Content vs. Art

[starhawk]

I've been feeling very challenged by God recently to reexamine some of my convictions...and one of them is what I choose to listen to.

It is very easy for me to disregard the content of an album and instead just appreciate it for its art.  I'll accept lyrics with foul language, sexually explicit material, or more, and not even feel guilty about it, because I hear and enjoy the great art behind it and believed that art justified the content.  But recently... I've felt that I need to be more careful about what I choose to listen to. 

Part of me thought I would have to delete a good half of my library from iTunes, because I listen to so much now that is not from Christian artists.  But after going through it and selecting songs/albums that I thought were outrightly objectionable, I still was able to keep with good conscience mostly all of my music.  But there certainly was stuff in there that needed to go nonetheless...

Has anyone else felt this sort of challenge, or maintains convictions like this?  Part of me thinks I'm worrying too much about it, that becuase of being a "mature adult", I can listen to questionable songs and be okay.  But...at least at this time, I've felt the need to cut away the objectionable stuff...

[bloop]

I'll accept lyrics with foul language, sexually explicit material, or more, and not even feel guilty about it, because I hear and enjoy the great art behind it and believed that art justified the content.

The content is part of art.  One can't justify the other.

I think context is very important when taking in content, and that much of what some call "sin" really is just code for cultural bias.  I'm not saying that there are absolutely no boundaries whatsoever, but I doubt it's as simple as a blacklist of things that offend modern middle America.  I felt a push to lose one of my CDs, but so far, that's been it.

[murlough23]

I felt a push to lose one of my CDs, but so far, that's been it.

OK, I'll bite. Which one?

I've eased up a good deal on this issue over the past few years, and I can usually let a few "unsavory" things go in the context of an overall good album. At the same time, if an artist's subject matter is overly negative and hopeless, I usually can't get into it. I can glean some interesting, cautionary sort of wisdom out of music that is a bit "dark", but there's a certain amount of bleakness that just amounts to wallowing in self-ptiy or blind rage or whatever. I can't abide that. There needs to be some wisdom present, some lesson learned, even if it's learned amidst great pain. Some tiny glimmer of redemption.

I'm not "offended" by the content of CDs so much nowadays as I'm just annoyed by it. Take Maroon5, for example. They were already borderline regarding how overtly sexual I cared for a band to be on their first album, but due to the presence of some other good songs that had less to do with that, I let it slide. With their second album, it's just so sex-saturated that I can't do that this time around. It's not just that the songs are about sex; it's that they're about cheap sex. One night stands and stuff like that. With most artists' sexual stuff, I can at least pretend it's in the context of a loving relationship even when I know it's likely about something extramarital. It's an arbitrary boundary, I'll admit, and it's not like continuing to listen to it is going to cause me to go out and cheat on my wife or anything. But it does kind of leave me feeling "blah". I might be a male with raging hormones, but I have no interest in sex without romance attached.

Some other stuff that seems offensive at first (classic example: U2's "Wake Up Dead Man") makes more sense in context, so I can appreciate that in most cases, even when it's somebody railing against Christianity, because much of the time, they're pissed off at Christian hypocrisies and I'm right there with 'em.

It's also equally possible for me to be offended by Christian artists who are promoting bull-headed stubbornness and a reckless lack of tact or compassion for the people they're hell-bent on converting. I don't like it when Christian music gives Christ a bad name, even if the artist's intent is to glorify Him. I think that's more dangerous than somebody like Marilyn Manson (who we already know is a headcase) railing against Christianity with all the naughty words and inflammatory phrases (s)he can muster.

But some of that same stuff that I appreciate and am challenged by in context, I wouldn't let my (imaginary) 13-year-old son listen to, at least not unsupervised.

[bloop]

OK, I'll bite. Which one?

Dr. Dre's Chronic 2000, or whatever it was called.  It wasn't such a great album, either, so that made it quite a bit easier to lose.

[RedcoatJones]

Andy Whitman (one of my favorite bloggers) had some great things to say on this recently, too. And since I agree with what he's saying, and he's a much more eloquent writer, I'll let a sample of his words speak for me. Read the full post here.

