What We Can Learn From Thoreau

Henry David Thoreau was the quintessential rugged individualist, yet he also had the mind of an ivory tower academic. He avoided hard work, yet wrote essays that influence American culture to this day; he inspired Martin Luther King and Gandhi to lead peaceful revolutions. Thoreau’s criticism of the government and his call to patriotic rebellion are as relevant today as ever, as the United States steadily creeps toward fascism.

Though his political essays are brilliant, Thoreau was a philosopher rather than a politician. As a student at Harvard, he excelled in his studies of Greek, Latin, German, and philosophy. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

“He was well versed in classical Greek and Roman philosophy, ranging from the pre-Socratics through the Hellenistic schools, and was also an avid student of the ancient scriptures and wisdom literature of various Asian traditions. He was familiar with modern philosophy ranging from Descartes, Locke and the Cambridge Platonists through Emerson, Coleridge, and the German Idealists, all of whom were influential on Thoreau’s philosophy. He discussed his own scientific findings with leading naturalists of the day, and read the latest work of Humboldt and Darwin with interest and admiration.”

After he graduated, Thoreau met Ralph Waldo Emerson, a famous writer and transcendentalist. Emerson’s friendship influenced Thoreau’s philosophical beliefs, and therefore his writing. As a transcendentalist, Thoreau was more concerned with spiritual matters than practical ones. For that reason he was drawn to “pure” philosophy rather than “applied” politics.

Walden, an early environmentalist manifesto, is considered Thoreau’s masterpiece. Emerson owned secluded property in Massachusetts, where he allowed Thoreau to live according to his idealistic philosophy. This gave Thoreau plenty of time to reflect and write.

Thoreau valued independence, solitude, and simplicity, which he wrote about in Walden. He also appreciated the beauty of nature and believed humanity should treat the natural world with reverence long before environmentalism became trendy. He believed people lose vital aspects of themselves within social groups. As he wrote in Walden:

“I find it wholesome to be alone the greater part of the time. To be in company, even with the best, is soon wearisome and dissipating. I love to be alone. I never found the companion that was so companionable as solitude. We are for the most part lonely when we go abroad among men than when we stay in our chambers. A man thinking or working is always alone, let him be where he will….Society is commonly too cheap. We meet at very short intervals, not having had time to acquire any new value for each other.”

Thoreau’s individualism formed the basis of modern American culture. Even now, America is classified as an “individualist” nation while Asian, Hispanic, and most other cultures are “collective,” meaning the group is considered more important than the individual. The work of the transcendentalists initiated the concept of individualism.

Valuing the individual higher than the social group gives significant power to the average person. This “power of one” concept inspired great changes in American society, making us the freest nation in history. Walden proves that one person with a great idea can indeed change the world.

Transcendentalism Began with New Individualism

After Puritanism, transcendentalism became the prevailing American philosophy — and within transcendentalism is new individualism.

Transcendentalism began at Harvard and opposed Puritanism in many ways. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, transcendentalists “were critics of their contemporary society for its unthinking conformity.” Encouraging people to think for themselves regardless of the community’s general opinions is quite the opposite of collectivism.

For transcendentalists, conformity is almost like a curse word; to conform means to be dull, to abandon the true self, and to repress progress — and no one would want to admit to doing any of that.

Transcendentalism became extremely popular in America, and people began to abandon Puritanism in favor of these new ideas. Rather than cooperating in a tight community, transcendentalists encouraged people to seek solitude; rather than perceiving nature as the dangerous, “hideous wilderness” that the Puritans feared, transcendentalists revered nature and attributed healing qualities to it, which is explored extensively in Emerson’s “Nature.” Transcendentalism began the new individualism’s focus on self-cultivation.

The Modern Art Scam

Those who defend modern art often claim that it needs the context of history and the artist’s purpose to be appreciated. As Tom Wolfe wrote in The Painted Word, “I had gotten it backward all along. Not ‘seeing is believing,’ you ninny, but ‘believing is seeing,’ for modern art has become completely literary: the paintings and other works exist only to illustrate the text.” The “text” refers to the context of the piece, usually a description of the work next to the painting in an art gallery.

