Developing A Theology of Art
I’m currently working on a potential project for this fall that involves putting together an art exhibit. My mind works in mysterious ways. Where some people think about the practicality, and purpose of this project, my mind instantly shoots towards the theology of it. More specifically, a theology of art.
In order to develop a theology of art, the overarching Biblical narrative must be considered. It is not enough to find isolated Biblical texts that take about art and about how believers used art. A theology of art has to consider how art fits into the great narrative of God’s story. Does it fit? What place does art have in the Kingdom of God? The Gospel is a gospel of proclamation and not painting, so how does art fit into it?
There are four overarching themes within the Biblical narrative – creation, fall, redemption, and restoration. Everything in Bible follows one or more of these themes and to a certain extent, everything in this world follows these four meta-themes. Art is not excluded from these four themes.
A lot of art has been defined as self-expression, which it is to certain extent, but that self-expression fall into a greater narrative. For example, there was a performing art piece that made its way on Youtube of a girl opening a can of spaghettios, cutting a hole in the crotch of her pants and stuff the spaghettios into that hole.. The rest of the performance was a little to graphic to describe. Is that art? Of course it is. But what kind of art? What is it ultimately expressing? Like much of the art that is created today, the meta-theme behind the works is the waywardness of man, or the fall.
Most of the contemporary art world has given expression and language to the waywardness of man. A lot of contemporary art is guided by the principle of self-expression but “self” is fallen, lost, on a journey, wandering, etc. This kind of art gives language to the “Fallen” theme. However, there are pieces of art that are beautiful, that do inspire, and that gives language to a theme other than fallenness. I am not talking about art that slaps a Jesus label on it or art that is a picture of the cross (although that can be beautiful). I’m not even taking about art that is done by Christians. I’m talking about works of art, done through common grace to reflect something about one of the other three meta-themes.
One of my favorite artists right now is BANKSY. As far as I’m aware of, he’s not a follower of Christ. But some of his work is amazingly brilliant. Although most of his work is consider illegal, the work itself reflects something about beauty. For example:
He took what appears to be an airconditioning unit and created a work of art. Normally this airconditioning unit would just sit outside. Now, there is some different, beautiful about it. This piece follows the theme of redemption. BANKSY incorporated a random airconditioning unit that most people would not even notice, and he created a work of an art.
It is easy in a fallen world for artists to give language/expression to the waywardness of man. But it is essential for artists to give language to the return of man. A theology of art, is looking at art from through the lens of these four Biblical meta-narratives.
Art that follows or gives expression to the Creation theme, is art that gives language to that inner longing for the way things once were and ought to be. It is art that points home or to a paradise that has been lost. It follows a utopian theme of the garden. In some ways, art that expresses the idea of original beauty follows this Creation theme.
Art that follows or gives expression to the Fallen theme, is art that exposes, expresses, gives language to the waywardness of humanity. It exposes the depravity of humanity as it attempt to hide itself under the theme of creation. It can be shocking, but it can also be subtly destructive. It is a wandering away from the Creation theme.
Art that follows or gives expression to the Redemption theme, is art that see the fallenness and depravity that exists but creates beauty from it. It is the language of the underdog. Art that follows this theme is art that takes the common and makes it beautiful. It takes the fallen theme in its uglies form and creates beauty from ashes.
Finally, art that expresses this Restoration theme, is art that points forward and gives hope. Within the Biblical narrative, although humanity looks back to the garden for the ideal, it ultimately is promised a new city to look forward to. The Biblical narrative is not a return to the garden, but a looking forward to some even greater. Art that follows this theme expresses the hope of what can be. It points to the glory to come. It gives language to something that transcends the past and present.
Artist tend to sit on the fringe. Within the church they seem to never really find a place. When churches find artists they tend to use artists. It is important for the church to understand that artists do not exist for the church, but that the church exists for the artist. What I mean by that is that the church exists to give language (the four meta-themes) to artist. Ultimately, it is the artists who develop and change culture. When an artist can see how their gifts and talents fit in the greater Meta-narrative and not just in the churches story, their work will impact that Kingdom. The church desperately needs to develop a theology of art inorder to give language to art world.
I think you hit on a couple of interesting points in this entry which I’d like to comment on.
