings and perception rather than about communicating intelligible ideas. So he thinks the statement "what do you think it is?" is profound; when in reality, he is just abdicating from the most important duty of an artist, to communicate effectively. 

Good Art is both the medium and the message

Sometimes I see artists and fans of art make the mistake of thinking of art as just a message or just a medium. 
If art is just a message then the medium never matters. This line of thought goes something like this: "Who cares if someone splattered black ink on a canvas when they were trying to communicate a valley with a sunset and a rainbow. I mean, the artist unironically titled it 'valley with a sunset and a rainbow.' So, even though it is nothing more than a black smudge, it must be a profound statement." This makes the craft meaningless and the hours artists put into their works just as meaningless. Why work at one's techniques and excellence if the medium never matters?
On the other hand, if art is just a medium than the message should never matter. This line of thought goes something like this: "Who cares if someone painted a woman in a horrifically degrading action and pose, at least the technical execution was on point, right? I mean the light and proportion was perfectly painted in oil and reflects the properties of light so well! So shouldn't we call it good art even if its message is 'unpopular'?" NO. This "technique despite the message" attitude is how people justify their poor philosophies and deflect criticism to their ideas. I mean, why would a critique of an immoral message matter, if all that matters is the art being pretty, right?

How one communicates with art is just as important as what one communicates in art. They are inseparable. Saying you have a grand message, but whispering over the top of a booming symphony does not make what you've done profound, just lacking in wisdom. Saying you have a technical masterpiece and waving away the nods it gives to horrifying and degrading actions, does not make what you have done acceptable, just effective at communicating trash. Therefore, it is possible to communicate a good message with a poor technique and a bad message with a good technique. However, both the message and the delivery must be considered.

Be it fiction or non-fiction, both can convey the same truth through different mediums. 

Some artists may think that from my statements above, I must love realism. For what art tells the truths revealed by God more than those that copy it directly? However, imagination and realism have their places: one through the act of observation and one through the act of simplified/exaggerated storytelling. I am more of a storyteller. I am a world-maker. I am an artist who sees God’s world and wants to explore its mysteries in story. There is great benefit in exploring things through exaggeration and the fantastical even if they are not tangible or historic ideas or scenes. I cannot stress enough how the truthfulness of a work of art is not in its realism of technique or equivalence to real visual objects. Rather, it is in the idea being communicated. One of my works "Iauv'ald'zhath" (click name to see) perfectly illustrates this point. This creature is not real and therefore not true in the biological sense. Nonetheless, the point of "Iauv'ald'zhath" is not to convince men that he exists but rather to communicate a fictional being that represents an evil and twisted desire of hunger and ravenousness. In this context (the context I as the communicator set) he is true and not a lie. 

On a final note, it is not my fantasy worlds or art works that makes God’s world livable and escapable, but God’s world and art works that makes mine understandable, intelligible, and meaningful. For there is "nothing new under sun" (Ecc. 1:9), and even if my wildest imaginations and ruminations played out on a canvas I would be lost to madness, if I did not have Christ as my guiding post and tether. Do not be deceived, artists have been given more than we deserve in the way of choosing how to communicate, but the extent of where we can go in fantasy will have to be explored in a different article, I think.

What Makes Art Beautiful?

Because God is the foundation for life and beauty, there is a standard for objective beauty. So if God thinks it is beautiful than it is beautiful. So what does God consider beautiful? Here are three criteria that I currently use to judge my own works.

1. Is it true? Not in the fictional non-fictional sense, but in the "what is it communicating" sense. If what it is communicating is a lie or a deception than it is not true. If it is communicating a sinful idea as good, than its not true. If it is communicating a sinful idea but saying its not good, that is true. Side note: most life drawings, reference drawings, and photographs are hard to judge here but are still capable of telling lies as people are the ones who decide on the scene to be captured and why they should be captured. Remember, no art work is neutral, even the practice sheets!
2. Is it effective? This one is arguably the easiest to judge as it has to do with the technical effectiveness of the work. If a portrait is meant to communicate my face, but it is all out of sorts and nobody can understand it, then that's not effective. God judges the heart first, but in His choosing of the artists for his temple we also see He delights in the good craftsmanship of His faithful people. (Ex 31: 1-11).
3. Is it for the Glory of God? Things that glorify men and/or creation, and have no regard for their true creator are at best self-righteous hunks of soon-to-be-dust or at worst depraved idolatry and blasphemy. Both of which are not beautiful to God because God hates what propagates hate to Him. And what God hates, is never beautiful.

Remember this, if art is in the eye of the beholder, then all art is beholden to God who beholds all things that have been, are, or will be.

God must be the center of it all.

If he is not King of my art, then I would want my art burned and the ashes cast to the wind because the wind would have been what I was chasing this entire time. I am not chasing the wind, I am not chasing approval, and I am not chasing art. I am secure in grace, I am found in Christ, and I am an artist of The Artist.