I believe as long as the art is capturing a message from the creator to be spread to others there is no line. Even if the art be a goth screamo song god I hate those and its trying to spread a message that the author believes in without a blunt attempt for a profit then its still art and should not have a line.
For me, a good criterion is always HONESTY. Is the author voicing GENUINE questions, concerns, beliefs, criticism of society or is s/he just trying to shock /superficially ‘entertain’ /appeal to lust, sadism, love of gore?
God is real and reachable, and if someone is REALLY striving towards the truth, eventually they will find Him, even if they start in the opposite direction. Eugene Rose, in his youthful Nietzchean days, screamed drunk towards the heavens daring God to kill him if He really exists. Eugene has since become an Orthodox monk and will soon (hopefully) become St. Seraphim.
I enjoy almost Satanist HM lyrics if they show the genuine despair of a soul far away from God. If, however, they merely try to shock or provoke, I stay away.
The line is good art /bad art. I actually tried to read the Da Vinci Code and my oh my is it badly written! And SO boring! My local Orthodox priest says Dan Brown’s biggest sin is being such a bad writer.
I believe we desperately need more Christian artists in all media.
Unfortunately, I believe many families steer their children away from such fields for a number of reasons, mainly because it is very hard to make a living in “the arts.”
My daughter makes a living as a theater professional. We always knew she would, from the time she announced as a toddler that she wanted to be a “missionary dancer.”
She doesn’t have to wait tables (she doesn’t have time, she’s so busy.) She will probably never be rich. But we’re thrilled with her career choice, and feel that we have put a “missionary” out there, someone who is on the cutting edge of “art” and can influence others.
I think that parents ought to encourage artistic tendencies in their children, and give them their blessing when the child announces that they want to become an actor, artist, writer, musician, etc. Not everyone in the arts will become a “star” or “best-selling author,” etc. But there are many other ways besides stardom to make a living in the arts.
That is right. What makes the Sistine Chapel art so beautiful is not that is was “self-expression” on the part of Michelangelo, but that he was conveying ideas through the medium of painting.
What Andy Warhol did is what I meant by “self-expression”.
Below is an interesting article about modern art.
[FONT=Arial][FONT=Times New Roman][FONT=Arial]**Why you pretend to like modern art
**We all - especially if we do not believe in a Creator - want to be seen as creative, which nearly all of us are not. Are modern artists creative? Modern art could not have succeeded without drawing on the patronage of the wealthy, and very rich people like to flatter themselves that they are geniuses. In a realm of self-worshipping “creativity”, art descends into extreme levels of artlessness.
Andy Warhol was a copyist, and a bad one at that. It’s hard to believe anyone thinks he was “expressing himself.” :shrug:
PS: Actually, that’s rather harsh. Andy Warhol was Ukranian Orthodox, and what he was trying to do was to make secular icons to go in the home that would represent the marketplace, just as the holy icons in the Church represent the appearance of Heaven.
I think he may even have succeeded.
This is a GREAT article!