# Axiology and Art



## CalvinandHodges (Feb 16, 2009)

Greetings:

Below is an excerpt from a paper I wrote on Aesthetics. I am interested in the valuation of Art: Why do some value certain art-forms and others do not? Is there an intrinsic value to an artwork, or, is it simply in the eyes of the beholder? Should we judge a person "lesser" if he/she does not appreciate the same kinds of music or painting? I wish to engender thoughts on this subject.

Axiology and Art: Towards a Christian Aesthetic.'

Axiology is the task of assigning value to beauty. As such it is a broad category that encompasses many different philosophical disciplines. Dr. Wilbur Urban writes:


> The intimate relation of ethics and axiology brings it about that the field of axiology has been defined largely in relation to ethics …Axiology is, then, the name given to that part of philosophy concerned with what is called the general theory of value. It is characterized by its concern with a certain group of problems the nature of which may perhaps be best indicated by the topics in the section on Value at the Ninth International Congress of Philosophy. Of the fifty papers presented, three were given to general questions; twelve to the problem of the relation of value to knowledge; three to problems of cosmology and value; and fourteen to the problem of value and reality. This emphasis upon the epistemological and metaphysical aspects of the value problem is symptomatic of present preoccupations in the field.


To assign a value-judgment to a work of art as being either “good” or “bad” is, in essence, a judgment from an ethical viewpoint. Consequently, one’s views on ethical matters will greatly determine what one accepts as artistic or beautiful. Dr. Urban also notes that there are epistemological questions concerning the valuation of Art. Such questions might be: What is the knowledge of value? Is it intrinsic, or, extrinsic? Finally, values are related to Ontology: the study of being-as-such. What is the relation of values to reality independent of man?

Francis Schaeffer in his book, How Should We Then Live? traces the flow of art as it relates to the presuppositions of the artist and the culture around him. Art is an expression of the metaphysical values of the culture, and these values are predominately expressed in the moral views of the artist. A “Goth,” for example, will be attracted to art that reflects the 19th Century Gothic Romantic Novels. Death and the macabre are consistent themes within the “Gothic culture.” A Hedonist considers only his own personal pleasure as the determinant for the judging of good or bad to an artwork. The Pragmatic will judge something beautiful if there is some means to an end or consequence reached by the work.

What is value? Why do we value what we value? What is the relationship between value and knowledge? In the strictest sense of the word “value” can be equated with “worth.” When we place a value on something we are indicating the relation of that something to what we hold to be dear. To a scientist the batting average of Mickey Mantle in his rookie year of 1951 is a worthless piece of trivia. However, to an adoring fan of the New York Yankees it may be a valuable piece of knowledge. Knowledge itself is determined by value-systems. And these judgments ultimately lead us to our knowledge of reality.

What is the relation of values to reality? The subjectivist would claim that values are entirely dependent on human experience. The objectivist, on the other hand, understands values to be metaphysically real, objective, and integral to the universe around him. The phrase “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” is a statement focusing on the subjective element of art or beauty. Art, from an objective viewpoint, is the selective re-creation of reality based upon the artist’s metaphysical value-judgments. Art, true art, in its true form follows the created order from the perspective of the artist. In this sense art is both objective, as it represents reality, and subjective, as it is an expression of reality from the value-judgments of the artist. Francis Schaeffer points this out when he writes:



> Great art – is that the artist makes a body of work and this body of work shows his world view. No one, for example, who understands Michelangelo or Leonardo can look at their work without understanding something of their respective world views. Nonetheless, these artists began by making works of art, and then their world views showed through the body of their work.


In a very real sense great art is the communication of the artists’ metaphysical value-judgments in his representation of reality.

It is not simply the artist, though, that is represented, but those also who appreciate and/or patronize the artist. When an art observer places a value-judgment upon a work of art he is acknowledging the work as somehow reflective of his own world and life view. Not all men are creators of great art, but all men express the image of God within them through their appreciation of art. For the Christian living in the secular world the question must be asked: What principles should be used when creating or making a value-judgment upon a work of art?

