A Christian Poptimist Manifesto – Christ and Pop Culture

I am a Christian. Therefore, I am a papist. My understanding of my faith forces me to take a stand in favor of the papacy and against elitism in the arts. However, by “optimism” I mean much more than just optimism Strictly defined meaning of this term It is also used in reference to modern recorded music. Included among “optimism” are the ideas that all types and styles of art are worth studying; That all works of art, regardless of style, medium or genre, have the ability to convey value; that all good and honest art deserves serious attention; and that no “law” of business is more worthy 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,” the “Western canon,” or whatever you want to call it. To be clear, I am no I say that people should not read those books, and I, as a Christian, am not against them in any way. Rather, I am arguing against the belief that the foundational works of Western culture – Shakespeare and Dantes, Bach and Beethoven, and all the rest – are of universal value to all people in all cultures everywhere across time and space. This “Western canon” is often promoted very aggressively to people who might not otherwise be interested in it. Why is this? The hallmark of elitism is the insistence that one’s idea of ​​what is valuable is more important than anyone else’s, and it is very close to idolatry to say that one’s own cultural products have worldwide value. As a Christian, I cannot endorse such reverence for the works of human minds.

I repeat, I am no Saying that “Western Sharia” is not worth studying. But no matter how great they are, it is not objective or essential to them. The greatness of Shakespeare or Beethoven is not such that it requires constant study by everyone, everywhere. The value of the law – whatever the “greatness” found in its works – is culturally mediated; It couldn’t be any other way. And cultures change. It’s okay for Shakespeare’s writing to come in and out of fashion. It had happened before, and if it happened again, the loss wouldn’t be catastrophic.

There is a common elitist refrain: “This is what is good, this is what it is not, and you should listen to us because we said so.” I simply cannot accept this logic. Shakespeare? Sure, I’ll admit, he’s better than Ben Johnson. But is he better than Arthur Miller? Is he better than Charles Dickens? Better than Tom Wolfe? Is he better than Stephen King? Good… It depends on what you want.

Who is the average reader anyway? What makes them choose the book? Speaking for myself – I’m an ordinary reader, I suppose, because I’m neither part of the academy nor the elite – I read because I want to be informed and entertained. When we ordinary readers desire information, we sometimes desire to learn things that we have never dreamed of in our philosophy; Sometimes we want to know the psychology of our fellow human beings a little better. (Shakespeare is very good at this sort of thing, by the way.) But when we want to be entertained, sometimes, we casual readers just want a good page-turning, riveting story to hold our attention while other times, sometimes, we want to marvel at a masterful twist. In a clever phrase or structural feature. We want art and craft as well as entertainment, form and content.

In some ways, we respond to art as an elite might; We want our art to be “good” by more or less clear standards, and we are willing to admit that Shakespeare is indeed deeper and richer. better Read from, for example, John Grisham. But sometimes, we just want to read John Grisham. Does this make us Palestinians?

Let us open our space to music and the rest of the arts. Personally, I’d rather listen to Bach and Mozart than Guns ‘n’ Roses; So am I an elitist? But as I write these words, I’m listening to a playlist of big radio hits from the likes of Madonna, The Weeknd, and Creed. Does that make me kind of frivolous, since I don’t fill my head with Bach and Mozart? I would rather look at the paintings of Salvador Dali than the paintings of Thomas Kinkade, but I would rather look at the paintings of Kinkade than the paintings of Damien Hirst or Jackson Pollock. Am I Palestinian? I’d rather watch Ferris Bueller’s Day Off from The seventh sealBut I prefer to watch The seventh seal from a partner. Am I Palestinian? Or elitist?

Implicit in the elitist outlook are the twin beliefs that (1) Art can have intrinsic value and (2) Art is where you find the truth.

I reject the first proposition because art is created by fallible human beings. In Tolkien’s memorable phrase, all human artwork is an exercise in sub-creation—a response to and a reflection of the work of the Supreme Creator. If human art were less creative and subordinate to the Creator, it would have, at most, contingent value. but– This does not mean that our human art has no value at all. Obviously art has value here on earth, but although I’m not as sure as the Reformed theologian Karl Barth – who said that when angels praise God in heaven, they are only playing Bach, but when they come together and play music for each other, they are playing music… Mozart, God listens with special pleasure – perhaps his point is the logical consequence of what I am trying to say. This is good art He could– And maybe even He should– Be an attempt to create something that will please the heavenly host. I’m not confident enough in my abilities as a critic to claim that any particular work of art is respected by this audience, but human art is He could Achieving that height of glory – and maybe some of it will.

