Aesthetic vs. Artistic vs. Moral Value

[murlough23]

This concept came to my mind while discussing a review I wrote on the Olivia the Band forum. I think that there are three factors that determine how we judge music - aesthetic value, artistic value, and moral value. I think we've all done a lot of debating in the past about which of these is king, and whether some of them are even important. I think I've decided that usually, at least two need to be present for me to appreciate a song. I'll attempt to explain the three and describe the various combinations in which they can be found.

Aesthetic Value = Whether what we hear is pleasing to the ear. It's pretty simple to understand, but impossible to describe in words because it varies wildly from person to person (though there are norms that we can expect to be aesthetically pleasing, or at least not aesthetically offensive, to the average person).

Artistic Value = Whether the music is creative, innovative, unique, not a ripoff of something else.

Moral Value = Whether the music promotes truth and Godly values (this is not necessarily the same thing as being explicitly Christian). This category is, of course, not applicable when the music is instrumental.

Here are all the possible combinations of the three:

Aesthetic + Artistic, but no Moral: The music is enjoyable to listen to, and creatively made, but does not contain a positive message. A fair amount of less popular "secular" music probably fits this category. (Not to say all secular music is immoral by any means, but I figure that statistically speaking, there are probably more songwriters out there who don't believe in Christian morals, or at least not all of them, than those who do.)

Aesthetic + Moral, but no Artistic: It's enjoyable to listen to, and has a good message, but it isn't terribly creative. Most popular CCM fits this category.

Artistic + Moral, but no Aesthetic: It's very creative and it has a good message, but it's not particularly pleasurable to the person evaluating it, even if they can see its merits. This is a pretty rare category, I think.

Aesthetic, but not Artistic or Moral: It's catchy and that's about it. Most mainstream radio fits this description, in my opinion.

Artistic, but not Aesthetic or Moral: It's different, but not enjoyable to listen to and it doesn't have a good message. This seems to be the kind of music an anarchist would probably make. (Can't think of any real-world examples, but I'm sure they exist.)

Moral, but not Aesthetic or Artistic: The more boring side of CCM, I guess. The message is a true one, but it's not presented in an interesting way, in terms of surface-level ear candy or musical prowess or lyrical depth. (I would actually contend that a complete and intentional disregard for the Artistic side of things would make the song a stolen copy of someone else's ideas without much thought put into it, which, when used as the vehicle for a morally good message, could potentially negate the good morality of the song just by that action of stealing and cheapening the truth.)

Aesthetic, Artistic, and Moral: I think most of my favorite artists excel in these three categories - hence why they're my favorite. They hit me on all three levels, allowing for maximum enjoyment at times when different priorities are most important to me.

Not Aesthetic, not Artistic, and not Moral: Ummm... Limp Bizkit.

Out of the three of these, I think that Aesthetic value is obviously a completely subjective thing, but Artistic and Moral values are not. Does anyone agree/disagree with that or any of the rest of my analysis?

[bloop]

Well, the moral part of it, however, has to be sure not to make the specific convictions of the listener king.  If one is going to address absolute morality, it needs to actually be absolute.  Hence my distaste for the naughty word counts and so forth.  (There's a certain message board that does this quite often).

But, anyway, yeah I can see where that would work.  The aesthetic part needs tweaking simply because not everything is meant to be pleasant to listen to, and that doesn't always detract from a record.  Again, my horror movie analogy works wonders here - a good horror movie (those few that exist) thrive on making uncomfortable or stir up the audience.  IMO, it should have more to do with the aesthetics playing to the goals of what the artist wants the listener to feel as opposed to how the listener wishes he/she felt listening to it.

[Josh]

I always like to point that my reviews generally reflect just the artistic/creative and moral/spiritual/religious qualities of a work. If I think it's well made and spiritually edifying, I'll generally give it high marks, even if it's not always something that I frequently listen to myself.  

[oneafroboy]

I think dividing up or creating categories for how we evaluate music or enjoy music is a very good idea, especially if debating, arguing, or discussing the merit of a piece of music.