God is the most beautiful being in the world. There is none like Him. One can stand and gape with awe for a millennia at the wondrous beauty of the manifestation of the glory of the Lord and still be filled with wonder and awe forevermore. When the Bible uses the term “beauty” it is often surrounded with synonyms such as “glory” and “holiness”:



> Exo 28:2 And thou shalt make holy garments for Aaron thy brother for glory and for beauty.
> 1Ch 16:29 Give unto the LORD the glory due unto his name: bring an offering, and come before him: worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness.
> Psa 27:4 On thing have I desired of the LORD, that will I seek after; that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the LORD, and to enquire in his temple.


For the Christian, then, beauty is defined by the referent – God. However, when one reads the Bible, the one thing that is forbidden the Christian to do is to make an artwork of God:



> Dt 5:8-10 Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.


In defending the use of the arts Schaeffer , Veith , and Meyers all argue that what is forbidden concerning the making of art is the worship of it. Many argue that the church should be decorated like the Temple of Solomon – with images of: gold, angels, fruits, candlesticks, and tapestries of animals. They point out that the puritanical view of a plain church with no ornaments, no instruments, and a plain pulpit is an overreaction against the kind of voluptuous idolatry found in Roman Catholic circles.

However, in reading the New Testament the function of the Temple decorations becomes perfectly clear: The people of God are the Temple of the Lord (Eph. 2:21). The beauty of worship is found in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit granting to the believer in Christ holiness, and a reflection of the Glory of God. The Temple of Solomon in all of its glory was simply a shadow of better things to come. The Regulative Principle requires only accapella Psalm singing in worship. Consequently, using artworks to adorn a place of worship is counterproductive to the work of the Holy Spirit. It is the Word of God skillfully applied to the soul that beautifies the believer in Christ. Anything else does not satisfy. The Puritans had it right.

That God has limited the use of art works in worship does not restrict the use of art in all other areas of life. As he is an aesthetic creature the Christian man, being renewed in the image of God, can both make and appreciate works of art. Such would not only include creations made by fellow Christians, but also art works made by unbelievers. When considering any art work the primary text in Scripture to be applied is:



> Php 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.


Insofar as a particular artwork contains any of the principles stated above, then such an artwork is an acceptable media for the Christian to appreciate. The farther an artwork strays from these principles the uglier it becomes as an indicator of the glory of God.

Ethics in Christian Axiology demands the artwork to be “true, honest, just, and pure.” These principles are essential parts of the Moral Law. In epistemology they reflect the true knowledge of God. And, that which is “lovely” is found in the very being of God who is beautiful beyond measure. How then do these principles relate to secular art?

From the Iliad to Huckleberry Finn from Greco-Roman Sculpture to Caravaggio’s: Paul on the Damascus Road secular artists have been thrilling Christians with their work. How can this be when secular artists have no true vision of the one true God? A clue to this can be found in the Westminster Confession of Faith:



> Although the light of nature and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable; yet they are not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation.


Secular artists still have within their sin torn souls the light of nature that leads them to some truth about God. From this knowledge the secular artist can express some truths concerning God’s world that is consistent with Christian philosophy. Common Grace can so work in the soul that the very glory of God can be revealed through the work of an unbelieving artist. 

Any thoughts?

-Rob


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Feb 22, 2009)

Hi:

What? No thoughts? - Not even a, "This is the stupidest thing I ever read?"

-Rob


----------



## Rangerus (Feb 22, 2009)

I've always felt art, like music and literature is a God given talent for communicating. I believe God's essence is communicated to us through the arts. To me it's like, if you think He is beautiful in these things, you should see what He does with streets of gold.

PS "This is the stupidest thing I ever read." 


...only kidding.


----------



## discipulo (Feb 22, 2009)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Greetings:
> 
> Below is an excerpt from a paper I wrote on Aesthetics. I am interested in the valuation of Art: Why do some value certain art-forms and others do not? Is there an intrinsic value to an artwork, or, is it simply in the eyes of the beholder? Should we judge a person "lesser" if he/she does not appreciate the same kinds of music or painting? I wish to engender thoughts on this subject.
> 
> ...



Hope to share more about it.

