A Matter of Taste (pt 4)

While Joel and his host of compadres debate the reality of beauty, and while I bow and pay homage to the idea that meaning precedes taste (thank you Whitherbridges), we'll keep marching through the issues of taste as presented by Frank Burch Brown in Good Taste, Bad Taste, and Christian Taste.  Today, we'll take on two of the three elements of taste:  1) taste as aesthetic perception, and 2) taste as aesthetic enjoyment.

Taste as aesthetic perception: This is simply the task of recognizing the aesthetic qualities of something.  We all do this differently because our abilities to sense these elements are culturally shaped.  For example, in listening to a piece by Bach, someone who has studied Bach will hear it quite differently than one who has never been exposed to classical music.  Even the trained ear will hear it differently than one of Bach's contemporaries, because styles of performance, quality of instruments, and knowledge of particulars have evolved over the centuries since Bach composed.

But this reveals a common problem, we tend to be bound by our own experience...our taste has been shaped by our culture.  Brown details the reactions of a typical undergraduate class to a Bach contata, Wachet Auf (Sleepers, Wake).  Most students describe the opening as "peaceful," while Bach enthusiasts understand it to be an "exalted wake-up call."  Why the difference?  The students, who are born and bred in a culture of rap and rock, think all classical music is peaceful and serene, even boring.  The college audience, unless trained to understand Bach's work, are incapable of perceiving what he wrote.  Brown notes that with just a few minutes of instruction, the young listeners are able to listen to Bach in an entirely new way.

In a church context, this means "we must learn to transmit and share the languages of differing tastes."  We must engage in a teaching and learning process through the life-cycles of the congregation.  Instead of trying to watch a cricket game without learning the rules, we must take the time to understand the game.  Here Brown argues that some "popular" forms of music are not accessible to those with classical training because they are "uneducated in various forms of popular culture" and hear only "boring, noisy, or confusing patterns."   The sword cuts both ways.

Brown illustrates his point with the music video One of Us by Joan Osborne, lyrics by Eric Bazilian.  He argues for a complex level of meaning and imagery in a work that is "uniquely artistic and artfully theological" in a way very different than Michelangelo; however, to those with elite taste the song may be nothing more than kitsch.  He notes that while some in the CCM community embraced One of Us, others regarded it as "sheer blasphemy."  In an interesting observation, Brown notes that Osborne herself, knowing that identification with Christianity would be the "kiss of death for her sort of musical ambitions," began performing the song in ways that were described by one German reviewer as "most excellently lewd." Brown concludes, "To be unable to hear either the unsettling implications of some of the questions in One of Us or the serious religious inquisitiveness behind its questions is surely to lack a perceptive faculty important to having a taste for it."

Taste as aesthetic enjoyment (appreciation or the lack thereof):   Brown notes that Augustine reached a point in his life where he expressed satisfaction with the fact that he was no longer moved to tears by the singing of hymns.  He valued the songs for the truth in the words; he did not appreciate (his taste was corrupted) the truth as expressed in the music itself.  The embodiment of truth in music, and the corresponding ability to appreciate it (a taste well developed), can produce tangible results in the Christian community.

We are led to appreciate or reject a given piece of art by the work itself, its genre, and its context. "When there is dissonance between the perceived style of an artwork and the purpose it is meant to serve, a work that might otherwise please can actually disturb or disappoint."  Brown illustrates this point by referring to a Puerto Rican arrangement of A Mighty Fortress is Our God.  While a listener might appreciate the rhythms and beat of the Caribbean genre, the auditory cues give a sense of lightness to a theologically heavy text.  He says, "It was therefore by no means easy for us to enjoy this setting as Christian music, let alone as a musical setting of a text depicting God's capacity to defeat the greatest imaginable evils.  The incongruity between form and purported content seemed too great." He says later, "Is the kind of enjoyment called for by the medium actually undercutting the message?"  And even argues "that there is a sense in which no such rendition of A Mighty Fortress can adequately substitute for versions rooted more firmly in the tradition of the German chorale."

This does not mean that all religious truth should be limited to the style of traditional chorale music.  There are aspects of the faith that cannot be expressed in this genre.  All of this means that clergy, artists, and congregants must determine over time what kinds of expressions best fit religious purposes for optimum enjoyment.

