Posted on fb: Wednesday, December 2, 2009 at 1:46am
In a lot of ways, creativity needs to come from necessity. And perhaps that holds true even in the most ultimate of creations. Did God create the world out of necessity? Not in the sense of “We have to create space and time and everything in it because without it We don’t hold value,” but maybe in a similar sense as someone who has the ability to create something beautiful, but doesn’t, is in some way held responsible for that lack.
Our creative impulse is inextricably linked to the creative nature of our Creator.
Everything that He does is purposeful and necessary.
It addresses a need.
Is that why some art (even by trained artists who should be able to move mountains) is empty of power? And why some art that is technically sub-par is able to draw upon the basic underpinnings of their audience and move the spirit of those that experience it? Time and time again, one can see or hear or read some (pardon) hideous and beastly art-flavored substance that truly affects their intended targets in very positive and productive ways. It’s almost implicit in anything creative that occurs in a modern amateur/volunteer-run religious establishment. It is probable that the success of such anemic endeavors is simply the result of necessity. It isn’t that the audience is unintelligent, or that they are unable to appreciate finely crafted art (although this is undoubtedly the case at times). It’s that the need for the art is so incredibly present that it enables well-meaning but incompetent players to fill it. A thirsty man will still drink dirty water. And with an absence of anything healthier, who can condemn him for his enjoyment of it?
On the other hand, there is the proficient artist who creates art in the absence of necessity. Art for art’s sake, so to speak (all apologies to Wilde and his ilk, but despite their heady ideals they managed to be as functional in their artistic efforts as anyone else in history). He creates a piece that has no connection to any sort of need inherent in others. This artist will then become frustrated that no one else appreciates his expressions. But he forgets that he only meant it to fill his own need. And, unfortunately, this artist doesn’t succeed because art don’t pay no bills (nor should it) unless it addresses more than one person’s need.
[While it is true that quite often it is the case that issues with which an individual artist is struggling are often issues that transcend himself and include a large amount of his peers, but this is, in large part, a happy accident, very hit-and-miss, if approached in such a limited, individualistic manner. The litmus test as to the verisimilitude of the art is in its resonance within the audience to whom the artist presents his art.]
Therefore, in a very “state the obvious” sort of way, the amount of influence that a piece of art has on its audience varies in direct proportion to the amount of necessity that the piece addresses. And influence, in this case, can easily be said to include the amount of enjoyment, or even catharsis, that the audience receives.
[At the risk of redundancy and boredom, it is also important to correlate the degree to which any particular piece meets the requirements of the necessity. If a vessel has three cups of volume, two cups is not sufficient to fulfill the needs of the space. Similarly, four cups is overkill; it’s an unnecessary and inefficient waste of resources. Both examples will inevitably lead to dissatisfaction. The aim is to hit as close to three cups as possible, fulfilling the need but not wasting efforts.]
**addendum… because I can’t let this issue just exist without trying to fix it**
To return to an artistic vision for the church (and those of you who were tagged in this note should know the sense in which I use the word “church”): previously it was mentioned that “It is probable that the success of such anemic endeavors is simply the result of necessity [. . .] It’s that the need for the art is so incredibly present that it enables well-meaning but incompetent players to fill it.” This must be a temporary fix. I’m sorry, but they are placeholders for someone more suited to the task. They are noses doing what fingers should. I’m just picking. No, I’m not. Never should the simple address of necessity be construed as an endpoint, a suitable finish-line toward which to run. It would be a false positive, a dangerous apathy. Dirty water will eventually cease to help and begin to harm. It is the responsibility of those that bear such a second sight, who produce these metaphors and reference points, to continue sanctifying the process. The excellent artist will fuse form with function. He will gauge the necessity and find the appropriate way to fill the need. He will strive to present the absolute best as his sacrifice to his God.
No comments:
Post a Comment