A Precis: Art as Adaptation

I was brainstorming further on this idea of Art as Adaptation (i.e. Art ex mundi?) vis-a-vis Art as Creation (i.e., Art ex nihilo). The following is a basic outline of the logic I'm toying with. This is just an idea I'm exploring rather than a dogma I believe in. I'm sure there is fallacy in one or more of these points, and I'd love your insight as to how I could polish this up (or flush it down the artistic Toilet…lol).

Logic: Human Art as Adaptation

1. IF our Art can be described as the creative expression in aesthetic form of what "Is"

2. IF what "Is" can be described as the Creator and His created order including all its physical, metaphysical, and historical-sociological manifestations.

3. IF the created order can be described as the Creator's Art.

4. IF "adaptation" can be described as a rewrite or reworking of a piece of art for another medium.

5. THEN all art is essentially an *attempted adaptation, parody, or satire of the Creator's art.

*Modifier "attempted" because human art is that artist's understanding of what Is, which is not always accurate.

CHRISTIANS AND THE ART OF ADAPTATION

Adaptation. Every time it is announced that a widely-loved book is going to be adapted into a film, the reaction it causes among the book-lovers is like a drop of soap touching the surface of dirty, oily water -- it scatters. There is always, instantly, a wide circumference of opinions on how it should be done, why it should be done, and even if it should be done at all. Yet these opinions are many branches shooting out from the trunk of the same sincere love for the book, the same reverence for the author, the same hate for the idea of an adaptation that blasphemes the original art and author.

Interesting, I think, that we get the same sort of reaction to the arts in the church. We have the Catholics who embrace the arts, images of Christ's body hanging on the cross, stained glass windows telling Bibles stories, magnificent architecture, ornate robes. On the other extreme we have those who -- like Calvin and Zwingli -- have completely rejected the arts within the church, and stripped their church buildings of anything beautiful because they were afraid that it would lead to -- among other things -- blasphemy. Then we have those who lie somewhere in the middle, which is probably what we see in most Baptist churches today -- hymns, the occasional drama skit, a banner here and there, etc. All perspectives on art in the church stem from the same love for God, and the same respect, the same fear.

I do not think it is an accident that the reactions of Christians appear similar to the reactions of the book lovers. And I wonder if, perhaps, there is even a shared motivation as well.

An idea occurred to me this weekend that I have never heard mentioned before (although I am sure it has been thought of):

"Everything we create as artists, every painting, every song, every story, is really either an adaptation, parody, or satire of the original art of God."

When we paint a picture of Christ we are making an adaptation of God's art in Christ to a painting. A film about Jesus is taking God's original story and adapting it to film. It is only natural and proper, then, that we should pay this adaptation the same kind of reverence -- yes, even more -- that we pay to the adaptation of, for example, the Chronicles of Narnia. C.S. Lewis was utterly repulsed at the idea of a film with Aslan as a man in a lion suit; this, he thought, was blasphemy. What would God think of our art depicting His Christ, I wonder?

Yet, perhaps the same principle should apply when we do any type of art. I used to think of artists as "creators", and that by creating art, we are becoming like the Creator. But now I am not so sure. Now I wonder if not every piece of art we create is really an adaptation of God's original art. The preacher in Ecclesiastes said, "There is nothing new under the sun." (Ecc 1.9) And then Paul writes "For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things." (Romans 11.36) I wonder, are these just passages taken out of context that have absolutely nothing to do with our creations as artists? or are we indeed adapting our Creator's original art in everything we make? If it is the latter, I wonder, how do we keep from blaspheming Him and His art in our own adaptations, our parodies, and our satires?

I welcome any comments as I continue to reflect on this idea. Thanks!

HAMBURGERS AND HOLLYWOOD: LEARNING HOW TO RECEIVE ART

Recently, I have been thinking a lot about artistic criticism, so I thought I'd share some thoughts that I've been having.

