From: cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: What is art? (was: What do you do when your child thinks Metallica is cool?)
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 05:30:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.011957.17856@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> crow@coos.dartmouth.edu (Preston F. Crow) writes:
>In <1992Nov18.190429.15536@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> hill@spot.Colorado.EDU (Michael Hill) writes:
>>>I would tend to disagree here.  I find that the more of a challenge a
>>>song is to understand, the more I enjoy it...
>
>>My experience of music enjoyment is different.  For me, I tend to enjoy
>>more the songs I understand.  This isn't so difficult with mainstream
>>CCM groups like Petra or Whiteheart, but it's a bit harder for Christians
>>singing in the secular market.  F'rinstance, I find my enjoyment of the
>>song "Dream in my Life" (King's X) much enhanced by my understanding of
>>what the metaphor stands phor (sorry!).
>
>Yes, we do seem to disagree, but I think that I may need to clairify my
>point here a bit.  I enjoy the process of coming to an understanding.
>I enjoy art that makes me think.  If the message isn't clear, but listening
>to the song doesn't make me want to ponder the message, then I don't
>enjoy the song.  If the message is understood, but there are subtleties
>that I still have to think about, then my enjoyment is intensified.

Well described; 

It's enjoyable to "come to an understanding."

Music (or other art) that's so "preprocessed" that anybody can
understand it straight off isn't as satisfying as music/art that
requires some contemplation.  Kind of like the difference between junk
food and "real" food.  (Meat & potatoes?  Pick your favorite set of
foods that require some effort to make...)

There obviously exist extremes at both ends; sometimes the "message"
in the music leaps out quite instantly.  

Petra is often cited as an example of this in the arena of Christian
music.  (Assuming that "Christian" is in fact an adjective that can be
applied to music :-).)  The song "Beyond Belief", on the other hand,
requires more contemplation than is typical.  Maybe that's why I liked
it...

At the other end of the scale you can look at the literature of James
Joyce.  (Some may not want to, for a whole variety of reasons!)  His
works require incredible effort and reflection to understand at all,
and most people have neither the time, the patience, nor the desire.

To some people, subtlety is a BAD thing because it can lead to
confusion.

Others value subtlety so much, and may pride themselves (danger!
danger!) in their ability to understand what is going on that they
want as much subtlety as possible, and more.

I think that SOME subtlety is a good thing.  It exercises your mind,
and makes the experiencing of various forms of art much richer,
because it DID require effort.

However, going TOO far results in people just being unable to
understand what's going on.  Perhaps they could - but it's not worth
the effort.  The "enjoyment" turns into frustration. 

For those that DO understand, it may all turn into a "pride" thing.
"I'm better than you are, because I understand this song, and you
don't."  Anybody ever written a thesis lately, and wondered why the
reviewers/supervisors demand such strange things?  "I understand
Lagrangian Relaxation, and if you think you do, you'd better describe
it MY way..."

Obviously some balance is necessary.


-- 
Christopher Browne                |     PGP 2.0 key available
cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca           |===================================
University of Ottawa              |  The Personal Computer:  Colt 45
Master of System Science Program  |  of the Information Frontier
Newsgroups: rec.music.christian