The Arts - Cultural Diversity
The history of art and
the arts is primarily that of crafts that enhance beauty in
everyday life and in worship.
Perhaps, more than any
other worldview area, art and the arts must be placed in the
context of history to begin to grasp summary principles. We will
begin with some definitions from Webster’s 1828 Dictionary and
the 2007 online version of Merriam-Webster.
1. The act of
tilling and preparing the earth for crops; cultivation; the
application of labor or other means of improvement.
2. The application
of labor or other means to improve good qualities in, or
growth; as the culture of the mind; the culture of virtue.
3. The application
of labor or other means in producing; as the culture of
corn, or grass.
4. Any labor or
means employed for improvement, correction or growth.
1. The act of
developing the intellectual and moral faculties especially
2. Expert care and
and excellence of taste acquired by intellectual and
aesthetic training. Acquaintance with and taste in fine
arts, humanities, and broad aspects of science as
distinguished from vocational and technical skills
4. The integrated
pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that
depends upon the capacity for learning and transmitting
knowledge to succeeding generations. The customary beliefs,
social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or
social group. The characteristic features of everyday
existence (as diversions or a way of life) shared by people
in a place or time (popular culture, southern
culture. The set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and
practices that characterizes an institution or organization
(a corporate culture focused on the bottom line). The
set of values, conventions, or social practices associated
with a particular field, activity, or societal
characteristic (studying the effect of computers on print
1. The disposition
or modification of things by human skill, to answer the
purpose intended. In this sense, art stands opposed to
2. A system of
rules, serving to facilitate the performance of certain
actions… as the art of building or engraving.
Arts are divided
into useful or mechanic, and liberal or polite. The mechanic
arts are those in which the hands and body are more
concerned than the mind, as in making clothes, and utensils.
These arts are called trades. The liberal or polite arts are
those in which the mind or imagination is chiefly concerned,
as poetry, music, and painting.
dexterity, or the power of performing certain actions,
acquired by experience, study, or observation, as a man has
the art of managing his business to advantage.
1. A skill acquired
by experience, study, or observation (the art of
2. A branch of
learning: (1) one of the humanities or (2) plural,
liberal arts (archaic: learning, scholarship).
3. An occupation
requiring knowledge or skill (the art of organ
4. The conscious
use of skill and creative imagination especially in the
production of aesthetic objects. Also, works so
produced (fine arts). One of the fine arts or a graphic art.
5. Archaic, a
skillful plan. The quality or state of being artful.
6. Decorative or
illustrative elements in printed matter.
Edmund Clowney, former
President of Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia),
has made these observations:
revolutions in America and France and the Industrial
Revolution in England brought about not only a change in
Western culture but also a new way of speaking of culture.
Before that change, painting was thought of as a craft.
The long corridors lined with portraits in the great
house of Britain were not begun as museum galleries. The
paintings were hung to remember ancestors, not to exhibit
artists’ works. As Andre Malraux has observed, the modern
attitude to “art” has created a “museum without walls.” Not
only do we stack museums with historic “works of art”
stripped of their original purpose, we have come to think of
the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel or even the cathedral at
Chartres as a “work of art.” Art critics serenely ignore the
religious motivation of museum paintings and display
professional outrage at anyone who might dare to offer a
moral objection to “artistic” pornography. Painting,
sculpture, photography, music, poetry— that which we call
“art” has become an end itself; indeed, it is given an
absolute value that not only resembles religion but also
demands religious commitment. (Henry, God and Culture,
pages 235-236 -- Ed’s emphasis)
The reader should note
that today’s common use of “culture,” as an identity with the
customs of a particular group, does not even appear in the 1828
definition. “Culture” at that time, like “art,” denoted “added
value” to a work that had another purpose than just being an
object to admire, as “art” is today.
The changes that have
occurred in the words, “culture” and “art,” illustrate, as
Clowney discusses, the modern debates about “art” and “the
arts.” (Henceforward, I am going to use “art” to include “the
arts” for simplicity of expression.) Until relative recently in
history, art was the energy and creativity that virtually all
people used within whatever occupation that they found
The Sistine Chapel has
been mentioned. Now, I am sure that Michelangelo could have
found a better canvas than the high ceiling to which he was
commissioned! Also, one that was easier for him to do his work
and easier on the necks of viewers! But, the purpose of that
great mural was to enhance the beauty of the Chapel, as a place
of worship (or perhaps for the fancy of the reigning Pope).