Tomorrow:  Taste as Aesthetic Judgment.

Comments

[Scott M]

Why would someone even attempt to take "A Mighty Fortress is Our God" and set it to Caribbean style music? I don't blame the music style... I blame whoever thought that in order to worship correctly, they had to force fit Western culture into Caribbean culture. I assume that even Puerto Ricans have the ability to appreciate majesty, grandeur or God's power to defeat evil. So why do I get the feeling that this author is suggesting that the Puerto Ricans adopt the traditional hymn, as though 16th century German chorale music is the only genre of music that can adequately convey these themes? Why not suggest that the Puerto Ricans write their own hymns in their own cultural style to communicate the same message?

Good post overall, though. I agree with most of what Brown is saying in this section... I'm just not sure about the correct application.

[Joel]

I've been listening to Afro-Cuban stuff here at work and they're not really very . . . massive sounding.

[jon]

Brown tells us exactly why the Puerto Ricans attempted their hijack of A Mighty Fortress, "...according to the arranger [who is Puerto Rican]...[it] was an attempt to rejuvenate a traditional hymn and to make it more enjoyable, especially for young Puerto Ricans."

They want to use a genre of popular culture so that it will gain popularity with the youth. Pragmatism, or worse.

Now here is the kicker, the arrangement is apparently popular in Peurto Rico. This concerns Brown, "Is the character of God as capable of withstanding the onslaughts of utmost evil being compromised, and possibly trivialized, here? Is the way that the text and its theology is being treated, musically, tend to undermine what the words want to say? Is the kind of enjoyment called for by the medium actually undercutting the message?"

No doubt there is some Peurto Rican genre that is more appropriate to the task, but Brown argues that he has not discovered ANY adequate substitution for the traditional German chorale version. It is simply a beautiful wedding of text, music, and presentation.

I don't know that he would advocate teaching the PR's traditional western chorale music (we may discover that later in the text). I think he would have us appreciate the genres they use to convey the same themes, but this is only a guess at this point. Each culture and generation should produce its own excellent hymnody.

[Donald C S Johnson]

"Each culture and generation should produce its own excellent hymnody."

Just a quick question, Jon. Is every culture capable of this?

My wife and I were talking a bit about this this evening. It seems to me that a lot of the culture wars within fundamentalism have to do with the answer to this question. I would answer it, "No, some cultures are so depraved that they are incapable of excellent hymnody."

Perhaps some of you would differ, but it does seem to me that this may be the central issue in all this discussion.

It relates also to missiology: what part of native culture is just culture and what part must be changed? There are wide ranging answers to this question.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

[rob]

Interesting topic. Please allow me a few thoughts. However, before my thoughts, a few disclaimers are in order . . . 1) I’ve not read Brown; 2) I’ve not heard the PR arrangement of the hymn; 3) I’m no expert of culture; 4) I’m no expert on music (no doubt those of you who know me would heartily concur on the latter).

Scott asked: “Why not suggest that the Puerto Ricans write their own hymns in their own cultural style to communicate the same message?”

They should at some point. Two thoughts: 1) maybe they are truly blessed by the message of the song and want to keep the message, but in a different, more familiar, genre; 2) maybe the PR church is devoid of musical theologians (or, at least, those with a little Bible knowledge) who are capable of the task.

Don’t Americans do the same thing when they publish a new arrangement of an old song? Is this hijaking?

On the topic . . . “Each culture and generation should produce its own excellent hymnody.” Particularly Don’s answer to that . . . "No, some cultures are so depraved that they are incapable of excellent hymnody." Which cultures? What in particular would cause a culture to make them incapable of excellent hymnody?

Don, I assume that by ‘just culture’ you mean that which is biblically acceptable culture. The ‘part [that] must be changed’, then would be the biblicaly non-acceptable aspects. No question that certain aspects of culture must be changed after the light of the gospel has shown down upon it. But does that mean all old cultural forms are sinful? In a culture, for example, that is dominated by spiritism and animism, an appropriate question may be whether a specific musical genre within the culture is so closely tied with false religion that it cannot be used to accompany the Christian message without confusion to the listeners. But, I would be hard pressed to say that a culture exists that could not produce its own excellent hymnody, but rather would be forced to borrow from other cultures.

