sedesvacans
Reputation: 53
(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Posts: 114
|
Is it possible for an artist to "serve God" while using a medium that is not beautiful?
Or is art a field where no one can judge the art by itself but only judge the message that is purports to promote?
Is it all based on opinion? Or is there a way to measure this as true?
Is "christian rock" something that actually exists? Or is the effect that it has on the mind actually opposed to the message?
I am curious to know anyone's thoughts on this subject.
I believe that it is not possible to promote ugly modern art and claim it to be for the glory of God.
Is getting a tattoo with an image of the Virgin Mary or dressing in makeup and spandex and yellng about God into a microphone at 110 decibels glorifying to God?
God created the universe with lawfulness and order and beauty and gave us the ability to understand its order and also gave us the intellect and emotion to differentiate between ugliness and beauty. He gave us the capacity to further our knowledge of the created universe and the will to advance our understanding to become ourselves more "in His image".
11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. But, when I became a man, I put away the things of a child.
|
|
| Posted Oct 20, 2011, 9:05 pm |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
|
|
Vandaler
Reputation: 5
(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Posts: 1,608
|
The question can be simplified to: does bad art exist?
Sure it does, for the simple reason that it's available to anyone to create. That does not mean that bad art is without purpose. Some people derive satisfaction or release in the mere action of creating. That positive being given to anyone to grab is, to me, enough to answer your question.
|
|
| Posted Oct 11, 2012, 1:20 pm |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
|
|