As Clowney also
mentioned, museums started as galleries of portraits of
relatives and great personages. The Mona Lisa was a
portrait that has become a famous painting. It was
not commissioned to be a great piece of art in a museum, but
either to commemorate a person or enhance the beauty of one’s
mansion or castle. Its becoming “art,” as we understand the term
today, was somewhat accidental, not intended in its production.
The great cathedrals
with their flying buttresses were not created as independent
“works of art,” but a greater way to demonstrate the grandeur
and glory of God in a place of worship. (It is a great tragedy
that these cathedrals with their physical beauty no longer
reflect the beauty of a worshipping people.)
Thus, art had an
identity within life itself to express beauty in whatever area
of life in which it appeared. That area of life today we call
“culture.” But, that word, as seen in the definitions above, was
almost identical to the meaning of art, that is, an enhancement
of the activities of everyday life for enjoyment or beauty.
I believe that this
review explains the confusion in art today.
Art only has an
identity with the way of life of the artist and the “culture“ to
which he belongs. Art is an enhancement of one’s beliefs and
everyday life. Thus, art flows from the subjective values and
ways of life of the peoples who produce it—the definition of
“culture,” as we use it today.
Its fullest application flows from the skill (craft) of the one
who creates in whatever mode of expression in which he is
But, the attempt has
been made to separate art into a category that is divorced from
its subjective nature.
Thus, the “art wars” that
we have today. The Renaissance and the Enlightenment have
achieved more consistency with their subjective message, that of
divorcing man’s existence from a necessary reference to the God
of the Bible. In their earlier stages, they could not separate
themselves entirely from their Christian worldview which
dominated their era.
However, now that “God is dead” —by their proclamation
—neither harmony of design nor skill is
required in their concept of “art.”
As we will see, God is a Person of order and beauty. Modern
humanists cannot acknowledge order and beauty in art any more
than they can acknowledge (worship) a God of beauty and order.
Pornography is another
“art” developed in the West, the human form, was a primary focus
of “art.” Michelangelo’s “David” glorified the magnificent body
of a young man. Today, male (and female) pornography is defended
as “art,” consistent with the humanist worldview of “freedom” of
sexual expression. But, art in this sense, shows the degradation
that occurs as thought and expression moves away from the
grandeur of God.
But, many, if not most,
have tried to make art something that is objective.
Even Christians have made this mistake. Francis Schaeffer stated
in his section on “The Art Work as a Art Work,” that “the first
(principle) is the most important: A work of art
has a value in itself” (page 50 - emphasis his). Gene Edward
Vieth, Jr. talks about “objective merit” (page 40 -
emphasis Ed‘s). Later, he states, “The fine art of the museums
must also be judged by aesthetic standards (page 50,
emphasis Ed’s). He writes as though these standards exist apart
from some group-culture. They to not. Standards are derived by
agreement for a group from each individual’s subjective
Let me give an example.
Take the Mona Lisa into one the many refugee camps in Africa. An
individual or family there would likely use it as part of a wall
or roof. Take it one of the primitive tribes that still exist in
the world. If they don’t worship it as a god, they would likely
use it as a decoration among their customary baubles. If a
family owned the Mona Lisa, they would sell it far short of its
current value, if it were the difference in their family being
fed in a famine. Even one of the most famous paintings in the
world is not universally valued! In one photo of a primitive
people, viewers see light bulbs on their necklaces.
The lack of objective
value can be seem in an historical example. During World War II,
museums, churches, and other valuable buildings and landmarks
were destroyed for the higher value of the war efforts. While
these destructions may not have been often intended, they were
expected “collateral damage” to the war effort.
The idea of any kind of
value being objective is a common misconception of both
Christians and non-Christians.
Gold and silver come very close to being objective standards
because they are almost universally valued. But, again, the
primitive tribes think of gold and silver only as pretty
baubles, not the value given to it by worldwide markets. See
Summary Principles of Economics.
George Grant in his
Gileskirk series on “Modernism” states that nationalism was a
development of the late 19th Century in Europe.
Perhaps, this attempt to coalesce many cultures under the broad
umbrella of nationalism contributed to the modern concept of
“art.” As we have seen, art was primarily an inherent element of
the customs of a group of people and a way of life, but with
nationalism there came the attempt to find value that was common
to all peoples in one nation. Of course, the movement of
nationalism and art to a more widespread value were part and
parcel of the philosophical movements that were shaping the
world in recent centuries. As there is now a movement to an
artificial unity of all nations, there is an attempt to make art
“universal.” It will not happen … until Jesus Christ personally
rules the entire earth.