One might read the faux-profound description and say, “It’s still just a bunch of scribbles,” then receive ad hominem accusations of being ignorant, uncultured, or close-minded.

People may think something has artistic value just by virtue of being displayed in a museum — especially since so many collectors, appreciators, and curators play along with pretending that “My Bed” is a masterpiece of profound substance — yet if “My Bed” remained in Tracey Emin’s bedroom instead of being displayed in the Tate Gallery, onlookers would have simply concluded that she needed to clean up.

A description on the wall may provide an interesting story, but this is incidental; the art should be able to speak for itself without the aid of context.

Picasso himself confessed that he didn’t consider himself a real artist; though he had talent, which is most apparent in his early work, he essentially admitted that the modern art movement is a scam:

“In the arts…the refined, the rich, the indolent…seek the new, the unusual, the original, the extravagant, the shocking. And I, since cubism and beyond, have satisfied these gentlemen…with all the various whims which have entered my head, and the less they understood them, the more they admired. By amusing myself at these games…I became famous quite rapidly. And celebrity means for a painter: sales increment, money, wealth. Today…I am famous and very rich. But when completely alone with myself, I haven’t the nerve to consider myself an artist in the great and ancient sense of the word. There have been great painters like Giotto, Titian, Rembrandt and Goya. I am only a public entertainer who has understood his time. This is a bitter confession…but it has the merit of being sincere.”

* * *

In the documentary My Kid Could Paint That, a four-year-old girl is praised as a child prodigy of abstract art. Hidden cameras were placed in her room when she was painting, and a child psychologist observing the girl concluded that she was not a prodigy, but a regular child painting a picture with encouragement from her parents. In the ABC special “You Call That Art?” artists, curators, and art historians were asked which works were modern masterpieces and which were created by children. All of them chose at least one child’s painting as a “masterpiece.”

Self-promoting websites like Facebook and Instagram have also allowed many amateur artists, photographers, and musicians to share their work and gain online followings; in the postmodern world, not only is everything art, but everyone is an artist…and thus, skill and beauty lose their true significance.

What Is Art?

Art surrounds us. Paintings, book illustrations, photographs, architecture, music, and countless other creations of the human mind are abundant in our daily lives, yet “art” is a word that is difficult to define. Art is subjective, and everyone has personal tastes and aesthetic sense, so what one considers art another may consider garbage. In order to identify true art, art must have a clear definition.

To define art, a good place to begin is the dictionary. The American Dictionary defines art as:

1. Production of something beautiful or extraordinary. 2. Skill, ability. 3. Cunning.

Webster has a similar definition:

1. Skill acquired by experience, study, or observation. 2. A branch of learning. 3. The conscious use of skill and creative imagination, especially in the production of aesthetic objects.

(Art is also different from design, which is visuals created for specific and usually commercial purposes, such as business logos.)

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a much lengthier and less straightforward definition of art that I will not subject anyone to here (though the entry is available online). What is considered art changes over time and between cultures. However, the first two definitions seem adequate to account for cultural differences and the progression of time.

Both definitions contain the word “skill,” and both refer to beauty. Art is a “production” of the “creative imagination.” As a process that requires skill, creating art requires “experience, study, or observation.” Combining these key terms together would make an encompassing definition of art; therefore, art is the conscious use of skill and creativity to produce something beautiful.

It is important to define art as a skill in order to distinguish a real artist from a fake one. “Art” has been used so broadly as to consider any human creation as art, including tools such as hammers, computers, and water bottles. Yet if the definition of “art” is too all-encompassing, then there is no difference between the works of Leonardo da Vinci and a student’s mindless lecture-doodles in a notebook, or between Beethoven and a high school garage band. Though art is subjective and someone may personally prefer the garage band’s music to Beethoven’s, Beethoven is objectively far more skilled. An artist is someone who employs creative skill, and skill comes with time and experience.