First off, I think that if we look at the history of art we can draw a lot of reasons for why art is no longer deeply incorporated into the church. In the past, it was – the catholic church commissioned so many artists to create magnificent masterpieces, and the metanarrative of the Bible certainly captured their imagination. Somewhere along the way art became more focused on pushing boundaries and breaking down the rules (such as through the movement of Dadaism), which the church is very wary of (and I think appropriately so) and could explain the reason why art has moved to the fringes of the church discussion.
I think a lot of the associations you make regarding Banksy’s work are a big stretch. To say that Banksy’s piece of art is following a redemptive theme is to claim that Banksy has taken something that is broken/ugly and made it beautiful. The assertion of these things as beautiful is unarguably a subjective endeavor, and as much as we would like to attach objective value to art, philosophically it is very difficult to reconcile these two things, and many have tried (like Kant). Even if philosophically we are successful in wedding the subjective perception of art and beauty with objective value, experientially we find these things in tension as people always disagree.
Personally, in my experience, much of the discussion about creating a “theology of art” or bringing back “art” to the church centers around fulfilling the cultural commission, not the great commission. That’s what troubles me, because clearly, God’s post-fall agenda is the great commission. From my perspective reaching the lost is much more important than creating art for the sake of exercising a gift God has given you. I, too, enjoy following makoto’s work, especially his recent work on the four gospels. But his entire LIFE, not just his ART, I think, testifies to his commitment to the great commission. And though much of his work centers around his ART, I think he realizes that as a Christian, he must do more than just paint – he must evangelize, and thus he starts an art forum, thus, he speaks at conferences, thus, he builds relationships with nonbelieving artists.
I concede that these things are not mutually exclusive. Literature, Prose, Poetry, Music, the Written word, painting, etc – these have all been key to many peoples’ reconciliation to Jesus Christ. And I’m not saying that there is no room in the present time to create beautiful works of art that simply glorifies the Lord. But I ask these questions – “What would bring more glory to God? Saving an soul to an eternity in heaven? or painting a picture as expression of one’s creative gift for God?” I would be wary of a response that claims these things as holding the same value or priority.
I propose that art, along with all other gifts God has given us, should be utilized towards the Great Commission. That’s a good starting place. What the church must give as a language to the artist is the language of reaching the lost. Everything is in submission to God, everything in submission to His purpose – and right now, His agenda is to save His children. In this current age, with the increasing influence of media, art will continue to shape culture in greater and greater ways. What Christian artists will need to do is to use their art to proclaim the truth of the Gospel. I think Keith Green is a great example of this. I think Jon Foreman is a great example of this.
But at the end of the day, let’s not make “art” so exceptional. It’s a slight exaggeration to say that “ultimately, it is the artists who develop and change culture.” So much art today has simply become something to consume. Sure, Banksy is doing his thing, but is the common person more moved by him or a clever advertisement? I think, at the end of the day, we should have the attitude of Keith Green:
“When I was growing up, my talent always opened doors for me. I never really had to work at making friends or having social graces like other people did. I knew I could win people over if I could just get to a piano. Music has always been my calling card.” …
“But now I want to be accepted because I reflect the Lord, not because I blow everyone away with my music.” …
“All the talent in the world won’t buy me a godly character,” Keith was saying, “and that’s what I want more than anything.” (187-188)
Although I appreciate long comments and response on this blog, sometimes these long responses are based off of misunderstandings. I think you’ve mistaken what I wrote. I’m not advocating pinning art against evangelism/Great Commission. This is a common mistake among evangelicals who have taken the Great Commission to mean simply to “win souls” and anything that does seem like it’s “winning souls” at best is a secondary agenda of God and at worst a waste of time. This has been seen with issue of compassion/social justice. Where feeding the homeless and caring for the poor was seen as distraction from the Gospel and labeled as liberal/works based gospel. I’ll address the more in a bit.
