Just over a week ago, suicide bombers were attempting a plot that would have brought down ten full airliners from London to the U.S. For me, it really stirred some things up. As I've said before, it didn't create new thoughts and feelings so much as it made old ones seem so urgent. I've already begun to examine how a massive world war might affect my work situation and what I would do. (I, of course, have much more specific and detailed plans than I discussed for work privacy reasons. But they all revolve around the key concepts of eliminating debt and steering the business to more self-sufficiency by owning property and technology that will help us survive lean arts-funding years.)
But that leads into the next thing that has been percolating in my mind: the arts during time of war. The questions that have been rattling around are ones like: what do people want in art during war time? What is the role of the arts? Do the arts have a role? Is that role professional, amateur, or something different? Are the arts in America prepared or equipped to fill the needs of our society?
I know - big questions. But worthy ones. I'll go into all of this in much more depth over on the supplemental blog, but in short, here's some of what I think:
Yes. The arts have a role. Nothing better reveals our humanity than art. I’ve added a new description line for my profile that I posted on the left. It’s my take on my areas of expertise: “At its root, laughter is recognition of divinity. It refutes the notion that we are a cosmic accident hurtling through a developmental chain that winnows out the traits that do not make us the dominant species. For what could be more unnecessary to domination yet vital to life than laughter? The things that make us most human are the works of soul: faith, art, and laughter.”
That is simply to say that we’re not beasts. Beasts do what is necessary for survival. In many ways, of course, we are, scientifically-speaking, animals. But art is not, strictly speaking, necessary for our survival. It is the response of a soul. Every culture on the planet throughout all time has contained art. No matter in what circumstances we find ourselves, art is a way of expressing our humanity. And that goes for war too.
But what kind of art? The kind we favor today? Americans today tend to favor distractionary entertainment from film and music. That's not a criticism; just a statement. Take a look around: tune in to popular radio stations, flip through the tv, head to the cineplex, pick up a popular magazine. I'm not saying it's all fluff, but how much of what is being put out, when reduced to one word, deals with weightier matter such as hope, beauty, truth, charity, redemption, justice, faith, or joy?
I think those latter themes will become more valuable when we find ourselves in crisis. To be sure, we’ll also want a good distraction, but I don’t think our distractions will be the same. Distractionary film during WWII looked more like Gene Kelly. They were carefree, not just fluffy.
But we face something quite unique and problematic: the marriage or art and celebrity. In America, you’re not an artist unless you’re a famous artist. And the emphasis is on famous. 
Any discussion of art in America necessarily means a discussion of celebrity. But is that the most fertile ground for real art? That melding of art and celebrity has given us popular entertainment that is artistically shallow. That's not a value judgment; it's just a statement of fact. Even church music is shallow, both artistically and theologically. There is an overwhelming prevalence of horizontally focused songs as opposed to vertically focused ones. (That's focus on us rather than on God. "We sing praise" as opposed to "You are holy." And we've beaten the 'Christian music sucks as music' horse to a bloody pulp.)
Again, I don’t say any of that as a criticism necessarily; just as a state of the art. I want to look ahead. What happens when we enter economic depression on a grand scale? What happens when huge chunks of our young male population head overseas? What happens when there seems no end in sight to man killing man? Will we still want to see Miami Vice? Will we still care what Jessica Simpson is up to? Will we still want taxpayer money funding performance art of a naked woman cradling and stabbing a dead pig? Or will we rather turn our interests to stories that reveal the human spirit? Songs that elevate human connection? Movies that show simple miracles? Stories about people who surpass the average human? Songs that lift up the best in us? Movies about the epic struggles of good versus evil? I imagine we’ll also want some distraction – some entertainment. Maybe a return of the musical comedy? Maybe silly love songs?
