It’s not the first time (nor will it likely be the last), but I have, in conversation, recently been exposed to the notion that a story must have redemption in order to be a story. Or, to grant a slightly less drastic stance, stories lacking in redemption are not worthwhile stories.
In the most literal understanding of the above statements, I would utterly disagree with them. However, I know that the people that make such claims probably do not mean it quite so literally or as all-encompassing, because these are people that would affirm the legitimacy of tragedy as a narrative genre. Shakespeare, anyone?
It should be mentioned that most classical tragedies typically have a very strong didactic, so perhaps that is why tragedies–by carving out a redemption-shaped hole–are so widely accepted.
It’s a lacking example, as I am not a huge fan of the film, but the Coen brothers’ recent movie, Burn After Reading toys with storytelling for the sake of telling a story. It lacks redemption, and it offers no obvious lessons to be extracted. (I suppose the Coen brothers’ No Country for Old Men might also be an example, although the experience therein seems to bleed some hidden point or didactic that remains unmentioned). Was that a waste of my time? I would submit not.
I experienced narrative. I experienced professional composition of lighting, framing, blocking, etc. I experienced a snippet born of someone’s view of the world. I experienced humor. I experienced professional acting. And, to push my point a bit further, I experienced these things with my wife as well as the other people in the theater.
These things are important. Do you think they are important? Why or why not?
Steve Turner, in his book Imagine. A Vision for Christians in the Arts, writes:
By making truth the sole criterion [for works of art], Christians had often diminished the importance of human endeavor in the arts, and in doing this had deprived themselves of a wealth of cultural experience.
Then again, the truth that most concerned them was only part of the whole truth anyway. The complexities of human life were overlooked in a search for “the simple truth.” Christian fiction, for example, lacked the deep tecture of real life because its writers were merely using the form to evangelize people whom they imagined would be adverse to the gospel in any other form…
…Art tends to show rather than tell. It allows people the opportunity to experience another way of seeing the world…
…Some art is simply playful. It may be about nothing more than itself. It attempts neither to tell a story or make a point. A photographer’s eye is caught by the peeling paint on the door of a Mediterranean cottage. A poet toys with a combination of words that seems both magical and musical. A painter experiments with color and texture with all the joy of a child playing in a mud bath. A sculptor makes a three-dimensional pun.
Are you depriving yourself of actually experiencing storytelling or image-showing by focusing on what you are expecting or on what you think you ought to be seeing? Taking a step back, are you depriving yourself of actually experiencing art by focusing on what you think you ought to extract from art? Even further back, are you depriving yourself of actually experiencing Creation by focusing on what you think you ought to extract from it?
Art shows an expression. (Assuming you agree with it,) Propaganda utilizes the arts to tell you something that re-enforces what you believe. I am very guilty of preferring the latter.
When we subject ourselves to narratives, are we looking only for a statement–to be told something? When we watch movies are we only looking for redemption? Is redemption the only reason to tell stories?
Undoubtedly, there is something around every corner that groans for redemption. But, redemption itself is not (yet) around every corner. Life is much more complicated and frustrating than that if we were to be even slightly honest with ourselves.
And that is where I will wrap this up. Could the poor state of Christianity’s contemporary offerings to the world of art and culture be contributed to the fact that we are expecting Christian artists to depict the world in a certain, redemptive, truth-gushing-out-of-every-iota way. Are we encouraging our artists to be honest with themselves and their expressions? Or, are we encouraging them to focus on works that have evangelistic tones–be they subtle or explicit? Are we encouraging them to adhere to a single idea of what and why storytelling and art should be?
Don’t get me wrong. Illustrations are a valid genre of narrative and image. They are very useful. But, that is only one breed of story.
Illustration is not art is not propaganda. Be mindful of how you experience story and art and how you encourage artists. That is the strong didactic of this post.
(this is an example of illustration.)