As far as Banksy’s work. I do not believe that his work was done intentionally to follow a redemptive theme. It is in some ways my subjective view of his work where I see redemption in his work. This is not to say that ALL his work follows this theme. My thoughts are on the intrinsic value of his work and not necessarily the artist himself. By no means am I advocating him as a “Christian” artist. Rather, I am simply framing his work into a Biblical theme inorder to give christian artist language for their work. This IS part of the Great Commission, namely discipleship… The Great Commission is a call to go into all nations (people group/culture – not necessarily proximity based) and make disciples (not converts, not winning souls, not even “reaching the lost”). It goes on to say teaching them to obey EVERYTHING that Jesus taught. What did Jesus teach? What did Jesus preach? The main topic of all his teaching was “The Kingdom of God.” The Kingdom being God’s rule and reign. It is the Lordship of Jesus holistically and not just individualistically. This means that God is concerned with the salvation of an individual but his also concerned about the salvation of the world/culture/peoples. Part of making disciples is giving artist, businessmen, students, police men, government officials, a language of how to their vocational calling in life fit into the great Metanarrative of the Kingdom (God’s rule and reign). Discipleship is not just teaching people to be moral in the work place or how to evangelize in the work place. Discipleship is giving a stay at home mom the reason/language for why her vocational calling is valuable within the Kingdom.
Since you asked the question about what would bring glory to God more, let me ask you the same question. What would bring more glory to God redeemed individuals or redeemed culture? I understand that there are theological commitments and presupposition involved in this discussion, but I want to make the case that God’s mission is NOT just to save individuals, but people, nations, culture. What’s the point of last chapters of Revelation and all the visions of the prophets of the Shalom of God in this world? Why do we see a city at the end and not a beatific vision of heaven? Because the picture is not of individuals but of the world/culture/people.
Even more so, the bigger question is in the soteriology. Does God get glory when a sinner repents and submits to the Lordship of Jesus Christ? YES! Did the person who preached the Gospel to him bring glory to God? YES! But was the glory that was given to God because the person faithfully and obediently preached the gospel or was it because the sinner responded? I dare say that it is the ACT of preaching the Gospel that brings glory to God and not necessarily the RESULT because Biblically, it is GOD who saves. If glory was given to God based solely on the response on the sinner, that means that every time we preach the Gospel and it fails to bring a person to saving faith, we are not bring glory to God. I don’t think that is the case. Our actions are what bring glory to God (Colossians 3:17,23 and 1 Corinthians 10:31). When an artist completes a work that reflects the realities of the Gospel (Creation, fall, redemption, restoration) I dare say it brings glory to God. Whether a person comes to saving faith or not is not the point.
How can you out of one side of your mouth say that art is not mutually exclusive from evangelism and then out of the other side of your mouth say, “I would be wary of a response that claims these things as holding the same value or priority”? When it comes down to it, your saying evangelism is the most important endeavor of a Christian, and anything that gets in its way is excluded. This is just not true! The narrative of the Bible is NOT how can Christians evangelize or preach the Gospel, the narrative of the Bible is about God saving, redeeming, creating, and restoring. He is the hero, we are not. I agree that God’s agenda is to save, but is it ONLY TO SAVE? Is it not to save and restore? He did not just pay for our sins on the cross and cancelled our debt, He gave us New life. He created us as new creation. He adopted us. He made us a new people.. HOLISTICALLY.
Is the calling to evangelize important? YES! Is it more important than the call to living a holy life? Is it more important than fulfilling ones vocational calling? Is it more important than the call to care for the poor? Is it more important than they call to love the Lord with your mind? I would argue that we can not elevate the call of evangelism above and at the cost of the other callings. This is exactly what happened as a result of the 2nd Great Awakening under Finney. Nor should we elevate evangelism as our organizing principle, where by all other things organize under and for the sake of evangelism. I do think the Gospel of the Kingdom of God is probably the most Christo-centric organizing principle (because it was what Christ thought was priority). This Gospel of the Kingdom is holistic – includes individual but it also includes culture, people, nations.
In defense of my entry. I was simply giving language to artists. I was developing a practical theology of art – a paradigm by which artists can use to see how their work relates to the greater meta-narrative (The Gospel of the Kingdom) and reflect God’s glory. I was by no means trying to elevate art at the expense of evangelism because I do see it as important, but I do not see it as solely important. Nor do I see evangelism as the organizing principle (and I don’t believe the Bible see it that way).
I would recommend that you consider the possibility of evangelism NOT being the primary purpose of the Christian life. Consider Ephesians 2:1-10.. Arguably one of the clearest definitions of what the Gospel (good news) is. We were dead in our sin, children of wrath, BUT GOD…saved us by grace through faith… Then look at verse 10. What were saved FOR?! Evangelism only? Preaching the Gospel? No, good works.. Which includes preaching the Gospel but not ONLY preaching the Gospel. Which includes our vocational calling – for some being an artist. Ironically, verse 10 says “we are His WORKMANSHIP” which is where we get our word for POEM.. It follows the idea of art, masterpiece, workmanship. As well, the rest of chapter 2 shows us what are we saved TO.. Namely a new people.
