On Creating Meaningful Art

is truth, truth beauty,—that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know” even without fully comprehending its meaning? These are examples of fine art or what Francis Schaeffer calls, “‘high art,’ that is, painting, sculpture, poetry, classical music.”3

Works of fine art move us because they are beautiful. And they are beautiful, partly because they mean something. They convey to us a perennial human experience in a both unique and universal way. Yet, they are also beautiful in themselves, and for their own sakes. They are pleasant to look at, pleasant to listen to, and pleasant to read. And, in some instances, they are so captivating, our attention cannot be pulled away. To paraphrase Horace, they delight and enlighten us, and say what is “both amusing and really worth using.”4 Of course, some things called art can be meaningful without ever being beautiful, but something can never be beautiful without also being meaningful. And by all means, works that are neither meaningful nor beautiful, like those of Andres Serrano, Annie Sprinkle, Andy Warhol, or Robert Mapplethorpe, for instance, should never be called art, let alone fine art. The aim of this paper, therefore, is to offer a conceptual basis for art and beauty that is rooted in truth and goodness, and one that provides a foundation for creating meaningful art that is also beautiful. No doubt, this is an ambitious goal for a paper this size. Nevertheless, if recovering meaning and beauty in art is as important as it seems to be, then any progress made toward that end should be valuable.

3 Francis A. Schaeffer, Art and the Bible (InterVarsity Press, 2006), 49.

4 David H. Richter, ed., T he Critical Tradition: Classic Texts and Contemporary Trends (Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2007), 91.

Given the history of aesthetics and the nature of the transcendent, finding a conceptual basis for art and beauty that everyone will agree on is obviously impossible, so it would be futile to even try. At best we might be able to describe or name some of the characteristics and/or effects, but the definition of beauty’s essence eludes us—even though we are not then left unknowing what it is at least in some measure. Instead, it will be more fruitful to lay a course which takes into consideration the merits of some of the more influential voices in the great conversation on aesthetics. From there it may be possible to develop a foundation for those who value truth and goodness. The project will be akin to the idea that if you build it they will come, but with a caveat. Build it and know that not everyone will come—but the right ones will.

To begin with, there is such a thing as art, per se, as when one speaks of the art of negotiation, or the art of juggling, which is something altogether different than studying the liberal arts, or practicing the servile arts, or critiquing the fine arts. Each of these are an entirely different kind of thing; yet, they share some significant commonalities and are therefore rendered arts, only being distinguished in name by their adjectives. Our English word art is an anglicized transliteration of the Latin ars, artis, f. [v. arma], meaning skill in joining something, combining, working it, etc. 5 The Romans lifted the idea from the Greeks whose use

5 Charlton T. Lewis and Charles Short, Harpers’ Latin Dictionary (New York; Oxford: Harper & Brothers; Clarendon Press, 1891), 166.