It seems to be a temptation of the intelligencia (I will use this term to describe "people who think and consider things") to artistically define ourselves by what we dislike. I admit that I have often tried to find things that I dislike about something, simply to make myself feel "superior" to those who like it. I remember in high school beginning to think that the movies my dad liked were "so shallow" and "lacked true substance" or "quality form" -- these same movies that only a year before I really enjoyed. When I began working in the film industry, I tried to establish further ideas of what is "bad" in film and art in general, because that is what I saw others doing, and it seemed like a "smart" or "cultured" thing to do -- to not like bad things. I think it also had to do partly with the great dislike I had developed for very BAD Christian art that was so forced and contrived it made me embarrassed to be a Christian.

I suppose this came to a head (or face?) this year in a close friend of mine (who is probably reading this -- Hi! hehe) who dislikes many things that I thoroughly enjoy. The most vivid example is U2: I have experienced such an extraordinary amount of pleasure and spiritual insight by receiving their music, it is unexplainable. But my friend cannot stand to listen to them (Bjork is his preference). My reaction to this was less offence, and more sadness -- a very deep sadness that he will never be able to see the beauty in their music, and we will never be able to share that joy with each other.

Likewise, we watched a movie together this week that I like (Orange County -- not one of my absolute favorites, but one that surprised me with its unusual depth). He didn't like the movie at all. He thought -- among other things -- that there were some illogical decisions by the characters (I pointed out that humans don't always make logical decisions), he doesn't like Jack Black and that kind of humor, and he didn't like "the message," which he thought was "People should stay where they are and not go anywhere else to do anything with their lives," (I argued that the message was "You don't always have to go to some 'ivory tower' to do what you want in life; humble yourself and see beauty where you are). He couldn't receive the joy of this movie at all because of his dislikes, and because of his dislikes, there is a channel of fellowship on which we will never be able to connect.

Thus I have found that the results of my (and other people's) "I don't likes" have been (a) broken channels of connection between myself and ones I love and (b) that I'm now unable to enjoy things I once could enjoy. I can't remember a time that I have NOT been able to enjoy an "artsy" movie -- those movies that are always nominated for Academy Awards and/or get shown in Sundance, etc.. My "artistically-critical evolution" has not been defined by what I enjoy, but rather, what I do NOT like. This may not be the case for everyone, but it has been for me.

This seems to be a very strange thing, indeed it seems to work against the nature of reality as I understand it as a Christian. Broken fellowship is a fundamental thing that Christ works against, indeed the entire salvation story is about the restoration of broken fellowship. We are beckoned by Christ to love each other. And also, it seems like the experience of joy and pleasure is (in the right context) a Godly thing. My dislikes prevented me from experiencing joy, which prevented me from touching the hem of God's garment.

I can put my finger on two things that have been hindrances to me when I watch these movies and listen to this music that I consider to be "bad." The first thing, as I discussed already, was a sense of pride and status I was trying to attain by my dislikes. This is obviously so vain and gratuitous I don't feel the need to discuss it any further.

The second thing... I have come to realize that I seem to be disliking a peach because it is not an orange. This may be true of others as well, but I'll speak in the first person. I think that movies and fiction and perhaps the visual arts should not only fall into different genres but different "types," in the same way that McDonalds and, say, Fuddruckers are different "types" -- both are in the "genre" of "hamburger joint", only one is fast-food, and the other is a restaurant. You don't expect restaurant-quality food when you order something through the drive through, that is not the point of a fast-food restaurant. Fast-food sacrifices quality and (sometimes) cost for convinence, and it does so on purpose. People generally do not get fast food because it is the best tasting food, they do it so that they can have more time to do other things. Likewise most people (though -- as a former waiter -- I have certainly seen exceptions!) do not go to a sit-in restaurant and expect their food to be out within two minutes.

When I expect the wrong thing, I am disappointed. When I try to receive fast food as I would a nice restaurant, I will be disappointed and I won't experience the "pleasure" for which fast food exists (i.e, saving time). When I go to a restaurant and get steamed when my food doesn't arrive in five minutes, my disappointment poisons the entire experience of the restaurant and the food, leaving a bitter attitude in my heart toward the restaurant hence forward.