See, I have a theory: every culture has a meta-narrative or master storyline. I've talked about this before. (Tim Keller - Redeemer Presbyterian Church) But Tim's speech was directed towards Christian actors living out the Christian storyline. His point of view was that the Christian narrative meshed well with almost any story since it was so big and encompassing. What he didn’t say, but assumed, and likely correctly, is that those stories come out of the broader culture and Christianity is the subculture that integrates. That said, the dominant culture is the source of the culture's art. So what is the American narrative out of which are born our stories? Because war and economic strife will surely bring out the strongest points of that narrative. The stress will force us to reveal true colors in a way.
Here's what I think the American narrative is that will emerge from our art if our country does move headlong into war:
Liberty and Justice for All: This is a theme that has run throughout our country’s history. Admittedly, really meaning it is progressive since we haven’t always applied it to women, minorities, etc. But we love a story about vindication for the wrongly accused. We love to see the bad guy get their due. We love to see people overcome obstacles because they can!
The Underdog: We began our existence as the underdog. We shouldn’t have beaten the British army. That event has molded us forever. We always root for the underdog. Even in sports, we want the less likely team to win.
The Hero: We work hard to be our best. Maybe that’s not a universal truth, but it is an American value. We love those who represent the best in us. We want a hero to aspire to.
The Everyman: We believe that every person has their role. We believe that common people doing acts of uncommon heroism is as American as it gets.
Rags to Riches: Because we value equality, we think anyone should be able to rise to the top. Even though there is no such thing as a ‘class-less’ society, we don’t have a firm cast system. If a rich guy tells a bum to get out of his sight, the bum is more likely to tell him where to stick it, because, “Who does he think he is?”
Obviously, those aren't the dominant storylines of our art today. We lost our way amid comfort, complacency, and wealth. Our modern culture has given us American Beauty, Ludacris, and Oceans 11. Who will be the voices of the American narrative when push comes to shove? Are there already a few of these voices? Who do you think they are? Am I completely wrong about either my assumptions or my conclusions? What will art look like amid war? I will continue to flesh out some of these thoughts over on my supplemental blog. I look forward to having this discussion with you.
|
13 Cachinnations
This post features artwork by Jen Dunlap. I've featured her work before, and I likely will again. She's brilliant. And her work somehow reminds me of the value of art and beauty in our lives every time I see it. Check her out.
And do let me know what you think about the subject. No lurking on this one, I really do desire to hear from all of you!
Posted on 8/22/2006
You have to admit, American Beauty, Ludacris, and Ocean's 11 are the better parts of our rapidly disintegrating art culture (and it really hurts to call that art). All the crap they produce nowadays makes me ill. Paris Hilton recently charged a $1 million dollar fee to attend a party in Austria, wave to the crowd, and say "I love Austria!". Then she left. This is the garbage that I hope will disappear in the next 5-10 years, if we can stand it that long. (Yes, I want Paris Hilton to magically disappear.)
Our entertainment economy needs an overhaul. Frankly, I think the crap will go away if we go into world war simply because we won't be able to afford the indulgences. We will, once again, become a society of necessity rather than excess. I am fortunate in that I get to work with and cultivate our up and coming artists. Some look extremely promising. I would hate to see some of them leave due to a draft or monetary reasons.
As for all the musicians and actors as protestors, they are the noisy gongs and clanging cymbals of our time...pure bandwagon noise that many will march to because of celebrity hype. The true art that will come of war may come in forms such as poetry and paintings. It will come from those who want to get away from the hoopla, escaping into artistic solace. I believe that there will be a surge of quality art in response to such a great stressor as war. If you notice throughout history, great stressors, like war, are what push people to look for something/someone greater than they are, many seeking God. Such inspirations result in the penning of hymns and musical compositions that embrace the soul. I think that, in the event of war, the good artists will weed out the bad apples because it will be a time where people will seek quality rather than quantity for the sake of nurturing the soul.
War is hell on Earth and everyone wants to escape. The arts can at least provide a small slice of Heaven.
