Yeah the guys that I know that fall into this category (blue collar workers) do it because they have to, but they seem to be okay with this, because they see it as more respectable than the life their baby boomer parents lived in the suburbs. Most of them were raised in middle class suburban homes where they had more things, but their interests were seen as weird (but not necessarily immoral) by their peers, and they just didn’t fit in. In contrast most of the people I know who were raised blue collar like you mentioned generally are still blue collar or have made enough money to become middle class, but still retain the blue collar ethos of disdain for anything intellectual or ecotaric based on much of the same criteria that Josh mentioned. So yes many of them are blue collar now but it is primarily because they have to be. But where I primarily disagree with you on this Dave is in the choice of artistic output. I have seen no division of artists between the elusiveness based on transcendence versus elusiveness based being morally bankrupt. But what I have seen is variety of mixes of both of these all up down the board without any discernable way to compartmentalize or categorize them in such a specific manner as you have . I just don’t think the artistic range of output that it is really a clear cut as your making it out to be.

Almost all of the artist types I know of are blue collar workers. They are construction workers, school teachers, electricians, and moms. I think a large part of this divide that you guys have described goes back to work ethic. I think that many of the blue collar workers and artists are somewhat resentful of those artists who have gotten where they are purely by who they know and not on the merit of their work or skills. In addition, many of these blue collar workers represent classic conservative Christian values. Their artistry is a overflow of their enjoyment of working with their hands and it seeks to depict their enjoyment and appreciation of the transcendence in world around them. In contrast, many of the “upper class” artists understand that elusiveness is an important element of art and depict it by producing art that focuses on the weird or unusual. It’s not the elusiveness of the transcendent, but instead the elusiveness of the morally bankrupt. Often times, that weird and unusualness is simply a reflections of the lowest common denominator of the human condition. It’s often a reflection of the morally reprehensible or of downright rebellion against God. So, in many ways this divide is as much a moral divide as it is a artistic divide. In the end, there is indeed a resentment of the exclusive artist ‘club’ mentality, but I think it is rooted more in a blue collar view that this ‘club’ mentality is ruining the integrity of real art.

You bring up a great point, yet I find myself internally divided on the issue. On the one hand, I appreciate the visual display of the sovereignty of God in the great cathedrals, and understand the Temple (Old Testament) was designed (in part) as being an aid to worship.

On the other hand there is the clear scriptural teaching that Christians themselves (their life and conduct) is the new Temple, as well as the clear model of simplicity that comes from the New Testament.

Thus, while I can appreciate the idea of “inspiring people to worship God” with our church architecture, there are other biblical principles at play that seem to directly and clearly counteract that perspective.

I’m not offering that as a criticism, just being honest about my own struggle to come to a decision on the matter. Given unlimited resources to construct a church building, I can’t decide if I would build a cathedral (to communicate God’s holiness in the architecture) or a really large pole-barn (to communicate God’s holiness resides in his redeemed people).

Someone said that missionaries should have to rely on their own skills to pay their way. Paul exemplified this and we call it Tent Making now because of Paul. Many do and it is growing very popular for missionaries to support them selves. As far as Charities go, its kind of given in their name to why they exist. They provide a place for you and someone who is needy to meet, so to speak. Compassion is given to the poor first because we are called to take care of the poor. I wish I could sky dive but I am not holding the church accountable for not letting me sky dive. In Short Paul tells us we are to work harder than anyone else because it is the power of God in us that is working. No matter what your vocation remember “whether we eat or drink do all things to the glory of God.”

LOL. Your too funny. I was just teasing you a bit. Have a great weekend.

I was just defending my initial words about NY— which you first challenged. And, so went down the stupid rabbit trail to nowhere.

LOL? Man, have a Bronx cheer from the peanut gallery! God have mercy on your church.

Off to better things…:)

In fact, I have kind of forgotten what this conversation was about. Probably a good time to end it.

Take care,
Chris

But, would you deny that a sizeable group of people in NYC see themselves as as the ‘movers and shakers’ of society at large? Would you deny that NYC attracts many of the best educated and most influential political and cultural leaders of our nation? Would you deny that NYC is one of the major centers in the world for culture, politics, influence, and intellect? Since I’m assuming you will not deny that, that was my point with the “brain-trust” comment. And, since they have an abnormally large percentage of such individuals, does it not also make sense that major centers for the arts are located in NYC and not, for example, in Little Rock Arkansas? (a wonderful place, by the way).

As for the ministers, I’m assuming you haven’t met a ton of them. Most no longer hold to absolutes anymore bro—sadly. But I get your point.

Elitism comes in all shapes and forms. In my experience I have found that there is an elitism about being ignorant and uneducated. Whole denominations are built on this notion — like the Calvary movement. But it is always the person looking in who throws that pejorative around. The Calvary folks think the educated protestant to be elitist, and they are elitist for saying so. It is a silly vicious circle. This was my point. We should simply stop using the idea as though it actually says something.

