Should art be uplifting?

This is a tough question for me, and perhaps for a lot of other artists, since the idea of uplifting art seems to fly in the face of anything done in the past 100 years or so, just like the idea of “beautiful” art. It’s something of a rhetorical question, since it carries with it the assumption that the answer is yes, art should be uplifting.

Again, it goes hand in hand with the notion that art should be beautiful. It stems from the same experience, really.

When you experience beauty, the emotional response is almost always that of feeling lifted up. So to a large degree, beauty = uplifting. So if art should be beautiful, then art should be uplifting as well. We tend to define beauty as or associate beauty with uplifting, positive feelings, even if they make you cry.

Of course, ugliness has the opposite effect: you recoil from it. Ugliness doesn’t make you happy.

Like I said before, though, happiness is cheap these days. Well, a quick rush is, anyway.

Thomas Kinkade tried to make his art as beautiful and uplifting as he could. Unfortunately, it rang hollow with a lot of people, so much to the point that the art “establishment” went to great lengths to deride him.

I can make the case that some art is beautiful and it isn’t necessarily uplifting. Awe-inspiring, yes, which is not quite the same as uplifting. Take for example, ancient weapons made by Native Americans thousands of years ago. A knife for slaughtering an animal might have an intricate and beautiful design carved on it, but it is done out of respect for the sustenance brought by the animal whose life was taken. Why be brutal and crude when you can be reverent?

Social Media Response

I posted this question on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram last week, and didn’t get a lot of responses, but the few I got were pretty telling.

@popesaintvictor said: “Art should tell the truth. “

I think this goes back directly to the idea that art, truth, and beauty are the same thing.

@JoppaThoughts said: “Uplifting? Not necessarily. Thought-provoking? Absolutely.”

I agree with all of it, actually. Art should be true, even when it “tells a lie.” And much of the time it should be thought-provoking.

Then Mark said: “Good Q @BradBlackman Art shouldn’t be anything, except art. It can do many things however. It may uplift, challenge, outrage, shock, pacify.”

Nathan Ketsdever on Facebook said that art shouldn’t ask questions. Maybe he was being facetious. Either way, I disagree. I can’t remember who said it, but I once read a quote from a great graphic designer who said that “design is about solving problems and answering questions. Art is about asking questions.”

Probably the best social media response was from Dean Melbourne on Instagram. He said: “Lets change that should to a could Brad.”

My take

As a Christian, everything I do, especially as an artist, should at the very least point people toward hope and redemption. I realize sometimes the truth (and art) might be brutal and ugly at first, or it might be light-hearted and comedic, but it needs to find a way to be honest and show some kind of hope, even if you find it only when you really dig for it. I think a lot of 20th century art has gotten it partially right: art should cause some sort of emotional response. Most of the time the response has been outrage, and artists have settled for that, seeing “happy” and “uplifting” as cheap (again for good reason). But there should always be a glimmer of hope at some point.

You know, Jesus got (and still gets) that reaction of outrage out of people. And his message is that of hope and redemption. So I suppose a lot of it boils down to where you are, where you’ve been, and where you are headed, if life, art, music, or anything else, really, is uplifting or offensive.

What about you? What’s your opinion on the idea of art being uplifting? Please share in the comments.

Photo credits: both by me, taken with iPhone 4.