REthink "The Nature of Christian Art" (Or, The Necessity of Beauty; Or, The Perilous Balance)

In a previous post, I asserted that Christian art must not distract the reader with itself (or anything else), but must serve as a signpost pointing to God. Art is necessary for us to conceive of the Truth, and thus if it distracts us with itself (or anything else) then its purpose has been defeated. I still hold to these propositions; however, after reading Lewis' An Experiment in Criticism, I feel that I must add some amendments.
In a chapter titled "On Misreading by the Literary," Lewis makes a distinction between art and knowledge: art is a structured work ordered in a specific way while knowledge is mere facts and information. Both are made "out of the stuff of life," but the former is an "addition to life" while the latter is a "comment on life." Within making this distinction, Lewis chastises those who view "art" as a medium of knowledge, who expect of artists "what was the work of the philosophers and theologians," i.e., to "teach" us "truths about life." In brief, such people want art to mean rather than be. Lewis asserts that if we view an artist's work as a philosophy or moral rather than simply art, then we do a great disservice to the artist; for the artist's skill and spirit is in the beauty of the work and not the truth it can recommend.
Such a distinction, and consequent dichotomy, seems unfair of Lewis. After all, do we not, in addition to enjoying the beauty of the art, "learn" something from it? Is it not true that it is rather impossible to view an artist devoid of and/or separated from their own beliefs and ideas, and thus is it not equally impossible to view their art as equally devoid of and/or separated from those beliefs and ideas? Didn't Lewis' own works (esp. Narnia and the Space Trilogy) reflect his own beliefs and ideas as well as being good literature? Again in brief, must art only be and not mean; can it not be both beautiful and true? The answer that Lewis gives is what has lead me to rethink my previous post on the nature of Christian art.
If we look to a work solely for Truth that it may or may not contain, then we do no wrong. However, if we do that, then we are no longer viewing the work as a work of art; for art is about order and structure, design and plan, "putting the pieces together," and thus is fundamentally about beauty, and not truth. Therefore, the primary question that we should ask is not "Is it true?" but rather "Is it beautiful?"
Do not misunderstand: the question of truth is valuable and necessary, but only as a secondary question. In the world of art, Truth is a corollary to Beauty, not the other way around. If the question of beauty is not answered, then the question of truth is meaningless; and if the question of beauty is answered in the negative, then the question of truth is moot. This is because if a work fails in beauty, then it cannot (as art) serve as a vehicle for truth (or any other message). If the work is no good, then whatever message that it contains dies with it.
It is on that point that contemporary Christianity fails, not only in regards to its own "art" but also the art of others. Take The Golden Compass for example: when this atheistic children's work hit theaters, Christian groups were so radically up in arms about fighting against the movie's message that they failed to address whether or not it was even a good film. Those few who did (or tried to) were either ignored or scorned as traitors to the Faith. Nevertheless, it was the traitors who were right, for the film (as a film) was terrible, and as such its message was lost, its presence forgotten, its impact non-existent.
In regards to its own art, contemporary Christianity fails miserably precisely because of the same problem: a Christian author today is asked to primarily present the gospel rather than primarily write a good novel. This is the point where we all get tripped up. Giving primacy to the presentation of the gospel sounds holy on paper, but no one seems to realize that if a work of art is (at best) average or (at worst) insipid as art, then whatever "message" that it may contain will be (at best) lost or (at worst) marginalized. This is why it seems that Christian art and artists no longer impact or influence the culture and its people: they have been taught to sacrifice Beauty for Truth, only to realize too late that both sail on the same ship, and thus both have gone down in the same wreck. In the realm of art, Beauty is necessary in order for Truth to be realized. If we want our art to carry Truth, then we must strive to make our art beautiful. If your goal is strict evangelism, then you had best write a sermon. If, however, you want to write a novel (or anything else), then you had better set yourself to study what good art is. Once again in brief, the Christian artist is one who has the Bible in one hand (preferably their right) and Shakespeare in the other.
This amendment adds to my previous thoughts, and in doing so makes the whole prospect of being a Christian artist just that much more challenging. As Christians, it is our very purpose to glorify God in word and in deed. Whether in proclamation or reflection, we are to let God (and Christ) be known. On the other hand, as artists, we must strive for beauty in our work; it must not be an afterthought, given second-hand garments to wear. Thus is the perilous balance: to create works of beauty that lead beyond themselves to the living God who is there.

-Jon Vowell