"The Purpose of Art"

(This is a complete version of what was partially published in Eagles Wings, December, 2003)

The publicity leading up to Mel Gibson's film The Passion (opening in theaters Ash Wednesday, February 25th) makes us think about the role of artistic expression.  Mel Gibson, a devout Catholic, financed, produced, co-wrote and directed the film himself, as a total expression of his faith.  Since well before its release, commentary about the film has run the gamut, with some deploring the film, claiming it is anti-Semitic simply because it is truthful to the gospels.  Why the controversy?  Isn't art supposed to be about the truth? 

The controversy surrounding the film prompted David Limbaugh, a writer for Worldnetdaily.com, to comment: "How ironic that when a movie producer takes artistic license with historical events, he is lionized as artistic, creative and brilliant, but when another takes special care to be true to the real-life story, he is vilified... The moral is that if you want the popular culture to laud your work on Christ, make sure it either depicts Him as a homosexual or as an everyday sinner with no particular redeeming value (literally). In our anti-Christian culture, the blasphemous 'The Last Temptation of Christ' is celebrated, and 'The Passion' is condemned... Mel Gibson is a model of faith and courage."  We can recall recent homilies at our parish that have echoed these sentiments.

To be sure, art has long had its controversies regarding religion.  There have been depictions of the Virgin Mary and the Crucifix that have lead to cries of outrage among the faithful.  Can those exhibits truly represent how the artist sees things?  In our society, artists are encouraged to explore boundaries.  Can that exploration go too far?

We asked performing artist Marie Danvers, who played Christine in Broadway's Phantom of the Opera, in an email, about the purpose and limitations of the artist.  In her reply, she spoke of the altruism of art: "[It] can have many purposes...  It can be a teacher...  It can lead us to our emotions... It is freedom of expression on every level, and can sometimes make us change our perspectives on the world."   But, we asked, can it go too far?  "Personally, when it comes to art I think there are no limitations.  As long as they are not forcing me to appreciate [it], the artists of the world can create as they choose.  Of course, it goes without saying that no one or nothing should be harmed in the making of art.  I do draw the line there."

Robert Gallagher, who played Javert in Broadway's Les Miserables, in an email reply said "The most interesting aspect to art is how uniquely individual it is," he replied.  "Two different painters can paint the same subject and it will look completely different.  Two singers can sing the same song and it will be a different experience.  This is true for the artist as well as the person experiencing the art."  About limitations, Mr. Gallagher feels: "There is a thin line between art and vulgarity, but who is to say where the line should be drawn?"

To help enlighten us about the moral implications of art, we called on Father John McCartney for his perspective on the artist's search, and how far that search should go.  His responses follow:

Eagles Wings: In your opinion, does the church, per se, ascribe to the general belief among artists from various genres of artistic expression that "all art is valid as long as it is done truthfully, honestly, with feeling and sensitivity to the subject matter, no matter what the public at large may feel about it, and no matter what the quality level of that art is"?   Is your opinion any different? 

Father McCartney: "From the perspective of religion, God alone has the power to create. As Creator, God brings all things into being from nothing. Human beings, made in His image and likeness, are therefore more like craftsmen, who have been given a similar creative impulse, but use God’s creation to bring forth works of beauty. Mankind is distinguished from animals by this desire express themselves through creating art. The Divine Artist has invited the human artist to share in that creative act.

            "The word 'art' comes from an Old French word meaning to fashion or to form. To describe something as being “art” is neither to praise nor condemn it, but merely states a fact. Something that has been created by an artist as a form of self-expression is art. To ask whether that particular art is 'valid,' implies passing judgment on its quality; whether it is 'good art,' or 'bad art.' This expands today to include the question whether art which offends people is 'good' or 'bad' art.

            "From a Catholic point of view, art must always be viewed from its source. The artist who creates it has been inspired to do so by that creative instinct which is always a gift from God. And, as with any gift from our Creator, we may use it or misuse it. Artistic creativity, therefore, should always conform to the standard of its source, Who is God. Just as we are to use things and love people, may today use people and love things. This is a distortion of God’s gifts to us, and will eventually result in destroying the gift. If we use people, we will loose those people. If an artist abuses or misuses his artistic gift, that gift will atrophy and die. It is much more a question of the relationship between the artist and God, rather than between the artist and the public."

Eagles Wings: What makes artistic expression interesting to you - what is the "purpose of art"?

Father McCartney: "When people speak of the 'purpose of art,' they often couch their response in rather ornate and flowery language. They speak of art as being 'noble' or 'uplifting', or in other similar terms. However, the real purpose of art begins simply as the self-expression of the artist.  The creative impulse that God has given to the artist as a gift brings forth something that is created. The art that results tells us at least two things. First, it tells us that there is an impulse in the artist to create. Second, it reveals a great deal about the artist himself. It can also reveal to what degree the artist is cooperating with his gift, or is trying to bend his gift to his own ends. For example, a playwright’s work, on its own tells us that the artist has an urge to express himself through the medium of drama. The play itself may reveal to us things about the artist himself. The very choice of the topic, the dialogue and interaction of the characters may reveal the author to be angry, or negative, frustrated or optimistic. It can reveal to a degree, the playwright’s view of the world or of life. But if the artist is not true to his craft, and tries to bend the work to fit some agenda (as in a political or social agenda), it is the art which will suffer. Poor art is never lasting art.

