So what I'm working on next is going to be much more rushed and unfortunately might not have the same depth of "I've been wracked by this, like a WEEK ago" as my last essay....but hey, I can only have so many near breakdowns for the sake of decent writing in a month.
What I'm doing is discussing the assumed rules/laws/restrictions placed on us by Christian art and media. And by Christian I mean to include "Christian influenced," since much of the paper will be trying to show the fault in these suppositions. I'm focusing on Andrew Marvell's two dialogue poems, "A Dialogue Between Soul and Body," and "A Dialogue Between Soul and Created Pleasure." Both speak pretty strongly against pleasure being good at all, and emphasizing the body's wickedness and the soul's virtue.
Part of my thesis is the responsibility of artists to accurately portray theology. Ideas like abstaining from anything that feels or tastes or smells good because it's "worldly" are pretty prevalent in art. I think it's important for artists to be correct largely on the principle that a good, catchy song sticks in your head and well written passages come to mind time and time again; the artist can present truth in a more accessible or maybe personnal way and if someone is wielding that kind of clout, I'd like them to be doing truth justice. I'll be in Corinthians a bit again for this essay as well.
Any thoughts/suggestions are welcome, as always. Oh and it's due on Wednesday, so make it snappy.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
3 comments:
Hey Matt-
This is my first post on your blog but I have enjoyed many previous epic blogs of yours, Mo Shakes in particular. In regards to your new assignment I agree that the artist can use their special powers for the good of humanity to help bring their audience to God. Are you suggesting that this is your opinion that all artists must protray correct theology? If so, it seems you lose fun and ridiculous humor in art. Maybe I am just taking a tangent off what your essay is really about (I'm not an experienced blogger). I think that the standard is a valiant one and is what I have thought about for myself in writing music, especially lyrics.
i feel like art is what appears to be good to normal observers under normal conditions, and if one can integrate a higher, deeper meaning into that good, then so be it. However, when a "Christian" tries too hard to be perceived as good, then he runs the risk of turning of his target audience and turning himself into something far worse...smitty is an example.
normal being....?
i'm thinking more about artists portraying God accurately, not so much looking good themselves in their medium. i know what you mean though, when they try to be too "churchy" it gets mighty ugly. i can't wait for the new smitty song this summer.
Post a Comment