I disagree with your distinction between aesthetic and artistic, however. Artists tend to be very concerned with aesthetics. And for me the aestethic quality of something factors into how I evaluate a particular artist's artistry. Also, I think "moral" is too specific of a category. For instance, in the Beatle song rain, John sings, "Whether it rains or shines, it's just a state of mind," is quite a profound statement. But is it moral? Or is it simply an insight or reflection of reality?

I do realize that you did define these things, so I'm not saying that I don't get what you're saying. Just a little refining.

But I think you're onto something. If we could talk about music or art in general through these different perspectives, I think it would be very useful.
 

[Josh]

Let me also say that, more and more, I am becoming accepting of great art that does not necessarily reflect my worldview. I am more and more impressed and thankful when an artist is able to MANIFEST his view in a work of art, rather than PREACH his worldview.

For example, Kid A is an album that does not reflect what I would call a Christian worldview-- at least not a complete one. But it raises all kinds of interesting questions about the world that we live in. And, when we dialogue about it and hold it up in comparison with music from other worldviews, we come away better for the experience.

As Madeleine L'Engle wrote, it's more important to ask the right questions than it is to have water-tight answers, and I think that's becoming more and more important to me as I reflect on the moral and spiritual depths of a film or a piece of music.

[murlough23]

RE: Aesthetic value not always being important - I realize that sometimes music is intended to cause discomfort to the listener, as a horror movie is (though I abhor horror movies for that very reason - if you're going to discomfort me, it had better be for a good reason, such as something going on in the world that I need to know about and be discomforted by because it's an outrage, and not just for sheer entertainment value). However, people who like music that does this, while they may experience that discomfort at first, come to get some pleasurable value out of it once they grow accustomed to it and decide that they approve of the music. So it may not be aesthetic in the sense that the general public finds it to be pleasurable, but I think the individual still does.

RE: Distinction between aesthetic and artistic value - Something can be pleasurable to the ear without being creative, and something can be creative without being pleasurable to the ear. Hence the distinction.

[bloop]

No, my point was that aesthetic value is important, but needs redefined.  I'm not sure it's ever good to derive pleasure from certain things.  A negative image or sound might ring true, and you might take comfort in the fact that someone is giving some play to that truth or reality, but there are some realities that should never be pleasurable, per se.

I also think afro's ideas about how they are connected makes some sense, but I like thinking about them separately anyway.  "The goal is to great this aesthetic, and this is the artistic direction they took to reach that goal" is usually the dynamic.

For example, Kid A is an album that does not reflect what I would call a Christian worldview-- at least not a complete one.

I'm not argueing that Kid A in particular is even close, but what specific album would reflect a complete Christian worldview?  I can't think of one.

[Josh]

I'm not argueing that Kid A in particular is even close, but what specific album would reflect a complete Christian worldview?  I can't think of one.

How 'bout The Joshua Tree?

[bloop]

How 'bout The Joshua Tree?

No.  It's not a complete Christian worldview (complete meaning "unabridged"), unless you're being a bit more loose with the term in saying that nothing stated is in direct contrast with a Christian worldview.  In that case, I'm not sure Kid A doesn't qualify as capturing at least one particular aspect.

[Josh]

No.  It's not a complete Christian worldview (complete meaning "unabridged"), unless you're being a bit more loose with the term in saying that nothing stated is in direct contrast with a Christian worldview.  In that case, I'm not sure Kid A doesn't qualify as capturing at least one particular aspect.

I think The Joshua Tree presents us with all the key components of the Gospel-- human depravity, our need for grace, salvation through Christ, etc.-- and that's why I'd call it a complete Christian worldview.

Kid A, on the other hand, does not contain all those pieces.

[bloop]

But a complete Christian worldview would extend to applications in all areas of life, which would be impossible for any album to cover, hence the reason I am questioning its completeness.  Maybe I'm being too strict with my definition, but The Joshua Tree doesn't quite capture it all, and it takes some still-left-unsaid metaphorical footwork to even get it quite a far as you've taken it here.  It just seems like you're making The Joshua Tree into some kind of musical tract.  I don't really think any good album is that, at least I can't name one.