In the XX (I) th century Art became very complex, nuanced, atomized, conceptualized, etc.

On the other hand it is a very important way to read society and culture.

A small quote that has lot in it, for the best and the worst.

_I have nothing to say but I am saying it and that is Art._ 

John Cage (that’s right the silent piano work guy and works for prepared piano)


----------



## discipulo (Feb 22, 2009)

Jeff Koons work of Art 













Sadly it is recognized and qualified as Art. For me the real work of Art is the Palace on the back.

Coosje Van Bruggen is another example of objectualized art.

Marcel Duchamp opened this ugly can, but the question is to understand why...


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Feb 22, 2009)

What class was this for C&H?


----------



## Theognome (Feb 22, 2009)

When reading this, I found myself reflecting upon the artistic differences between two reformation artists- Rembrandt and Durer. Although both of them presented a very realistic presentation of creation, Durer's work was very dramatic and even grotesque, while Rembrandt seemed far more introspective.

As you mentioned, this is an excerpt. So I'm assuming that you addressed in far more detail elsewhere the impact of godliness (or lack thereof) within society and how it affects Axiology within genre art. This excerpt does speak to it, but primarily on a personal level.

Good stuff, btw.

Theognome


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Feb 22, 2009)

I love Durer...


----------



## Theognome (Feb 22, 2009)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I love Durer...



As do I. The dude could throw it down!

Theognome


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Feb 22, 2009)




----------



## discipulo (Feb 22, 2009)

Theognome said:


> When reading this, I found myself reflecting upon the artistic differences between two reformation artists- Rembrandt and Durer. Although both of them presented a very realistic presentation of creation, Durer's work was very dramatic and even grotesque, while Rembrandt seemed far more introspective.
> 
> As you mentioned, this is an excerpt. So I'm assuming that you addressed in far more detail elsewhere the impact of godliness (or lack thereof) within society and how it affects Axiology within genre art. This excerpt does speak to it, but primarily on a personal level.
> 
> ...



Those were the days.

Last year my wife and I saw an exposition of Rubens and Bruegel (son) in the Hague (Den Haag), it was an immensity of beauty.

And we could also see on the resident collection several amazing paintings, one was the lesson of anatomy of Rembrandt and also the Delft scene of Vermeer, one of my favourites is Vermeer.

-----Added 2/22/2009 at 08:10:24 EST-----

I admit I was trying to  with Jeff Koons above, but isn’t this a 

tragedy of our times that kind of kitschy stuff is called Art?


----------



## janimar (Feb 24, 2009)

I enjoyed your article but I been busy with my mom's 80th birthday celebrations so I hadn't posted. I passed the article on to one of my students who is writing a paper on the Reformation and art for an 11th grade omnibus course I teach. 
If you publish the rest of the paper please let me know.


Janice
Granite Classical Tutorials
Columbia, MD


----------



## Theognome (Feb 24, 2009)

discipulo said:


> Theognome said:
> 
> 
> > When reading this, I found myself reflecting upon the artistic differences between two reformation artists- Rembrandt and Durer. Although both of them presented a very realistic presentation of creation, Durer's work was very dramatic and even grotesque, while Rembrandt seemed far more introspective.
> ...



Koons reminds me of a parody I wrote many years ago...

_Sung to the tune of *How Great Thou Art*_

* Post Modern Art*

Oh as I walk, through any uptown gall'ry,
And look at all, the junk some folks have made,
They take some trash, and glue it all together,
And the sold sign, tells me the fool was paid.

_Chorus_

Then screams my soul, "Why do folks pay for these?"
It's Modern Art, Post Modern Art.
Then screams my soul, "Why do folks pay for these?"
It's Modern Art, Post Modern Art.

Oh as I go, into an office building,
and read the plaque, by their front art display,
It tells me that, this twisted chunk of metal,
The artist named, 'The Breath of Horse Pate'

_Chorus_


I never did the other two verses, which is probably a good thing.

Theognome


----------



## janimar (Mar 5, 2009)

Bill,
I love your song. I will use it in my 11th grade Omnibus class when we study postmodern art.


----------

