This is great! If I might, is the motivation (though not unglorious, because it is a kenotic movement, out of love) for the Christian secular artist merely didactic? Since we have access to the absolute Good, in and through Christ, as you have said, anything else is relative to that Good, and tends to accrete or mix with relative evil as it descends therefrom. So then as artists, our engagement with 'mixed' art is only comported purely when its telos is situated in the good of our brother. As you have it, "enduring relative evil things when both bestowed with God’s protection and motivated by love for those who would benefit from relative good in the process." Is there a way to see the relative good of a Dostoevsky novel as being 'filled up' in some sense by its teleology? I think I'm probably just looking for a way to justify my enjoyment of certain works and authors like Nabokov and Tanizaki that played with plenty of venom and probably not a lot of leaven. I think also maybe I should replace the notion of didacticism with that of therapy: it seems to fit better into what you're saying, and doesn't imply cheap, gimmick art. Thanks for the article and the dialogue! God bless.
I'm not sure what you mean by "merely didactic". I don't understand the question about Dostoevsky's teleology. In regard to works you're concerned about justifying, this is how I can think to respond: It is natural to enjoy seeing patterns in the world, so we enjoy when artists show them to us. There are patterns of creation (good) and patterns of corruption (evil), and good or evil can be made of perceiving either kind. If you want your having read the novels that you've read to be justified — and out of love and gratitude for the human culture you have received, this is a good aim — live a righteous life. Insofar as the influence of those novels prevents that, you will need to shed their influence, but only "insofar as".
Totally fair! I wasn’t very clear. What I meant to ask was whether or not our participation in mixed art for the sake of the other necessarily implies a didactic telos. That is, since we have access to unmixed art, iconography, hymnography, etc. Is our engagement otherwise only to be for the purpose of making ourselves capable to communicate better with others, or is there something we can uniquely learn from the mixed art which stands below and around the art of the liturgy? St. Gregory the theologian, for instance, when talking about why he wrote poetry, said that it was to be as bait for the youth, thus to secretly teach them morals; he goes onto say that for Christians, beauty lies not in words but in contemplation; mysteriously, he also says he writes poetry that Christians might be ‘first in everything.’ But as artists, we have also to produce high quality works; and my enjoyment of, say, Nabokov, consists almost entirely in the quality and structure of his prose, though it lacks nutrition. The poetry of St. Symeon the New Theologian is (and I’m taking someone’s word for this, because I don’t read Greek) of a low literary value, but an extraordinarily high spiritual value. But I think you’ve pointed me in the right directions to answer all these questions; I apologize for being unclear, and for writing at such length. Thanks again for what you’re doing here, and the reply.
My third read and I'm just now noticing the good n' evil on the cereal box ... you crack me up!
God help me — I'm really proud of that one!
This is great! If I might, is the motivation (though not unglorious, because it is a kenotic movement, out of love) for the Christian secular artist merely didactic? Since we have access to the absolute Good, in and through Christ, as you have said, anything else is relative to that Good, and tends to accrete or mix with relative evil as it descends therefrom. So then as artists, our engagement with 'mixed' art is only comported purely when its telos is situated in the good of our brother. As you have it, "enduring relative evil things when both bestowed with God’s protection and motivated by love for those who would benefit from relative good in the process." Is there a way to see the relative good of a Dostoevsky novel as being 'filled up' in some sense by its teleology? I think I'm probably just looking for a way to justify my enjoyment of certain works and authors like Nabokov and Tanizaki that played with plenty of venom and probably not a lot of leaven. I think also maybe I should replace the notion of didacticism with that of therapy: it seems to fit better into what you're saying, and doesn't imply cheap, gimmick art. Thanks for the article and the dialogue! God bless.
I'm not sure what you mean by "merely didactic". I don't understand the question about Dostoevsky's teleology. In regard to works you're concerned about justifying, this is how I can think to respond: It is natural to enjoy seeing patterns in the world, so we enjoy when artists show them to us. There are patterns of creation (good) and patterns of corruption (evil), and good or evil can be made of perceiving either kind. If you want your having read the novels that you've read to be justified — and out of love and gratitude for the human culture you have received, this is a good aim — live a righteous life. Insofar as the influence of those novels prevents that, you will need to shed their influence, but only "insofar as".
Totally fair! I wasn’t very clear. What I meant to ask was whether or not our participation in mixed art for the sake of the other necessarily implies a didactic telos. That is, since we have access to unmixed art, iconography, hymnography, etc. Is our engagement otherwise only to be for the purpose of making ourselves capable to communicate better with others, or is there something we can uniquely learn from the mixed art which stands below and around the art of the liturgy? St. Gregory the theologian, for instance, when talking about why he wrote poetry, said that it was to be as bait for the youth, thus to secretly teach them morals; he goes onto say that for Christians, beauty lies not in words but in contemplation; mysteriously, he also says he writes poetry that Christians might be ‘first in everything.’ But as artists, we have also to produce high quality works; and my enjoyment of, say, Nabokov, consists almost entirely in the quality and structure of his prose, though it lacks nutrition. The poetry of St. Symeon the New Theologian is (and I’m taking someone’s word for this, because I don’t read Greek) of a low literary value, but an extraordinarily high spiritual value. But I think you’ve pointed me in the right directions to answer all these questions; I apologize for being unclear, and for writing at such length. Thanks again for what you’re doing here, and the reply.
Ha, glory be to God, Katie! Thanks for taking the time! Peace!