MORE THAN A FEELING:

I suppose the most common idea in modern times is that the arts are about self-expression, an idea that can be traced to a certain side of Romanticism and, especially, to the expressionist aesthetic at the turn of the 20th century. Far be it from me to disparage this conception of art, just so long as we understand "self" in a full and deep sense as an individual's unique perceptions of universal truth and beauty and not merely in the sense of transient, random, or self-centered feelings. I would not deny that one of the legitimate purposes of art is to make evident the artist's point of view toward reality and life.

What I will try to describe here, though, is a somewhat different view of art. It's a conception that sees art as essentially a response to Creation--an imitation or mimesis, to use the old Greek term. My view takes its starting point from John Ruskin's saying (referring to architecture) that "all noble ornamentation is the expression of man's delight in God's work." Born from his experience of the created order around him--often summed up in the word "nature"--art represents man's own mini-creation or sub-creation, a response of gratitude and awe at what he has experienced and an attempt to emulate or recreate it. Creation is an epiphany, manifestation, or revelation of divine power and goodness and beauty; art is a reaction of wonder in the face of God's handiwork that can in turn communicate various epiphanies about created reality to human beings in a new, human key.

Tweet   @brothersjudd