I've often joked about MoMa. Although, not understanding much of the artists' artworks, I was more amused by the guests at the museum (or such museums). It seems that they understood the art but I would be skeptical all of them truly understood it. A simply test can obviously be done by hanging my glasses on a wall or something somewhere near an art piece and count how many guests took time to marvel at my hanging glasses.

Nevertheless, I do remember two workshops of Dr. William Edgar of Westminster Theological Seminary (retired 2022). One was years ago when Rev. Laura Lin invited him (her professor in seminar, I believe) to CCCNY to give a lecture on art, and I almost fell asleep with some of the modern pieces he was talking about. I believe he brought up Damien Hirst's infamous piece 1991, The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living (a 14-foot tiger shark preserved in a tank of formaldehyde), but I forgot what Dr. Bill Edgar was talking about. I do remember that he didn't like Beethoven's 9th Symphony as a hymn to be sung in church: He would not sing Henry van Dyke's "Joyful, Joyful, We adore thee" adaptation of the Ninth Symphony's last movement "Ode to Joy". I forgot who asked him that question and I don't even remember if I had asked it. And I also remember he indirectly rebuked Becky's question regarding having a neural attitude towards the ethnics of working with LGBTQ+ folks in the art world. Whether I remembered much or not, I still appreciate Rev. Lin for inviting him for the talk. The second being his publicly available class on the Aesthetics (downloaded to my library drive).

Now, I am reminded of Bill Edgar's lessons in arts after coming across David Tong's Facebook post, and we had a few exchanges:

DT: Saya tidak mengerti Modern Art (MA). Bagi saya MA adalah penolakan terhadap nilai universal mengenai keindahan.

Me: pergi tanya Dr. Bill Edgar

DT: Timothy Law tanya apa? Bill Edgar juga tidak setuju "art" kayak ini.

Me: David Tong MA pada umumnya. Bukan itu yang dia katakan ketika Rev. Laura Lin mengundangnya ke CCCNY untuk lokakarya tentang Seni terakhir kali.
Lelucon ini sebenarnya ditujukan kepada mereka yang berpura-pura mengerti seni kayak ini padahal sebenarnya tidak. Bukan kamu yang saya maksud. Saya juga suka mengikuti karya-karya "art" Anwar Jibawi 😃.
Saya juga tidak menyangkal dominasi sekuler dari seni semacam itu.

DT: Timothy Law ini mungkin sudah bukan MA, tapi Post-Modern Art.

Me: David Tong setuju - Postmodern art, yang bahkan bisa lebih lucu (seperti video Anwar Jibawi), Mzm 2:4, 52:6.
Namun saya yakin Dr. Edgar akan menyukai "Sand Column" Roman Signer 😜

PS: I had Nadia checked my Indonesian grammar after using Google Translate's help. She was impressed enough to think I used AI to do this.

But here's the Google AI research I did later:

=============================

Prompt: what does william edgar of Westminster theological seminary say about modern art

William Edgar, an apologist and professor at Westminster Theological Seminary, views modern art as a powerful but religiously charged reflection of human culture. He argues that abstract and modern art can be reconfigured for Christian purposes, reflecting God's truth and pointing viewers back to the Creator. [1, 2, 3, 4]

His specific perspectives on modern and contemporary art include:

• Abstraction as a Tool: Edgar points out that Christians should not fear abstraction, which is prominent in modern art. Instead, they can reconfigure its insights to create works that glorify God and tell the Christian story.
• Revealing Truth: Rather than dismissing secular art, he looks for redemptive threads in it. For example, he has noted that even puzzling installation or environmental art—such as Christo's massive nylon landscape projects—can point viewers toward the meaning and intentionality of the world's Creator.
• Beyond Utilitarianism: Building on the legacy of thinkers like Hans Rookmaaker, Edgar rejects the idea that art must strictly be a utilitarian tool or platform for direct evangelism. He believes creativity is part of being made in God's image, and that art has inherent value.
• Spiritual Non-Neutrality: He maintains that art is never completely neutral. Whether the artist acknowledges it or not, their work is deeply shaped by a spiritual worldview, making it an excellent lens for cultural apologetics. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]

Prompt: william edgar on modern art?

