Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Looking Closer

Home
Religious Music & Entertainment
Things Mean Things?!

Things Mean Things?!

Last updated on: March 18, 2013 at 9:57 pm by Jeffrey Overstreet

Things Mean Things?! 2013-03-18T21:57:03-06:00 Jeffrey Overstreet

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Can art mean whatever a reader or viewer or listener wants it to mean?

If so, then what’s the point?

But that is the claim of the postmodern world we live in. If we affirm that there is such a thing as “absolute truth,” then we are accountable to that truth when we glimpse it. If there is such a thing as Meaning, then that carries implications for our actions. And that scares us. That means some of us are going to be wrong, really wrong, some of the time.

Growing up, I was taught that there is such a thing as Truth, and that it can be known. I was taught that art conveys Meaning. And not just *any* meaning, mind you. Not meaning we invent. Rather, art pulls back the veil on The Meaning. It’s a meaning that we can discover and explore. We may apprehend different pieces of it, but those pieces will coincide, word together, be clues to a larger mystery. Sometimes, even the artist will not understand what she has revealed.

But often I see interpretation of that meaning written off as “mere opinion,” and thus one critic’s assessment of a work could not hold any more water than another’s. After all, if there is no such thing as Truth, then we’re all safe with our own personal perspectives, our own personal faith, our own personal worldviews, and there’s no room to say that one path is better than another.

I remember the different “meanings” of The Lord of the Rings that the cast members of The Return of the King shared with me and several other journalists during interviews at the film junket. Some declared that the meaning of The Lord of the Rings was that we should all find a “fellowship” of friends, and that this would make life meaningful. Some declared that it was an environmentalist manifesto.

And there was *some* truth in this. Clearly, The Lord of the Rings affirms the power of friendship, even the value of multiculturalism… the importance of loving and caring for those who are different than us. And Tolkien himself spoke of how much he valued the natural world, and how he abhorred what humankind was doing to it. But this was hardly the whole of the truth conveyed in the saga.

One actor declared that the Shire, the home of the Hobbits, was a revelation of what every society should become — a place to celebrate the good things in life. He declared that the distinguishing aspect of the Shire was its lack of any church or religion or creed or morality.

Really? So, the Shire was meant to represent the ideal society? Why then did Frodo have to gain a new vision of a spiritual conflict between Good and Evil in order to rescue the Shire from total obliteration? Why did we see the Shire overrun by evil at the end, the residents’ ignorance bringing consequences? (Oh, wait… the filmmakers conveniently left that part of the story out of the film….)

Most disturbing of all, the film’s own screenwriters declared that The Lord of the Rings is about the “triumph of the human spirit” over evil. J.R.R. Tolkien himself would have brought a sledgehammer down on that interpretation, insisting that it is a story of the failure of humankind, the decline of human history, and the redemption that came about through a higher power when “the human spirit” was not enough. His story clearly demonstrated that humankind’s best efforts cannot ultimately stave off the wages of sin, the consequences of evil.

But did we dare argue with these experts? How could we possibly declare that there could be a “right” and “wrong” regarding interpretation of a work of art? Surely we should all just “find our own truth” and never dare suggest that a person could be wrong.

In my many interviews with filmmakers, the most common “lesson” they share with me is that “Nobody should ever judge another person’s choices.” We should all do our own thing without any fear of correction or wrongdoing.

Isn’t that the lesson of so many American films? It doesn’t matter which train you get on, but just that you get on a train. Follow your own heart. Follow your bliss. Don’t listen to those who speak of a “right path.” Find *your* path.

So imagine my surprise when, at Salon of all places, I read these words today, concerning the disappearance of serious art criticism from newspapers and the cultural landscape:

The issue of whether time and technology have passed the professional critic by is being heatedly debated across all cultural genres. “The culprit is none other than … cultural studies! By treating literature as an impersonal text from which any manner of political meaning can be wrung, cultural studies professors have robbed criticism of its proper evaluative function — the right to say this is good, this isn’t, and here’s why.”

Wow. “Its proper evaluative function”? So criticism is about capturing Truth… with a capital “T”? It’s not just about voicing our many and disparate and equally valid interpretations?

You mean if “my truth” and “your truth” are in conflict, one of us might be wrong? What is “good” might actually be worth arguing about?

Of course, there is another extreme to this question. We can take it too far and declare that we know the Truth so fully that we have the right to judge and condemn others. No. That is the equal (and opposite) sin. The truth that dazzles us gradually through art is vast and mysterious. If we claim that we can paraphrase it and know it absolutely, without room for dialogue, then we make gods of ourselves. We must respond to the truth with humility, and interact mercifully and patiently with others who are exploring it at their own pace.

So we see others who declare the value of a work of art and speak with contempt regarding others’ interpretations.

Folks, it’s not about being Right in order to point out who is Wrong. It’s about growing in knowledge *and* in love, in discernment *and* in humility.

And until criticism can be defended as “a conversation in pursuit of the good, the beautiful, and the true”, it will continue to decline. It will continue to be a bunch of people shouting their own opinions at each other, even as they declare that there is no Truth to which we are ultimately accountable.

Of course, that’s just my opinion.

Blog

"Things Mean Things"

Art

Previous Post

May 24, 2008

Remember "Saved"?

Next Post

May 25, 2008 A Report from Over the Rhine's "Ohio" Concert

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Blog Bloggers on "Through a Screen Darkly" Browser Coming Soon Endorsements Fiction Books Film Forum Film Reviews Inspirations Interviews Journal Kindlings Muse Movie buzz Music Reviews Non-Fiction Books radio Reviewers on "Through a Screen Darkly" The Auralia Thread Through a Screen Darkly Through a Screen Darkly - Bonus Materials Top 10 (or 20 or 100) lists Uncategorized

Select a Month June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 July 2003 May 2003 March 2003 September 1999

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What is the term for the 40 days Jesus spent in the wilderness, remembered by Christians in Lent?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Temptation of Christ Transfiguration Sermon on the Mount Crucifixion