Here’s my response:
In writing my response (both this one and the first) I didn’t intend it to be so long. I seldom write long comments like this because I don’t like utilizing blogs/comment areas as arenas of discussion. But, I would like to thank you for taking time to offer your thoughts in both blog entry and comment response. You know that, person to person, the biggest reason why I follow your blog is because I consider you to be a dear friend in Christ and someone I can continue to learn from. And though I don’t have the same theological grounding or intellectual prowess you carry, I’ll attempt a response. (deep breath)
First off, when I addressed the work of Banksy, I was commenting specifically only on the work you mentioned in your entry (the air conditioning vent). I said that it your assertion that this specific piece of art reflected the redemptive theme was a stretch. I don’t necessarily think that his use of this air conditioning vent to create a piece of art was “redemptive.” I do agree with you that that we should “give Christian artist language for their work,” but I think this example was particularly weak. There are certainly better examples we can give. But again, we are delving into subjectivism, so it’d be best to move on.
In this last response you connected your acting of “framing his work into a Biblical theme” as an act of “discipleship.” You then claim that “part of making disciples is giving artist, businessmen, students, police men, government officials, a language of how their vocational calling in life fits into the great Metanarrative of the Kingdom” because discipleship, defined as following Jesus’ teachings centered around the kingdom of God, is a holistic endeavor, not simply focused on evangelism.
I do agree. There is so much more to discipleship than preparing people to be able to give an evangelistic message. Discipleship is about transforming our lives to more reflect Christ’s, HOLISTICALLY, as you have said. But for what purpose? On one hand, I think, it’s the best way to live – it’s how God intended us to live. But in reading the metanarrative of God, perhaps it would do well for us to recognize where we currently reside within that metanarrative from a perspective of the horizontal timeline. One of the biggest reasons for restoration of our individual lives and entire culture is so that we would be able to bring others to reconciliation and restoration through the Gospel, is it not? Isn’t that what God intended for the nation of Israel? So yes, while God is in the business of “holistic salvation,” currently, in our time frame, we are hoping “holistic salvation” has an evangelistic effect, no? For even God, in Revelations, when He is casting judgement, is bringing his wrath (and therefore working directly to restore creation HOLISTICALLY) in hopes that people will repent.
Of course, this is not to say, as you have stated, that evangelism is our organizing principle, or that all other things must be sacrificed for its sake. When it comes down to it, I am NOT saying that “evangelism is the most important endeavor of a Christian, and anything that gets in its way is excluded.” I don’t believe that is true either, and I believe you have misinterpreted my intent.
What I was hoping to do was to offer a starting point from where artists can see their work fit in to the metanarrative of God – a starting point of utilizing their art for the purposes of the Gospel, namely, bringing individuals to reconciliation with God. This has been useful for me in my own personal experience, when, in high school as a Christian, I desperately hoped I brought glory to Christ whenever I wrote music, yet was constantly resisting the calling to simply preach the Gospel to my friends. That’s the reason why I quoted so much Keith Green and mentioned Makoto – because I want to EXPAND the artist’s view of themselves from solely having to operate within the framework of their art to recognizing that they can do other things that every other believer can do – preach the gospel, using their testimony, or through the Bible. This was the purpose of what I wrote when I was asking us not to make “art so exceptional.” There are a lot of things that I will struggle with my entire life in simply trying to love people…the question of art seems so secondary to me now when I simply reflect on my character, my devotion to God, etc…
In writing this out I think that my first response missed the good intent of your entry, of fitting art into a metanarrative. But I looking at both now the blog entry, my response, and then your response to my comment, I see a dialectic that is hoping to reach a balance. At the end of the day, I hope you do not feel as though I was attacking your blog entry. I was simply hoping to join in on the conversation with a few thoughts of my own that I have been spinning around for a few years now that seem to be on another side of the spectrum. I don’t think our views are opposed to each other but have just chosen to emphasize different things. I hope you understand I mean when I say this: that I feel as though you are emphasizing the “now” and I am emphasizing the “not yet.”
