Intellectuelle

Off the top of my head, I'm not sure I see the distinction between re-forming and transforming --except for the artistic snobbery that says, "We create better quality stuff, so we're transforming this medium."

I agree that we Christians need to create something different and better and more Christ-like instead of doing cheap knock-offs of popular secular art or writing multiple books and articles telling the world and mixed up Chirstians what's wrong with the latest offering from the world, eg. Why the DaVInci Code is a Load of Nonsense.

I just think that most of us don't have the talent or the spiritual and artistic depth that it takes to produce great art in any medium, and a lot of us (probably me included) wouldn't recognize the transforming power of such art when confronted with it.

I hope I'm wrong about that last statement.

Having worked in Christian media and around CCM for over 25 years (I'm a news director at a Christian radio station), I feel such frustration when I read a post like this.

Part of the frustration arises from the fact that I have to agree with so much of it. I have long been dismayed and even appalled at the flaws and foolishness of the Christian music "industry" (the very phrase makes me cringe.)

I've seen the "if you like so-and-so, you'll like so-and-so" ads, and I detest them. I totally agree that we as Christians should be in the vanguard of producing original, distinctive and beautiful art, whether it be music, poetry, literature or visual.
And I agree that CCM is too often characterized by reactive and inferior product.

But, I must admit, part of my frustration also arises from the fact that, invariably, much too broad a brush is used when writing about CCM artists. I don't think that sincere, talented, quality musicians who are effectively sharing a Christian worldview are quite as few and far between as you might think.

Music is a highly personal medium. What speaks to your heart--indeed, what you just enjoy musically or what you consider superior--is going to differ vastly from the opinions of any number of other people.

While many CCM artists are probably, sadly, products of a money-driven industry, there are many more who are producing realy talent3e, original and quality material.

That said, I must respond to your question: "If we have been given the very words of life, shouldn't our work -- artistic and otherwise -- be of the the very best, most interesting and most innovative work there is?" with a resounding and emphatic YES.

I couldn't agree more...and I fervently hope more Christian artists will emerge in the near future who aren't bound by the dictates of an "industry," but have the courage to truly let their lights shine in this dark world.

Great post, Ashley,

I think that we're simply seeing an entire evangelical approach reflected in media and the "arts" as it exists in general -- a quest to change things in merely superficial ways. Changing the decoration without really changing, as you say, the form. What is difficult is that in many ways we have the same materials to work with, but it's how we use those materials -- how we form them -- that really matters.

I think a lot of it reflects a "relevant" or "seeker-sensitive" approach, with the same results as seen in other areas. It's time we ditch the "trappings" and seek to be sincere, doing work on a level at which the trappings are of no consequence -- at the basis of our humanity. We must demonstrate humility, worship, genuine love, genuine dismay, genuine hope, genuine dignity and genuine respect for those things which are truly deserving of them. And with excellence of craft!

We are called to be all things to all, not to become like the all.

(It's not just the beats and technological aspects that CCM seeks to ape -- it's the vocal techniques too! Sometimes I wonder if my reaction is just because I'm of a "different generation," but when I hear some nubile young voice singing, "Oh, Jesus," with that same way-over-reverbed, breathy, throaty, whiny style I hear in the current popular music, I just wanna puke!)

"clearly plagiarizing the beats and technical innovation"

um..um,Uh... what happened to the idea of "genre"? I strongly protest your use of the term "plagiarizing" here, I think it continues the misuse so often found on the internet which ,rather, clearly misunderstands that innovation is just the beginning for a long stream of what follows, sometimes becoming a "movement" in the art world. Would you like to rethink a little of this part of what you are saying?

And for the main point,when saying "Such gimicks" isn't that another way of saying "marketing"? Is marketing wrong for Christians, then? Do we cast so much of life into the right and wrong category? Is that really what is meant by being "salt and light"?

And, finally, when talking about "form" in the arts, is this a type of re-inventing the wheel... could you elaborate on what is meant by this idea?

Ok, Bonnie...when you say "young, nubile, breathless" voice I know exactly what you are talking about... and I get the same desire to spew when I hear it, too. But is that because we tend to not like the overly sentimental?

And do some Christians genuinely feel this way in a way that is simply an expression of their particular form of emotional makeup? This question gets close to the line and maybe I don't want to do that, but let's go ahead and cross the line:

I don't much like alot of the Christian "romances" genre out there, but there are loads of women, in ministry and whom I respect, who buy and read that stuff. What about that?

Although, and I'm going to argue against myself right here.... I did read and enjoy Janette Oke, but she is definitely the exception to the rule.

What thinkest thou?

Hi Ilona,

You ask some good questions.

