Examine the nuances and caveats displayed in Bignell’s four-part blog post, exploring
the possible background concerns driving his argumentation, and discuss to what
extent you agree with his conclusions
Bignell opens his first post with rhetorical questions of self-doubt and objections of critics to
the artist’s profession. These include:
is it worth it? Is it worth the pain? The frustration? The tedium of practising scales, the grind of
auditions, the constant sense of being unappreciated, the nagging suspicion that you have
spent the best years of your life learning to do something no one really wants to pay you to
do..? “Why not just give up and get a real job?”... Why are you making art?
Bignell then notices how artists seemingly need and look for justification in response to these
critics, but his third blog post ends in agreement with Hans Rookmaker’s title ‘Art Needs No
Justification’, stating that there is no harm in doing art simply because you love it.
At this point various forms of ‘art’ that do bring harm came into my head. Maurice Algis’
DreamspaceV, Richard Serra’s Sculpture No.3, William Morris’ arsenic wallpapers,etc. I
agree with Bignell at the start when he recognizes how artists seek a ‘just’ reason for
pursuing arts above a career our critics think wiser. Though I do not agree with his final
conclusion on how artists should respond to critics, which I mention later. Since Bignell also
goes on to explain his viewpoint better later in the blog posts.
In response to these critics, Bignell claims that artists causes problems if they respond with
bad ‘crutch answers’. He describes this as a ‘crutch’ that is ‘made out of wishful thinking and
misunderstandings’; that twists God’s word; and that ultimately might be keeping us from
actually leaning towards where God wants us to go. I agree with this definition, that these
three qualities make a crutch bad, and not an aid. Bignell gave examples of the two most
problematic ‘crutch’ answers in response to artists’ critics, including: “We’re making art in
order to glorify God”, or “We’re making art to reflect God’s image”. He claims that these
responses are problematic whether they were both said sincerely or as lies. In explanation, if
these are the sincere responses of an artist, and they really are seeking to glorify God, then
there is a better way to do that than through their art, and they should seek to do it the best
way instead. Or if they’re lying, then they’re using (glorifying) God as an excuse to be more
interested in art than actually glorifying God as best as possible. Bignell also claims these
responses come directly from two false understandings: (1) That art is special because we
are made in God’s image; and/or (2) Art is special because it glorifies God.
His whole argument is built upon art needing to be especially godly, amongst all other work,
for artists to be able to biblically argue that they have been specifically called to glorify God
through their art. Bignell assumes that the Bible arguing for art’s special godliness is the only
way an artist could conclude this. The way I see it, the Bible makes it quite clear that we all
have humanity in common, but humans also have individual gifts, measures of talent,
circumstances and opportunities, callings given. I do not claim to know exactly which calling
is whose, and how to figure out your own, but I know the Bible leaves room for being called to do different things, as well as our common callings as Christians (e.g. to make disciples,
to build up the church with our gifts, etc.)
Bignell partially blames artists arriving at these responses, on books, about “theology of the
arts. Specifically, books that “single out creativity for discussion”, with the result of few artists
ever stopping “to wonder what else being made in God’s image might mean.”
In his own words, “We [artists] put all the weight on the creative aspect and end up with a
theology of the arts that says art is especially godly.” Bignell claims that Grudem’s
Systematic Theology does a better job of explaining God’s image than books on ‘The
Theology of the Arts’ do. To that, I would say this is an unfair and invalid comparison, as
these two books clearly portray different aims, even from their titles. I would question the
judgement of anyone who goes to an art theology book for better understanding of the
Image of God. There are ofcourse better books to go for that, since the aim of a theology
book is to focus in onto what the Bible has to say about the arts.
To clarify, Bignell agrees that the image of God in us plays a role in the value of art, but
states that “The value of art stems, [only] in part, from this connection”. He tries to rephrase
this, but it questionably comes out as: If a musician says by practising, they can make their
art more valuable, that’s inconsistent with the claim (above)... [artists] should say ‘Read the
Bible!” to make our art more valuable. He puts in clearer words, when he says “it’s all too
tempting to go... from “ God wants art to exist”... to “It is essential that I become an artist” “
To summarise his viewpoint, he states that as Christians, we should make it our objective to
glorify God. And if glorifying God is our objective, then we ought to be looking around for the
equivalent of the lawnmower (the item in his analogy representing the best possible way to
glorify God). He then assures Christians in his third blog post’s conclusion that:
when we tell people about the cross, that’s when we are most glorifying God...
At the end of his four blog posts, he reiterates this conclusion alongside a longer
explanation:
God’s image is seen most supremely in his Son, and God is most supremely glorified by his
Son on the cross. It is every Christian’s duty to make this known. There is nothing wrong with
pursuing the arts - in fact, it’s a great thing - but we must never make the mistake of thinking
we are doing God a greater service through our art than through proclaiming the gospel. The
truth and the beauty that this lost and despairing world so urgently needs is not our creativity,
but our knowledge of Jesus Christ.