BTW I’m an American living as a missionary in Africa.

[Donald C S Johnson]

Hi Rob,

As a missionary, I am sure you know the debate about culture and missionary activity. Some writing on missions seems to suggest that almost everything our missionary heroes (Carey, Judson, Paton, et al) did was wrong.

You may be better able to answer the question regarding a culture dominated by spiritism and animism. My perspective of cultures like this is mostly informed by my experience with what we call "First Nations" here in Canada. Many who have ministered among them have allowed them to maintain things like "smudge" and "sweat lodges" etc, while simply adding Christianity to their lives in some form or other. My concern is that there is virtually nothing in native culture that is not tainted by spiritism.

When it comes to our confrontation of secular culture in North America, I think we are ministering cross-culturally. The question is, what part of N. American culture is not tainted by the false belief systems from which they have sprung? Most contemporary music seems to me to spring from a culture of death and rebellion. But of course, I am seeing that through my cultural lenses.

In any case, the broader evangelical approach seems to have been to adopt the culture with very little effort to transform it. The fundamentalist approach has been to confront it, with a less and less effective result, apparently.

I guess my question could be summed up like this: what in our culture is capable of excellent hymnody?

Regards
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

[abram]

I find it interesting that at the time Beethoven was writing both he and his music were considered "rebellious"
The press was beside itself when he dared to add a chorus part to a symphony (the 9th). That was an outrage!

[Joel]

Beethoven was the end of a lot of good things.

[jon]

Rob, What have you found in Tanzania regarding hymnody? Do the people sing a variety of genres, or just one or two? Do they have music to adequately express the range of spiritual expression as found in the psalms, in either their religious or popular culture? Do they possess the three categories of culture we call high, folk, and pop, or do they just have the latter two, with the latter being more western? What would you do, if anything, with "A Mighty Fortress" (i'm guessing you wouldn't do anything with it)? How will engage them in a conversation regarding these issues and begin an educational process? Again, only if you have time to mess with this....

[rob]

Don, I’d need more detail to comment on what people are saying/writing about Carey/Judson/Paton. Briefly, however, I can think of a few things in ‘native’ culture that isn’t tainted by spiritism. For example, compare the value placed on relationships and possessions in Western culture verses African culture. I could put forth a valid argument that the Africans may be closer to the biblical ideal in this area. Or, how about respect for elders? No question that African culture falls more closely in line with the Scriptures in this area. This is probably true in any culture . . . as a result of the common grace give to all men, and due to the fact that humans retain, albeit quite marred, the image of God, aspects of various cultures may be, in fact, good. I’m sure we could find that to be the case in Western culture as well as in African culture.
I guess I just don’t see my job as trying to change culture, but, and maybe this is overly simplistic, rather to preach the gospel and help those converted grow into Christlikeness (which would include Body-life). Will part of that growth entail a rejection of sinful aspects of culture? Absolutely. On the other hand, many aspects of a young believer’s culture may be embraced now with a renewed mind. Precise aspects can be debated. Don, you asked the question, “what in our culture is capable of excellent hymnody?” I can’t answer that directly, because I’m no musician. I would prefer to frame my answer in more general terms . . . anything in our culture (or any culture) that reflects remnants of the image of God in man is capable of excellent hymnody. So, yes, it is possible for any culture to produce excellent music for the glory of God. It’s not like there is some completely detached biblical culture out there that produces all good spiritual music.
Before I answer Jon, let me again emphasize that I am not a musician. Christianity has been around a long time in Africa and dozens of ‘our’ hymns have been translated into various African dialects. Yes, even “A Mighty Fortress is our God” has been translated into Swahili. The music of some hymns sound similar to the way they sound in America. Other hymns have been placed to completely different arrangements. In addition to hymns, we also have more chorus-type songs that would ‘feel’ more African. Naturally, the choruses reflect the African culture more than the hymns . . . hand-clapping, African instruments, etc. The people like both styles. I’ve never insisted on one style over the other. In fact, I was surprised early on when they wanted to sing the hymns. They have chosen and led the music from the beginning. I have, on one or two occasions, corrected what I perceived to abuses of cultural forms. BTW Although it is in the hymnbook, we have never sung A Mighty Fortress.
Jon, I’m looking back at your questions and don’t think I’ve answered them. I’m not sure I can fully in this forum. Yes, I would say there is high, folk, and pop music here. High culture would be Western church music. Their pop music would also come from the West, mainly American rap and hiphop. Folk music would then be traditional African music.
Of the cuff, two things come to my mind when talking about the educational process. First, I see my responsibility to teach them what the Bible says about the purpose of music in the church. I see a second responsibility to learn from them the meaning behind their musical forms and help them make decisions of which forms would be appropriate for church usage (and which forms wouldn’t be appropriate).