Art is also beautiful or aesthetically pleasing, though “beautiful” doesn’t necessarily mean that only paintings of relaxing landscapes and still life arrangements are truly art. For example, a painting of a battlefield or a skull may not be traditionally beautiful, yet still have a dark or unsettling beauty about them. Even if a work of art isn’t to a viewer’s taste, the viewer should still be able to acknowledge the skill required of the artist to create the piece.

With this definition, art cannot be something that anyone could easily create; if that were true, then everyone would be an artist because we all create products of some sort, and at the same time no one would be an artist because the word would mean nothing if we make no distinctions between artistic products and regular products — though this is precisely what postmodernism has attempted to do.

The definition of art seems to become broader over time. In the Victorian era, only classical, realistic art was considered true art, and the impressionists were scoffed at because their paintings were deemed incomplete sketches. Eventually, impressionism was accepted as true art.

Realism and Impressionism

The definition of art changed again with Picasso’s modern abstract paintings, and again with Andy Warhol, who introduced pop art.

Somewhere along the line, the definition of art became so broad that Duchamp’s “Fountain,” a urinal, is now considered a work of art — and Duchamp has many imitators, such as Tracey Emin and her unmade bed, which is accepted in galleries alongside Monet.

Yet so-called “found art” doesn’t fit the definition of art because the artists did not skillfully and creatively produce the work, and the pieces are far from beautiful; they are in fact particularly ugly everyday objects being posed as art.

Similarly, much of modern abstract art hardly fits the definition of real art; most abstract paintings are simply canvases painted a solid color, or splatters and scribbles, or deformed and simplistic figures that look like they were produced in less than five minutes. Such paintings cannot be considered true art because they require little skill, and they resemble children’s drawings more than the works of genuinely talented artists. When looking at modern abstract art in museums, many people think, “I could do that!” They’re probably correct that they are capable of scribbling on a canvas — yet are they capable of the radical dishonesty to claim that the scribbles are art?

The Heart Within the Art

Art is a reflection of character, an expression of hidden sentiments. An artist’s personal philosophy colors the work. This is inevitable, whether done consciously or not.

Christians may become tangled in the confusion of what we ought to watch, read, and listen to. The answer is simple, and is in the form of a question:

Does the work glorify God?

If one takes an honest look at life, there is no evading the conclusion that life is essentially depressing. Why traumatize ourselves further with the media we choose to expose our minds to? This isn’t to imply that we should live in a state of unrealistic slap happiness, never reading a book with a sad theme or listening to a song with minor chords. Sadness is part of life…indeed is the very essence of life without God, and we shouldn’t be in denial.

The overarching theme is what I am concerned with. Darkness allows for God’s glorious victory, as He works all of life together according to His plan. If the theme of a work reflects hope, courage, love, and values that align with the purposes of God, then the work satisfies the Holy Spirit indwelling the Christian’s heart. In contrast, I avoid works that glorify nihilism, senseless violence, and disrespect toward God, though this is most of what constitutes the media.

The choice is personal and requires discernment. For example, I find the movie Titanic quite dreary, and I’m not impressed with the moral themes presented. This isn’t to deny that Titanic is a “good” film in the sense that the script is well written, the camerawork is marvelous, and the actors are talented. However, I never want to watch Titanic again and subject my heart to that sinking feeling.

Likewise, some people find Les Miserables terribly depressing, though I don’t think so at all. Though the setting is dark, the message is anything but. Despite the harsh conditions that the characters live in, the heart of the work contains hope, redemption, and agape love.

We practice discernment if we realize not all that appears to be good is truly good. Often, those who appear to be foolish troublemakers are the true workers of good. The homeless tend to have more generous hearts than the rich. The Pharisees are a classic example of evil masquerading behind a good reputation. A repentant sinner is more honorable in God’s sight than a prideful priest.

Therefore, there’s that “something” I search for when I read, watch, play, and listen….