From: ajw@cbnews.cb.att.com (andrew.j.whitman)
Newsgroups: rec.music.christian
Subject: Re: TANGENT: Re: Is music amoral??
Date: 1 Sep 92 15:19:57 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Sep1.130314.26456@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jpersons@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (John C Persons) writes:
>In article <107410192@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> rhm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Bob Miller) writes:
>>And, particularly in this century, the philosophical underpinnings of our 
>>culture's music are less and less "christian". This does not in and of itself 
>>make the music "evil". It simply raises the question of whether every 
>>prevailing style is really designed to make the statements we want to make. A 
>>style that philosophically screams "the world is total chaos; there is no 
>>Reason or Law at its center," is unlikely to be very useful extolling the 
>>majesty of the God of creation. 
>
>Perhaps not, but such a style might be effective at communicating (and
>helping people recognize) the chaos, confusion and hopelessness of life
>without God, or maybe the horror of sin that separates us from God.

This brings to mind some of Francis Schaeffer's comments about the
nature and form of art and how form communicates underlying philosophical
assumptions.  Schaeffer was a great teacher, a fine Christian man,
and an insightful interpreter of contemporary culture, but I've always
thought that he was a bit of a reactionary in his views on art.  
In Schaeffer's view, art exists as a mean to communicate philosophy.
Thus, the high-point of artistic achievement came in the sixteenth
through the eighteenth centuries, when artists such as Rembrandt, Bach,
and Shakespeare were creating works of art based on an explicitly
Christian world view.

Schaeffer quite rightly points out that much of twentieth century art
is based on alienation, loss of meaning, and the "death" of God.  
Without an external, objective authority and source of meaning, artists 
are forced to grapple with man's inability to make sense of the 
universe.  Man, starting and ending with himself, becomes the 
highest authority.  And when you have five billion highest authorities
running around the planet, anarchy and chaos reign supreme.  As W. B. 
Yeats stated it, "The center cannot hold/Things fall apart/Mere anarchy
is loosed upon the world."  And, in Schaeffer's view, the anarchy
and chaos is expressed in artistic terms as an increasing emphasis
on abstraction, solipsism, and randomness.  Practical examples 
would be Picasso's cubism, Pollock's paint splatters on canvas,
John Cage's random musical compositions, the Dadaist movement of Alfred 
Jarry, and the Theater of the Absurd writers such as Beckett, Pinter, 
and Ionesco. 

For Schaeffer, all of this results in "bad" art - bad because it
doesn't reflect the Christian view of a universe controlled
by, watched over by, and cared for by the God who is there.  

Me?  I think Schaeffer missed the point.  Schaeffer spends a lot of
time defending the notion that life without God logically leads 
to nihilism and despair.  I happen to agree with him.  But when
he sees that nihilism and despair reflected in the arts, his 
response is to denigrate it.  Why?  Because it isn't based on a
Christian understanding of truth.

But that's the whole point, you see.  Starting and ending with man,
then life is indeed a nightmare, a horror, an absurdity, the
random strivings of a tiny, insignificant planet in an infinite,
cold universe.  And twentieth century authors, painters, and 
musicians have hammered home the point again and again.  They're
wrong in what they believe.  And they're absolutely right in 
their portrayal of the consequences of those beliefs.  And they've
produced works that are beautiful in their aching longing for a 
way out of the trap and heartbreaking in their despair.  *That's*
what Schaeffer seems to miss entirely. 

I find it interesting to note that some of the best known twentieth
century Christian authors - Flannery O'Connor, Walker Percy, Graham
Greene, Frederick Buechner - have spent a significant amount of 
time writing about lost people, people who live lives characterized
by despair and emptiness.  Apparently they felt that such themes
were worthy of a Christian treatment.  Christians musicians such
as Mark Heard and T-Bone Burnett have written about the same thing.
Christian painters have adopted abstraction as their primary means
of expression (the ones who aren't painting Jesus Over The U.N. 
and "Footprints" posters), and Christians writers have used
twentieth-century stylistic innovations such as stream of
consciousness, time inversion, and multiple narrators.  

Given the fact that virtually every twentieth-century innovation in the 
arts has been used successfully by Christians, and every major philosophical 
theme has been explored by Christians in the arts, I'm curious as to which
philosphical themes or modes of expression would be inappropriate
to use in extolling the majesty of the God of creation.  

Bob tells us (and Francis Schaeffer would agree) that certain forms of
art are inappropriate for Christian expression.  The witness and work  
of Christian artists tells me differently.  So which themes/styles
are inappropriate?  And why?

>Only one (small) thought,
>John

A string of many (small) thoughts, composed randomly, in good
twentieth-century fashion.

Andy Whitman
AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus, Ohio
att!cblpn!ajw  or
ajw@cblpn.att.com
Newsgroups: rec.music.christian