Skip to main content

Biblical Criticism and Art Criticism

Many people look at the Bible as a CNN news report that explains exactly who did what, when, and how it happened. In doing so they completely neglect the various types of literature that make up the canon of Scripture, the context in which they were written, the mindset of the communities who produced the book, the social customs of the community, and so on. Because they are blind to these things, or do not consider them, when reading the Bible, they often come up with bizarre interpretations of certain passages. But employing tools like genre criticism, canonical criticism, narrative-historical criticism, and all of the rest of them, help us understand the text better. This is one of the main reasons why seminarians spend so much time studying higher criticism in seminary! It is helpful in most ways.

I think the same thing goes on when some people view art. Works by modern masters, such as Anselm Kiefer, are misunderstood and often derided by the average person because the viewer knows nothing of what the artist trying to say or accomplish. He doesn't understand the point of the medium or technique (genre). For many (but not all) great modern and postmodern artists, the last thing they are interested in doing painting a very realistic Madonna... not because they can't paint it, or don't see the value in it, but because they are trying to accomplish something else. We can appreciate modern and contemporary art (and music, and literature) if we try to learn something about what is behind the piece.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Tale of Two Cathedrals

My wife and I just returned from vacation. While away, we got to visit the Basilica of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Baltimore, which had recently undergone a huge renovation. The last time I was there was to see the famous "Timla Relic" a few years ago. Unlike some horrific church renovations that have gone on in recent years that were supposedly meant to "update" the church, this restoration was meant to "return" the interior of the building to its original Federal-period design. And I must say that it a very tasteful renovation. They did a really good job. It looks almost like an old early Episcopal church - white washed interior, minimal designs, etc. The interior is now very bright because they removed the stained glass (dark blue Willet windows), and uncovered the original skylights in the dome. They kept all of the good stuff (the high altar, altar rails, etc.), and brought some cool old stuff back (e.g. the nation's first RC epi...

Priest, Psychologist, and Art Critic

The other night on EWTN, Fr. Benedict Groeschel proudly proclaimed that he had never stepped foot in the MoMA , because he couldn't stand looking at all of the ugliness and disorderliness of "modern art". Apparently while he was doing his doctorate in psychology he took some courses in art history and art criticism. I couldn't disagree more with what he said. There is definite order in modern art - it might just not be readily apparent with some artists. Certainly the early work of people like Frank Stella, Leger, and many others, is very rigid and ordered. There is even order in Jackson Pollock paintings as Francis Schaffer showed in How Shall We Then Live . And besides that MoMA has many other paintings in it that are done in a more traditional style that he would probably enjoy. For example, I believe now there is a show of Lucian Freud prints and Seurat drawings. So I don't know what father was talking about in that interview. It really makes no sense to me.