[Donald C S Johnson]

Hi Rob,

I think you have some interesting insights. Of course, when we use this term "culture", different folks will mean different things. You mentioned respect for elders and less materialism... I wonder if that could be purely classed as culture? Just wondering, not asserting.

When I think of culture, I am thinking of music, rituals, belief systems. Perhaps a better term would narrow this down some. We used to have a Chinese man in our church. His parents had emigrated from China and he was born here. He told me that his mother attended a Lutheran church, but that she kept a little buddha in her home that she put incense before and food, etc. He would say, "It's just culture, it doesn't mean anything." I don't think I got through to him on this point, because I couldn't accept that it was "just culture." At least he wasn't practicing it...

So when we are discussing taste, beauty, art and culture, it seems to me that in our context we are talking about music, and indeed, the question you and I were discussing is "is it possible for a culture to exist that is incapable of producing an excellent hymnody?" What I am thinking about here is not just ethnic culture but sub-cultures. Can street culture produce an excellent hymnody? Can the drug culture, or a gang culture? Maybe we are using the term too loosely or too specifically.

That's all for now, I look forward to any additional comments you or others might have.

Regards
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

[rob]

Hiebert defines culture as, “the integrated system of learned patterns of behavior, ideas, and products characteristic of a society” (Cultural Anthropology, p. 25). Niebuhr characterizes culture as a social entity, human (vs. the natural world), value-oriented, pluralistic (Christ and Culture, pp. 29-39). Niebuhr’s book, by the way, addresses this very topic of how Christ should relate to culture. Though the book is a bit dated, he does a good job describing the various perspecitves under the well-known descriptions, “Christ Against Culture, Christ of Culture, Christ above Culture, Christ and Culture in Paradox, and Christ the Transformer of Culture.” Ebbie Smith defines culture as “the learned design or pattern of living for a particular group of people” (“Culture: The Milieu of Missions” in Missiology, p. 261).

If we follow these definitions then, yes, respect for elders and high emphasis on relationships would be aspects of one’s culture. I think traditional definitions of culture are a bit broader than to allow for drug-culture, gang-culture, etc as being an entirely separate culture to itself. That may be why they are referred to as sub-cultures. I would add that these sub-cultures you mention are unique in that they are based/founded upon a sinful practice(s). Therefore, the patterns of living of those within one of these sub-cultural may be entirely depraved. However, they probably exhibit some of the better tendencies of their mother-culture (?) as well, such as, in the American context, hard work.

African culture, in general, I don't believe is founded on sinful practices. It may be more accurate to say the sub-culture of spiritism and/or animism within African culture is. At that point, we preach for change following conversion.

For what’s it worth (maybe not much). I need to get back to work .

[Donald C S Johnson]

"African culture, in general, I don't believe is founded on sinful practices. It may be more accurate to say the sub-culture of spiritism and/or animism within African culture is. At that point, we preach for change following conversion."

Rob, I think that is a very interesting point. And thank you for the definitions by the way. I have not read a lot in this area, so I am "talking through my hat" as it were.

I have heard of people using the term "evangelical sub-culture" or "fundamentalist sub-culture" as well. In our evangelistic efforts, perhaps the trick is to understand what part of our pattern of living is merely learned behaviour and what is not. When it comes to redemption of the lost (in a pagan sub-culture of some sort), we have to analyze what is derived from depraved human nature and what is derived from "common grace" (for want of a better term).

Thanks for the discussion, it has been most enlightening. It points another topic that warrants more study... more books!!!

Regards
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

[rob]

Don, you're exactly right . . . part of our task (in whatever culture we find ourselves) is determining which parts of culture have their origins in depravity and which in common grace. That is a tricky task that calls for much wisdom.

And a hearty "Amen" on the more books comment!