I’m a Christian. Therefore, I am a poptimist. As I understand my faith, I am forced to take a stand for popism and against elitism in art. However, “popism” means much more than that. Strictly defined meanings of terms Used in reference to contemporary recorded music. I include in “Poptimism” the idea that all genres and artistic styles are worth studying. That all artwork, regardless of style, medium, or genre, has the potential to convey value. That all well-made, honest art deserves serious attention. and that there is no “canon” of works that are more deserving of consideration than any other.
There are many Christian thinkers, especially within the classical Christian education movement, who encourage the study of the “Great Books” or the “Western Canon” or whatever you want to call it. Let me be clear: I do not have People say you shouldn’t read those books, and as a Christian, I’m not against them in any way. Rather, I oppose the belief that the canonical works of Western culture – Shakespeare and Dantes, Bach and Beethoven, and all the rest – have universal value across time and space and for all people in all cultures. . This “Western canon” is often heavily promoted to uninterested people. Why is this? A defining feature of elitism is claiming that one’s idea of what is valuable is more important than anyone else’s, and that one’s own cultural Claiming that a product has value is very close to idolatry. universal value. As a Christian, I cannot support such worship of the workings of the human mind.
Again, I do not have They say that the “Western canon” is not worth studying. But whatever greatness they have is neither objective nor essential to them. The greatness of Shakespeare or Beethoven is not something that everyone everywhere needs to study forever. The value of a canon, no matter what kind of “greatness” it contains, is mediated by culture. There is no other way. And culture changes too. It’s okay for Shakespeare’s works to go in and out of fashion. Something like this has happened before, and if it were to happen again, it wouldn’t be a terrible loss.
A common elitist cliche is: “Here’s what’s good and here’s what’s not. We said so, so you must listen to us.” I just can’t swallow that logic. Shakespeare? I’ll admit he’s better than Ben Jonson. But is he better than Arthur Miller? Better than Charles Dickens? Is it better than Tom Wolfe? Is it better than Stephen King? good… it depends on what you want.
First of all, who is the average reader? What motivates them to pick up a book? Speaking for myself, I don’t belong to the academy or the elite, so I consider myself a general reader, but I read books because I want to be informed and have fun. When we general readers want to know information, we often want to know things that we could never dream of in our own philosophy. Sometimes we want to know a little more about the psychology of our fellow humans. (Shakespeare is very good at this kind of thing, by the way.) But when we want to be entertained, as average readers, sometimes we just want a good story that keeps us turning the pages and letting the story keep us hooked. There are other times when you want to get attention. Sometimes we like to marvel at clever turns of phrase or clever structural features. We want not just entertainment, but artistry and craft, not just content but also form.
In some ways, we probably respond to art the way one of the elite would. We want our art to be “better” by more or less articulable standards, and we are ready to admit that Shakespeare is certainly deeper and richer. better I read more than, say, John Grisham. But sometimes I just want to read John Grisham. Does this make us Philistines?
As I understand my faith, I am forced to take a stand for popism and against elitism in art.
Expand your horizons to music and other arts. Personally, I’d rather listen to Bach or Mozart than Guns N’ Roses. So, am I an elitist? But while I’m typing these words, I’m listening to a playlist that includes big hits by Madonna, The Weeknd, Creed, and more. Does this make me some kind of snob because I’m not crazy about Bach and Mozart? I’d rather see a Salvador Dali painting than a Thomas Kinkade painting, but I’d rather see a Kinkade painting than a Damien Hirst or Jackson Pollock painting. Am I a Philistine? I’d rather see it ferris bueller’s day off than seventh sealbut I’d rather see it. seventh seal than shrek. Am I a Philistine? Or an elitist?
Implicit in elitist thinking are two beliefs: (1) Art has intrinsic value; (2) Art is where you find truth.
I reject the first proposition because art is made by humans who make mistakes. In Tolkien’s memorable phrase, all human works of art are sub-creative practices that are responses to and reflections of the work of the Supreme Creator. If human art were sub-creative and subordinate to the Creator, it would have at most incidental value. but—That doesn’t mean that our human art has no value at all. Art clearly has earthly value, but I am less convinced than the Reformed theologian Karl Barth that when the angels praise God in heaven they only play Bach, but when the angels gather When they play music for each other, they play Mozart, and God listens with special joy – his view is probably a logical consequence of what I am about to say. . I mean, it’s good art It was done— and perhaps should—Be an attempt to create something that will bring joy to the heavenly host. I am not confident enough in my abilities as a critic to claim that a particular work of art will win the respect of its audience, but I do believe that human art It was done Achieve the heights of its glory and perhaps some of it Intention.