            "What makes art most interesting to me is when it accurately reflects the truth of life. This is so even when that truth might be uncomfortable or disturbing. When art prompts us to look at something we know to be real, but from a different perspective or dimension, then it becomes more than interesting, it becomes truly productive. Perhaps a good example of this would be Shakespeare’s play 'Othello.' There we see a tragedy unfold which explores the nature of jealousy, and how that emotion can destroy lives. All who see the play must come away asking themselves the question of whether jealousy is a part of their own lives. And perhaps the lesson that the play teaches us is to free ourselves from that dangerous emotion. The reason that 'Othello' or any of Shakespeare’s plays are still so widely read and enjoyed is because they are 'true' in the broadest sense of the word. When something is true it is true everywhere and always. That is why those plays still captivate audiences around the world hundreds of years later."

Eagles Wings: What is your favorite quality in art, generally speaking?  Your least favorite?

Father McCartney: "When we talk about a 'quality in art,' I am not exactly sure what we mean. If we mean a medium, I think that is almost impossible to answer. I cannot say that I like this play more than this painting or that symphony. However, if we are talking about qualities common to all art, I would respond that I believe the most important is truth. This is easiest to explain through examples of written fiction. A novel or a play must have the quality of truth. It must be true to itself and to its characters.

"There is the well-known story of Leo Tolstoy writing his novel 'Anna Karenina.' Each morning, it seems, Tolstoy would arrive at the breakfast table, and relate the storyline of what he had penned the night before. One morning he told his family: 'Count Vronsky shot himself last night.' The family became extremely upset and the children cried out, 'Pappa, how could you?' To which Tolstoy replied, puzzled: 'I had nothing to do with it; Vronsky did it all by himself.' The writer had allowed the character to be true to himself, even if the turn of the plot took the story in a direction displeasing to the author. It rather mirrors the Book of Genesis, where the Divine Author does not impose His will on his created characters, but grants them free will to behave as they choose. Free will means that God will not force us to love Him. God wrote us a play, not a puppet show. However, in the Book of Genesis we see that the Author decided to actually become one of His own characters, and bring His wayward actors back to His original creation.

            "Art which violates this principle of truth is unsatisfying and is never lasting."

Eagles Wings: Is there anything that "passes for art" that really upsets you?  If so, why?

Father McCartney: "I am generally most upset by poor art. This response may surprise those who might expect my answer to single out those recent artworks which have in some way attacked the Catholic faith or church. Not to disappoint, all of those works of art fall into my category of “poor art” as well. These artists are misusing their gift in order to advance some agenda of their own, or to persuade others to adopt the same viewpoint. Generally the excessive publicity these artworks generate makes them more interesting to people rather than less. These exhibitions are not really validating these works of art; it is rather like looking at a traffic accident."

Eagles Wings: Is the phrase "scatological art" an oxymoron?  Is there ever a need for such expression?  If you can, give examples from literature, comedy, etc, and your reasons for or against it.

Father McCartney: "When we speak of 'scatological art,' we are merely referring to art which is obscene. The question then becomes: 'what is our definition of obscenity?' I purposely use the adjective 'our' because obscenity is actually a relative term whose standard changes over time. Clearly, what was deemed obscene in the year 1900 would probably not be considered obscene at all in the year 2000. That is most certainly not an improvement. As a standard, obscenity is very hard to judge. In 1964, in a case attempting to define a standard for obscenity under federal law, Justice Potter Stewart of the United States Supreme Court, wrote that he would not attempt to define obscenity, 'but I know it when I see it.' Most people are rather like that today. They have a general or vague sense of obscenity, but have difficulty setting an abstract standard.

            "From a Catholic point of view, that which is obscene is not properly considered art because it is not part of the artistic gift given by God. Obscene works which are labeled as art actually harm true works of art by giving people a false sense of the purpose of art. Obscene things also have a tremendously numbing effect on people. It lessens their ability to judge what is obscene by lowering their resistance to such things over time."

Eagles Wings: How much freedom should artists have? 

Father McCartney: "I have always believed that we should have unfettered expression in all areas of public discourse, and that certainly includes artistic expression. This generally translates these days into the catch-all phrase 'I’m not in favor of censorship.' However, censorship is rather in the eye of the beholder. Today many artists believe it is their right to receive public or private money to subsidize their work, and that if controversy surrounds their work and these funds are cut off, in some way they have been censored. This is simply not true. There is a difference in the government arresting someone for drawing a political cartoon, and the newspaper refusing to print it because the editors do not agree with its message. There is a great difference between the City of New York shutting down the Brooklyn Museum because many people object to works on exhibit there, and the public deciding that they do not want their tax dollars to support such works or institutions. Some may talk of 'chilling effects' on speech, but that is nonsense. Most of the great artists of history have had to struggle to promote their works, and many have had tremendous opposition. If you believe in a thing, that fact that it is not easily accepted should not deter you. I believe that most of the artists behind these controversial exhibits are actually betraying art. They manipulate the public’s shock or outrage to gain publicity (and consequently money) for their art which never would have come to them in the first place, because their art is simply not good."

Eagles Wings: Are there any subjects or topics of discussion that should be off-limits to artists?  Why (or why not)? 

Father McCartney: "When people pose this question I really believe they are speaking more of social convention than of artistic expression. By that I mean that there are certain limits that society places on behavior (especially public behavior). As I said above, the government should not place any limits on artistic expression. Let the public decide by their interest or lack of interest in such works. But, if the public rejects the artworks the artist must not scream 'censorship!' Eventually time will render the true verdict."

Eagles Wings: Is there anything else you would like to say about the subject?

Father McCartney: "I would like to add that the Roman Catholic Church has been the greatest patron of all types of art over the many centuries of its existence. As a Church, we take art quite seriously. Pope John Paul II as a student studied Polish literature, was an actor, as is a playwright and poet. In 1999, the Holy Father wrote an 'Apostolic Letter to Artists,' explaining the importance of art to mankind, and the important vocation God has given to artists. It is fascinating to get a religious perspective on the nature of art and the artistic vocation. This document is available on the web."

David Morrissey