I believe it is the same thing when I approach, say, an MTV movie and try to receive it as I would something in Sundance -- or vice versa -- I'm going to be disappointed. I need to position myself in such a way that I receive art as it is intended to be received. I brace myself one way when someone hands me a coke; I brace myself another way when someone hands me a sandbag. An MTV movie, or a lifetime movie, is not really intended to be the most artistic, innovative, inspiring work a person has ever seen; it is meant to entertain a generation. When it entertains AND inspires or innovates, it is something extra, something special. It is the same kind of experience I receive when I am surprised by fast food that is actually quite good.

I don't think it is a good idea for me to make an entire diet out of fast food (see Supersize Me). It is not intended to be used that way. Likewise I do not think it is a good idea for me to make my entire artistic diet out of MTV movies or John Grisham -- art that merely entertains. Nor do I think its a good idea to make my artistic diet completely out of movies shown at Sundance, Academy Award nominees, etc. that are more substantive and artistic because I need to be able to "keep it real" and not lose touch with the rest of the community. There needs to be a balance: mere entertainment is good; so is substance. Also, I know that I, personally, should make every effort to widen (not narrow) the scope of art that I can take joy in.

I'm curious to hear what everyone else thinks about this...

Shadows and Similarities

Just a thought...

Hebrews chapter 10 talks about how the law and the elements of the law were all simply a shadow of what was to come in Christ and the new covenant. It is a beautiful concept that really sheds light on our Creator as "author" and "storyteller"!

This sort of Platonic ideal of "shadows of ultimate reality" made me consider the similarities to the Christian story found in myths and other religions. The gluttony of present academics in comparitive religion and the disciples of Joseph Campbell seems to say either, "Look, they're all similar, so they must all be the same thing," or "See, this myth came way before the Gospels were written, so the evangelists must have stolen the ideas from them." No one in those specialized fields (that I know of) seems to consider the -- albeit metaphysical, but quite logical -- possibility of these other religions and myths being an imperfect shadow of the reality that was to come in Christ. It seems to be what Lewis and Tolkien believed, anyway. If anyone reading this knows of any theologians or religious academics that have written on this, please let me know. Thanks!

NARNIA CONTRAVERSY: IS NARNIA "CHRISTIAN" (AND DOES IT MATTER)?

The second source of controversy is the issue of whether or not the Narnia books (and thus the movie) are "Christian," and if Lewis has a Christian agenda (i.e., evangelization, teaching theology, etc.) with his books. I will handle these questions separately.

Both questions regarding the "Christianity" of Narnia seem to me such a silly thing to debate about. Who cares? However, what I think is serious is that people are refusing to see the movie based on the answer to that question. They are robbing themselves of so much.

The first people are those who are not Christians, and refuse to allow themselves and their children to be subjected to the "subliminal teaching" of Christian dogma through the film. However, what they do not consider is that if a dogma is to be considered "Christian" and not merely "religious," then it must consist of ideals that are uniquely Christian and not shared with any other religion. The only elements in the story that could be considered "Christian dogma" (that I can remember at the moment) are (1) reference to the children as "Sons and daughters of Adam and Eve," (2) the presence of Christmas and (3) the death and resurrection of Aslan.

In reference to the first point, the belief of Adam and Eve is held not only by Christians, but Islam and Judaism as well. Yet still, the story does not revolve or hang upon this point at all. It is simply a way -- I think -- to enrich the story with myth. Also, these people do not consider that there are many other mythologies besides the Christian myth that are similarly spoken of in a matter-of-fact way; we see fauns, dryads, and centaurs frolicking the Narnian fields as well. In the book, we even see the Greek god Baccus as well, and Mr. Beaver speaks of Adam's first wife -- Lillith -- as the origin of the White Witch. The mythology of Lillith is not at all a widely held belief by Christians, and is found nowhere in the Christian scriptures. Thus, to think that the reference to Adam and Eve is a didactic theological tool is, I think, inconsistant and illogical.

