Man's spirit will be flesh-bound when found at best
But uncumbered: meadow-down is not distressed
For a rainbow footing it nor he for his bones risen.
Those are the closing lines of one of my favorite poems by Gerard Manley Hopkins, The Caged Skylark.
I love Hopkins' poetry.
Glory be to God for dappled things- For skies of couple-colour as a brinded cow; For rose-moles in all stipple upon trout that swim...
And then, from the same poem, perhaps my favorite lines in all of poetry:
All things counter, original, spare, strange; Whatever is fickle, freckled (who knows how?) With swift, slow; sweet, sour; adazzle, dim; He fathers-forth whose beauty is past change: Praise him.
Those lines from Pied Beauty.
There's another poet I'm quite fond of too. Here are some of my favorie lines from his works.
See the world in green and blue
See China right in front of you
See the canyons broken by cloud
See the tuna fleets clearing the sea out
See the Bedouin fires at night
See the oil fields at first light
And see the bird with a leaf in her mouth
After the flood all the colors came out
It was a beautiful day
Don't let it get away
Beautiful day
What you don't have you don't need it now What you don't know you can feel it somehow What you don't have you don't need it now Don't need it now Was a beautiful day
Yes, those are the words to Beautiful Day penned by none other than Bono (aka Paul Hewson). Here are a few more pearls:
Grace
She takes the blame
She covers the shame
Removes the stain
It could be her name
Grace
It's a name for a girl
It's also a thought that changed the world
And when she walks on the street
You can hear the strings
Grace finds goodness in everything
...
What once was hurt
What once was friction
What left a mark
No longer stings
Because grace makes beauty
Out of ugly things
If you're interested in art and culture I want to recommend an online magazine that I learned about this year called Catapult. I learned about it because a friend of mine, who is a terrific writer, had an essay of hers about the sacrament of laundry published there. They've just published a brief exchange between my colleague Jamie Smith and myself concerning dumbing down culture. This discussion was originally published in a student led publication at Calvin College where both Jamie and I teach in the philosophy department. Jamie worries over the loss of high culture among our students (and probably all twenty-somethings) and laments the fact that popular culture is "revelationally thin." I, on the other hand, reply to Jamie and defend the depth and substance of both popular culture and our students. I also confess there my low tolerance for arrogant academics. You be the judge as to who wins the argument about culture. And then, if you want, come back here and share your thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
As a fan of Hopkins, U2 and the Arcade Fire, I think you're right on. I think it's less about depth, but perhaps familiarity. Maybe there is something additional to be gleaned from older "high" culture precisely because it is alien - it forces us to see ourselves in new ways. Then again, contemporary culture often does the same.
Well, Kevin, I didn't know it was about "winning!" ;-) If it was, the rules of the game were a bit one-sided: I wrote an article without knowing there would be a respondent, and then you got to have the last word! (I noticed that Catapult didn't republish my second article on the topic; but in any case, it wasn't a "reply" to you anyway.)
Of course, no one would get a cage match out of us anyway, since we're pretty much agreed. (What would they bill that "fight?" Clash of the midgets?! ;-)
I would just say that the burden of my article was not an EITHER/OR argument, as if I was saying we should be engaging "high" culture RATHER THAN "popular" culture. It was really a both/and; but given that I see so many Christians (especially "emerging" Christians) so enthused about popular culture, but largely ignoring other aspects of classical culture, my argument was just that we should ALSO be doing that--and perhaps have a temporary moratorium on just "pop" stuff. But I'm certainly not opposed to popular culture as such; indeed, you know I engage film all the time, for instance.
And of course, the whole high/pop culture distinctino is ultimately unstable. I invoked it to be provocative, and I think it can be heuristic. At the end of the day, I think it might more be a matter of genre: novels can do things that poetry can't do; poetry can do things that song lyrics can't do, etc. I wish that culturally-savvy Christians had as much knowlege and familiarity with literature as they do with film.
I found the Catapult article intriguing. I was a bit priggish after my first few years of college and was sure to let my family and friends know of my new-found superiority. But a certain professor constantly reinforced upon my mind that education is not equivalent to intelligence.