It's the age-old conundrum of how much we, as Christians, should allow the surrounding culture to influence our lives. Typically, this discussion breaks down along fairly predictable lines. The conservatives/fundies accuse everyone of being worldly and having lost their salt and light, the rock 'n roller moviegoers accuse the convervatives/fundies of being narrow-minded, judgmental, and out of touch, and the non-Christians look on in disgust and thank the Higher Power As They Understand Him/Her/It that they are not Christians. ...

There is a tension here that will never entirely disappear. Nor do I think it should disappear. It is evidence of the struggle that we face as Christians; trying to follow Christ, and being acutely aware of our own proclivity to give in to temptation and to sin. ....

The problem isn't movies, or rock 'n roll. You can retreat from all media influence (or limit that influence solely to the “wholesome” Christian cultural ghetto), hole up in the fortress, pull up the drawbridge, fill the moat with pirahnas, and still find evil, because we cannot escape from ourselves. The problem is “in here,” not “out there,” and until we start to address that we’re focused on the wrong things. ....

But I think it would be disingenuous to claim that the culture doesn’t influence us, sometimes in negative ways. ... Jefferson Airplane didn’t make me do those drugs, nor did Michael Wadleigh. But it would be silly for me to deny that they influenced me. And so, to this day, I am careful about what I allow myself to be exposed to in music and in film. I can handle a lot of things, and shrug it all off in the name of art and believe (rightly, I think) that art is made by broken people and experienced by broken people, and that it is still possible to find great beauty and insight in the midst of the carnage. But as one of those broken people, I can’t watch movies that feature drug use, nor can I listen to music that advocates drug use[1]. I simply can’t go there because I’ve gone there in the past and almost destroyed my life."

Do read the whole post, though. More great food for discussion.

[murlough23]

What Andy Whitman has to say reminds me of how they advise recovering alcoholics to not be around people who are drinking. Makes sense - if it's an area of weakness in your life, you don't need the extra temptation. Personally, while I don't particularly enjoy songs about drinking and drugs, I don't have a problem with either, so I don't think listening to such songs would cause me to stumble. There is some degree of personal conviction here - if someone else has a more restrictive conviction than me, I generally try to respect that. Unless it's the conviction that listening to any song that doesn't say "Jesus" in it is bad. Then we might have words.

Personally, I have a problem with my temper. I bust out and swear profusely at the dumbest little things. I try not to abuse people with it, but when nobody can hear me, I can unleash a rant that lets a sailor blush if some dude in traffic causes me to miss a light or whatever. And I can think some rather nasty, dehumanizing thoughts about total strangers who cause me inconvenience - I know that this is sin. Because of this, I do try to limit myself and not listen to a lot of music that just expresses unbridled rage without a justifiable reason for it and at least a semi-way of channeling it. This is why I've sort of lost interest in Chevelle over the years. It's not because they started throwing one or two cusswords into their songs. The wall-to-wall anger is just a downer for me.

But I'm always going to be fascinated with the fringes in terms of where "Christian" content is found in music. Sometimes God's ideas turn out to have influenced people who aren't even aware of it, and who would never consider themselves Christians. I'm not going to listen to anything and everything out there, but I find that I admire Christians who can engage the culture, give something an honest evaluation, and not subscribe to everything an artist says just because they like that person's musical talents, but be able to say, "I really like some of what this person has to say, and I don't view them as 'the enemy' even though I do disagree with some of their beliefs." That model works for me. If I stumble across something that I really don't want to be a thought that continues to influence me, I can just skip the song or stop listening to the album, but it doesn't mean I shouldn't give stuff a try.

NP: "Yours to Hold", Skillet

[Vlad!]

I think the point of all this is that it's not the content itself that matters, it's how the content affects you, the listener. The word you want is not 'content' but 'impact'. If you have historically had a problem with pornography, a book that contains even circumspect references to sex will likely affect you more than it will someone who doesn't struggle with lust or porn. But if you are not a violent person, a movie that contains a lot of gore might be a fun flick, while it might affect a sadist much more profoundly.

If a reviewer praises something as great art and dismisses its impact, yet you find that it does indeed have a negative impact on you, this is just because we are flawed in different ways. Rejecting it doesn't mean that that reviewer is wrong in calling it great art or that you are somehow less mature because you can't handle it and the reviewer can.