William Edgar, a noted Christian apologist and professor at Westminster Theological Seminary, views modern art as a profound barometer of humanity's deepest beliefs. He argues that art exposes society's underlying presuppositions, revealing our spiritual search for transcendence in an increasingly secularized world. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Key Perspectives on Modern Art

• Benevolent Lordship: Edgar champions the "cultural mandate". He believes humanity is called to enjoy and develop the world, treating modern art as an avenue to express both the beauty of God's creation and the profound tensions of a fallen world.
• The Search for Meaning: Rather than dismissing modern art as purely irrational, Edgar analyzes it as a response to cultural crises. He frequently engages with how secularization and the loss of traditional absolutes influence artists, driving them to find meaning in new ways.
• The L'Abri Connection: Heavily influenced by his time with Francis Schaeffer at L'Abri, Edgar believes that apologists must understand art and popular culture to effectively reach skeptics. He sees modern art as a vehicle for uncovering the deeply spiritual, often unstated questions people are asking. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Core Themes

• Surrogate Transcendence: Edgar notes that because humans are inescapably religious, those who reject traditional faith often find "surrogate forms of transcendence"—such as science, literature, and art—to fill the void. Modern art is a prime example of this.
• The Gospel as Answer: Ultimately, Edgar believes that the Christian gospel provides an answer to the fragmentation and despair sometimes found in avant-garde works, arguing that the good news of Christ applies to every area of cultural and artistic vision. [1]

Prompt: So he does not reject Modern Art as against Christianity?

No, William Edgar does not reject modern art as against Christianity. Instead, he views it as a valuable expression of human experience that Christians should thoughtfully engage with rather than dismiss.

Why Edgar Embraces Modern Art

• Common Grace: He believes God grants creative gifts to all people, meaning secular artists can still capture profound truths and beauty.
• Cultural Mandate: He argues Christians are called to engage with culture, not flee from it, making art a key space for cultural involvement.
• Honest Expression: He values modern art for honestly exposing the brokenness, doubt, and search for meaning in a secular world.
• Bridge to Truth: He treats art as a cultural mirror that helps Christians understand the deep spiritual questions their neighbors are asking.

Prompt: Would William Edgar say: Modern Art is a rejection of the universal value of beauty?

No, William Edgar would not say that modern art is a blanket rejection of the universal value of beauty. Instead, he argues that modern art redefines beauty and shifts its focus from superficial charm to a deeper, more honest aesthetic reality. [1, 2, 3]

Rather than viewing the departure from classical ideals as a simple "rejection," Edgar's framework suggests a more nuanced understanding: [1]

1. Broadening the Definition of Beauty

Edgar argues against limiting beauty to simple symmetry or traditional, pleasing aesthetics. In his lecture Beauty Reconsidered, he favors broadening "beauty" into a comprehensive aesthetic sense. Under this view, art is aesthetically satisfying if it is rooted in reality and well-crafted, even if the subject matter is jarring, unconventional, or heavy. [, 2]

2. The Aesthetics of a Broken World

From a biblical perspective, Edgar recognizes that the world is fallen. Therefore, art that reflects fragmentation, grief, or chaos isn't rejecting beauty; it is honestly depicting the absence of shalom (peace and wholeness). To Edgar, an artwork that effectively captures the existential weight of a secularized society is "praiseworthy" because it tells a profound truth about human experience. [1, 2]

3. A Challenge to "Kitsch"

Edgar and his contemporaries (deeply influenced by Dutch art historian Hans Rookmaaker) often see modernism as an antidote to sentimental, superficial Christian "kitsch". They argue that sanitized, artificially "pretty" art can actually distort reality. Modern art, by contrast, forces viewers to look past superficial decorations to confront deeper realities. [1, 2]

Summary of Edgar's View

If an artwork is chaotic or challenging, Edgar does not interpret it as a war on the concept of beauty itself. He views it as a provocative aesthetic expression that either highlights the brokenness of the world or acts as a "surrogate transcendence," searching for ultimate meaning in a secular age.

Prompt: what would he say about post-modern art?

William Edgar views postmodern art with a mix of deep philosophical critique and pastoral empathy. While he appreciates modern art for its honest, painful search for meaning, he treats postmodernism as a more cynical shift that requires a different kind of Christian critique.