The United States is an
example where there have been a myriad of cultures and their
religions (beliefs and lifestyle), for example, the industrial
North, the Old South, the Indians (quite distinct among
themselves), African blacks, and Mexican immigrants.
The founding fathers
understood this diversity, forming a “united states,” not the
nationalistic entity that the United States has become today.
All these concepts and
identities must be recognized in any discussion of art. Any
attempt to objectify art is doomed to failure because “beauty is
always in the eyes of the beholder.” Tom Wolfe has estimated
that the “art world—that is, the network of patrons, curators,
and museums—consists of 10,000 people” (not including artists
themselves). In a world of billions of peoples and thousands
of cultures, how is it this small body of people thinks that it
can determine what is and is not art? Such intent is the
pinnacle of hubris! There are times that we should just laugh at
their paint spatters and piles of junk, rather than engage in
serious debate which only cedes most of their argument to their
way of thinking.
And, thus exists the
current dilemmas in the arts. By any traditional standard of
art, much that is called “art” today is not. Art grew out of
skill and craft with the imagination of beauty from within the
mind of its creator. That art requires skill, craft, and
diligence is about as close to an objective standard that I can
conclude. The simple composites of paint, common items of
everyday use, and virtually no effort of many modern and
“abstract” art just do not qualify as art in this way.
Within all these mixes
of subjective values, the most important is one’s religious
beliefs (first principles, life philosophy, worldview,
cosmology, etc.). Value is always primarily determined by
one’s religious views.
Thus, art by its very
nature is religious.
A concrete example is
the work of Robert Mapplethorpe. His “art” is simply the more
consistent application of humanism that began with the
Enlightenment and the Renaissance. These “great” movements were
the beginning expressions of man’s conscious divorce from the
God who was worshipped in the Middle Ages and produced the
Reformation. Robert Mapplethorpe is consciously anti-God. Most
modern art is consciously anti-God and Biblical Christianity.
Everything else can be tolerated except that philosophy.
Art vs. skill.
Dr. Clowney touches on
this issue in his quote above. The artist may have great
technique—line of brushstrokes, mixing of colors, and mastery of
and not produce what
art connoisseurs would call good or great art. Thus, there is a
quality to the whole that supersedes the “craft” of the work.
But, the reverse is
much more difficult. An artist would have great difficulty
producing what many might call good or great art without
some level of competence in his craft.
To confuse the issue
even further, we commonly speak of “lines” of beauty in
architecture. Thus, there is an esthetic appeal to symmetry,
lines that please the eye, shapes that blend and enhance the
whole, and other such geometry. These lines and shapes are
craft, mostly, if not entirely. They are far less complex than
the great classical paintings, yet many call these “art.” Are
In literature, there
are various forms: prose, poetry, white papers, scientific
papers, and many more “kinds.” Each has a certain “beauty,”
according to its subject matter, style, syntax, and use of
language. Again, there is a blurring of craft, appeal, and
beauty. Then, with this wide array of craft and sense appeal,
what is art?
For our purposes here, I am going to create a term,
“group-culture.” While culture normally refers to tribes or
groups within local geographic areas, as those studied by
National Geographic, there exists groups of people today who
define art as what they themselves like. (See reference above.)
But, there seem to be
groups even apart from this avante garde group who have
similar tastes, but who do not form a culture in the usual and
traditional sense. That is why I choose “group-culture” and not
just culture as my reference for those who determine what “art”
is (to themselves).
Art is really about
group-cultures, not individuals.
While certainly any individual may define for himself what is
and is not art, the usual discussions of art involves
group-cultures. They speak of “art appreciation,” “art critics,”
“value” (especially in monetary terms), and fitting artwork into
come established classification. Also, I cannot imagine any
person on planet earth being able to create a “work of art” that
no one else would not also value, from the sublime to the
ridiculous. Also, to speak of art as anything individual, is to
make this whole discussion too complex even to begin to have
The author’s dilemma.
area of art and the arts is the most difficult that I have yet
tackled for several reasons. I am not inclined towards the arts.
Indeed, virtually everyone who knows me well thinks me quite
analytical. If a simplistic view of personality can be used,
then I would be on the extreme away from those who are inclined
towards “art appreciation,” its value, and perhaps even more so,
those who produce art. At the same time, however, I may be just
the person for to analyze this area since I may be more
objective, having no vested interest and little subjective bias.