Steak is delicious. Some choose to not eat it because they tend towards obesity, or because they have difficulty keeping their eating in check, or because of cholesterol problems, or because of moral or religious convictions that keep them from eating red meat. None of this changes the fact that a steak dinner is fairly universally regarded as a good meal. Art works the same way.

[murlough23]

But if you are not a violent person, a movie that contains a lot of gore might be a fun flick, while it might affect a sadist much more profoundly.

I guess sadists shouldn't watch An Inconvenient Truth, then.

NP: "Over the Edge", Luna Halo

[bloop]

At the same time, there's something to be said about being able to eat steak because you're pretty disciplined in keeping healthy habits.

[murlough23]

At the same time, there's something to be said about being able to eat steak because you're pretty disciplined in keeping healthy habits.

Only you can really know that about yourself, though, and it doesn't give those of us who can license to belittle others who aren't sure of themselves in that area.

[bloop]

I never said it did.  In life, if you should be eating high fat foods regularly, it's either because your metabolism is pretty tremendous (that's me - I cheated), or because you've behaved.  One shouldn't look down on people whose metabolism isn't quite so active, but those who can't eat steak would do well to first want to be where the steak-eaters are, and then take the necessary steps in their health habits to get to that place.  Then, they can graduate to cheesecake.  Mmmm, cheesecake.

Applying the metaphor, its implications become pretty clear.  I'm not saying that we should look down our noses at anyone, but call a spade a spade.  More often than not, obesity is the result of bad behaviors.  In art, likewise, sometimes it really is just immaturity or an unwillingness to step outside of comfort zones.  I just don't want to encourage perpetual infancy, while at the same time being kind to infants.

[Vlad!]

I find, though, that some people will be able to eat steak every night with cheesecake for dessert and have no problems. Others would see constant weight gain from just the steak, or might be diabetic and can't handle anything but artificially-sweetened cheesecake. The fact remains that some people have to be very careful of their behaviors and intakes, while others can seemingly abuse their bodies or minds with abandon.

My point is, first off, that some people just cannot handle things that others can. Period. I would rather see a person acknowledge his or her weaknesses and make an effort to stay away from art that tends to provoke bad behaviors or have a negative impact than see someone constantly skirting the edge, reinforcing poor tendencies in the name of expanding the comfort zone or challenging the mind.

And second off, addressing another original point of this post, I want to make the claim (which will possibly be controversial here) that art which respects the limits of certain people and manages to achieve greatness or beauty while doing so is empirically better than art which achieves greatness or beauty but, in the process, steps across lines that make it inaccessible to some people who, through natural proclivity that is mostly out of their control, find that it has a negative impact on their behavior.

And yes, I understand the benefits of trying to stretch oneself by hitting ourselves where we're weak. But if a guy feels like he has a problem with lust and is afraid of going too far with his girlfriend before they've committed to one-another, watching movies that are sexually charged or have erotic content together is probably not a good idea. It would undoubtedly challenge their resolve and they might overcome it, but wouldn't it be better to just stay away in the first place?

[RedcoatJones]

Man ... y'all are making me hungry with all this talk about steak! 

I tend to agree with everything here. I constantly struggle with how to both respect the "maturity" level while at the same time encouraging growth because I work with the youth at our church. Now our church's youth are, for the most part, not stereotypical "youth group kids." Most of them don't listen to CCM, and I would dare say the majority are still seeking what their true faith is. I have to struggle with helping them grow in their appreciation of God in all areas of our world without sounding like "anything goes."

[bloop]

I don't disagree with any of that, except perhaps this point:

art which respects the limits of certain people and manages to achieve greatness or beauty while doing so is empirically better than art which achieves greatness or beauty but, in the process, steps across lines that make it inaccessible to some people who, through natural proclivity that is mostly out of their control, find that it has a negative impact on their behavior.

because I don't think avoidance is any more artful than confrontation.  I prefer my artists not to kowtow to what they perceive to be weaknesses in their audience and merely communicate whatever they are trying to communicate as effectively as they possibly can.  All that is worth saying is not always pretty.

