Customer Reviews

State of the Arts: From Bezalel to Mapplethorpe (Turning Point Christian Worldview Series)

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Most helpful in this book, and probably unique compared to similar books, is "Part 2: The Biblical Foundations". (Sure, I had read Francis Shaeffer's "Art and the Bible"...But this may be a little more in-depth.) The chapters are called: "6)The Vocation of Bezalel" (the calling of the artist) "7)The Works of Bezalel"(various types of art sanctioned by scripture) "8)The Idolotry of Aaron" (Biblical example of a gifted artist who's art went arwy)

As a painter, I also found the chapter "Art and the Church" both encouraging and challenging. Dr Veith points to the centrality of the Word of God and the limitations of art & aesthetics compared to the Gospel. Very helpful.

I do not find Dr Veith's critique of the Art World to be too extreme, or as un-compassionate as a previous reader does. Considering the overall context of this book, it seems to me that Dr Veith emphasizes the high standard and purpose of Scripture for the arts, and invites Christians to join in on embracing these truths.

Because Veith's other text "Postmodern Times" was largely informative and interesting, I expected more from "State of the Arts" than it was able to deliver. But before I address its shortcomings, my admiration for Veith's undertaking must be made clear. He should be praised for addressing the contemporary arts from a Christian perspective, as few Christians actually give attention to this highly influential cultural force. Too many Christians have abandoned the arts and sought spiritual solace in gated Christian ghettos. Yet Christ calls us to be salt and light in the world and the art world is not to be excluded. Thank you Veith for bringing attention to this part of the world and its need for Christ's redemption.

With that said, there are some reasons "State of the Arts" should not be regarded as a guidebook for an Evangelical entry into the world of art. Because it was written shortly after the Mapplethorpe and NEA controversy, Veith's weakly cloaked hostility runs through book like a greased pig. While I do believe that his engagement with the art world was sincere, his frequent lapses into name-calling and stereotyping only hurt his credibility and call into question his objectivity. I suppose some examples are due:

1) According to Veith, the art patrons who refuse to be shocked by Mapplethorpe "think, How interesting. They experience the exquisite pleasure of feeling sophisticated, of belonging to an elite group who "gets it," while looking down on those who do not. The outrage or bewilderment of those outside the art world only increase their smugness at being on the cutting edge." (p. 20)

Here, Veith is perpetuating two myths that must be countered. One, the art world is not an homogeneous group of rich snobs who "feel sophisticated" and laugh at those who are excluded from their arty antics. On the contrary, it is widely diverse so as to preclude any attempt at unification. The plurality is mind-boggling. Two, not everyone in the cultural elite "refused to be shocked." By incessantly referring to `these people' as the type that uncritically accept shock-art, Veith reveals his ignorance of the vast amount of art criticism written on such works and the wide verity of responses given. He might be surprised at what he finds. Such errors and offenses caused by Veith's concealed anger are common in this book.

2) Because Veith is not adequately familiar with art criticism, philosophy of art, nor modern and contemporary art history, his account of art world practices is embarrassingly bizarre.

Apparently, in minimalist art, "the concept claims precedence over artfulness. Technical execution and crafting of an object becomes less important than having a clever idea. The urinal installed on a museum wall, Warhol's Brillo boxes, the signed bicycle wheel -such pieces show no artistic qualities, nor do they intend to. They may be humorous, or clever, or suggestive of the nature of contemporary culture, but they can hardly be considered good art. To judge them so, ironically, is to miss the artist's point and fail to see the joke." (p. 51)

One not need to be familiar with the works, artists, and movements Veith attempts to explain in these awkward statements, but it is important to recognize that he has conflated artworks ranging over a seventy year period, on two continents, in three different historical contexts. Yet Veith sees them all as having a single covert, unified, devious purpose. One wonders how such artists and movements collaborated under such spacio-temporal restrictions. Rather, it would be more helpful to consult any dictionary of art or art history text to find a more reliable diagnosis than Veith has provided.

3) Because Veith is more interested in writing a polemic against (his perception of) the art world than sensitively engaging with art, he inadvertently contradicts himself in different places.