Drawing from his writings on aesthetics at Westminster Theological Seminary and his background in presuppositional apologetics, his view breaks down into several core assessments:

1. Critique of "The Taboo on Beauty"

Edgar points out that postmodernism—driven by deconstruction and post-structuralism—created an academic and artistic "taboo on beauty." He notes that in postmodern circles, declaring an object beautiful is often met with ridicule or dismissed as socially insensitive.

• The Postmodern View: Postmodernists believe focusing on beauty is a distraction from political injustice or a weapon of the powerful to enforce a false harmony.
• Edgar’s Response: Edgar argues that while justice is crucial, separating beauty from art is a mistake. True beauty and justice are both rooted in the character of God, meaning they should complement, rather than oppose, one another.

2. From Serious Modern Angst to Playful Irony

Edgar notices a major psychological shift between modern and postmodern artists.

• Modern art was often filled with a tragic, earnest grief over the loss of meaning (think of the existential despair in Jackson Pollock or Mark Rothko).
• Postmodern art, by contrast, stops grieving. It accepts that there is no absolute truth and turns to irony, pastiche, and cynicism (think of Andy Warhol's pop art or Marcel Duchamp’s repurposed objects).
• Edgar's Take: He would argue that postmodern irony is a defense mechanism. By mocking everything and refusing to take anything seriously, the postmodern artist tries to avoid the painful reality of a meaningless universe.

3. Deconstruction as a Spiritual Cry

True to his training under Francis Schaeffer, Edgar does not simply condemn postmodern art's cynicism; he diagnoses it as a spiritual symptom. When postmodern art deconstructs "grand narratives" (the idea that there is one overarching story or truth to the universe), Edgar views it as a logical dead-end. Without a foundational truth, art becomes nothing more than a superficial manipulation of symbols and political power plays. He would say this fragmentation exposes a culture desperately in need of the ultimate, cohesive narrative found in the Gospel.

4. The Loss of the Individual

Postmodern art often rejects the idea of the "lone genius" creating original work, preferring instead to copy, parody, and collage existing media. Edgar would warn that this tendency risks eroding the concept of the individual made in the image of God. If an artist is merely a "manipulator of signs" rather than a true sub-creator, the dignity of human creativity is diminished.

---

Summary of His Stance

Where Edgar sees modern art as an honest cry of despair, he sees postmodern art as a cynical shrug of shoulders. He would urge Christians to look past the defensive irony of postmodern art, recognize the deep hunger for truth beneath its skepticism, and boldly reclaim beauty and objective meaning in their own cultural contributions.

Prompt: Would he say that postmodern art is a rejection of the universal value of beauty?

Yes, William Edgar would argue that postmodern art represents a deliberate rejection of the universal value of beauty.

Unlike modern art—which he believes merely redefined beauty or grieved its loss—postmodern art actively attempts to deconstruct and dismiss the very concept of objective aesthetic value.

His assessment of this rejection relies on several core insights:

1. The "Taboo" on Aesthetic Value

Edgar observes that postmodern theory places an academic and artistic "taboo" on beauty. In postmodernism, beauty is not seen as a universal, God-given value. Instead, it is treated as a social construct used by those in power to enforce cultural preferences or distract from political injustice. To a postmodernist, claiming something is "universally beautiful" is an oppressive attempt to colonize taste.

2. A War Against Ideals

Edgar's mentor, Francis Schaeffer, noted that culture moves through stages of fragmentation. In the postmodern stage, art shifts from exploring deep realities to actively mocking them. By prioritizing irony, shock value, and parody, postmodern art explicitly rejects classical ideals like harmony, proportion, and transcendent truth.

3. The Collapse into Relativism

Because postmodernism denies objective truth, it naturally denies objective beauty. Edgar would argue that when art reduces beauty to a purely subjective matter ("beauty is entirely in the eye of the beholder"), it strips beauty of its universal value. Without a standard rooted in the character of God, beauty ceases to be a meaningful reality and becomes a mere tool for political or psychological manipulation.

---

Summary of Edgar's Distinction

• Modern Art: A painful, honest struggle to find beauty and meaning in a fractured world.
• Postmodern Art: A cynical rejection of the idea that universal beauty or absolute meaning even exist.