I must also reject the second proposition, that art is the place to find truth, because it violates the sufficiency of Scripture. This idea would be better expressed as “art can tell us the truth,” but that is not the case. According to the elites, art speaks a kind of universal truth about the human condition. but it’s kind of true only Art can speak. This means, on the contrary, that there are universal truths written in the Bible. can’t do it speak; that is, in a sense, insufficient. But Isaiah 8:20 (NJKV) says: If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. ” Notice the logical meaning of this passage. do Speak according to these words, there teeth the light within them. But I deny that the light in a work of art is anything more than a supplementary or reflected light. Art can, should, and does speak truth to us. But truth in art is outside and independent of art. Art cannot and should not replace the Bible, the ultimate source of all truth.
Therefore, for these reasons, as a Christian I must reject elitism in art. However, there is another reason for my position.
The elitism in the art field that is commonly encountered is both myopic (i.e., focusing only on the art of a particular culture, Europe) and snobbery (i.e., ranking other cultures of the world by European standards). ). To be more frank, elitism is not love To the extent that they do not respect others as fellow human beings with their own interests, preferences, and agency.
First of all, what is the purpose of art? I hesitate to wholeheartedly accept Oscar Wilde’s famous quote, “All art is completely useless.” I prefer the artistic philosophy proposed by Makoto Fujimura. culture careviews art production as “giving beauty in vain.” Fujimura describes a vision of art in which artists are artists, and that just by making art, they bring goodness and blessing to the culture in which they live. Works of art are needed, he says, because “without art, civilization cannot be civilization.” This idea of the “usefulness” of art, which is actually an exuberant excess of gratuitousness and therefore (to use Fujimura’s words again) “serves no practical function”, is never a specific Note that it is not tied to any genre, style, or canon.
The problem with Wilde’s “totally useless” is that it implies that a work of art is so good that it is useless. This idea is heard in different contexts and expressed in different ways. Advertising illustrations are not as good as museum paintings. Symphony is better than title music. Messy modernist novels like Joyce and Borges are better than reading on the beach. Shrek. For Wilde, art’s highest mission is to become an object of pure and unadulterated aesthetic contemplation, unmixed with other things. The art favored by the elite is certainly “useless.” You can’t do anything but watch.
But I would like to look at another concept of the worthlessness of art. That is, the worthlessness of an unexpected gift given as an act of generous and unconditional love. This is the waste that Fujimura proclaims. This kind of waste, unlike Wilde’s “waste,” does not draw attention to itself. Rather, it helps develop and strengthen the relationship between giver and receiver. It is based on a love that does not seek its own glory or act out of any selfish motives. Rather, it’s an undeserved favor, a second helping of dessert.
The Bible says that the Christian church is filled with representatives of every tribe, language, and nation, and nowhere does it suggest that the characteristics of their culture will disappear. People derive meaning from art in similarly different ways. To those steeped in European church music traditions, jazz can seem like a brash, chaotic mass of noise. But for others, jazz is an important part of their culture’s history and tradition, something that should be respected and celebrated, but also incorporated into new works.
I like to believe that the public knows what they want from their art. I’m going to let them use the art for whatever purpose. As a Christian, I must abide by the Bible’s commandments to treat all people with love and respect, but how can I do that while disrespecting the value of their artistic and cultural choices? I don’t know if it’s okay.
Therefore, I argue that All cultures and subcultures are free to create art in any style they likewithout succumbing to the cultural colonialism of the European tradition and its associated elitism. I am not condoning the sinful content of this claim. Certainly, art that promotes evil should not be praised. However, the content of the work differs from its form.
I affirm that All genres are valid and deserve equal critical scrutiny Because they were definitely created by people who experienced a real need for the existence of those genres. moreover, within It is true that some genres and works can be considered “better” or “inferior” than others, but the concept of “better” or “inferior” Do not apply across genres.
Finally, I deny that human works of art have any intrinsic value or that they have value that applies across time and space to all cultures..
As a Christian, I can’t see this problem any other way.
Source: Christ and Pop Culture – christandpopculture.com