Kid A obscures the pieces it has, so I'm not going to argue with you there.

[Josh]

I think we're just defining "complete Christian worldview" differently, bloop, because I don't disagree with anything you've said. All I'm trying to communicate is that I think The Joshua Tree presents us with all the BASIC, fundamental pieces of the Gospel, whereas Kid A does not.

I am NOT saying that:
1. The Joshua Tree gives us a complete and perfect model of all Christian theology and all Christian living.
2. The Joshua Tree is in any way the ONLY album of that caliber; it's just the first example that came to mind.
3. There is anything morally or siritually wrong or inferior about Kid A. There isn't.

[oneafroboy]

I have no problem thinking of artistic and aesthetic as different categories. I just think it's kind of a weird distinction for me personally (and maybe this comes from being a musician myself). And murlough defined them, so it's okay. My more important suggestion had to do with the category "moral." I just don't think everything can be boiled down like that.

I also think instrumental music doesn't necessarily have to be excluded from the "moral" category, or perhaps a category about worldview. A lot of music nowadays called "classical" often did express the worldviews of particular composers. Bach's music very much reflects his belief in an orderly and finite universe created by a sovereign God. So, you get complicated pieces called fugues that have very definite endings. On the flipside, John Cage's music reflects a worldview which sees the order of the universe arising from chaos. So, you get songs like Three Minutes of Silence where Cage goes to a piano, lifts off the cover, sits there, and closes the lid when three minutes is up. Or he plays the piano (quite manically and not at all pleasing) with a dead fish on the strings.

I find that art that doesn't match up with the Biblical Christian worldview can still be insightful and reflect truth. However, I have a hard time enjoying stuff that outright rejects certain truths. For instance, John Lennon's "Imagine": I think it's a good song on many levels, but what he is saying (essentially that there would peace on this Earth if no one believed in heaven, hell, religion...God) really bothers me. People are sinful whether they believe in God or not. And true peace can never be until Jesus returns. I don't know, I just get a very unsettling feeling every time I listen to that song (so I don't).

I don't care how well something is created--if it's message is hate (like Kill all the Jews! or Blacks are inferior!) or if it's blasphemous, I won't be able to enjoy it. And if I don't enjoy something, it's not going to be making multiple trips to the CD player.
 

[Josh]

I find that art that doesn't match up with the Biblical Christian worldview can still be insightful and reflect truth. However, I have a hard time enjoying stuff that outright rejects certain truths. For instance, John Lennon's "Imagine": I think it's a good song on many levels, but what he is saying (essentially that there would peace on this Earth if no one believed in heaven, hell, religion...God) really bothers me. People are sinful whether they believe in God or not. And true peace can never be until Jesus returns. I don't know, I just get a very unsettling feeling every time I listen to that song (so I don't).

I don't care how well something is created--if it's message is hate (like Kill all the Jews! or Blacks are inferior!) or if it's blasphemous, I won't be able to enjoy it. And if I don't enjoy something, it's not going to be making multiple trips to the CD player.

Yes.

[murlough23]

No, my point was that aesthetic value is important, but needs redefined.  I'm not sure it's ever good to derive pleasure from certain things.  A negative image or sound might ring true, and you might take comfort in the fact that someone is giving some play to that truth or reality, but there are some realities that should never be pleasurable, per se.

But what you're talking about has more to do with lyrics. I'm talking about the aural pleasure one derives from the sounds they hear. Meaning may ifnorm the purposes behind the sounds and help one to appreciate those sounds, but whatever the reason, you're not going to find it both discomforting and pleasurable at the same time (unless you're a sadist or you're just amused by how annoying it is or something weird like that).

For example, the "white noise" that I often complain about on Wilco albums that does not bother you as much - I don't think you'd hold the music in such high regard if you did not enjoy listening to it. We can both see the artistry, the purpose, behind a song like "Less than You Think", but that does not mean that we automatically derive pleasure from listening to it, even if we can appreciate, on an academic level, what the artist was trying to do.