Prompt: What would he think about Roman Signer's Sand Column work?

William Edgar would likely view Roman Signer’s Sand Column (Sandsäule) as a fascinating, deeply honest parable of human limitation and gravity, rather than a cynical piece of postmodernism. [1, 2, 3, 4]

For context, Signer’s piece involves stacking 8 to 12 plastic buckets filled with sand. A tiny hole in the bottom bucket allows sand to slowly leak out until the structural equilibrium shifts and the entire tower collapses. [1, 2]

While a typical critic might dismiss this as a meaningless viral stunt, Edgar’s unique theological framework would interpret it through a few distinct lenses: [1]

1. An Honest Expression of Creation and Fall

Edgar argues that good art must tell the truth about the world, which includes acknowledging both the order of creation and the reality of decay.

• The Physics of Creation: Signer does not use magic tricks; he relies on the real laws of nature—gravity, friction, and time. Edgar would appreciate this as a respectful engagement with the physical reality God designed.
• The Certainty of Collapse: The slow, inevitable collapse of the column serves as an excellent visual metaphor for the biblical concept of the Fall—the reality that human structures, pride, and life itself are fragile, temporary, and bound to return to dust. [1, 2, 3, 4]

2. Modern Angst vs. Postmodern Irony

Even though the piece utilizes everyday plastic buckets, Edgar would separate Signer's work from the deconstructive cynicism of postmodernism. [1]

• Postmodern art often relies on a "cynical shrug" or a mean-spirited parody of truth.
• Signer’s work, by contrast, functions as a poetic and almost tragic "sculptural event". There is a serious, focused anticipation as the viewer waits for gravity to take over. Edgar would see this suspense not as a joke, but as an honest meditation on the transience of human endeavors. [1, 2, 3]

3. A Rejection of Sentimentality

As a critic of "Christian kitsch" (art that makes life look artificially perfect), Edgar would applaud the raw realism of the Sand Column. It does not offer a fake, happily-ever-after visual harmony. Instead, it forces the viewer to watch a systematic breakdown. To Edgar, confronting the reality of instability is far more artistically honest than producing safe, decorative art that ignores the world's brokenness. [1, 2]

---

Summary of Edgar's Verdict

Edgar would not call the Sand Column a rejection of beauty. He would extend his concept of "broadened beauty" to it, finding aesthetic value in how perfectly and elegantly the installation captures the truth of time, entropy, and human fragility. He would likely use it in an apologetics lecture to show how even a stack of leaking sand buckets can point to humanity's deep awareness that our earthly foundations are unstable. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Prompt: look at how Edgar distinguishes "high art" from simple performance art

William Edgar rejects the rigid division between "high art" and lower cultural forms, choosing instead to distinguish art based on its structural integrity, intent, and ability to reflect truth. Rather than using "high art" as a weapon to dismiss performance art, Edgar evaluates interactive or ephemeral works by looking at how well they fulfill the purpose of human creativity. [1, 2, 3, 4]

When evaluating a piece of performance art versus a traditional masterwork, his distinction relies on several theological and aesthetic criteria:

1. Density vs. Social Class

• The Traditional Elite View: Conservative cultural critics often define "high art" by its medium (e.g., oil on canvas, opera) and associate it with upper-class institutions, while dismissing street theater, pop music, or experimental performance art as "low" or vulgar.
• Edgar’s View: In critiques published through platforms like Andy Naselli's cultural reviews and his own essays, Edgar argues that this divide is artificial. He states that "high art" is often simply characterized by a greater degree of formal density (complexity of structure), but that doesn't mean it possesses a greater depth of meaning than popular or performance-based mediums. [1, 2, 3]

2. "Sub-Creation" vs. Mere Shock Value

Edgar uses J.R.R. Tolkien’s concept of sub-creation—the idea that because God is the Ultimate Creator, human beings honor Him by shaping and ordering raw materials into a cohesive framework.

