{"id":2145,"date":"2014-09-05T01:45:04","date_gmt":"2014-09-05T01:45:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dminlgp\/?p=2145"},"modified":"2014-09-07T07:47:25","modified_gmt":"2014-09-07T07:47:25","slug":"reflections-concerning-visual-faith-art-theology-and-worship-in-dialogue-engaging-culture-by-william-a-dyrness","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/reflections-concerning-visual-faith-art-theology-and-worship-in-dialogue-engaging-culture-by-william-a-dyrness\/","title":{"rendered":"Reflections concerning \u201cVisual Faith: Art, Theology and Worship in Dialogue (Engaging Culture)\u201d by William A. Dyrness"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Dyrness\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\u201cIt is possible that we might win the battle of words, but lose the battle of images. And losing that battle could well cost us this generation.\u201d[1]<\/p>\n

I think Dyrness offers a vital point with this statement in noting that modes\/methods that worked in the past will not necessarily work in the present. However, with this statement I also think Dyrness falls into a dysfunctional orientation of equating difference to an either\/or, antagonistic, dualistic approach to relationality. Whether it\u2019s words or images, according to Dyrness\u2019s language, we are in a \u201cbattle.\u201d It\u2019s \u2018us\u2019 against \u2018them.\u2019 It\u2019s giving preference to\u00a0the\u00a0idea of \u2018versus\u2019 over the idea of \u2018collaboration.\u2019 Especially since this is a reflection on a text about art\/imagery, it\u2019s important to name and bring to light this notion of battle \u2013 which is mentioned so early in the text and therefore serves as an underlying theme throughout the text even as it at times disappears into the background \u2013 for such a term carries with it significant mental imagery that invokes and evokes all kinds of intense emotions for people. I would suggest that a goal in healthily navigating varying forms of expression and understanding is to not to seek to further separate categories by conceptual chasms, but instead, seek to find conversational and perceptual interconnecting points in the midst of difference. Even in difference the dance remains because we are never so differentiated that all recognition in lost. This is a philosophical point that suggests any recognition\/awareness at all between parties denotes similarit(y\/ies), indicates overlap of Being. Knowing that interpretive capacity is never fully absent, there is significant rationale for moving from the antagonistic terminology of \u201cbattle\u201d to the cooperative terminology of \u201cdance,\u201d \u201cconversation\u201d or other such language that leaves more room for redemption and reconciliation than does the terminology of \u201cbattle.\u201d<\/p>\n

The above noted, I agree with Dyrness that both the production of and the appreciation of art has undergone and is undergoing significant shifting as morays of culture continue to metamorphasize at exponential rates. The popularization of certain forms of art and certain artists themselves \u2013 while in many senses arguably a reasonable good in its own right \u2013 has not necessarily led to a deepened overall appreciation of how these forms and practices facilitate mature engagement\/critique\/celebration of the surrounding world. \u00a0That is, it has often led to people being voyeurs rather than connoisseurs. \u00a0This being the case, one of the ongoing questions is, how do we encourage more thoughtful interaction with art? \u00a0A related and larger query becomes how do we educate ourselves and others to see more deeply and broadly that the world is an artistic masterpiece for us to appreciate, revel in, grapple with, but never to take for granted? \u00a0How do we continue to welcome the lessening rigidified difference between high art and popular art without simply allowing this movement to become a journey toward mediocrity?<\/p>\n

Thankfully, especially for the Christian approaching the arts, Dyrness has some suggestions about the above questions. \u00a0\u201c[Scripture] reveals\u2026that the world is laden with symbolic potential that reflects God\u2019s purposes and his presence.\u201d[2] Dyrness continues on to talk about God\u2019s Incarnation and Glorification as aspects of how our understanding of the world as art can be further formed. As I was reflecting on these thoughts from Dyrness, my mind turned toward the idea of the Imago Dei \u2013 the image of God. We read in Scripture that \u201cthe earth is the Lord\u2019s and all therein\u201d and that \u201cin the beginning God created\u2026and saw that it was good.\u201d A work of art always communicates aspects of the one that makes it. So it is with the earth and so it is with us. \u00a0We too are works of art. \u00a0\u201cLet us make humanity in Our image.\u201d \u00a0This is where the idea of Imago Dei comes from \u2013 we are made in the image of God, we are image bearers of God. We are given clues as to the character of the artist by both the subject matter chosen and the way in which the subject matter is portrayed. \u00a0Understanding God\u2019s connectedness with both ourselves and our surroundings can assist in adding profound depth of attention and respect to ‘the world as art in all its forms’ even as the division between high and popular art continues to blur.<\/p>\n