In regard to the minister thing. I was talking about the perspective of ministers of themselves, not of other’s views of them. Ministers often fall into the ditch of thinking that their every thought and opinion is “true” because they spend their days dealing with absolutes. It is a hazard of the profession. The church, being as important as it is, becomes THE center of importance. So, when men like Tim Keller say something, it is taken as gospel. There are few men who avoid this trap, and there is a constant peril of falling into it.

Thanks for replying. I think you rightly point out that its never possible to pigeon-hole people. Thanks for bringing that point up. I completely agree.

The Rockwell remark is illustrative, since his artist was very intentionally designed to appeal to the working-class, and marked a departure from the norm. As for NYC, they generally see themselves as the brain-trust of America (listen to any Tim Keller video, he speaks often of this), so perhaps you would be better served by finding an example in a place like Toledo (which I’m sure you could).

I am a bit humored at the strong response against my post. It seems my point that working-class values buck against anything that seems elitist is itself seen as an elitist (your word is ‘snob’) statement (which is being bucked against). Too funny.

Seriously, I would urge you to reread my post again. I think you are inferring things that are not there (such as thinking I am belittling the working class or saying that they have no appreciate of art at any level, or saying that anyone who appreciates art is an elitist). At least, that is not what I am intending to communicate. BTW, I just read your first three comments and agree with everything you said. I’m not sure our positions are as different as you seem to think.

(ps, what sources have you been reading about the professions? In most polls ministers rank as one of the LEAST respected professions in the United States. LOL).

My grandfather, who was a farmer and mechanic all his life, kept dozens of Norman Rockwell and Rembrandt books around his home. He would sit at the kitchen table with his coffee and look at the paintings for hours in the evening.

I think you need to push back from the table and get some perspective. Snobs come in all shapes and forms, elitists do to, such as those who fancy that any artist or appreciator of art is an elitist. It is a difficult task to throw tar. And, this is so far away from the subject of “art” it is not even funny.

I suppose you could fill in the blank with any profession – lawyer, doctor, accountant, soldier, teacher — and come up with a list of reasons why they as a group are trouble. For some reason, ministers never seem to make that list.

As a non-artist, working class individual of blue-collar stock, I think you may have misunderstood my intent. In fact, in my first post I fully agreed with David Hoos. I still do. I am just pointing out a very real social aspect to the issue with the arts. Also, frankly, I am following up with my earlier criticism of artists for making unrealistic demands upon the church (e.g. since the church has never historically supported the artists in the way many now demand, and since American working-class values have never been excited about art, why then would they make such demands now?).

I didn’t say artists were better than working class (I did call them elitist, remember??). I am simply pointing out that artists values and working class values don’t readily align well.

No, good luck getting them to like the same stuff you do, which is what you think the problem is.

You write: “I am so sick of this tired old worn out assumption and stereo type by evangelicals that all artists are a club of snobby people”

I’m not sure if this can correctly be characterized as an “evangelical” opinion. It certainly seems to be a “working class” opinion, but nothing inherent to evangelicals. Perhaps the issue here isn’t one of religion but rather social class.

The working class has never really appreciated higher art. That is nothing new. The church historically only supported the activity of art (only indirectly, btw) because the top leadership of the church was generally from the royal class (or many times a family member of the wealthy business guild–and later in the Reformation individuals who were otherwise highly educated). In what is essentially a ‘free church’ environment (in the United States context, anyway), which lacks an elitist class, wouldn’t it naturally be expected that the vast majority of Christians (who are strongly influenced by American working class values) would not find much of an affinity with art?

Frankly, it is this same “anti-hierarchical” social sentiment that led to “pop art” in the first place (yes, founding fathers—I blame you for Britney Spears! lol).

So now we have:

(1) Bunches of low-class individuals running around producing garbage all the while styling themselves as artists, and

(2) A working-class American value system that is suspicious of anything that smacks of hierarchy or elitism (which “high art” does). Good luck getting them to support the arts.

C

I like talking about this stuff as I am working through it too. If you’d like, you could direct message me on Twitter with your email. I’d be happy to continue this discussion over email or something.

Chris I wasn’t trying to be presumptuous about your story I was just commenting on what you had already revealed. If this angered you, I apologize for that. Also I never said that Jesus was a friend of the artist, but what I did say was that Jesus was a friend to the outcast. I merely commented that many artists have historically been outcasts or misunderstood. Also I don’t believe that I am in an emotional ditch, I feel pretty confident in what I believe in about the arts. And quite frankly I agreed with almost everything that Kevin posted today with the exception of the need for possible financial support for arts programs in the church. I also have heard good things about Dr, Rykan’s book as well. I just feel that artist’s for the most part have gotten way too much heat from evangelicalism and before we cast final judgment on all of them we need to try to understand where they are coming from and empathize with them before we assume they are all stuck up elitist snobs who have no concern for the “common people.”

http://www.dooy.salford.ac.uk/ideas/baus.art.html