The second element -- Christmas -- is uniquely Christian (in origin), yet today's Christmas is hardly more tied to Christianity than Halloween. To most, it is simply a time when people get and give presents to each other, and decorate their homes and businesses in green and red. And really, the giving of presents is all that we see in Lion, and that through the myth of St. Nicholas. Christmas could also be tied to the coming of Aslan into Narnia, but again, I think this connection (if he meant one) was more for the sake of enriching the story with mythos -- Aslan being clearly a Christ figure -- than a didactic tool.

Which brings us to the third point -- the death and resurrection of Aslan. This is the point that most people raise when speaking of the Christian dogma in the story. However, theologically the death and resurrection of Aslan serves a different purpose than the death and resurrection of Christ. The death and resurrection of Christ was for the express purpose of restoring community between God and man (i.e., through faith in Christ we can spend eternity in fellowship with God). God is the central figure in the purpose of Christ's crucifixion. However, the crucifixion of Aslan was not to restore community between God and man, it was to allow Edmund to live in spite of his sin; fellowship with God (or "The Emperor Over the Sea") has nothing to do with it. Truly, you can no more call Lion a Christian book because of Aslan's death than you can call Harry Potter a "Christian story" because of Harry's mother dying to save him from death by Voldemort. As far as the resurrection is concerned, that concept is not exclusive to Christianity either but is found in Norse, Egyptian, and Greek mythologies as well.

Therefore, I think it is a logical fallacy to call Lion a "Christian story" or to say that it teaches Christian dogma. And it is a sad case that anyone would miss the wonder and enchantment of Narnia based on that charge. On that note, I think it is sad that people would get offended by the Christian story at all simply because it is different than their religion (or lack of religion). The Gospel is, in itself, a touching and enchanting story of love and sacrifice. Many other religions have very interesting stories as well: the story of the Dahli Lama, the Greek myths, the Jewish Maccabean revolution, etc. Just because it is a story from a different religion doesn't mean that it is empty of meaning or enchantment. They are certainly far from "uninteresting." So why deny yourself these rich stories?

However unfortunately, using the same explanation for the non-Christianity of Narnia above, many Christians refuse to see the movie. To these people, about the only thing that makes a "good movie" is if it has someone converting to Christianity, "accepting Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior." This is equally sad, because these people are also missing the powerfully enchanting story of Lion, and countless other stories.

These Christians are looking for truth, and good for them. All Christians should be seeking to know Him more and more. However, Christian truth is not only found in the four spiritual laws. It also encompasses love, sacrifice, consequence, honesty, bravery, beauty, and so much more, all in the Lion.

And beauty, especially, is such a vessel of God's truth. C.S. Lewis came to believe in God not because someone shared with him the four spiritual laws, or even because they proved God's existence through apologetics. God made Himself evident to Lewis through moments of wonder and joy he experienced through art, music, literature, and nature (see Lewis autobiography Surprised By Joy), mediums which no one would consider "Christian" in the strictest sense. This is how God revealed His presence to Lewis. Also in Lewis' conversion from Theism to Christianity, God chose to use Viking myths (among other things) to help show him that the story of Christ must be true. Beauty and fantasy creates a sense of awe in a person, and a deep longing for that which no one can find in this world. It makes us hungry for God. We could all use a bit more hunger in our lives.

Whatever faith, whatever creed, whatever life you live, and whether Narnia is "Christian" or not, please do not rob yourself of these Narnia stories, or any good stories of any kind for that matter. As a Christian, I see that God is the ultimate storyteller. No one can match Him. The entire salvation history has played out in a beautiful story. The scriptures tell us that Christ came at the appointed time, meaning that God was waiting for the perfect place in the story to send His Son. The law with all of its specifications was nothing more than a foreshadowing of what was to come in Christ, and what is yet to come in the eschaton, the apocalypse. He loves good stories, and so should we. God and Truth can inspire and be revealed in all sorts of shapes and sizes, and this can be easily seen in Romans 1.