It’s curious to me that you pointed so much about the Gospel being holistic, and then include art in that holistic picture, when my approach has been to point to one important the Gospel in hopes that artist move into a more holistic understanding of what they can do in submission to the Gospel. Perhaps my approach seems more exclusive (though not totally exclusive) of art. I concede that. But again, I’m not offering my comments right now as an answer, but as another starting point to developing a “theology of art.”
Of course, the biggest problem with my approach is that there is a difficult line to draw to distinguish that which is involved in “Reaching out to someone” and that which is not. I admit I am making a broad definition evangelism. But I believe this question leads to the consideration that our entire lives must be involved in the act of bringing glory to God, which I defined in the previous paragraphs as “witnessing to God’s true character.” In our day and age, it witnessing to God’s character is for the purpose of reconciling people to Him. Ultimately, what’s going to have to happen is that the Gospel message must be given. But that does NOT exclude art, in my, perhaps too a broad definition, of evangelism. Nor does it mean that the act of evangelism, though holding high priority, will necessarily exclude all other God-honoring activities.
With regards to soteriology, I believe my writing caused a misunderstanding. This was my mistake. When I asked the question, “Saving a soul to an eternity in heaven?” I was not referring specifically to the result of someone being saved, but more consistently with my line of approach, the general act of reaching out to someone with the ultimate hope that they will come to know Christ. This, of course, ultimately will involve the Gospel being preached, but a lot of other things go into “reaching out” to someone. So yes, an artist who completes a work that reflects the realities of the Gospel is also, I concede, giving glory to God, which I believe is still in line with my original claims in the first response.
I think that God receives glory to God is BOTH the obedience on part of the preacher and the sinner who repents. This is in agreement to what you also claim, but then curiously you jump into a question of “why” God receives the glory, separating the two actions (preaching and response) and saying that only one of them can be the “why” God received the glory (when you originally claimed that both give God glory). I think “why” God receives glory for both actions is because both actions, independent of each other, demonstrate trust, praise, faith, etc in God. They are both witnesses to God’s true character. In the case that both happen, and are tied through causation, I believe God receives even more glory when there is preaching, and then appropriate response than if there was simply preaching and no response. I think I understand the approach you are taking in asking the question “But was the glory that was given to God because the person faithfully and obediently preached the gospel or was it because the sinner responded?” but I don’t know if it’s ultimately related to what we are discussing.
——
Super long. All that being said, I thoroughly enjoyed the vchat we had before this, Jonathan. I liked it a lot more than this comment-response-comment-response thing. Haha.
And in humility, I’m still processing this entire issue. By no means do I think I’m absolutely right. It’s a tough question, and I’m glad to have the opportunity to participate in this. Work in progress, I suppose.
btw, you should get in touch with kevin jan. i met with him for lunch today and he did some pretty cool work around these themes
it’s funny because someone in my cell group read this and asked me if we were friends. I appreciate your comments and I appreciate the push back. For those reading this, Steven and I are good friends. He always has a place in my heart. =).. This type of dialog is not typical in our world of tolerance. Tolerance has come to mean just accept things. But our understanding of tolerance is respecting the person even if you disagree.
I think I said what I wanted to say during our video chat. But I do want to point out that our theological commitments, especially to soteriology is and maybe eschatology is at play here. For example, you state, “One of the biggest reasons for restoration of our individual lives and entire culture is so that we would be able to bring others to reconciliation and restoration through the Gospel, is it not?”
From my theological view, we don’t bring other to reconciliation with God, only God does that (John 6:65). We have been given the ministry of reconciliation in that we “implore” others to be reconciled. But ultimately is God reconciling people to himself (2 Corinthians 5:19-20). This is a subtle difference, but it makes a world of difference in our ultimate paradigm or worldview.
Maybe I’m not understanding what you’re getting in terms of art being holistic in the gospel. But Christians who do art for the sake of art and not necessarily with the intent for evangelism has any Kingdom of value? Or better yet, do you believe that art that is done without the intention of evangelism some how less than art that is done with the main intention of evangelism? To the first question I think art that is not done with the intention of evangelism has Kingdom value. To the second question, I think that art that is done without evangelism as it’s main intent is just as valuable as if it were done with evangelism as its main intent. I tend to think you and I would differ here. Am I wrong?