"Minimalism-finding the least possible gesture to constitute a work of art -has been fashionable in modern art, but such a movement is negligible aesthetically. The more a form is pared down, the less there is to evaluate." (p. 50) Yet Veith has no trouble evaluating and praising the aesthetic merits of work that is itself minimalist (p. 185 and 189). This is because, no doubt, the makers of the work are Christians. This aesthetic duplicity in Veith is unfortunate. The real criterion being used in his "aesthetic judgment" is the theology of the artist, which begs the question of understanding art from a Christian point of view.

These criticism of "State of the Arts" are strong, but apt in my estimation. I urge those who seek engagement with art to do so under the guidance of either Hans Rookmaaker or Leland Ryken who have more expertise in art criticism while maintaining a strong evangelical faith. As one who attempts to integrate education in theology with training in fine art, I've found them both to be most helpful and worthy of consultation.

Veith takes on a large topic in a small volume and faces the limitations thus imposed. Having said that, the book meets its target of providing a brief, lucid framework as a point of reference from which the Christian can begin to explore art as a more informed consumer. Because of the necessity of describing some quite objectionable subject matter in covering the entire breadth of what masquerades as art in the post-modern world, "State of the Arts" should be read by an adult audience. A quite readable and very useful work. Recommended.

Veith tries to tackle a subject that has long been neglected - Christianity and art from biblical times to the postmodern era. Although he gives an acceptable overview for a 230 page paperback, there are many areas where he is just too simplistic.

Veith attempts to create an absolute of the "Christian artist" based on the Tabernacle work of Bezalel. That may be as erroneous as creating a flat world from the scripture verse that deals with "the four corners of the earth."

He makes quick generalized statements about non-Christian artists without being able to back them up - "Jackson Pollock's experiments in the random patterns made by paint flung onto a canvas, might exhibit some cleverness, I suppose - as in, whoever would think to do such a thing? - but no real intelligence or knowledge." Those of us who are artists, however, know better (Veith is an English professor). Pollock's work shows a remarkable amount of knowledge and mastery: The intricate rhythmic harmonies passed down from his mentor, Thomas Hart Benton; the "dance" of the western plains' indians now reproduced in an "action painting"; the understanding of how paint drips and flows (as seen in splatterings of nature); the knowledge of color harmonies; etc.

Veith also comments on Duchamp's inability to create art with his "ready-mades" (An idea championed by Francis Schaeffer). However, this is Duchamp's point. Art not only can be the idea and conception of the artist, but also, art exists around us in all forms that generally go overlooked. Duchamp expanded the narrow vision of the Christian artist and their understanding of creativity and freedom.

Until a writer/artist comes forward to write something of this nature, State of the Arts will have to do. Just remember to proceed with caution and don't buy the whole package.

'State of the Arts' attempts to define what art is from a Christian perspective. I have no problem with this, being a long-time and devoted Christian, but I'm not sure I buy into everything Gene Veith says. His definition is largely defined by the biblical account of God's instruction to Bezalel the Old Testament artist for the Tabernacle and Temple; art in general, Veith says, must be creative, intelligent, beautiful, and exalting. I completely agree that modern 'works' such as the crucifix in [...], and the homoerotic photographs of Mapplethorpe lie outside of the purview of what art is; but should Andy Warhol's `Campbell's Soup Cans' also be excluded from the realm of what is considered art because Warhol copied the cans instead of creating them? (He created the idea that makes his statement on consumerism). I actually like modern art (with exceptions, of course) without buying into the 'worldview' any particular point of view expresses; I actually think it is critically important to be able to see into other worldviews as an aid to the evangelical aspect of my faith. That said, I completely agree with Veith's view on modern bohemianism and the cult of the artist as a sort of shaman: the elitist concept, for example, that only certain enlightened people 'get' blank canvasses and while the rest of us just thinks the emperor has no clothes (well-expressed by blank canvases, I think).

This book is a worthy read because Veith at least gives the definition of art a good shot. I just think his view is a little narrow.

My 15 year old daughter is studying this book in history. Not art history, just history. I saw this book in her room and picked it up when I saw "Mapplethorpe" on the cover. My daughter is in a private Christian school so I never in a million years would have thought she'd be learning anything about this freak. I was wrong, she got to learn about Mapplethorpe's photos of men urinating into the mouths of other men. Oh, and Annie Sprinkle's performance art consisting of masturbating then letting customers examine her private parts with a flashlight. I fail to see the reasoning of such graphic descriptions disguised as "Christian" information.