Principles of Art and The Arts
1. In its essence, art
is a work whose beauty is subjectively valued by a group-culture
that identifies with it.
As we discuss lines, shapes, and composites vs. a detailed
painting and forms of literature, their appeal and value is as
broad as the number of groups who identify with parts or the
whole of a work.
Let me use abstract
“modern” art, as an example. Its appeal is to a limited
audience. To many, abstract art is just a confusion of lines,
shapes, and colors. Much of it is simple and easily assembled or
painted, not requiring the intricate craft of classical art.
Yet, there is an audience to whom abstract art has deep and
serious appeal, even to payment of large sums to acquire it. To
some of these people, classical art has no appeal or value, yet
this art has a much longer history, and I suspect, much larger
In this subjectivity,
the slippery concept of value rules.
In reality, this value can
almost always be denominated in dollars (or some other form of
currency). What a person or group is willing to pay reflects the
extent to which they value an object. Value comes from
worldview, that is, one’s most basic philosophy, religion, or
Or, to use another word, value is what one worships (First
Art, then, in the
classical and modern sense cannot be separated from the
worldview of the group who labels anything as “art” or beauty is
in their eye minds.
This link explains what is
commonly accepted as “classical” art, the great paintings of
such men as Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci with their
Christian motifs but sometimes with a blend of the Renaissance,
as man begins to break free of a Biblical worldview.
2. One could argue for
art being at least the product of a learned skill that is
diligently applied and a portrayal of a particular order, even
if limited to that group-culture.
What skill or effort is required to throw paint against a wall?
Or, to collect a pile of junk? Or, to place a crucifix in a jar
of urine? Or, to paint one’s body with chocolate? Yes, we must
allow the group-culture to determine its art, but they have a
great difficulty in getting much of the rest of the world to
accept it as art without acquired skill and diligence.
Some abstract is diligently pursued that could be claimed as a
skill. However, what does even the avante garde patron
have to consider with a piece of abstract art? He has to imagine
how it speaks to him or what it portrays to him. What has been
done, then? The abstract form of art has been given
definition, form, or context in the viewers mind! Even the
group-culture that argues for abstract art must give it form
and orderliness for it to be valuable to themselves. Now, I
would not be so naïve to think that that some would not agree
with this conclusion. However, I simply ask, “What does a person
do when confronted with a piece of abstract are?” He begins to
try to see meaning in it. Virtually everyone does this.—my
argument is confirmed. His meaning, however, is not in the art.
Dare one to say that such “meaning” is a sort of Rorschach test?
3. Because of its link
to a group, art should be funded by that group, not by a larger
mass of people who do not “appreciate” that type of art.
The current conflict about funding of the “arts” ultimately
derives from several other errors in understanding worldview:
(a) that government expenses are limited to those purposes that
God has designed, primarily promoting justice and peace (see
Government, etc.) and (b) that “nations” can set
policy for those group-cultures under its authority (see
comments from George Grant above).
4. Television, movies,
and novels with some striking exceptions are not art except in a
There is a difference between entertainment and art. These media
are primarily about entertainment, not art. Certainly, there
have been some productions in these media that some (most?)
could sanction as “art.” These might include “Gone
With the Wind” (movie) and Crime and Punishment (novel).
At the moment, any program produced exclusively for television
that would qualify as “art” does not come to mind. Perhaps, some
live coverage or “fair and balanced” documentary. However, the
craft of special effects, virtually since the beginning of
“moving” pictures, is to be applauded.
(I suppose in fairness
and balanced, many novels would indeed be considered art, yet
the modern mill of paper back trade novels makes up the large
majority of sales. And, some movies, such as “The Lord of the
Rings” trilogy is startling in its creativity. Yet, movies in
general are just mass-produced.)
group-cultures identify with certain programs, as Star Trekkies
come to mind. But, even within these groups, it is obvious that
what they are concerned with is entertainment, not what we would
today call “art.” I know of no avant-garde group that has
claimed any Star Trek series, as “art.” (They have claimed
seriously to evaluate the place of television (primarily),
movies, and novels relative to their “redeeming the time”
(Ephesians 5:16, Colossians 4:5).