There's a difference between influence and flat-out copying. There is also a difference between copying -- or, better put, "incorporating" -- certain elements into one's work out of gratitude and appreciation for someone else's work, and copying merely for the sake of reaping an unrightful profit from it. In this sense I think Ashley's use of the term "plagiarize" is legit.

"Genre" is a term of limited use in that, while helpful for classification in some respects, the classifications themselves are often imposed from outside, or in retrospect. Not always, of course. I don't think that most composers of music compose with a specific genre in mind unless they have a commercial goal, or else they do so completely unselfconsciously; i.e., they work within an idiom they know and love. Mostly they are driven merely to express the music within them via the creative process, using the materials, forms, customs, etc. that inspire them.

On sentimentality -- well, that's not what I hear, exactly; it's more of a self-indulgence. Or perhaps I should say, if I want to imagine that more is going on than mere imitation, I hear a very superficial (although perhaps sincere) emotional plea rather than one from the depths of the soul. I really think it's done because that's what's hot, that's what's current, that's what so-and-so or "everybody else" is doing. Just like clothes fashions or hairstyles or whatever. There's no originality. (Of course, originality can be expressed in a superficial way too ;-) ).

Ashley, excellent post - have discussing this very subject with a pastor whose church is located near Northwestern University in suburban Chicago. I would venture to say that the evangelical position is evolving and is less fundamentalist in the "avoiding bad content" sense and is moving more towards a view that sees transforming or redeeming the media as a part of the cultural mandate.

Bonnie, I still maintain the protest on "plagiarism" - if you look at the vocabulary used, rather than reading ones own ideas into the concept. "Beat" -what is that but rhythm, simply a basic component of music, and "innovation"? that doesn't imply a specific work, which is exactly what plagiarism involves, copying something specific and created by an individual.

Influence is more along ideas of inspiration, but art often takes elements of things and puts them together in a new way- it is the new way of putting something together or the original interpretation -which is better expression than "new" that makes it ones own in such a case.

If I made a collage and incorporated other peoples art and found objects etc... I could very well have created an original piece of art- it might even be innovative if I spoke something unusual with it. I think the complaint against Christians is more that they use tired and bland repetitions of everyone else out there...not that they "plagiarize" which actually a crime.

====a self-indulgence====
I see what you are saying in that. I think you have nailed something that I tend to just give a mild "yuk" to before I switch it off. And I suppose it is all the more a problem if it filters into the worship service (Which I admit it does)

======
Sarah, you know what you are saying is very related to the politicla spectrum, right? That is a topic that is going to heat up mightily this year. It is simply the difference in view from the streams of thought that tend toward a socially active gospel mandate, and the pietistic type of view. Most of the Charismatics have followed that direction ( speaking to the culture through media,etc), so you can kind of see the situations that arise from incorporating that into the official activities of the Church.

Personally, I think it's a bit simplistic to argue semantics regarding my use of the word plagiarism. Nontheless, the OED defines "to plagiarize" as "to take and use as one's own (the thoughts, writings, or inventions of another person)" and states that the word can be used both literally and figuratively. Thus I think it's legitimate to say that often (note: not always) Christian artists use as one's own the innovations of their secular counterparts. Perhaps I should have been more clear in that beats by themselves are simply beats, but how they are lined up and used becomes a means of artistry and Christians can simply change a chord here or a beat there, but basically sound the same as something's that made it big in the "secular" world. It's the same thing if a student of mine lets slip in a few words of a quotation into his or her paraphrase.

But this is clearly not the point of my post. The point is that we aren't (on the whole) creating art that is setting trends, we are instead, using what's made the charts in the "secular" world. I think this ultimately stems from the fact that we don't understand the impact of the gospel on "every square inch" of our lives (I think that was Kuyper who said that). And by the way, I'm simply using the term "secular" here for clarity; I really hate that dichotomy (b/c it's false) b/t the "sacred" and the "secular". So please note this wording is all for utility. Perhaps I'll write another post sometime on the dichotomy.

Secondly, Ilona you mention the political motivations of "fundamentalist" versus "transformational" approaches that Sarah alludes to. I don't think we can so easily separate out a "pietistic" versus a "gospel mandate" view of culture, and the media particularly. At Providence, where I teach, we are particularly trying to advance the institution to be true to all aspects of Reformed Christianity which seeks to emphasise the theological (doctrinal), pietistic (devotional), and culturally engaged (the cultural mandate) stands of the faith; you have to have all 3 there to have a vibrant faith, I think.

Well, Ashley, I completely agree with you on your last statement- that is what all Christians should aim for.

