Sojourner Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 OK, so I have an issue/question I’ve been thinking about. Let’s say you have an artist who produces a beautiful piece of artwork – a masterpiece. It doesn’t particularly matter what the medium is – it could be a sculpture, or a song, or a movie, or a painting. But it’s lovely, moving, and amazing. Despite this fantastic piece of art, the aforementioned artist experiences a moral failing. Perhaps a good example of this would be Roman Pulanski and “The Piano.” I’ve not seen the movie, but heard it’s great; Pulanski won an Oscar for Best Director. Pulanski, however, was convicted of statutory rape and is/was living in exile to avoid being put in jail. My question is this, given this situation, what do we do with the art? Do the sins of the artist degrade the value of the art? Just wondering what you all think .... Peace, Sojourner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 You wonder how evil can produce beauty. Maybe he did it in spite of himself, not because of himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquamarine Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 Just because someone has had a 'moral failing' doesn't mean they're evil. It's like that great line in Amadeus where that prig, Salieri, is all pissy because Mozart, a reputed whoremonger, drunkard and general lout, is so very obviously more gifted than he can ever hope to be, and is railing at God for blessing Mozart with the greater talent, while he, Salieri, is such a model of virtue. Mozart may have been a weak man in some areas, but his art is hardly evil, nor was he. He was just a human blessed with an amazing gift. The state of sin of the artist is not what's important here - we're _all_ sinners. Would the art be any less than what it is because a sinner viewed it? It's what the artist does with his gift that affects the art. If Roman Polanski went on to make cheap, slick pornos, then we could say there was some evil at play. If an artist who has fallen (and who hasn't?) moves on and makes something as beautiful as The Piano was, then maybe we can say his art is part of his redemption. cmotherofpirl, thanks for the welcome earlier.... :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 Would the art be any less than what it is because a sinner viewed it? Maybe. Somebody with an addiction to porn might view the David statue ina different way that I do. I always prefer a good man who fails, than a bad man who occasionally succeeds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquamarine Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 So the statue of David is now diminished because of what's going on in someone else's mind? I don't think so. That sin lies with the viewer, not with the artist, and his art is no less because of the sin of the viewer. Nor is The Piano any less of a movie because of ONE of the people involved in it - actually, since movie-making is a collaborative art form, it's not the best example of this. And Polanski's made well-intended clunkers, too. Movie making is all about chemistry and those inexplicable moments in the universe where it all just comes together perfectly. Thing is, Polanski, like all of us, isn't a one-dimensional bad guy. Every single one of us is capable of both great good and great evil, and every single one of us will spend a lifetime moving up and down the continuum that lies between both extremes. The only REAL evil is thinking you won't, or that YOUR sins aren't really quite as bad as someone else's, or rejecting the good because you think you're above the bad, 'cause once you start thinking like that, you're as far from Christ as you can get. The Piano is no less a great movie because one of the people involved struggles with demons most of us haven't been burdened with. Maybe this one good and beautiful thing Polanski can do is his connection to God, to the rest of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Circle_Master Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 I would suggest that chapter on art and literature in "Thinking Biblically" by John MacArthur. It puts a nice spin on art like this. What I suggest is when you see art to see what God has gifted the artist with in his mind. Look to see what his mind thinks, and appreciate what there is, albeit depraved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 Since you have already decided your answer why did you bring up the question? THe movie you describe sounds like the elder brother in the prodigal son. I am the good guy, why does he get a party? Raping someone is not a "moral failing" like alcoholism or drug addiction. Its a mortal sin. THere is a big difference between the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquamarine Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 Well...it was a rhetorical question. The answer is obviously no. The statue of David doesn't become something dirty just because a dirty-minded person finds sexual titillation in it. Just like a twelve year old girl doesn't become something dirty just because a perverted old man looks at her in a sexual way, if you want to stay topical. If who he is or what he's done turns you off to the point where you can't see the beauty in the movie, don't go. It's really that simple, and it's a personal call in the end. I'm not guiltless when it comes to mortal sins, so I think I'll just go on finding the good in life where I can and leave judging the bad up to God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 Well...it was a rhetorical question. The answer is obviously no. If who he is or what he's done turns you off to the point where you can't see the beauty in the movie, don't go. It's really that simple, and it's a personal call in the end. I'm not guiltless when it comes to mortal sins, so I think I'll just go on finding the good in life where I can and leave judging the bad up to God. " The statue of David doesn't become something dirty just because a dirty-minded person finds sexual titillation in it. Just like a twelve year old girl doesn't become something dirty just because a perverted old man looks at her in a sexual way, if you want to stay topical. " I never said they did. Not to our mind, but they are looking at the object thru the eyes of a particular sin, and we are not. We see beautiful art and a beautiful child, they see objects. I really don't check out the details of a directors or a actors life before I see a movie. God writes straight with crooked lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquamarine Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 Would the art be any less than what it is because a sinner viewed it? Maybe. Somebody with an addiction to porn might view the David statue ina different way that I do. Sorry - it sounded like that's exactly what you _were_ saying. So we agree that the art is NOT diminished because someone views it with a perverted mind, yes? So the art isn't any less, right? Your answer implied that you thought it might be. Well, if you don't check an artist's background beforehand and are willing to accept the art on its own merits, then it's kind of a cheap shot to find out something about the artist afterwards and question his work in retrospect. Yep. God sure does some whacked out things, doesn't He? All I can say is, well, thank God. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilroy the Ninja Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 You know, I'm sure it's an excellent movie. Polanski didn't just "move on" though. He ran away from justice. I refuse to pay to see it (rental or cable) because I never want to think that I have helped contribute to this man's cash flow. Until he faces the consequences of his actions I haven't time for his work. No matter how beautiful it is. There are so many other worthy artists out there to pay attention to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyperdulia again Posted January 2, 2004 Share Posted January 2, 2004 The Piano is the best movie i've ever seen. Polanski sodomized a little girl. i'm not sure how those things fit together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God Conquers Posted January 3, 2004 Share Posted January 3, 2004 Piano: good flick Polanski: wierdo Don't think it matters. As long as the artwork is not perverted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilroy the Ninja Posted January 3, 2004 Share Posted January 3, 2004 I'm just saying that by supporting the "weirdo's" art you are supporting him. He may have repented. Who's to say? But he has never apologized to this girl and he has never faced the consquences of his actions. In my book that makes him a coward and swine and unworthy of my financial support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sojourner Posted January 3, 2004 Author Share Posted January 3, 2004 Good thoughts, everyone. Thanks for posting. The tension here seems to be between two good things, on the one hand, appreciating the value of beauty, and on the other, affirming moral uprightness. I think there is some distinction between older, well-established works of art and newer works. If I buy a copy of Mozart’s CD, I’m not actually financially contributing to his whoremongering. But if I buy a copy of Sinead O’Connor’s greatest hits, I do contribute to her sacreligiousness (is that a word?) in a very real financial way. There is a sense in which I support that behavior by my financial contribution to this person's work, much in the same way I show support for a political candidate by pulling out my pocketbook. But even as I think about this, I know that I, too, am a sinner fully capable of egregious and heinous sin, and God has used me to do beautiful things. There is a way in which something like “The Piano” is a picture of the way in which God makes beauty out of ugliness – redemption, if you will. So does one of these carry more weight than the other? Am I stuck with, in these instances, an either/or position, or can I appreciate this art while still affirming moral behavior? Peace, Sojourner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now