@Night Owl , as a Christian, what kind of terms are you on with some of the non-essentialist themes of modernist art? I really need to make it clear that I am not asking in any kind of disrespectful way, and I certainly have no desire to argue with you, I am just interested in hearing your perspective on this.
Certainly! I was busy but I've time now. Glad to answer as best I can. Trigger wanring: this is loooong. As a Christian (however being a Catholic lends a particular theological view not shared by most post-Reformation forms of Christianity, so I can't speak on their behalf)* I have no problem with non-essentialist themes in and of themselves (i.e. if a work represents a deer as a green blob, or the sky as a thin line), yet on a purely personal basis I am not a fan of art which is solely non-essentialist like many abstract expressionist works, which often I see at the most as aesthetically pleasant compositions from which I cannot and do not want to draw meaning. Surrealism can demonstrate a watered down non-essentialism but it arguably twists what is perceived at face value as reality as opposed to recreating a whole new subjective reality extrapolated from the world - as does most abstract expressionist works which do not make it even slightly clear what at all 'they' represent unless one is told as such. Either way, the presence of [what is perceived] as non-essentialist themes I have no qualm with.
What I do disagree with is the conceptual stance of non-essentialism which concurring themes
may simply reflect. This of course arises because Christianity* holds an essentialist metaphysical view (of which there are different nuanced views), but this essentialism doesn't extend beyond what is viewed as objective reality, i.e. ontology (involving everything that exists) and morality. So that a human person is a person sharing in 'the form' or essense of a human nature. And a specific act is deemed
intrinsically immoral on the basis of the nature of the act itself (with moral culpability determined on the basis of the knowledge and intent of the agent of that act; and some acts neither instrisically good/bad, but only deemed as such based on intent behind the act). Yet such essentialism doesn't extend to what is deemed wholly relative, i.e. I don't think there is
a colour that is intrinsically better than another, or that one culinary dish is intrinsically tastier than another. Yet such essentialism does assert that there is an ontological reality which
just is, and that relativity stemming from the subjectivity possessed by intellectual beings is simply conceptual, and is itself a product of the power of rationale etc. belonging to the
essential being of a human person.
Hence the very word "camel" is a subjective-conceptual 'thing' but it describes a real existing thing - that which
is a 'camel'. Similarly someone may hold a certain meaning concerning a particular piece of art, but that is a constructed meaning which is a subjective-conceptual 'thing' which is employed to describe a real existing thing -
that piece of art. Yet stressing the ontological reality of things, a Christian view might state that a piece of art has an intrinsic/essential meaning pertaining to its ontology - distinct from the subjective-conceptual meaning 'given' or 'construed' by the viewer or artist - and this essential meaning would be what that piece of art
actually is in relation to God and the telos (purpose) of human life (Christian view: to be in unitive relationship with God who is Goodness, Love etc.). Thus in this view, ontologically art is deemed more meaningful and valuable to the degree in which it glorifies and leads people to contemplate the Creator. This meaning and value is ontological since it is an intrinsic property pertaining to the art in and of itself, and is a role carried out 'by it' by its very existing. Hence art would be 'good' in proportion to how much (qualitativelyquantitatively) it gloried and ed people to the Creator. And 'bad' in so far as it did the polar opposite. In this view actual 'bad art' would thus be deemed essentially meaningless and worthless if it offended or functions to 'try' and lead people away from the Creator (evil as meaningless since evil is considered not as existing per-say but a privation in being itself). But before one thinks this view denigrates all non-religious art...
In a Catholic view intrinsically 'bad art' would only be that which was explicitly against 'the Sacred' (i.e. art deemed sacrileges); 'vain art' would be that which is not sacrileges but does not lead one to the Divine be it due to a lack in aesthetic-appeal or quality, or certain subject matter (i.e. vulgar, explicitly divorced from perceptible reality - since divorcing itself from the natural world which reflects the Creator would lead such art 'to exist'
not for the Creator); and 'good art' - in it's varying degrees - would include non-Christian art and art without Christian subject matter which implicitly carries out the aforementioned function of glorifying and leading one to the Creator; and art which explicitly carried out this function - religious art. (With this view Catholicism esteems much non-Christian art, such as Classical Greek art).
Keeping in mind that this essentialist view (and value) of art is distinct from the subjective-conceptual view (and value) of art, the latter of which concerns the realm of general artistic analysis (such as in this thread thus far).
I am against a non-essentialist approach to art which views reality itself as intrinsically meaningless and uses art 'to paint' a subjective reality. I prefer an essentialist approach which views reality itself as intrinsically meaningful and uses art 'to paint' a subjective view on this objective reality. This is why I like surrealism. A non-essentialist may employ surrealism as a way of giving meaning to something, or of making meaning which doesn't exist. Yet an essentialist may employ surrealism as a way of grasping out into the depths of reality so as to pull forth a straw from the bale of intrinsic meaning - a meaning constructed in the mind of the artist based on his apprehension of the ineffable mystery behind reality itself - doing so to try get to the essence of things. At face value the surrealist works of both artists may appear to have non-essentialist themes because they're surreal; but such artistic form could equally represent essentialist themes.
It's very hard to speak on this matter, and I was forced to generalise without proper elaboration (despite essay length) which could lead to misinterpretation of what I intended, but that'll give the gist of my Christian view which you politely asked for. I'd be glad to hear of your views and respect anyone who has views contrary to mine.