One wonders what
reformation of American culture might occur, if the time that
Christians spent watching television and reading novels were
spent in serious study of their Bibles, theology, ethics, and
What does it say about
our homes that the television is in the geographically central
place in our homes. I daresay that the television has become an
altar! And, many Christians would defend their watching
television with a “religious” vigor that they do not display
when they defend their faith in God.
For some, novels (cheap or classical) might fit into that
category of a serious use of time.
5. Art, then, is as
diverse as the number of cultures on the face of the earth and
the common values within those groups.
One of the errors of modernity is to think narrowly and
superficially of other groups. For example, “Greek thought” is
often referred to as though there were one way of thinking to
all Greeks of that ancient civilization. The various tribes of
American Indians were strikingly different in their hunting,
houses, and habits, yet they are frequently referred to as
though they were similar, if not identical.
6. If a group wants to
call something “art,” they may make that claim. But, they should
not expect other group-cultures necessarily to agree with them.
Perhaps, art is
like happiness, one does not achieve happiness by trying to be
happy. Happiness is a by-product of right behavior and trusting
(resting) in the Providence of God. Art should simply be allowed
to be whatever a particular group-culture wants it to be. We
should not be concerned about the arts; we should just let
artists create and their audiences appreciate.
7. Christians, however,
must consider what God calls “beautiful.”
Biblical worldview is governed by what the Bible says.
Interestingly, the Bible to a large extent reflects what most
people would call beautiful: women, ships, trees, garments, and
Beauty and Beautiful in the Bible.
But, God is Himself is
not physical, He is a Spirit (John 4:24). As the great and
ultimate being that He is, He and His attributes would have to
be the most beautiful things to any believer’s mind.
If some churches choose
to be plain, simple buildings, that is their choice and
understanding of Scripture. If some churches want elaborate
stained-glass windows, then they certainly have a model for them
in the Tabernacle in the wilderness and the Temple that Solomon
built. Some churches want contemporary music for their services,
even including dance. Others want the formality of traditional
and staid worship.
I would contend,
however, that beauty of the architecture or church buildings
should be a reflection of the beauties of God. While I
understand the simplicity of buildings as an attempt to
emphasize the spiritual nature of our salvation and to avoid the
sin of the Second Commandment. Yet, God’s universe is not
simplicity of design. It is a wonderful array of physical
objects and an almost limitless myriad of plant and animal life.
Beautiful objects, as skill and orderliness with imagination,
are a reflection both of God’s creation and His holiness.
Whether stained glass windows are allowed or not is beyond our
discussion here, but I believe that the arguments of some
Reformers that pictures are allowed, even encouraged by the
Scriptures, as long as they are not central to worship and are
not worshipped themselves.
Now, I will move from
“preaching” to “meddling,” relative to the “worship wars.” I do
not believe that the cacophony of some “contemporary worship”
has form and orderliness. Some contemporary worship does,
so I am not condemning all expressions. However. even where some
speak in tongues, Paul calls for orderliness and form in worship
(I Corinthians 14). John Frame has discussed these issues
eloquently in his book, Contemporary Worship Music: A
Biblical Defense (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1997).
Beauty and Beautiful in the Bible.
classes should be renamed “A Review of Kinds of Art,” “An
Education In Kinds of Art,” or some similar title. A student
should not be expected to “appreciate” any “art” form that does
not please him or her. As a broadening of an understanding of
different culture-groups, such study can be worthwhile, but art
is defined by the individual and his group-culture, not by any
person or group for the entirety of humankind.
Christians and the imagination. It seems to me that
Christians have adopted the world’s concept of the imagination.
In secular education, there is a “free-thinking” philosophy that
is to allow children to be creative. But, what seems to have
been lost in this approach is that a broad and studied
background is needed to be creative. Creativity does not
come from a blank mind, but one that is filled with forms and
thoughts from others who have studied and labored. At one’s time
of study, these studies may be considered fixed, even stagnant.
Yet, creativity is built on what others have created.
God created from an
infinite store of knowledge.
He is our model of creativity. While there seem to be amazingly
talented people who can create from childhood, these are the
exception rather than the norm. Great mathematicians started
with, and built upon, rote multiplication and division tables,
not an empty mind. Creative artists must also build their
complexity upon these simple foundations.
Value is a concept that
needs much wider discussion within Biblical Christianity.
At the most basic level, value is what determines everything
that anyone does. Christians have the only truly unique source
of determining value, God Himself as revealed in His word.
Thus, nothing except God Himself and His Word has any intrinsic
or objective value. True value can only be found as it
identifies with the Person of God and His works.
