infinite improbability

From the tooting-my-own-horn department

World Magazine printed my letter that I wrote in response to Gene Edward Vieth's article on the nature of art.

The way that World edited my letter kind of lost my main point though, so here's the entire letter below:

While Gene Edward Veith's attempt to find an objective basis for defining art is laudable, in the end his definition brings us once again to the question "who decides what is art?"

Does it really mean that a work lacks beauty, skill, intelligence,knowledge, and craftsmanship just because Mr. Veith or any other person may not be able to recognize them? I can see a sort of beauty in the stark minimalism of an empty room with the lights going on and off on a set timer, and I can even experience an oddly compelling feeling toward the work, which could, I suppose, be called love. I would even go so far as to say that such a work does require intelligence and knowledge, and yes, even skill and craftsmanship. Where Mr. Veith sees empty nihilism, I see wide open possibility.

This is not to say that there is not an objective standard for art, but rather to suggest that avenues for Christian creativity in art are far broader than Mr. Veith supposes. Yes, even minimalism and other modern and postmodern art movements can be brought under the dominion of Christ.