'I know what paintings I like, but I cannot understand what the artists are trying to say in some modern art.' That quotation could be repeated by many Christians, when talking honestly about the current art scene.
Most people (both believers and others) admire Rembrandt's work. Was this because he painted dramatic scenes from the Bible? John Constable's work is also widely appreciated. Was this because of the way in which he portrayed East Anglian countryside and revealed the beauty of God's handiwork?
Today, we find a big contrast between that kind of art and the 'strange constructions' in some art galleries. Many Christians are asking: 'Why has art become so different?' 'Who has been responsible for the changes?' Only so recently as the time of the Impressionists, we were favoured with the work of artists like Renoir and Monet. Now, we are surrounded by paintings (to say nothing of 'constructions', 'preserved animals', and 'action art'), which appear to deliberately decry beauty and distort natural elegance.
Are we reluctant to be involved in the art scene, because things are in such a poor state? To consider this matter, and reach a sensible conclusion, we need to understand what was happening in art circles, at the beginning of this century.
A new era in art
'Pablo, have you seen those exciting African sculptures, down at the Louvre?' The year was 1907, and the place was Paris. This was the gist of a conversation between two (now well-known) artists, Pablo Picasso and Henri Matisse.
Picasso was a brilliant artist who did the most wonderful paintings and drawings. He painted sensitive studies of children, birds, animals and circus people. However, it is said that such was the influence of that particular exhibition in the Louvre on him, that - after seeing it - he began to paint faces and figures in the style of African death masks and sculptures. His paintings began to be of hideously distorted figures (such as the one entitled 'Les Demoiselles d'Avignon').
This was the beginning of an art movement called 'Cubism', in which objects were distorted and fragmented. Even portraits of Picasso's girlfriends were not spared from this cruel treatment. By breaking through the barriers of reality, Picasso 'opened a kind of Pandora's box' (as H.R. Rookmaker expressed in his book Modern Art and the Death of a Culture). A new era in art had begun.
It would appear to be true that the first completely 'abstract work' was a watercolour painted by a Russian artist called Kandinsky, who fled to Paris in (we believe) 1920. For those who are new to art-world language, an 'abstract' painting is one in which there is no longer any subject matter. It is reported that an idea came to Kandinsky one evening, when returning to his studio after an evening out with his friends. He realised that one of his pictures had, accidentally, been placed on an easel upside down. It no longer portrayed anything recognisable, but- seen this way up - it appeared (affected by his bemused state) to be a beautiful composition!
This may sound like a humorous tale, but (to state known facts) the modern artists of Picasso's day were expressing - in their painting - their view of a world which (for them) had no meaning, and was without God, and without any restraints. They were rebelling against traditional art, seeking freedom of expression, and rejecting morals, religion and authority. Some artists, who deliberately turned away from their evangelical roots, became more abstract and/or more bizarre in their work.
The post-modern scene
We have travelled a long way from those early days with a young Picasso to the present art scene, in which one finds piles of bricks or a dead sheep preserved in formaldehyde being applauded as great works of art at the Tate Gallery in London (see the January issue of EN).
The 'post-modern artist' of today is expressing a statement which is designed to shock, repulse or provoke discussion. Canvas and paints are sometimes rejected in favour of constructions, videos, or even their own bodies! This activity is a product of the 'post-modern world', where there is no ultimate authority, and in which any religion or philosophy can be considered valid. Artists use their work as a vehicle of protest on behalf of human rights, animal rights, or against injustices. In order to pursue their aim, they frequently produce images which are twisted, distorted, sick or even disgusting. However, if we consider art to be the product of 'human skill' or 'the creation of works of beauty, or other special significance' (as one dictionary puts it), we might well ask if these images qualify as art at all!
Art education today
Is the present love for abstracts, distorted images, and bizarre art, something we can assess? Has it been taught to this generation in schools and art colleges, or is it the result of an absence of love for genuine beauty? The early 20th-century artists rebelled against traditional art, but they rebelled from a position of know-ledge. One is told that in some art schools, in Britain today, students are not taught to paint, and do little drawing. They are taught that 'ideas' are paramount, and they are encouraged to make political statements. In fact, in some colleges any attempts at life-like painting are ridiculed. At art school in my time, we were taught that artists had a responsibility to the art-loving public. Is it responsible to create revulsion, disgust or confusion, in the minds of those who walk into a gallery, expecting to gaze on things of beauty?
It is interesting to read that Paul Klee (1879-1940) wrote in his diary in 1915: 'The more horrible the world is, the more abstract art will be, while a happier world would bring forth more realistic art.' Could it be that when the Christian church is in a state of revival, art - and everything else - is ennobled, but when true religion is in a poor state, everything else is affected for the worse? It is also interesting to learn that, at the Royal College of Art in London, a new professor has said recently that she intends to revive drawing as an art form in its own right, among her students.
A Christian response
It is not easy to stand firm in this world and be the 'salt of the earth'. Christians believe that life has purpose and meaning, and that Creation - though spoilt by the Fall - is beautiful. The apostle Paul wrote: 'Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, think on these things' (see Philippians 4.8). When we become the children of God, by being born into His family, through the power of the Holy Spirit, we gain fresh attitudes and motivation, as well as a whole new perspective on life. It is the opinion of some of us that art which is lovely and admirable is 'cheerful, wholesome, inspiring, uplifting, peaceful and harmonious'. Christians will have to decide, individually, if severed parts of animals in formaldehyde can be described in apostolic terms!
Edward Munch, the Norwegian artist, painted a famous picture called 'The Scream'. It was stolen from a museum recently. This picture depicts a cry of despair from the artist's heart. Many artists today are in this state. They paint as they feel. Their work represents what they see in life today. Should we not pray for the creative people of this generation, that they might be 'rescued from the dominion of darkness, and brought into the Kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins' (see Colossians 1.1)?
Catherine S. Cheetham studied at St. Martins School of Art, London, and also at the London Bible College, when Dr. Ernest Kevan was the Principal.