However, I think we're talking a lot about people who do not digest certain kinds of art because of some inherent and/or learned weakness.  It's an important point to consider them, and I can certainly see a maturity in knowing your limits and digesting accordingly, but my experience with people seems to suggest that there are more who avoid this or that not because they are so weak, but because they are apparently so much stronger than the rest of us.  Relatively few people have told me that they don't listen or watch certain movies because they are so vulnerable.  If they do, they couch it in language to suggest that I and everyone else are as vulnerable as they are, blah blah blather (sorry, but this particular cohort strike me as asses, if you couldn't tell).

Either way, it amounts to exalting the individual for what they don't do.  Ironically, in their bid to be seen as being so righteous, they become prideful in their assertions.  I'm not making claims of a majority here, but this represents the majority of my encounters anyway.  On the other hand, I realize my own approach and personality may just make these encounters more memorable than the rest.

I'm going to go have a salad.  I can't handle steak so early.

[murlough23]

I never said it did.

I know. I just wanted to clarify that point because I, as someone who has become more "liberated" in recent years, sometimes struggle with the temptation to taunt others who don't feel as "free". "What's the big deal?", I ask them. And  guess it's not bad to ask the questions, but I think Paul warned us about the meat eaters not causing the non-meat-eaters to stumble, or something like that, in one of the Epistles. So I'm still trying to figure out the boundaries.

Applying the metaphor, its implications become pretty clear.  I'm not saying that we should look down our noses at anyone, but call a spade a spade.  More often than not, obesity is the result of bad behaviors.  In art, likewise, sometimes it really is just immaturity or an unwillingness to step outside of comfort zones.  I just don't want to encourage perpetual infancy, while at the same time being kind to infants.

Agreed. It's because of this that I try to respect the personal convictions of others. It's only when they try to insist that everyone should have those same convictions that I feel the need to speak up and clarify that it's not the "fatty food" that's bad, it's the lack of moderation. (Or, to use another analogy, it's not the alcohol, it's the drunkenness.)

And second off, addressing another original point of this post, I want to make the claim (which will possibly be controversial here) that art which respects the limits of certain people and manages to achieve greatness or beauty while doing so is empirically better than art which achieves greatness or beauty but, in the process, steps across lines that make it inaccessible to some people who, through natural proclivity that is mostly out of their control, find that it has a negative impact on their behavior.

I'm not sure it can be proven that it's empirically better, but I'm pretty certain that it's not empirically worse. Can art really respect everyone's limitations all at once? There's something to be said for expressing some good and right thoughts on a more "adult" subject (since we're so used to hearing twisted and wrong thoughts on some of those subjects), but that's still not going to be appropriate for all audiences. I agree that you don't have to push boundaries to make great art, and not all art that pushes boundaries is great. There might be a lot of uncharted territory within your boundaries. So I can see where you're coming from. Still, that doesn't mean that everyone who goes outside the boundaries is just deliberately trying to push buttons and make people uncomfortable.

And yes, I understand the benefits of trying to stretch oneself by hitting ourselves where we're weak. But if a guy feels like he has a problem with lust and is afraid of going too far with his girlfriend before they've committed to one-another, watching movies that are sexually charged or have erotic content together is probably not a good idea. It would undoubtedly challenge their resolve and they might overcome it, but wouldn't it be better to just stay away in the first place?

What if that content was there but presented in a context that showed the consequences of going too far too soon?

Anyway, it's because of things like this that I do believe it's helpful to have a summary of the kind of content you can expect to see in a movie, or hear on an album, before going into it. This is why I think the idea behind a site such as Plugged In Magazine is actually a pretty good one, just executed very poorly due to the limited mindsets of the people in charge of it. A service like that, which could tell you what to expect and who might want to proceed with a bit of caution and discernment and who might want to stay away, but without the constant derisive judgments being laid down, could actually be useful. A better example of this would be the "Glimpses of God" columns in Christianity Today's music section.

I have to struggle with helping them grow in their appreciation of God in all areas of our world without sounding like "anything goes."