I don't think semantics is so trivial as you say, though. And when you contrast ""fundamentalist" versus "transformational"" it illustrates the point using fundamentalist as primarily a political term. I explained my thoughts with ideas of what the Charismatic movement did with media.

I agree with you that it isn't easy to "separate out a "pietistic" versus a "gospel mandate" view of culture, and the media particularly". It is going to be the pivot of the arguments and concerns, however.

"if a student of mine lets slip in a few words of a quotation into his or her paraphrase"

That, unattributed, is bona fide plagiarism.

Plagiarism is a much debated topic- it has refinements of definition that we aren't going to get into here, but I see you weren't speaking of criminal or shameful ( worthy of peer castigation) types of plagiarism. but as you said, this isn't your main point

"The point is that we aren't (on the whole) creating art that is setting trends, we are instead, using what's made the charts in the "secular" world."

I do not agree. As I see it the charts have much that originated in what were originally Christian bands or sounds. There seems to be a lot of cross fertilization, but this segues back into ideas of originality. I ahve to start asking at this point whether the standards of "original" and innovation" then become so stringent and sterile that it chokes off the inspiration of what becomes truly "great" or lasting? Is it an idea that is true to historical creation of great music and art?

I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the medium is the message, but I do think that the medium (including the genre) and the message influence each other. Some genres and media are more ordered to formed Christian tastes than others, although this can be fuzzy and culturally conditioned. Some of what makes a genre or medium well-suited to Christian art is probably down to the nature of our being as humans (and that is fertile ground for debate!), and some, I think, is due to the associations acquired by a genre or medium in use. Some genres and forms are very influenced by artists that are intentionally transgressive or subversive, and it is therefore more difficult to create good Christian art in them. (I mean “subversive” here as in subversive of Christian or natural law values, although I can think of apparently non-Christian works that appear to be subversive in the other direction.)

When words like “gimmicks”, “ape” and “plagiarise” (in the sense above) are being used, it implies to that the medium or the genre chosen is not a normal, ‘authentic’ voice of the artist, but a cynical, artificial choice. “Marketing” has the same connotation for me. It’s use here seems to imply that Christians are ‘putting on’ non-Christian artistic choices to pander to the world’s values.

However, given that many, many Christians (including me) have had a non-trivial amount of their tastes formed by ‘less well-ordered genres’, as it were, and plenty of non-Christian influences, then it is entirely possible that some Christians genuinely find some of these less well-ordered genres to be appealing and authentic channels for Christian art, possibly more so than objectively better-ordered ones.

So in individual cases it might be difficult to tell – are people creating/appreciating Christian art to the best of their ability in a problematic genre/medium that is nevertheless a valid choice, and possibly contributing to its reclaiming? Or are they indulging themselves and clinging to the world’s values, attempting to make something ‘Christian’ merely by changing some content on a shallow level?

Somehow, I think, we need to work at transforming not only the motivations and manifestations of the media but of truly innovating forms and styles.

I don’t know. I think Ilona’s last questions above are very good ones to ask. Sometimes I think that one of the worst problems with much modern art it is that it is obsessed with being ‘original’ and ‘innovating’ to the detriment of anything else. In fact, to the extent that artists conceive of original innovation to mean “breaking all the old, stifling rules for the sake of it”, I think this is an essentially transgressive motive and therefore very unChristian.

Atlantic- your point of the transgressive motive brings me to the essay on postmodern art that said this was the whole focus of such art ( which is the philosophical driving force of the art world today, I think). We, as Christians, would have to divorce ourselves from the entire such system, if that is its engine and force.

When you said this:

"are people creating/appreciating Christian art to the best of their ability in a problematic genre/medium that is nevertheless a valid choice, and possibly contributing to its reclaiming? Or are they indulging themselves and clinging to the world’s values, attempting to make something ‘Christian’ merely by changing some content on a shallow level?"

I fairly jumped out of my seat: Eureka! she's got it! this is the whole gist of the question isn't it? To be able to discern the difference between these two sides of the matter.

Thanks ladies for your comments. I agree the drive to innovation can become another cultural god, at any level of art and in both non-Christian and Christian categories. And I'm not saying that innovation or originality for their sakes' are the things to be aiming at. Rather, I would agree that Christian art that is good is about reclaiming and redeeming whatever art form we find ourselves in, so to speak. That said, when innovation does occur, Christians should be at the forefront, I think, instead of merely following suit.

What a great discussion.

I’ve been trying to think of a term that would describe what we’re talking about when we say “plagiarism,” because it’s more than plagiarism (you're right in your definition, Ilona), although it’s legal. However, it is morally wrong at worst and misguided at best. (I'm referring to imitation or use for the purpose of profit.) Also regrettable are poor adaptations of any form or style, even if they aren't disingenuous.

