Today I'm committed to raising awareness that we have enough awareness-raising campaigns. How much more information do Americans need to have before we help someone? How many more people do we need to interview to before we do something? How many more books do we need to read? The more news Americans get about people dying and starving in some third-world country, the more we callous our feelings to the brutalities of life.
Our issue isn't a lack of information, it's a lack of care.
I'll take one person who actually does something to help in a crisis over a dozen who "raise awareness" from the comfort of their computer chair.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Jazz
"These artists," my Jazz in America professor declared, "brought Postmodernism into the realm of Jazz. By looking to earlier pieces and interpreting them in different ways, they were pushing the limits of artistic expression even further than before."
My professor was arguing that Jazz had become Postmodern, and therefore "different" Little of what he said was a declaration of right and wrong... it was mostly just "different". That day in class, I discovered how Postmodernism entered not only Jazz, but the Bible as well.
The connection between Postmodernism, Jazz, and the Bible is difficult to see, but let's look first at the root of the problem: the synthesis viewpoint. Instead of clearly defining art and claimed fact, we became lazy and decided to label the Bible as art. Of course, the Bible is art, but it is also much more. It contains claims of fact (Jesus was born in Bethlehem, Noah built an ark, etc.), and not just poetic maxims. Put another way, art and claims of fact are intertwined in the Bible, but we got sloppy and started calling it all art. We synthesized art and claims of fact, because we didn't want to deal with the details.
But then came a new artistic school of thought --- Postmodernism. Now art could be redone in interesting and different ways. This is the relatively benign side of Postmodernism, because art --- in and of itself --- is neither moral nor immoral. Jazz might sound good to one person, and bad to another, but a combination of notes is not intrinsically good or bad. This is just preference.
The problem, however, is that this rationale was applied to everything defined as art. Since we had squeezed the Bible into the same overarching definition as Jazz, we could treat them in similar ways. We could redo a Jazz piece until it sounded nothing like the original, just as we could reinterpret a Bible passage until it was dissected beyond recognition. After all, if both Jazz and the Bible are both simply "art" and nothing else, then we can redo them so they sound good to today's tastes.
But the Bible is something else. After a few years, we had forgotten about the Bible's claims of fact. Actually, we went a step further in our reinterpreting, this time purposefully reinterpreting the definition of art to include the whole of the Bible --- including its claims of fact. Thus, we sealed the argument shut, paving the last brick of logic on a road of circular reasoning.
Once we connected Postmodernism, art (represented here by Jazz), and the Bible, we had free reign to subject the Bible to our preferences. We saw no difference between ignoring the Bible and deciding not to attend a concert. Both actions, in our minds, reflected personal preference and nothing more. What were morals? We thought of people making moral claims in regard to life's decisions like we thought of people making moral claims about which combination of notes is better. They were "moldy figs," and would simply have to adapt to society's changing preferences.
The church is partially to blame for this comparison. How many times have we heard congregations claim things like, "I can't believe they're playing rock music... in church!" We stroke our musical style of preference to the point where we say other genres are morally wrong. WE might think it's wrong to use a guitar, or a banjo, or a sax, or an organ in church music, and we'll go as far as splitting a church over a musical genre. I've heard it countless times:
"That music is too loud!"
"Didn't the music today sound... old?"
"Ugh, the church shouldn't give in to the world by using their beats."
Give me a break! Rarely do I hear something like:
"That song taught the wrong message," or
"That song contradicts the Bible in this verse here."
One side has constrained the Bible to the definition of art. The other has claimed moral superiority simply by timbre and rhythm.
Both sides have obscured the truth.
Do you think you're above all this musical judgment? Let time prove it. Most likely, the church will start using rap for its worship songs next. Does that irk you? Maybe you already like rap, so it isn't a problem, but worship leaders will use some style you don't like soon enough. What will you do then?
My professor was arguing that Jazz had become Postmodern, and therefore "different" Little of what he said was a declaration of right and wrong... it was mostly just "different". That day in class, I discovered how Postmodernism entered not only Jazz, but the Bible as well.
The connection between Postmodernism, Jazz, and the Bible is difficult to see, but let's look first at the root of the problem: the synthesis viewpoint. Instead of clearly defining art and claimed fact, we became lazy and decided to label the Bible as art. Of course, the Bible is art, but it is also much more. It contains claims of fact (Jesus was born in Bethlehem, Noah built an ark, etc.), and not just poetic maxims. Put another way, art and claims of fact are intertwined in the Bible, but we got sloppy and started calling it all art. We synthesized art and claims of fact, because we didn't want to deal with the details.
But then came a new artistic school of thought --- Postmodernism. Now art could be redone in interesting and different ways. This is the relatively benign side of Postmodernism, because art --- in and of itself --- is neither moral nor immoral. Jazz might sound good to one person, and bad to another, but a combination of notes is not intrinsically good or bad. This is just preference.
The problem, however, is that this rationale was applied to everything defined as art. Since we had squeezed the Bible into the same overarching definition as Jazz, we could treat them in similar ways. We could redo a Jazz piece until it sounded nothing like the original, just as we could reinterpret a Bible passage until it was dissected beyond recognition. After all, if both Jazz and the Bible are both simply "art" and nothing else, then we can redo them so they sound good to today's tastes.
But the Bible is something else. After a few years, we had forgotten about the Bible's claims of fact. Actually, we went a step further in our reinterpreting, this time purposefully reinterpreting the definition of art to include the whole of the Bible --- including its claims of fact. Thus, we sealed the argument shut, paving the last brick of logic on a road of circular reasoning.
Once we connected Postmodernism, art (represented here by Jazz), and the Bible, we had free reign to subject the Bible to our preferences. We saw no difference between ignoring the Bible and deciding not to attend a concert. Both actions, in our minds, reflected personal preference and nothing more. What were morals? We thought of people making moral claims in regard to life's decisions like we thought of people making moral claims about which combination of notes is better. They were "moldy figs," and would simply have to adapt to society's changing preferences.
The church is partially to blame for this comparison. How many times have we heard congregations claim things like, "I can't believe they're playing rock music... in church!" We stroke our musical style of preference to the point where we say other genres are morally wrong. WE might think it's wrong to use a guitar, or a banjo, or a sax, or an organ in church music, and we'll go as far as splitting a church over a musical genre. I've heard it countless times:
"That music is too loud!"
"Didn't the music today sound... old?"
"Ugh, the church shouldn't give in to the world by using their beats."
Give me a break! Rarely do I hear something like:
"That song taught the wrong message," or
"That song contradicts the Bible in this verse here."
One side has constrained the Bible to the definition of art. The other has claimed moral superiority simply by timbre and rhythm.
Both sides have obscured the truth.
Do you think you're above all this musical judgment? Let time prove it. Most likely, the church will start using rap for its worship songs next. Does that irk you? Maybe you already like rap, so it isn't a problem, but worship leaders will use some style you don't like soon enough. What will you do then?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)