Briefly, art is 1) a creation or 2)the denotation of the enterprise of creation. If the thing was not there before person A put it there then the now existent thing, abstract or concrete, is art. God is the original artist. Therefore, whenever one endeavors to create a work of art one endeavors to copy God. There is no shame in this provided that the artist realizes that his art is a copy. But most artists today don't seem to realize this. The pinnacle of modern art seems to be originality, coupled with aesthetic beauty. This combination we call creativity, a term that we consider, curiously enough, unquestionably virtuous. Creative people in our culture are sought after, praised, adored, financially compensated and sometimes exploited. And creative people exist everywhere. They obviously exist in the world of music, art, fashion, theater, and writing. But creative people are sought after in the worlds of business and athletics too. Creativity is a hot commodity. But as it pertains to artists i.e. painters, sculptors, writers, etc. , the cancer of egotism has somehow invaded the scene. Today's artist seems to be as protective of his art as he is his own soul, because his art is indeed his own soul, and perhaps this is the major problem. Perhaps another related problem is our modern perception of art as being a personal expression. I will try to show here what the problem is and why it's a problem, why proper art is an expression, that lays no claim to originality, or the personal and how this view of art will effect how it is used in the church.
A work of art isn't necessarily a personal expression. It certainly may be, but may easily not be. I may take a block of wood, carve into the shape of a swan, go show my friend my creation, and he may ask: "What are you trying to say by this swan?" and I might legitimately say. "It is a swan?" It may not be a personal expression of anything. But most of the time, art that is meaningful is expressive, and what it expresses is of great importance. Today, art often expresses the artist's feeling. It may sound insensitive to say that this is shallow, but think of a public speaker who means to say something profound to a group of eager students. And then he gets up, and says, "I am happy". I am assuming that art ought to communicate beyond mere expression, but some seem to think that there's merit in the mere expression, and the that the follow-up question: Why are you happy? is not only meaningless but almost contemptible. Any expression has meaning as an expression, but that something has meaning does not demand it be said. It is not fair to assume that your audience ought to be as engaged as you the artist are with you're feelings. It's very simply and yes crudely, whiny. This is not to say that art that is subjective or self-analytical is not worth our attention. Surely, human feelings can be portrayed in such a way that they have universal appeal, at least enough to be discussed. And surely every person has a right to express their feelings however they want, but it does not follow that I have to consider every expression worth expressing. What I want to see from an artist is more than just an expression, but an expression expressed in a technically artful, original, beautiful, and profound way. Is this subjective? Of course, but it's art.