Moving toward the end of\u00a0this reflection, I love where Dyrness, in writing about the wonderful philosopher theologian Jacques Maritain discussing art, the artist, and the surrounding world, quotes Maritain\u00a0as offering, \u201cthe soul of the artist \u2018seeks itself by communicating with things.\u2019\u201d[3] \u00a0This connectivity \u2013 see\u2026we\u2019re back to connectivity rather than disjunctive embattlement \u2013 is what Maritain calls \u201cconnaturality,\u201d[4] what I would define as \u201cconnected togetherness.\u201d \u00a0I resonate with Dyrness\u2019s point here, but his language falls a bit short for me. \u00a0Including Martin Buber\u2019s Ich und Du<\/em> language would assist in overcoming this shortfall.[5] Martin Buber — now classically \u2013 writes about the relationship of I-Thou (I-You) language as opposed to I-It language in his famous text I and Thou<\/em>. \u00a0The difference is between Subjectifying (in the best sense) language and Objectifying (in the worst sense) language. \u00a0The first facilitates life; the second facilitates death. I understand Dyrness to mean an I-Thou relationality in his writing, but I think Buber\u2019s language adds clarification.<\/p>\n

Dyrness continues onward to talk about Creation and New Creation, Trinitarianism, and other subjects, referring to thoughtful figures that have engaged these topics such as Jurgen Moltmann, Jeremy Begbie, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Nicholas Wolterstorff, Abraham Kuyper, and Herman Dooyeweerd.<\/p>\n

\"Walking<\/a><\/p>\n

Though of course many things could be suggested as addition to Dyrness’s text, one short helpful book\u00a0I would like to recommend be read alongside Dyrness\u2019s work is Madeleine L\u2019Engle\u2019s Walking on Water: Reflections on Faith and Art<\/em>. [6] It\u2019s fair to say that Dyrness is writing more as a scholar who appreciates art and L\u2019Engle is writing as an artist-scholar. \u00a0Two related, but varying perspectives that sit well together.<\/p>\n

\"Fujimura\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Okay, one more suggestion. This last fall I was able to meet and see some of the work of Makoto Fujimura, a wonderful artist and thoughtful Christian. He has a book out called Refractions: A Journey of Faith, Art and Culture.[7] It\u2019s a book of reflections on his journey as an artist and a person of faith. It\u2019s honest, insightful, whimsical and erudite; worth a read.<\/p>\n

I want to finish with an encompassing, intense passage Dyrness shares in his text quoting from the theologian Rookmaaker, \u201cNever try to show the validity of Christianity through art, Rookmaaker says, \u2018rather the validity of art should be shown through Christianity.\u201d[8] Do you agree?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

[1] William A. Dyrness, Visual Faith: Art, Theology and Worship in Dialogue (Engaging Culture), (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), p. 21<\/p>\n

[2] Dyrness, 87.<\/p>\n

[3] Dyrness, 89.<\/p>\n

[4] Ibid.<\/p>\n

[5] Martin Buber, I and Thou [a new translation with a prologue, “I and you” and notes by Walter Kaufmann]<\/em>, (New York: Touchstone, 1996).<\/p>\n

[6] Madeline L\u2019Engle. Walking on Water: Reflections on Faith and Art, (Wheaton, Il: Harold Shaw Publishers, 1980).<\/p>\n

[7] Makoto Fujimura, Refractions: A Journey of Faith, Art, and Culture<\/em>, (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2009).<\/p>\n

[8] Dyrness, 96.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u201cIt is possible that we might win the battle of words, but lose the battle of images. And losing that battle could well cost us this generation.\u201d[1] I think Dyrness offers a vital point with this statement in noting that modes\/methods that worked in the past will not necessarily work in the present. However, with […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":21,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[80,289,141],"class_list":["post-2145","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-art","tag-dyrness","tag-faith","cohort-lgp4"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2145","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/21"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2145"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2145\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2319,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2145\/revisions\/2319"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2145"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2145"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2145"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}