I agree that glorifying God is the duty of every Christian, even more so - our privilege. I also
agree that ultimately what the world needs is to know Jesus, not us - our creativity is more
of a beauty God inbuilt in us to enjoy and share rather than a necessity for saving his dying
world.
Bignell agrees that ‘doing art’ does glorify God, but apparently is not the best way to glorify
God. In his opinion, if you are a Christian who genuinely seeks to glorify God, you should
seek to do it in the best way. That ‘best way’, for him equals proclaiming the Gospel.
To clarify, Bignell made it clear that ‘proclaiming the gospel’ to him means ‘conversation
about the gospel’; as opposed to a wordless proclamation of God’s glory (Psalm 19).
It sounds holy and Biblical, but the following caveat: to “never make the mistake of thinking
that doing art is of greater service to God than proclaiming the gospel”, is problematic to use.
Bignell is left with a dilemma. Let’s face it, if you follow his logic, that ‘proclaiming the gospel
equates to glorifying God the most’ and that ‘Christians should always seek to glorify God
the most’, then what reason does he have to conclude that he should do anything other than
proclaim the Gospel? This is dangerous ground. This view could leave him feeling like He’s
not doing the best job in glorifying God when finding time to do art for the love of it, or finding
time to do his taxes, or even sleeping. This is the huge mistake. In other words, this
conclusion of his is not a healthy nor sustainable one.
Bignell has conflated glorifying God with proclaiming the Good news. In reality, glorifying
God includes proclaiming the Good News, but also includes resting well, relating to people
well, investing our gifts well, stewarding his creation well, doing tedious things like reading
policies, to keep within the law - and that was not an exhaustive list. Everything we do can
and should be done to the glory of God. They are not actions that are in competition with
each other for importance. God has already assigned importance to each one, meaning
some are more important than others. However the most important thing still does not
require all our time. Time is not a measure of importance. On the contrary, they are all
required to be done at the right time, which balanced together is how we best glorify God. In
illustration of this, imagine we are on the way to proclaim God’s word, but have purposefully
missed two nights of sleep in order to get the best possible message written down. That, to
me, does not glorify God the best. Since we would clearly be trying to be like God, in not
honouring our God-given human limits, and not trusting that God can and will work through
our fewer hours dedicated to preparation, than seventy-two hours at the expense of our
sanity. Glorifying God in the best way does not equate to only proclaiming the gospel.
the possible background concerns driving his argumentation, and discuss to what
extent you agree with his conclusions
Bignell opens his first post with rhetorical questions of self-doubt and objections of critics to
the artist’s profession. These include:
is it worth it? Is it worth the pain? The frustration? The tedium of practising scales, the grind of
auditions, the constant sense of being unappreciated, the nagging suspicion that you have
spent the best years of your life learning to do something no one really wants to pay you to
do..? “Why not just give up and get a real job?”... Why are you making art?
Bignell then notices how artists seemingly need and look for justification in response to these
critics, but his third blog post ends in agreement with Hans Rookmaker’s title ‘Art Needs No
Justification’, stating that there is no harm in doing art simply because you love it.
At this point various forms of ‘art’ that do bring harm came into my head. Maurice Algis’
DreamspaceV, Richard Serra’s Sculpture No.3, William Morris’ arsenic wallpapers,etc. I
agree with Bignell at the start when he recognizes how artists seek a ‘just’ reason for
pursuing arts above a career our critics think wiser. Though I do not agree with his final
conclusion on how artists should respond to critics, which I mention later. Since Bignell also
goes on to explain his viewpoint better later in the blog posts.
In response to these critics, Bignell claims that artists causes problems if they respond with
bad ‘crutch answers’. He describes this as a ‘crutch’ that is ‘made out of wishful thinking and
misunderstandings’; that twists God’s word; and that ultimately might be keeping us from
actually leaning towards where God wants us to go. I agree with this definition, that these
three qualities make a crutch bad, and not an aid. Bignell gave examples of the two most
problematic ‘crutch’ answers in response to artists’ critics, including: “We’re making art in
order to glorify God”, or “We’re making art to reflect God’s image”. He claims that these
responses are problematic whether they were both said sincerely or as lies. In explanation, if
these are the sincere responses of an artist, and they really are seeking to glorify God, then
there is a better way to do that than through their art, and they should seek to do it the best
way instead. Or if they’re lying, then they’re using (glorifying) God as an excuse to be more
interested in art than actually glorifying God as best as possible. Bignell also claims these
responses come directly from two false understandings: (1) That art is special because we
are made in God’s image; and/or (2) Art is special because it glorifies God.