Posted on 8/22/2006
As Seth has pointed out, C.S. Lewis was inspired to write 'Mere Christianity' during WWII.
Posted on 8/22/2006
it is interesting where everyone's values went for a short time after September 11th. no one cared about jessica simpson. for just about a year.
Posted on 8/23/2006
It's interesting that you mentioned American Beauty as one of the things our culture produced. I don't know what your personal thoughts are about the movie. I thought it was both disturbing and insightful. It seemed to hold a mirror up to American culture and say, "Take a good look at yourself." Not easy medicine, but important to consider.
Posted on 8/23/2006
Here's the thing with American Beauty, (and please feel free to disagree with me): as far as filmmaking goes, it was absolutely excellent. It is such a well-made film. But a film is more than the sum of its parts. Its message is so hopeless. And I know that’s the point; that American suburban life is an empty and hollow existence. But the problem is not with the message, but the tone in which that message is conveyed. Its tone is one of acceptance that borders on praise. American Beauty not only says that it is okay for life to be like that, but that it can be 'beautiful.' That's the problem with American Beauty.
It's a bit of the same problem that there is with gangsta rap and 'redneck' culture. (Those latter two are the same thing, by the way, and I'll get in to that soon.) It's problem is that it is a corruption of the Underdog and Everyman thematic narratives. Rather than holding high the heroic simplicity of the Everyman or rooting for the Underdog to come out on top, this corruption of those narratives celebrates the lowest elements of our culture. Rather than seeing it heroic that someone can come up no matter how low they are, this corruption sees it heroic and 'beautiful' to remain 'just as you are, low though that may be.’
Like I said, I'll get into it more soon, but that's the problem with American Beauty: rather than finding it sad that our existence is hollow and shallow, the film finds it beautiful. And instead of offering some kind of redemption, it offers only meaningless affirmation.
Does any of that make sense? Anyone have a different take?
Posted on 8/23/2006
Re: your "Rags to Riches" narrative: Have you heard Bono's take on the difference between Ireland and the U.S.A.? He said "In the U.S.A., a kid sees a mansion on a hilltop and says "someday I'm going to live there". Growing up in Ireland, my friends and I would look at the mansion and say "someday I'm gonna get that s.o.b.""
Posted on 8/23/2006
This is such a fascinating subject, but it's also a big, broad subject that touches on so many areas of life. After reading this entry a couple of times yesterday, I realized I simply wasn't ready to make any comments, because it took me a while to ponder and meditate all the issues raised.
I actually woke up this morning still thinking about all this, and I'm still not sure my thoughts are fully formulated, but I've just got to jump in with a few thoughts.
I think one of the first reasons it's interesting to talk about art during war, is that it's difficult to get agreement on what even constitutes real art. I think you touched on this by acknowledging the dubious role that celebrity and market-force capitalism have played in affecting the arts, at least in the U.S. And then there's the whole "performance art" thing, like the woman with the pig (at least I think that falls under the performance art genre, right?). I know there are debates within the art community of which "performance art" is really art, and which is just -- I don't know -- gratuitous, deliberately shocking just to be shocking, an attempt to get attention, whatever.
So it may be that the discussion of art and war is in a sense a discussion of the value of art at all, during any time. And I think you've done a great job of laying some important fundamentals of what that value is to us, and how it relates to our very nature, our Divinely imbued creative impulses yearning for an outlet of expression, and that both the artist and audience are taking part in something beyond just "survival" by taking part in art.
As far as pop culture and art, I think there's potentially an inherent problem in criticizing art that becomes popular, because surely it shouldn't be a goal of an artist to deliberately exclude a majority of the population from being able to take part in the art, right?
What I mean is -- something that is well done, and noteworthy, in our system tends to lead to riches, and to becoming "mainstream". This is where the whole "sell-out" conflict arises, where artists are often turning out works for the wrong reasons, no longer for the love of their art.