He is not a tame lion, you know.

NARNIA CONTROVERSIES: Should Narnia be made into a film?

[I do want to try to keep this blog within circle of theology, but I simply can't help but to address some issues I see coming up with this Narnia film. And besides, part of the study of God is understanding how He relates to culture...so here goes!]

With the looming advent of Aslan’s incarnation on the big screen, my favorite author -- C.S. Lewis -- is becoming almost annoyingly ubiquitous in the media, and Barnes and Nobles is waist-high in books on and by the man. Yet alas, I do have my ticket to the 12:01 a.m. showing of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, and I’m very eager to see it.

Yet however exciting this advent may be, I find it unsettling that there are so many heated discussions and grave misunderstandings going on as to (a) whether or not Narnia books should be made into movies and (b) whether or not the Narnia books are “Christian.” I thought I would enter my two cents on it, and my perspective of what “Jack” (the name Lewis gave to himself) would think. I will take great pains to quote Lewis and authorities on Lewis as much as possible because…frankly… who cares what I think? I will do this in two parts.

I. SHOULD NARNIA BE MADE INTO A LIVE ACTION FILM?

This first issue deals with a letter by Lewis that you can read here (you can also read a relevant article here). Among other things, Lewis says:

“But I am absolutely opposed – adamant isn’t in it! – to a TV version. Anthropomorphic animals, when taken out of narrative into actual visibility, always turn into buffoonery or nightmare. At least, with photography. Cartoons (if only Disney did not combine so much vulgarity with his genius!) wld. be another matter. A human, pantomime, Aslan wld. be to me blasphemy.”

It is the same mistake people have when they try to interperet the Bible -- they are not considering context before they come to their conclusions. People are reading this then imagining Lewis and Tolkien having just left the premiere of Return of the King. Instead, they should be imagining Lewis and Tolkien having just walked out of Journey to the Center of the Earth starring Pat Boone in 1959. Yeah... quite a difference.

This summer I was graced with the privilege of meeting with Walter Hooper (former secretary to Lewis and literary adviser to the Lewis Estate) twice while we were visiting Oxford. During our tea, we talked about film as art, and I remember him saying that Lewis did not really like movies (though he did frequent the theatre), however this was probably because films overall were not very good. They did not have the technology we have now. I also had the tremendous privilege of spending a week of this summer working at the Rathvinden, the home and ministry of Douglas Gresham (stepson of C.S. Lewis and co-producer of Lion). I asked him about what Lewis would think about Narnia being made into a film, and he said he would have abhorred the idea back then, but with the technology we have now, it is a totally different story. In a recent e-mail, Doug said, "I wouldn't have wanted to make the film with the technology available in those days either."

All-in-all, it is really a non-issue, but the media is trying to make an issue out of it. Idiotic. However, with retrospect, I have no idea how the BBC movies in the late 80's were approved. Of these, I remember Doug saying, "...and I'm proud to say I had absolutely nothing to do with those." I remember enjoying those movies as a kid, however, the technical quality was poor, and Aslan -- very underwhelming.

Oh, and if you want to get really technical -- Lewis approved cartoon animals/Aslan. Well...what is CGA but computer-drawn cartoons?

Welcome

Welcome to my blog! This blog will focus primarily on theological ramblings. So, please enjoy by either marveling at my mysterious theological insight or by pointing fingers and laughing at my absolute stupidity.

For those of you who are not familiar with it, "Flatland" comes from the book "Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions," written by Edwin Abbott. It is a sort or "what if" about people that live in a 2 dimensional world that come into contact with 3 dimensions, an I idea that -- I think -- has curious ramifications on how we think about God and the supernatural realm in general. If you would like to read the book, it is now in open domain and can be found here. I am a Flatlander, and am earnestly trying to wrap my mind around this person of God. And this blog is where I have my theological catharsis... a way to glorify God with my mind.