His whole argument is built upon art needing to be especially godly, amongst all other work,
for artists to be able to biblically argue that they have been specifically called to glorify God
through their art. Bignell assumes that the Bible arguing for art’s special godliness is the only
way an artist could conclude this. The way I see it, the Bible makes it quite clear that we all
have humanity in common, but humans also have individual gifts, measures of talent,
circumstances and opportunities, callings given. I do not claim to know exactly which calling
is whose, and how to figure out your own, but I know the Bible leaves room for being called to do different things, as well as our common callings as Christians (e.g. to make disciples,
to build up the church with our gifts, etc.)
Bignell partially blames artists arriving at these responses, on books, about “theology of the
arts. Specifically, books that “single out creativity for discussion”, with the result of few artists
ever stopping “to wonder what else being made in God’s image might mean.”
In his own words, “We [artists] put all the weight on the creative aspect and end up with a
theology of the arts that says art is especially godly.” Bignell claims that Grudem’s
Systematic Theology does a better job of explaining God’s image than books on ‘The
Theology of the Arts’ do. To that, I would say this is an unfair and invalid comparison, as
these two books clearly portray different aims, even from their titles. I would question the
judgement of anyone who goes to an art theology book for better understanding of the
Image of God. There are ofcourse better books to go for that, since the aim of a theology
book is to focus in onto what the Bible has to say about the arts.
To clarify, Bignell agrees that the image of God in us plays a role in the value of art, but
states that “The value of art stems, [only] in part, from this connection”. He tries to rephrase
this, but it questionably comes out as: If a musician says by practising, they can make their
art more valuable, that’s inconsistent with the claim (above)... [artists] should say ‘Read the
Bible!” to make our art more valuable. He puts in clearer words, when he says “it’s all too
tempting to go... from “ God wants art to exist”... to “It is essential that I become an artist” “
To summarise his viewpoint, he states that as Christians, we should make it our objective to
glorify God. And if glorifying God is our objective, then we ought to be looking around for the
equivalent of the lawnmower (the item in his analogy representing the best possible way to
glorify God). He then assures Christians in his third blog post’s conclusion that:
when we tell people about the cross, that’s when we are most glorifying God...
At the end of his four blog posts, he reiterates this conclusion alongside a longer
explanation:
God’s image is seen most supremely in his Son, and God is most supremely glorified by his
Son on the cross. It is every Christian’s duty to make this known. There is nothing wrong with
pursuing the arts - in fact, it’s a great thing - but we must never make the mistake of thinking
we are doing God a greater service through our art than through proclaiming the gospel. The
truth and the beauty that this lost and despairing world so urgently needs is not our creativity,
but our knowledge of Jesus Christ.
I agree that glorifying God is the duty of every Christian, even more so - our privilege. I also
agree that ultimately what the world needs is to know Jesus, not us - our creativity is more
of a beauty God inbuilt in us to enjoy and share rather than a necessity for saving his dying
world.
Bignell agrees that ‘doing art’ does glorify God, but apparently is not the best way to glorify
God. In his opinion, if you are a Christian who genuinely seeks to glorify God, you should
seek to do it in the best way. That ‘best way’, for him equals proclaiming the Gospel.
To clarify, Bignell made it clear that ‘proclaiming the gospel’ to him means ‘conversation
about the gospel’; as opposed to a wordless proclamation of God’s glory (Psalm 19).
It sounds holy and Biblical, but the following caveat: to “never make the mistake of thinking
that doing art is of greater service to God than proclaiming the gospel”, is problematic to use.
Bignell is left with a dilemma. Let’s face it, if you follow his logic, that ‘proclaiming the gospel
equates to glorifying God the most’ and that ‘Christians should always seek to glorify God
the most’, then what reason does he have to conclude that he should do anything other than
proclaim the Gospel? This is dangerous ground. This view could leave him feeling like He’s
not doing the best job in glorifying God when finding time to do art for the love of it, or finding
time to do his taxes, or even sleeping. This is the huge mistake. In other words, this
conclusion of his is not a healthy nor sustainable one.
Bignell has conflated glorifying God with proclaiming the Good news. In reality, glorifying
God includes proclaiming the Good News, but also includes resting well, relating to people
well, investing our gifts well, stewarding his creation well, doing tedious things like reading
policies, to keep within the law - and that was not an exhaustive list. Everything we do can
and should be done to the glory of God. They are not actions that are in competition with
each other for importance. God has already assigned importance to each one, meaning
some are more important than others. However the most important thing still does not
require all our time. Time is not a measure of importance. On the contrary, they are all
required to be done at the right time, which balanced together is how we best glorify God. In
illustration of this, imagine we are on the way to proclaim God’s word, but have purposefully
missed two nights of sleep in order to get the best possible message written down. That, to
me, does not glorify God the best. Since we would clearly be trying to be like God, in not
honouring our God-given human limits, and not trusting that God can and will work through
our fewer hours dedicated to preparation, than seventy-two hours at the expense of our
sanity. Glorifying God in the best way does not equate to only proclaiming the gospel.
Comments
Post a Comment