I must also reject the second proposition—that art is the place where truth can be found—because it violates the sufficiency of Scripture. The idea might be more palatable if it were phrased as: “Art can tell us the truth,” but this is not the case. Art, according to elites, speaks to a kind of universal truth about the human condition; But that’s kind of the truth only Art can speak. This means, on the contrary, that there is some universal truth represented by the Bible I cannot speaks; speaks; It is, to some extent, insufficient. But Isaiah 8:20 says, “To the law and to the testimony! And if they do not say this, it is because there is no light in them.” Notice the logical meaning of this passage: If they He does Speak according to that word there He is The light in it. However, he denied that light in a work of art is anything more than secondary or reflected light. Art can and should tell us the truth; But the truth in art is outside of art and independent of it. Art cannot, should not, and does not replace the Bible, the ultimate source of all true truth.

For these reasons, as a Christian I must reject elitism in the arts. But there is another reason for my position.

Elitism in the arts, as we often encounter it, is both myopic (i.e. focusing only on the art of one specific culture, the culture of Europe) and arrogant (i.e. classifying and evaluating the rest of the world’s cultures using a European standard). In more blunt terms, Elitism is not love To the point that it does not respect others as human beings with their own interests, tastes, and abilities.

What is the point of art anyway? I hesitate to accept Oscar Wilde’s famous statement that “all arts are absolutely useless.” I prefer the philosophy of art proposed by Makoto Fujimura Nurturing cultureWhich believes that making art is “abandoning useless beauty.” Fujimura describes a vision of the arts in which artists, simply by being artists and making art, bring goodness and blessings to the culture in which they live. He says that works of art “are needed simply because civilization cannot be civilization without the arts.” Note that this idea of ​​the “usefulness” of art—which is in fact surplus and free, and therefore (again in Fujimura’s words) “serves no practical function”—is never tied to a particular genre, style, or canon.

The problem with Wilde’s phrase “totally useless” is that it implies that the more useless a work of art is, the better. This idea is heard in a variety of contexts, and is formulated in a number of ways. Advertising illustrations are not as good as museum paintings. Symphonies are better than program music. Prickly modernist novels, such as those by Joyce or Borges, are better than beach reads. Shrek < Ferris Bueller < The Seventh Seal. For Wilde, the highest calling of art is to be an object of pure and unadulterated aesthetic contemplation, unmixed with anything else. The elites’ favorite art is actually “useless.” You can’t do anything with it except look at it.

But I want to see a different understanding of the futility of art: that is, the futility of an unexpected gift given as an act of generous, free love. This is the futility that Fujimura proclaims. This kind of futility does not call attention to itself the way Wilde’s “futility” does. Instead, it works to develop and strengthen the relationship between giver and recipient. It is based on a love that does not seek its own glory, and does not work with any mercenary motive. Rather, it is an undeserved favor, a second helping of dessert.

The Bible speaks of the Christian church as being filled with representatives from all tribes, tongues, and nations, and nowhere does it indicate that the peculiarities of their cultures will disappear. People derive meaning from art in similarly diverse ways. To someone steeped in the tradition of European church music, jazz may seem like loud, chaotic noise. For another person, jazz may be an important part of their cultural history and tradition that deserves respect and admiration while also being appropriated in a new work.

I’m willing to trust the general public to know what they want from their art; I am willing to let them use art for whatever purpose comes to hand. As a Christian, I must adhere to the biblical exhortation to treat all people with love and respect, and I cannot see how to do that while devaluing their artistic and cultural choices.

So I confirm that All cultures and subcultures are free to make any artistic styles they wantWithout submitting to the cultural colonialism of European traditions or the elitism associated with it. I’m not condoning false content with this assertion; Art that promotes evil is certainly not worthy of praise. But the content of the work is different from its form.

I confirm that All types are valid and worthy of equal critical scrutiny Because they were created by people who undoubtedly encountered a real need for the existence of those species. In addition, inside genres, different works can indeed be considered “better” or “worse” than others, but notions of “better” or “worse” Does not apply across species.

finally, I deny that any human work of art has intrinsic value or value that applies to all cultures across time and space.

For me, as a Christian, I cannot see the issue any other way.