That's a tough one, because it isn't really that anything goes, it's that the list of things which "go" can't be easily categorized, so you have to judge them on a case-by-case basis, and because people are too lazy and/or just want to err on the side of caution, we end up making sweeping generalizations that cut out a lot of things which are actually OK. (For example, "no secular music".)

because I don't think avoidance is any more artful than confrontation.  I prefer my artists not to kowtow to what they perceive to be weaknesses in their audience and merely communicate whatever they are trying to communicate as effectively as they possibly can.  All that is worth saying is not always pretty.

It depends on whether it's "worth saying" at all, though. A person's experience with a drug overdose can be "worth saying" if it's a cautionary tale, but if it's just "woohoo, drugs are fun", then I really don't have any respect for that even if the music is good. I can learn to take it with a grain of salt if there's enough elsewhere on the CD or in the movie that I think is "worth saying". Obviously I'm never going to find any artist whose expression of their beliefs doesn't include anything at all that I disagree with (unless they're just really vague, which is annoying for other reasons).

Fortunately I don't run into that many artists whose music is brilliant but whose message is morally bankrupt. I generally find that complete and utter idiocy on a lyrical level tends to go hand-in-hand with not-so-great artistry most of the time. I suppose there are exceptions, but none come to mind that I've personally been exposed to in recent years.

Either way, it amounts to exalting the individual for what they don't do.  Ironically, in their bid to be seen as being so righteous, they become prideful in their assertions.  I'm not making claims of a majority here, but this represents the majority of my encounters anyway.

I had a buddy in college who was like this. He was a very good friend of mine and ended up being the best man at my wedding, actually, but he was a bit uptight back in the day. He'd go out of his way to correct people who swore and replace their words with less offensive ones, or if he himself was quoting some lyric or line from a movie or whatever that included a "bad word", he'd inject an obvious and glaring pause just to draw attention to his "purity of language" or whatever. When watching a movie where something very sexual happened onscreen, he'd loudly declare that he was closing his eyes to keep himself pure. Thankfully he's lightened up a lot in the last few years (he's actually the person who got me into Green Day's American Idiot; he would have never recommended a CD with a Parental Advisory sticker in college, and even if he had, I wouldn't have listened to it because I was stuck-up in my own way, too).

It's like, you can do whatever you need to do to stay true to your personal convictions, but don't draw so much glaring attention to it that it seems like you're just looking for the approval of others or looking down on them for not reacting the way you do.

On the other hand, I realize my own approach and personality may just make these encounters more memorable than the rest.

In other words, these people are easy targets and you just happen to have a crossbow handy.

[Vlad!]

I'm not sure it can be proven that it's empirically better, but I'm pretty certain that it's not empirically worse. Can art really respect everyone's limitations all at once? There's something to be said for expressing some good and right thoughts on a more "adult" subject (since we're so used to hearing twisted and wrong thoughts on some of those subjects), but that's still not going to be appropriate for all audiences. I agree that you don't have to push boundaries to make great art, and not all art that pushes boundaries is great. There might be a lot of uncharted territory within your boundaries. So I can see where you're coming from.

I agree with the majority of this paragraph.

Still, that doesn't mean that everyone who goes outside the boundaries is just deliberately trying to push buttons and make people uncomfortable.

I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. I realize that my original comments are essentially suggesting that all art should tone itself down to the least common denominator. This is certainly not the case. A much better way to have put it would have been as murlough did, that, while not necessarily demonstrably better, is also not demonstrably worse, all other things being equal.

What if that content was there but presented in a context that showed the consequences of going too far too soon?

It's still a tough road to walk. If a movie turns you on at the physical level but then presents arguments against sexual misconduct at the intellectual level, it's just introducing a tough inner conflict.

Anyway, it's because of things like this that I do believe it's helpful to have a summary of the kind of content you can expect to see in a movie, or hear on an album, before going into it. This is why I think the idea behind a site such as Plugged In Magazine is actually a pretty good one, just executed very poorly due to the limited mindsets of the people in charge of it. A service like that, which could tell you what to expect and who might want to proceed with a bit of caution and discernment and who might want to stay away, but without the constant derisive judgments being laid down, could actually be useful. A better example of this would be the "Glimpses of God" columns in Christianity Today's music section.