To clarify my whole discussion on “Why was God given glory” it definitely could have been written with more clarity. When a sinner repents and turns to God, God receives glory as a result of the sinners action – we both agree. When does the “evangelist” give glory to God? Is it ONLY when his “Gospel presentation” is received in repentance by the sinner or is does God received glory in the act of preaching. My point was to say that by simply proclaiming the Gospel, God receives glory and not in necessarily on the result of preaching. As well I would say God receives glory when a Christians artist is excellent in their work, to the glory of God, even if it does not result in conversion. I think both the act of preaching and the act of painting (if you will) brings glory to God and this glory is independent of the result of conversion.
Let me close by taking this away from the realm of art into the realm of a businessman. What is the ultimate purpose/ministry of a businessman. Conventional wisdom tells us that he has 3 main roles. 1. Being a good testimony/moral agent in the work place 2. Use his position to preach the Gospel 3. Make a lot of money to give to the church so that REAL ministry can take place.
I think that being a businessman is a ministry unto itself. If a businessman can create jobs and goods for those who would not have them. For example, if an owner of a business decides to move his factories to a third world country, what happens? Jobs are created, the poor are no longer poor, the hungry are no longer hungry. This is in of itself is a ministry. It CAN result in evangelism but I think it’s a valid ministry unto God independent of whether converts are made or not. There’s a Kingdom element involved in it.
At any rate.. it’s 2am.. you threw my blogging schedule off track. If you ever want to guess blog on here, let me know. Before you head back North, I’d love to sit down with you and Kevin Jan to shoot the breeze. Cheers friend.
Art. & beauty. In our Education Ministry class @Talbot, Evangeline and I were in a group that came up with developing a backbone to bringing the theology of art back to the church, namely to start with some groundwork with pastors and leaders (the inroads to Church acceptance of a curriculum). Haha. So i find your questions interesting. I can also send you our work if you like.
I forgot if it was Schaeffer or Kreeft or Zacharias (or my friend) who said it, but it was that Art is trying to catch the beauty or expression of something beautiful or ugly. That beauty could be the window into the person of God. Maybe beauty is trying to capture some aspect of God. However it is, God is creative. He’s artistic, and He’s made beautiful things, just even looking around at humans, animals and plants and Creation. He gives us imagination to think up worlds and create, etc… like Him. Maybe art is tapping into some aspect of the beauty of God, or the creativity of God…
ok, well besides that.. Art most basically is an expression or creation of something out of us. Out of our heart or mind: poetry, hiphop, music, painting, sculpture, interior design, etc…. I’ve found as a musical worship leader… the most powerful things expressed are those experiences that you’ve really lived through, the revelations received, or things that have dived deeper into God than ever before. Take a song or poem for example, the best connections (a bit subjective from my paradigms and experiences) are when the song is genuine and real life. I mean, if you really went through rape, or walked through issues deeply and really want people to feel it, you come out with things like “Not for Sale” – Mickey Cho and “Constance” – Mr. J. Medeiros. We hate posers and fakers who were never really “thugs” or “Christians” when they claimed to be. It’s a reflection of the character we actually long for… that of Godliness. Faithfulness, true love and sacrifice like Christ, friendship, eternity, strength… Art speaks. And when it speaks of real life, I think that’s when it’s solidly onto something. I think a medium is just an empty medium until it carries the message that matters.
A person is just doing the motions until he’s full of real content and truth. Everything works together here, and because art comes forth from people, I think it’s more of a medium and the person is the one who supplies the content (of course God as divine primary mover, but notwithstanding) to express or say. Out of evil people come inspirational things… and yet it could be evil and darkness shared. Like porn or hatred. But when something sprouts from good seed (in good OR evil people) it is as deep as it is close to Godliness. True perfection is found in Jesus, and so I think the closer anything is to being like Christ, the closer it is to being powerful and perfect and all of the above.
Just the ramblings of a humble man. =)
Great thoughts Johnny. The only thing that I have tension with is when you said, “I think a medium is just an empty medium until it carries the message that matters”
Have you ever heard the phrase, “The medium is the message” by McLuhan. He was making the point that some mediums don’t carry any specific message, however the fact that they exist change our existence. He uses and example of a light bulb. It carries no message but it creates space for us to work at night.
Likewise, I think that sometimes creating a work of art might not carry a specific message or at least the message is lost in subjectivity. However, the fact that the work of art exists provokes something in this world (to glory of God or to the glory of the world). I contend that making art for art sake is a valid way of for artists to create (via Francis Schaeffer).
I don’t think art always has to have an intentional message, although it is always communicating something.