In “A Pattern Language,” Christopher Alexander and his co-authors write that, when choosing a building site on a piece of land, most people pick the healthiest, sunniest, most beautiful place they can find – a mountain meadow, a clearing next to a stream. Alexander and his co-authors argue for the opposite. You should build on the ugliest, least healthy spot you can find.
The reasoning is simple. If you choose the healthy ground on which to build, you will end up living in a nice house on an ugly piece of property. If you build on the unhealthy ground, you put it to use and still get to enjoy the more beautiful parts of the land.
This is how the authors explain it:
If we always build on that part of the land which is most healthy, we can be virtually certain that a great deal of the land will always be less than healthy. If we want the land to be healthy all over—all of it—then we must do the opposite. We must treat every new act of building as an opportunity to mend some rent in the existing cloth; each act of building gives us the chance to make one of the ugliest and least healthy parts of the environment more healthy.
The logic makes sense. But the authors go on to say this:
As for those parts which are already healthy and beautiful—they of course need no attention. And in fact, we must discipline ourselves most strictly to leave them alone, so that our energy actually goes to the places which need it. This is the principle of site repair.
This second piece of advice is perhaps more important than the first: builders must discipline themselves to leave the healthy parts of the site alone. It is the sick who need a physician, not those who are well.
The logic applies on both macro and micro levels. City planners need to understand the existing culture of the places they want to develop. Healthy aspects of culture – peaceful streets, good neighbors, beautiful trees – may be permanently damaged by thoughtless building, just as a perfectly healthy fruit tree may be destroyed by a homeowner who wants more sunlight for his lawn. Those who want to change culture need to be careful in their zeal not to uproot what has already been growing for many years.
What does this have to do with the arts?
Among conservative Christians, there is a strong conviction that the arts are one of the areas of our culture most in need of improvement. For the last hundred years or so, the arts have been steered by large organizations and universities that rarely share conservative values. The indestructible entertainment industry exports its products around the world, selling us stories that are anything but true, good, and beautiful, and we are powerless to change this.
You would think that this qualifies as "unhealthy ground," a site on which to build. However, before we raze the arts to the ground and start over, I suggest we take another look at the state of the arts in the 21st century.
The fact is, it's never been easier to create art and find an audience than it is right now, and many conservative Christian creators are taking advantage of the new landscape. Like small farmers, they grow just enough to make their crop sustainable, but they are more than willing to increase their output to meet demand. Rather than destroying the arts world and starting from scratch, conservatives should find the artists who are already doing good work and support their efforts.
I'm thinking of people like Matt Rhodes, an artist with many years of experience in the world of video games who is currently making a graphic novel about Noah. He is thoughtful, hard-working, and biblically literate. You can see his work here, and if you like what you see, you can support him on Patreon.
There’s also S. D. Smith, a self-published novelist who writes stories that draw from the same well as C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien. He teaches writing and has built a Christian publishing and events organization called Story Warren.
Christian filmmakers are quietly operating in their own medium, both with faith-based films like “Surprised by Oxford” and so-called "based faith" films like “Shut In.” There are also many who prefer to focus on telling good stories without overt Christian themes, like Francis Annan and his prison-break movie “Escape from Pretoria.”
The state of the arts is healthier than you think. But, of course, things can be improved. It's not a rent in the existing cloth; it's more like a young tree that needs water and sunlight to grow. Conservatives who want to change culture through the arts should seek opportunities to fund existing artists and train the next generation to take up the artistic mantle. There are reasons to be optimistic. There are also reasons to get to work.
Christian Leithart is a writer and teacher and the co-founder of Little Word, a children's book publishing company. He lives in Birmingham with his wife and two children.
This culture article was made possible by The Fred & Rheta Skelton Center for Cultural Renewal, a project of 1819 News. To comment on this article, please email [email protected]. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of 1819 News.
Don’t miss out! Subscribe to our newsletter and get our top stories every weekday morning.