Absolutely. However, I have often been frustrated with that sort of summary because (as you say) it can be poorly executed, and often the sort of thing that impacts you will not impact me. This is why it's good to have groups of friends in real life who can say "yeah, man, I saw that movie, and it might be good to stay away from it" or "no, that's not something you want to be seeing on a date".

It's important to have the maturity to both be that person and to respond appropriately when that person says that to you. But the point I wanted to get across is that those who create art should also have the maturity to know the sort of impact their art will have. Maybe they choose to go forward with art that will negatively impact a group of people, and I'm fully OK with that so long as the artists realize this and the resulting art justifies it.

Since art rarely negatively impacts me, my tendency is to just say "deal with it". But I've been trying to work this out with others who do say that they have a lot more problems with this, so I'm definitely not claiming to even think I have all the answers

[murlough23]

I agree with the majority of this paragraph.I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. I realize that my original comments are essentially suggesting that all art should tone itself down to the least common denominator. This is certainly not the case.

Hopefully not, but I think you've just summed up the viewpoint of most of the CCM industry.

It's still a tough road to walk. If a movie turns you on at the physical level but then presents arguments against sexual misconduct at the intellectual level, it's just introducing a tough inner conflict.

Sure. I'm not saying you should show me a sexual encounter in extreme pornographic detail and then tell me "don't do this". At the same time, it's close to impossible to portray or discuss sex in its good and right context without someone getting turned on by it. Hell, just show some guys a fully-clothed woman who happens to be really attractive, or a couple kissing, and that's enough to send their thoughts reeling. It's hard to define the line of what's appropriate here, which is why I tend to say, if you're struggling, then be vigilant. Let the rest of us enjoy that beautiful portrayal of something that is right (in cases where it is) in non-lustful ways, or learn something from that cautionary tale.

Absolutely. However, I have often been frustrated with that sort of summary because (as you say) it can be poorly executed, and often the sort of thing that impacts you will not impact me. This is why it's good to have groups of friends in real life who can say "yeah, man, I saw that movie, and it might be good to stay away from it" or "no, that's not something you want to be seeing on a date".

You've just made a fine case for the validity of consumer reviews. (When they actually bother to explain themselves and think things through rather than just passing a unilateral judgment based on a single scene or song, that is.)

But the point I wanted to get across is that those who create art should also have the maturity to know the sort of impact their art will have. Maybe they choose to go forward with art that will negatively impact a group of people, and I'm fully OK with that so long as the artists realize this and the resulting art justifies it.

I agree. There are too many who just throw out everything on their mind, unfiltered, and act like there shouldn't be any consequences for it because they're "keepin' it real". You know what, you can be real and genuine without letting people into every private nook and cranny of your mind. Not everything that you are honestly thinking is a good thing to express. That doesn't mean that you should express something dishonest, it just means that you need to come up with a way to express or explain it that doesn't glorify or wallow in your weaknesses. (For example, I can admit that I have problems with lust and lament this fact without going into detail about what I'd like to do to some hot babe I met in a club.)

But part of that's just knowing your audience. I think that in Christian music, we have a tough time accepting that it's possible to speak God's truth on subjects that may not be appropriate for all ages - that certainly hurts mrketability which is why the labels and radio stations are afraid of it, but if it's what an artist honestly needs to say, then they should be willing to admit that this might not be best for little kids to hear or whatever. mainstream music has that problem the other way around - you can say pretty much whatever you want, and as long as the style's mainstream enough, they have no qualms marketing it to all ages.

Even with some of those content warnings in place, though, you're still going to stumble across things that are inappropriate for you, so rather than blaming and picketing artists for what they should and shouldn't do, it's probably better that we all lear a bit of self-discipline. Like how not to cause car accidents when we see a billboard with a naked girl covered in rose petals and so forth.

[bloop]

In other words, these people are easy targets and you just happen to have a crossbow handy.

Mur, you're putting words into my mouth again.  I'm up for steak now.

[murlough23]

Mur, you're putting words into my mouth again.  I'm up for steak now.

I was mostly trying to be funny, while also saying that these people kind of set themselves up to feel insulted by you even when you're honestly not trying to.