By Father Robert Lauder
Several years ago, I had an interesting discussion with a friend of mine who is an artist about what is subjective and what is objective in art. I insisted that while each person brings his or her entire experience to a painting, there is an objectivity to art. Put simply, I believe that some paintings are better than others.
There are good reasons why some paintings are in the great museums and others do not qualify. Of course, it is possible that experts make mistakes. At one point in time, a painting might be considered an inferior work but years later judged to be a masterpiece. Even so, I think there are standards, and objectively correct judgments can be made.
Art has been on my mind because the friend with whom I had that discussion several years ago gave me a booklet titled “Sister Wendy in Conversation with Bill Moyers” (Published by WGBH Educational Foundation, Boston, 1997), containing the text of a televised discussion between Bill Moyers and Sister Wendy. My friend, now a skilled art therapist, has come to agree with me about the objectivity of art. I think that my view is similar to the view presented by Sister Wendy to Moyers.
Sister Wendy Beckett, a Sister of Notre Dame, is a self-taught expert on art. Through years of study, she’s achieved what seems like an encyclopedic knowledge of painting. What amazes me is her ability to not only discuss and explain art but to do so clearly and convincingly.
Life vs. Ability
Everything that she said in the session with Moyers makes sense to me. I especially like the distinction she makes between the artist’s moral life and the artist’s artistic ability. She said the following:
“I think one must make an absolute distinction between what the artist is like and what the work is like. All that concerns us, all that we can judge, is the work. And as for the artist, either an artist creates art of the good in them or an artist creates out of a desire for a good that isn’t in them. I’m quite interested in artists in a sort of vulgar gossipy way, but I’m not in the least interested in them as far as the quality of the work goes, which is why I particularly love medieval art, where we don’t know anything about who painted it.” (p. 56)
If someone tells me that he or she does not see a film or play or read a book because he or she disagrees with the type of life that the author is living, I respect that person’s view and practice.
However, that is not the way that I approach a work of art. If the artist’s work promotes an immoral way of living, then of course I would protest the work.
As for the artist’s private life, I keep that separate from the work. It seems to me an artist may participate in actions that I disapprove of or even consider immoral but still produce great works of art. I think we can judge actions, but we should never judge people. No one knows who is close to God and who is distant from God. We can judge that actions are immoral, but we should never judge that people are immoral. We should leave that to God.
At one point, Moyers asks Sister Wendy what art has done for her. This is her response:
“Well, I suppose it’s given me enormous joy. It’s also increased my capacity to accept darkness and pain, and not be too bewildered by them. It has, I hope, made me a more sensitive and alert person. The one fatal thing is to be a zombie. And I think we’re all in danger of living part of our lives at zombie level. But I think art helps one to be perpetually there, as it were… because God’s coming every moment, but we’re not receiving Him every moment of course, we’re not even noticing that He’s coming. We’re drifting through. Well, you see, in art you can’t just drift; art is demanding of your attention. And I would hope that it helps me to be a more attentive person all the way.” (pp. 46-47)
Father Robert Lauder, a priest of the Diocese of Brooklyn and philosophy professor at St. John’s University, Jamaica, writes a weekly column for the Catholic Press.