NP: "Time & Confusion", Anberlin

[oneafroboy]

We can both see the artistry, the purpose, behind a song like "Less than You Think", but that does not mean that we automatically derive pleasure from listening to it, even if we can appreciate, on an academic level, what the artist was trying to do.

 

In fact we can argue about whether the artists intentions or decisions have any artistic merit at all. Something that is completely unlistenable (I'm thinking of that noise stuff on one of the tracks on Wilco's A Ghost is Born) does not to me seem very artistic, and if it is, I don't think it has very much value.

No, my point was that aesthetic value is important, but needs redefined. I'm not sure it's ever good to derive pleasure from certain things. A negative image or sound might ring true, and you might take comfort in the fact that someone is giving some play to that truth or reality, but there are some realities that should never be pleasurable, per se.

In general, I think art should still be aesthetically pleasing, even if it is depicting harsh realities. Kid A paints a very stark picture of reality, and yet I enjoy certain songs on that album very much.

That's not to say that there's no place for displeasing things in art. Things such as dissonance can be a very effective and useful tool. However, I think it takes a deeper level of artistry to be able to express dark truths beautifully. (And hence I would applaud these artists more.)

[bloop]

We can both see the artistry, the purpose, behind a song like "Less than You Think", but that does not mean that we automatically derive pleasure from listening to it, even if we can appreciate, on an academic level, what the artist was trying to do.

 

In fact we can argue about whether the artists intentions or decisions have any artistic merit at all. Something that is completely unlistenable (I'm thinking of that noise stuff on one of the tracks on Wilco's A Ghost is Born) does not to me seem very artistic, and if it is, I don't think it has very much value.

I would agree with this - the white noise serves no purpose there without some kind of outside explanation, and I don't think it's a great idea to need to explain the art.  It should stand or fall on its own.

No, my point was that aesthetic value is important, but needs redefined. I'm not sure it's ever good to derive pleasure from certain things. A negative image or sound might ring true, and you might take comfort in the fact that someone is giving some play to that truth or reality, but there are some realities that should never be pleasurable, per se.

In general, I think art should still be aesthetically pleasing, even if it is depicting harsh realities. Kid A paints a very stark picture of reality, and yet I enjoy certain songs on that album very much.

That's not to say that there's no place for displeasing things in art. Things such as dissonance can be a very effective and useful tool. However, I think it takes a deeper level of artistry to be able to express dark truths beautifully. (And hence I would applaud these artists more.)

You captured my point perfectly well.  Aesthethically pleasing is, to me, different from being pleasant.  Something can be pleasing, meaning satisfying, and be somewhat or even very uncomfortable.  To use a song on another Radiohead album, "Climbing Up the Walls", just for instance, still sets me on edge.  I doubt that'll ever change, but I think the song is beautifully done regardless.  

Also, it's notable that it isn't only the lyrics that are difficult (without the notes, I can't even always tell what the lyrics are - he has kind of a mumble-sing sometimes, and I'm not so great at reciting lyrics by heart).  The music itself is even more unsettling - still a good song.

Josh, yeah, that makes sense, although I still find the Gospel truth to be a bit obscure even on The Joshua Tree.  There's also the matter of depth.  While The Joshua Tree arguably goes into more of those essential ideas, Kid A might go into some of the preliminaries in a bit more depth - making their realities appropriately oppressive.

[murlough23]

That's not to say that there's no place for displeasing things in art. Things such as dissonance can be a very effective and useful tool. However, I think it takes a deeper level of artistry to be able to express dark truths beautifully. (And hence I would applaud these artists more.)

But dissonance is not intrinsically displeasing. it's displeasing to someone who is used to enjoying the notions of harmony that we have in Western music. And some musicians in the Western world have used dissonance despite the fact that it goes against the "rules", and found that they like the sound and that other people like it as well.

What would be an example of expressing darker truths beautifully?

NP: "I Haven't Seen This Day Before", The Innocence Mission

[Josh]

although I still find the Gospel truth to be a bit obscure even on The Joshua Tree.

