Sacred vs. Secular
In the realm of fine Arts there has always been a conflict between art created for the purpose of expressing some sacred theme, and art for art’s sake. With the Greeks, slightly less so with the Romans, in the High Rennaisance, it has been present. This has been referred to as the Sacred versus the Secular. But this has had more to do with painting and sculpting (and maybe music too to a certain extent). The debate has gone on for centuries, as artists like Michelangelo would occassionally generate art for wealthy patrons in and around Florence, like the Medici family, but his biggest patron was the Church.
I am learning that there is an extensive body of sacred writings in the world, but we don’t seem to have the same kind of debate over it. We don’t try to appropriate the works as secular. We don’t lump it all together. Take C.S. Lewis for example. His greatest writings were apologetics, which is to say that they were meant to explain ideals and doctrines of the Christian faith to people who didn’t already know or believe in it. He was primarily a writer of “sacred” subject matter. But we will happily read his Narnia Chronicles as though they are normal fiction/fantasy. We readers don’t draw lines around this type of thing.
I know that in Music there is an interesting divide. Pop-culture definately has a divide between sacred and secular, but in the classics there is no such divide. There is actually a thriving element of the contemporary music business devoted to the production of “christian music” that is in some way set apart from other varieties of music, despite near identical musical elements. A line is drawn somewhere. But who listens to Bach’s symphonies written “Soli Deo Gloria” as he inscribed on every scroll, and says “oh that’s church music, you shouldn’t listen to that in a concert hall, it’s sacred”. The answer is, nobody.
In the same way that we look to Michelangelo’s work today as a whole body of work, not dividing it into sacred and secular (because we recognize his genius in both varieties of his work) can we break down the barrier between sacred and secular literature? I don’t mean SHOULD we, but simply CAN we? Is there one kind of writing that is set apart from all others, despite similar elements, simply because its subject matter is meant to invoke, or re-enforce faith in something sacred?
What do you think?
2 Comments
Probably it’s the critics and professional artists who make the divide, anywhere in the fine arts. Readers, gallery-goers, etc., probably don’t — they just look at, or read, or listen.
I agree that it is the experts who inevitably make the claim for where art belongs. I suppose that those who understand an art form with the most depth will be those who immerse themselves in that art form.
I appreciate a lot of art, but I recognize that I don’t often understand it on a level with another artist. I wonder how one enters that realm of where appreciation and understanding co-mingle.