That said, while I appreciate folksy faith, simplicity, and artistic expressions, wouldn't you think that much of mainstream culture is entirely separate from this folk art. But perhaps this is because I'm a contrarian and so, if a thing's popular, I want little to do with it.
And wouldn't you grant that a progression in taste and discernment and even in questions considered is, if possible, desirable. That is, if pop culture and "high" art are ultimately dealing with the same fundamental questions (the existence of God, obligations to one's neighbor, etc.), wouldn't the one seem the more equipped to answer the questions, or to do so in a more satisfying fashion?
That is, if I'm to honestly and intelligently engage with pop culture, I need a framework within which to do so. Or, if I pop culture with sincere questions about fundamental issues, ultimately it will point beyond itself. It seems that this progression is the whole vision of the liberal arts. So, for example, to work within a Christian framework, I may be very much dealing with the same issues (the co-existence of God's sovereignty and humans' free will), but having read Augustine and Boethius I (it is hoped) have a broader understanding of the different issues at stake and a depth of resources upon which to draw.
And this would seem to be the point of high culture, and, perhaps, even of the liberal arts: an appreciation of history and a drawing upon the resources of those who have gone before us as we tackle the same questions they once did. If pop culture often seems shallow, is it because it has in some way rejected a collective, historical experience that could serve, in some sense to unite us and guide our conversation? Perhaps high culture merely serves a utilitarian purpose: the enabling of a intelligent discourse about pressing issues between a wide group of people. As it is, pop culture is fragmented enough that a cultural reference one individual makes has no significance for another person from a different sub-culture. As a historian at heart, I often wonder why we should attempt to build anew in dealing with pressing issues or moral dilemmas when we could "stand on the shoulders of giants" and work from their foundations. But this is far too long a response.
I hope things are going well.
Quinn, you say:
...wouldn't you grant that a progression in taste and discernment and even in questions considered is, if possible, desirable. That is, if pop culture and "high" art are ultimately dealing with the same fundamental questions (the existence of God, obligations to one's neighbor, etc.), wouldn't the one seem the more equipped to answer the questions, or to do so in a more satisfying fashion?
What would a progression of taste look like? Would it look like this: when I was young and intellectually immature I used to like U2 and Arcade Fire, but now in my state of maturity I prefer Brahms and Chopin? When I was 10 I liked pop music. My tastes have definitely changed. But I can't say they've changed since college all that much. I'm stil asking the same sorts of questions now I was then.
So, I guess I don't buy the claim that high culture is "more equipped" than "low" culture to answer questions of fundamental human concern or to answer them in a more satisfying way.
Again, you say:
"...So, for example, to work within a Christian framework, I may be very much dealing with the same issues (the co-existence of God's sovereignty and humans' free will), but having read Augustine and Boethius I (it is hoped) have a broader understanding of the different issues at stake and a depth of resources upon which to draw.
I agree that reading Augustine, et. al. can give you a depth of insight that you might otherwise lack. But why think that (say) Bono hasn't read Augustine and Boethius and incorporated that depth into the music of U2? I think that's what I like about the musicians I mention; there's a depth about them.
You say:
"...If pop culture often seems shallow, is it because it has in some way rejected a collective, historical experience that could serve, in some sense to unite us and guide our conversation?
I guess that's my point. U2, Arcade Fire, Josh Ritter, etc. don't strike me as shallow.
What thinkest thou?
Dr. Corcoran,
Forgive my inexcusable delay in responding. If I’ve not done so already, I should freely admit that my knowledge of pop music or culture is quite limited. So much of what I say will be sheer conjecture, though hopefully somewhat intelligent conjecture.
I’ll give multiple examples of this progression and would be eager for your response. I was riding home the other day and my younger sister and her friends were in the back seat discussing body image. As far as I can tell, their analysis was fine, and I’m sure there are many pop artists who can provide sound messages on this topic. That said, if, twenty years from now, my sister and her friends were still struggling with the same issue, I think one would agree that there had been a regress of some sorts: The resolved issue should be foundational by that point. If this is so, it seems natural enough that there would be an accompanying change in tastes in music to some extent.