Well, biblical references abound, but the most obvious presentation of the Gospel is "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For." The last verse is as straightforward an account of the Gospel as has ever hit #1 on the pop radio charts. Also, I would argue for "With or Without You" as a song full of the Gospel, but that one is much more ambiguous, very much open to interpretation, and probably beyond the scope of this thread.

There's also the matter of depth. While The Joshua Tree arguably goes into more of those essential ideas, Kid A might go into some of the preliminaries in a bit more depth - making their realities appropriately oppressive.

That's pretty difficult to compare, as the two albums present their worldviews in such dramatically different ways. Off the top of my head, though I can't think of any aspect in which Kid A provides more depth and insight.

[bloop]

^hmm...that's a good point too.  Another good example might be the way some Eastern music (Japan, India, etc.) has sounded to Western ears, especially in the not-so-distant past.

[Josh]

What would be an example of expressing darker truths beautifully?

 

Patty Griffin's last album immediately comes to mind.

Beck's Sea Change.

Bob Dylan's Time Out of Mind.

Buddy Miller's cover of "With God on Our Side."

To name a few.

[bloop]

That's pretty difficult to compare, as the two albums present their worldviews in such dramatically different ways. Off the top of my head, though I can't think of any aspect in which Kid A provides more depth and insight.

human depravity

and arguably

our need for grace

, but the latter is very arguable - I think they may be about even and very difficult to compare as that need is, as you say, presented in dramatically different ways.

What's wrong with Bob Dylan's "With God On Our Side"?    (actually, I like Buddy's version more, also)

[Josh]

Kid A certainly talks about those things MORE than The Joshua Tree does, but does it actually provide more INSIGHT? It's possible, but I'm not so sure... Bono and the boys give deep, exploratory looks as human depravity and the need for grace in "Bullet the Blue Sky," "Running to Stand Still," and the closing song trilogy, to name a few.

Again, it's pretty difficult to compare, but, to me, those songs are just as meaningful and exploratory, if not more so, than the whole of Kid A. But that's just my take. It's pretty tough to measure this stuff...

[bloop]

Meh, I'm not sure it's so worth arguing, but I see layers to either album that muddy up any attempt to listen on a strictly spiritual level.  To me, it's like voluntarily handicapping yourself to view things with only one lense - there's a political aspect to "Bullet", for example, that may be every bit as forward than the spiritual side, maybe moreso.  I would argue that on the issue of human depravity, lack of insight may be insight in itself if you note it - it's a place of blindness.  I think Kid A conveys that very well, both in the experimental choices it takes in production and certain lyrics.  I guess I just take it almost the same way as I take a play - the primary character doesn't see much hope in his situation and the way the world is, and it makes perfect sense.  It's insightful to be on the outside looking in at the character's life, relating it to a previous one you may have had before you gained a broader perspective.

However, the point was simply that breadth and depth might be a good things to look into.  I love both albums, you know that.

[murlough23]

What would be an example of expressing darker truths beautifully?

 

Patty Griffin's last album immediately comes to mind.

Beck's Sea Change.

Bob Dylan's Time Out of Mind.

Buddy Miller's cover of "With God on Our Side."

To name a few.

Maybe I misunderstood "beautifully". I think the darker truths are expressed well in those songs (the ones I know, anyway) - Dakona's "In God's Name" would be another example.  But that's "beautiful" in terms of being expertly done, not necessarily in terms of it being attractive. It is attractive to me, insofar as I'm moved my the profound truths expressed by songs and enjoy listening to them for that reason, and out of the songs I know, the music isn't particularly dissonant or "ugly", but I'm now sure how we're defining "beautifully" here.

[Josh]

I can't imagine Impossible Dream or Sea Change failing to meet ANY standards of beauty, quite frankly.

[GusX:]

I can't imagine Impossible Dream or Sea Change failing to meet ANY standards of beauty, quite frankly.

Just because your imagination is limited doesn't make Sea Change crappy.  [ but I agree,  BLAAAAH]

[bloop]

Just because your imagination is limited doesn't make Sea Change crappy.  [ but I agree,  BLAAAAH]

?  I do believe he was saying the opposite.