• Simple Performance Art: If a performance piece is just a "simple stunt" designed purely to shock, mock, or deconstruct without building anything (such as standard postmodern shock art), Edgar views it as a failure of the creative mandate. It lacks the craftsmanship and substance required to truly engage human desire and intellect.
• Valuable Performance/Installation Art: If a performance art piece uses real physical laws, time, and deliberate structure to communicate a profound reality (like Roman Signer’s Sand Column or the community-focused textiles analyzed in scholarly art discourse), Edgar lifts it out of the "simple" category. He views it as a legitimate aesthetic event because it functions with structural integrity and tells the truth about human existence. [1, 2]

3. Traces of Grace vs. Self-Indulgence

Edgar heavily emphasizes looking for "fragments of grace" across all cultural tiers. [1]

• For Edgar, a performance is meaningful if it connects with human suffering, exhibits physical dexterity, or highlights a cry for justice—principles he expands upon in his theological book Created and Creating.
• A performance piece degenerates into "simple" or poor art when it abandons communication altogether, becoming an entirely self-absorbed, narcissistic exercise that refuses to point to any transcendent truth or common human experience. [1, 2]

Summary of the Distinction

Edgar does not believe that a piece must be housed in a museum or painted on canvas to be considered "high" or valuable art. He distinguishes between them by looking at the seriousness of the artistic intent. If a performance art piece is a well-crafted, honest engagement with reality, it carries the same spiritual weight as a classical masterpiece. [1, 2, 3, 4]

I can explain how Edgar applies this to jazz and blues music (which was once dismissed as "low art" but carries incredible formal density), or look closer at his critiques of Christian kitsch.

===============================

Modern art and postmodern art represent two distinct eras and philosophical approaches to creativity, spanning from the late 19th century to the late 20th century. While modern art actively sought to build a new world through logic, original forms, and idealized beauty, postmodern art dismantled those ideals using skepticism, irony, and the recycling of past styles. [1, 2, 3]

Comparison Overview

Feature [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14]	Modern Art (c. 1860s–1950s)	Postmodern Art (c. 1960s–late 20th Century)
Core Philosophy	Belief in progress, reason, and scientific or universal truths.	Epistemological doubt, skepticism toward absolute truths.
Objective	Searching for abstract, pure, and idealized beauty.	Deconstructing traditional narratives and social constructs.
Approach to Style	Originality, master craft, and a single signature style.	Pastiche, eclecticism, and mixing historical genres.
Cultural Hierarchy	Preserved the barrier between "high" art and "low" culture.	Blurred or completely collapsed high and low culture.
Mediums	Primarily traditional (Painting, sculpture, canvas).	Interdisciplinary (Conceptual, installation, performance, digital).

Key Ideological Differences

1. Universal Truth vs. Absolute Relativism

• Modern art operated on the belief that art could uncover universal truths. Artists used logic, form, and abstraction to speak to deep, shared human realities.
• Postmodern art rejected these "grand narratives". It argued that truth is highly subjective, constructed by culture, and deeply tied to societal power dynamics. [1, 2, 3, 4]

2. The Artistic Genius vs. The Death of the Author

• Modernists revered the concept of the artist as an original genius. The direct touch, emotional intention, and technical mastery of the painter were paramount.
• Postmodernists actively deconstructed authorship. They utilized mechanical reproduction (like silk-screening) and corporate imagery to strip away the idea of the "unique masterpiece". [1]

3. Pure Aesthetic vs. Irony and Appropriation

• Modern art strove for clarity, elegant simplicity, and structural purpose. If a piece was a painting, it leaned into the purity of flat paint on canvas.
• Postmodern art thrived on irony, sarcasm, and "the thing in quotes". It freely stole, borrowed, and recontextualized existing corporate logos or classical paintings to mock historical seriousness. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]

Sand Column (also known as Sand Bucket Sculpture) by Swiss contemporary and postmodern artist Roman Signer. [1, 2]

This piece features eight to twelve stacked buckets filled with sand. The bottom bucket has a tiny hole in the side, causing the sand to slowly leak out. As the sand escapes, the column gradually tilts, loses its center of gravity, and inevitably collapses onto the floor in a cascading crash. [1, 2]

Signer's ephemeral sculpture explores themes of temporality, physics, and the natural forces of movement. It challenges the traditional permanence of sculpture by making the act of decay and destruction the actual artwork. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]