Jul 13, 2009
“Show, don’t tell” as an absolute rule of artistic quality hasn’t been around too long, has it?
Like this post?
I don’t like sermonizing art. Others don’t mind heavy-handedness.
I’m afraid it’s not their aesthetic, but mine, that is trendy and passing.
* * *
Related:
- How could art be improved by knowing about its imperfect artist?
- My intelligence is not a very good measure of value or quality.
- Why do so few artists believe what I believe?
* * * * *
Good insight.
They also say you must “master the rules before you can break them,” so there must be no absolutes. I think.
Seems to me there’s a balance to be found between the extremes of overt preachiness vs. unhelpful vagueness.
Amanda’s point perhaps sheds light on the “problem”.
Heavyhandedness may sometimes be substituted for clarity, so I don’t think that rejection of the messenger is always a negative commentary on the recipient of the message.
“Heavyhandedness” in a truth-based presentation can actually be quite delightful.
in most cases, there’s no such thing as showing without telling. good storytelling is (usually) about presenting content in a way that makes it seem like there’s no voice in between subject and object, even though the context in which the storyteller presents the information, what s/he chooses to include and exclude, etc. etc. are all just as important as the actual “content,” be it fiction or fact.
In other words, you should always make it appear like the story/art is speaking for itself, even though that actually takes a lot of work.
My biggest concern is that we don’t expect more out of art that what visual things can do or say. We need words. Especially for important subjects, and the Gospel can’t be told without words.
So yes, visual communication is limited. But it is also very valuable when done well.
I know this is an old thread, but Kevin DeYoung has a GREAT post today on the arts:
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2009/10/29/the-church-and-the-arts-some-common-ground-and-some-common-sense/