So what's the cure for this? To make art that simply won't appeal to a majority of people, no matter what? Then you have this cliquish subculture that regards itself as the exclusive purveyor of good taste or the avante-garde fringe, or whatever. (We're probably always going to have this no matter what, anyway)
So... as you can see, all these preliminary thoughts I have about this subject, and we haven't even gotten to the "war" aspect of it.
One of my first thoughts about art during wartime (and which you touched on) revolves around the idea of rationing of resources, and elimination of excesses during times of hardship. I can understand why funding of both arts and charities are hurt during times of hardship, since discretionary income typically decreases. One would hope that the "art" which suffers the most would be that related to gossip, mindless entertainment, and shameless excess, but let's be honest -- the world doesn't tend to work that way. The smaller artists, or those who operate from altruistic motives, seem more likely to suffer the most in my opinion. It seems to have to do with the "lowest common denominator" being so exalted today. I don't know, maybe I'm just cynical (ya think?!?).
I'll have more thoughts on this later, Cach. It sounds like you're going to encourage this subject to be explored more, and I like that. I feel like I've written all these paragraphs and barely even scratched the surface or contributed anything useful.
But you've certainly gotten me to thinking about all this.
Posted on 8/23/2006
I'm commenting because I want you to know I've been here read this and wonder how tired you must be with all of this swirling about in your head with such a passion?
Very good points indeed.
Posted on 8/23/2006
Hammer, you've got it. I was intentionally vague about all the things you mentioned with the intent of being more specific in the near future. I want to lay out the big things and then hone in on the specifics.
You make an excellent point about art's popularity in the broader culture. Art isn't necessarily diminished at all due to its popularity; my fear is that the emphasis falls on its popularity rather than on its merit. I'm not sure there is a cure for that: putting the focus on the art rather than its celebrity. And I'm not sure there needs to be a cure. But what happens is that when celebrity and art become that intertwined, people are more susceptible to believe something has artistic merit simply because it has acclaim. So no, I don't think artists should attempt to make sure that their art can't become popular. Good point.
I'll talk more about it more specifically soon and I hope you'll raise some of the same points so we can learn together. I'll also get into performance art and postmodern art soon. I do believe that both of them have a place in the artistic world and in that world during a time of war. I do not think it will look much like it typically does today.
Posted on 8/23/2006
Interesting thoughts on American Beauty. I didn't have that take on it at all. If I may use the symbol of the American Beauty rose--at first glance it is lovely, robust, red, and sweet smelling...but beware the thorns. I understood that the movie was attempting to look beyond the glossy, gorgeous exterior of American culture in an attempt to expose its unsavory underbelly. Like I said before, holding a mirror up to is face and saying, "Take a closer look. Under all that airbrushed beauty lie plenty of imperfections."
Posted on 8/23/2006
Sure enough, Tracy, that's there. But I always go back to the movie's visual metaphor: the bag blowing in the swirling breeze. That's Medes' metaphor for suburban American life. It is empty, it is synthetic, it is insubstantial, and it blows in the wind. But he takes the camera and says that the little dance that the bag does is beautiful; it can be observed and enjoyed for its own sake. Rather, I would counter, that it is useless as is. A bag was made to hold something, to protect something, to carry something. It is not doing what it was meant to do.
Posted on 8/23/2006
What do we look for in art during difficult times? Personally, I'm drawn to art that reflects what I'm feeling and thinking. I think prescriptive art has it's place, but I highly prefer descriptive art in times of trouble. So, for instance, when my dad tells me he's going to kill me and the rest of my family and we're waiting to see if he acts on it, I'm going to listen to Sara Groves singing "Maybe There's a Loving God", not "God is Good" or "Better Is One Day".
I'll also keep reading books like Anne Lamott's novels about life being a mess, yet still beautiful (like I talked about here), instead of christian fiction that says everything will work out for our best, from our viewpoint, here on earth.
Posted on 8/24/2006