The components of music and even styles can’t be copyrighted, though a particular and unique formation of them can be. (It’s legitimate to “quote” in music as it is in writing, although recognition of the attribution is left to the listener, and usually the quote is for the purpose of honoring or ridiculing the original composer. )

It’s also appropriate to refer to musical “beats” in terms of a beat pattern or the bass-rhythm ostinato that drives a tune. Some of them are adaptable for different types of expression but others originated in certain settings, such as social dance, with pretty specific goals in mind (i.e., romance or sex). Of course there are other types of dance too – celebratory, for example. This goes along with what Atlantic said about redeeming a musical type vs. needing to avoid it. There are, certainly, many wonderful examples of redemptive use of “secular” styles by Christians.

(Ilona, I think that instances in which mainstream popular music reflects ideas taken from Christian artists are rare, but I’m interested to hear of what you are referring to.)

I don't see the issue being a political one but rather one borne out of a certain evangelical mindset and praxis. Unfortunately the praxis amounts to tactics of manipulation. This is what is wrong. It’s the use of certain “styles” or types of music to try to “reach” the demographic who like that type of music, in a non-genuine way. The music may be merely a "tool" (rather than a genuine communication). Or it may be a style that has genuine meaning to the one using it, only it’s still being used in the same cultural way – toward superficial or materialistic ends, only with the words changed. (As in Rush Limbaugh’s catchphrase, “symbolism over substance.”)

I appreciate your expertise on music, Bonnie.... it gives depth to the view of art as a whole and to understand more of what is involved in music, specifically. These things are answerable in the visual arts as well-just different vocabulary :)
===
On "instances in which mainstream popular music reflects ideas taken from Christian artists "

Sixpence None The Richer had a very different sound and style which influenced what came after, I think. Some of the music coming from the "praise" sector, especially some of the British and Vineyard music gave rise to a fresh sound. There is so much cross fertilizaiton that it is hard to track exactly- incorporating Celtic sound into newer music came about in both secular and religious music, taking the old and making it new again, but I think the track that can be most easily traced is Black Gospel. It is the gospel music and sound that gave rise to many new forms that we call secular now. And there is still a back and forth movement in that stream.

Anytime you see a "Crossover" artist, you see things that caught on from one side to the other. And there are things that originated on the Christian side of it.

"I just think that most of us don't have the talent or the spiritual and artistic depth that it takes to produce great art in any medium, and a lot of us (probably me included) wouldn't recognize the transforming power of such art when confronted with it."

~That's very true, and I think it's true for humanity as a whole! Right now a church very dear to my heart is dealing with some very mediocre talent in the area of worship. I don't doubt the heart of most of these individuals, but I do believe that if you are to lead the others in your gathering, you should have talents/giftings developed to the point where people can say "now there's someone who is good at this and is giving it back to God."

When you are so bad that it actually capures the attention of those trying to worship along with you, somthin' ain't right! God equips those He calls, so if it ain't happenin', I think the understanding of the call should be reexamined.

On the topic of art, I think that true art expresses itself desptie the artist. A painting of a mountaintop that makes you "ooh" and "ahhh" is a depiction of God's creation no matter who does it.

A photograph of a beautiful sunset gives testimony to The Lord's creation even if the photog doesn't want it to.

Good point, Mark, on both accounts.

Good point about gospel music, Ilona, that's certainly been a huge influence in many areas. I'm not familiar with Sixpence... and a good deal of contemporary worship music so I can't speak to it. Certainly there have been streams of influence within "Christian" music, though.

I think what it boils down to is, how does one define real music? Genuine music? I think there can be genuine music that honors God and genuine music that doesn't. But "cheap hack" or disingenuous music doesn't, whether it's produced by a Christian or not.

Mark's point about music in leadership is an important one and I agree with it wholeheartedly. However, I don't think it applies to personal worship, though many may, in their shyness, feel it does. For example, if a person can't carry a tune in a bucket yet feels the desire to sing to God, should he stifle that desire? I don't think so. He maybe doesn't need to belt it out in corporate worship, but if he wants to do so in the shower, more power to him!

I dunno, Mark. The problem is that most Baptist churches, probably most Protestant churches, have about 100 members. Out of that pool of possibilities, there aren't likely to be four or five extremely talented musicians. And the extremely talented may not be the most dedicated to the Lord and prepared to lead humbly.

So, yes, "whatever thy hand findeth to do, do it with all your might, as working for the Lord not for men." However, just because we have available to us on the radio or on recording talented musicians who glorify the Lord in that way, don't expect the same quality in the church on Sunday morning. If you get it, be thankful. If not, be thankful anyway.