Beauty should enhance
everything that Christians do.
As God defines beauty, His people should be beautiful. Our
homes, schools, and churches (above) should be made beautiful
within the constraints of economic stewardship. The reader will
note from previous comments that this enhancement of all things
is the historical meaning of art. As God’s people, we need to
incorporate His beauty into our lives.
10. Any “communication”
of art is restricted to its group-culture.
Leland Ryken reports an
account of a person who first knew that Jesus rose from the
grave at the blast of trumpets at an Easter Service. Now, the
blast of a the same trumpet sounds in rural Africa is going to
convince no one that Jesus rose from the dead! While the
emotional appeal may cause one to focus more concretely on the
startling and majestic act of Jesus’ Resurrection, the knowledge
of the Resurrection and the context in which it occurred had to
be present in that person’s mind to relate a trumpet blast to
that event. Again, if you take a painting of the Last Supper
into the jungles of Africa, all they will see is some men eating
together in a strange custom. The significance of that event
will only come through knowledge of the truth that it
Communication that occurs from art only does so in the context
of its group-culture which must be understood in the form of
propositions to be understood.
In this sense,
propositional truth is prior to beauty.
This phrase is simply another way to say that art flows out of a
Also, any truth that an
art form can communicate is dependent upon the worldview in the
minds of those who believe in that worldview.
13. One could make the
case that certain scenes in nature are the most universally
accepted forms of beauty.
group-culture on earth has some appreciation of various scenes
in nature as “beautiful.” While these scenes are not creations
by man, their value as beauty does reside in the depths of man’s
heart. According to God’s Revelation, this beauty is sufficient
to prove to every person the beauties of the Person of God
(Romans 1:18ff). These scenes find their way into virtually
every historical culture on planet earth.
14. The wonderful
variety of art forms throughout history and modern times is only
a small reflection of the creativity of God.
Whatever man’s thoughts and whatever his portrayals of art, God
has already thought of them in eternity. And, his creativity is
itself eternal as the only wise God. We may marvel at all the
great works of art that man has created, and we should, but all
should be “for the glory of God.”
The antithesis of art,
relative to God, is that art always glorifies some thing or some
see comments on worldview above.
15. The gifts of
individuals span the entire spectrum of God-given talents.
On one end of
the spectrum are those who highly talented in some art form
along with those who may not have the talent, but deeply and
pervasively appreciate the arts. On the other end of the
spectrum are those who are highly analytical and have little to
do with art appreciation. It is difficult for persons from
one group to communicate with the other. They have different
points of reference and value. But, as stated above,
communication by words and sentences is what always gives
specific interpretation of art. Communication by art is always
limited by its group-culture.
As a general rule,
women in everyday life are more concerned about art than men
are. But, to
make that general application without great attention to
exceptions to this rule is a major error in thinking about human
groups. Women decorate their homes while many men could care
less. Women are more often involved in crafts and art classes.
But, men have these interests and talents, as well.
Far too much has been
made of the right vs. left brain theory.
Supposedly, science has determined that the right side of the
brain is more concerned with feelings and art appreciation,
while the lift side is more concerned with “facts.” But, as one
can easily see throughout our worldview applications, every
idea and object has both a subjective and objective component.
To try to separate these entirely is wrong-headed and
ignorant. And, when one considers all the evidence on right-left
brain, such distinctions are not so concrete as some would like
References to Art, Arts, and Artists
www.m-w.com , and
Clowney, Edmund P.
“Living Art: Christian Experience in the Arts,” in God and
Culture: Essays in Honor of Carl F. H. Henry, edited by D.
A. Carson and John D. Woodridge (Eerdmans, 1993), pages 235-253.
Ryken, Leland. The
Christian Imagination: Essays on Literature and the Arts.
(Baker Book House, 1981).
Ryken, Philip Graham
Ryken. Art for God’s Sake. (Presbyterian and Reformed,
“Toward a Christian Esthetic,” in The Whimsical Christian:
Reflections on God and Man, (Collier Books, 1987), pages
73-91). Thoughts on “Christian esthetics,” the Church and the
arts, and art vs. entertainment.
Schaeffer, Francis A.
Art and the Bible. (InterVarsity Press, 1973).
Vieth, Gene Edward, Jr.
State of the Arts: From Bezalel to Mapplethorpe (Crossway
Books, 1991. A worthwhile, comprehensive review.