Another example of progression in discernment (perhaps not in taste) would involve that of new converts to any moral system. The zeal to evangelize is often unaccompanied by a sound analysis of the obstacles that lie ahead. If I’m a new, evangelical, American Christian, I might think that rational skepticism is the main obstacle to the faith, and that, if everyone would merely abandon higher education, the nation would soon turn around to its “historic” roots. But perhaps, on further analysis, I’ll see that faith and reason often complement each other. Or to take another side of the religious spectrum, if I’m a new Kuyperian Calvinist I might think that as soon as we resolve all social ills, sin will be vanquished and we’ll usher in the return of Christ. But on further reflection, I’ll see that even the best of environments can produce the worst of sinners. Obviously, these are slightly hyperbolic, but I think the point still stands. And while these examples don’t correspond neatly to pop culture or music, I think the principle of progression in discernment or fundamental questions raised could still apply. I might begin on the one side by reading James Dobson, become unsatisfied with his answers, and then progress to D. James Kennedy, and slowly onward. So even with pop culture (or any culture for that matter) there could be a progression of tastes: From Madonna to Bono.
To return briefly to music, my old roommate listened to Christian pop. One song he liked in particular was the Houseplant Song. The basic message: if your heart is right it doesn’t matter what sort of music you play. The artist was probably right, but the analysis (after hearing the song repeated ad nauseam) seemed a bit shallow. Often “low” culture (or high culture for that matter) seem content to point out the foibles in their opponents arguments rather than presenting a valid critique. Perhaps an example of this would be those who point to a particular pop artist as proof that all pop culture is worthless.
One final example of a progression (although not fully in regard to pop culture or taste). A few years back I struggled at length with the role of violence or force in attaining a desirable end. I reached the following conclusion (which, for the most part, I think is sound—although I know we disagreed somewhat in class), and it is now hoped that this issue is foundational—that I don’t struggle with it anymore. So I think progression is possible—in education, in the struggles we face, and, perhaps, even in the music and books that guide us through those struggles. Not that this progression involves a throwing out of everything past—only that some things are foundational. If I find an artist who points out a social or personal ill I was unaware of, I’ll be glad for that find. But if I find her analysis to be either shallow or misguided, I’ll soon look for some other guide to help me address this problem. Anyhow, here’s the promised example of my (it is hoped for) progression.
"Preserving the liberal political system is a greater good than protecting life, because it is only through the liberal political system than you can preserve life. The liberal political system allows for a reasoned discussion any issue. Any political system that does not allow for a reasoned discussion of national issues within the public square is based on force and does not allow for dissent. While one may be able to create a "Christian" society under such a political system, it will last only as long as the Christians have greater numbers. It is only through the liberal political system, with a rational pluralism, that any lasting good can be accomplished, because only this system has the sure and universally accessible foundation of reason. If we hold that Christianity is true, and that truth is not contrary to reason, we should not be afraid to engage in debate in the public square."
But that was far too long and I should be much briefer in responding to your next two points. As I confessed, I have limited exposure to pop culture. I have no doubt that Bono and other very well read pop artists have incorporated the depth of people like Augustine into their works. The only concern I’d have is if this incorporation doesn’t inspire its listeners to go back to the source: It would be as if one was stuck reading secondary lit throughout the tenure of one’s academic career.
Perhaps there’s a fundamental, definitional problem in our debate. I think I could easily agree that there are pop artists (such as the ones you mention) who do have deep, beautiful work—perhaps they serve in the role of popularizer of ideas. But I don’t think you’d say that everyone in this genre has that same level of depth, or even is worth listening to. Perhaps the same could be said for high culture. Certain artists (of whatever sort) might be pedantic or overly baroque. But then we’re discussing the merits of individual artists rather than specific cultures or genres. Which perhaps has been your point: to judge the individual artist by his/her merit and not by the venue in which the perform. Is it possible thought to make generalizations about the venues?
Anyhow, I apologize for the lengthy response. I find the topic fascinating.
Quinn
Post a Comment