The Boundary of Beauty?

In the spirit of discussion, I bring an interesting topic: What is the boundary of beauty?

See this video of Ravi Zacharias, a Christian Apologist, who answers a question from a Penn State student on art and beauty relates to a Christian worldview and how artists relate to their art via their worldview.

How does Ravi's analysis apply to us as composers? I thought of modernism and how the worldview of composers radically changed because of the World Wars and other historical events in the 20th century. Does this apply? What is your opinion on his thoughts?

Discuss! Go!

So, if I'm understanding the video, the girl brings up the fact that some people look at a piece of art as beautiful while others find it disgusting (citing the portrayal of nudity as a factor that influences one's view of a work) then asks how a Christian reconciles the two opinions. It sounds to me like she's asking, "How does a Christian decide what is good art?" *Sigh* Then the lecturer says beauty is in the eye of the beholder and art is not inherently profane or sacred because the varied interpretation of a piece of art takes precedence over the artist's intent.

Why did you choose this video? Sure, after the World Wars outlooks on life changed and affected the arts. In music we know that many academic composers felt guilty about expressing beauty in the form of soaring melodies (how could they compose "happy" tunes in light of the atrocities of war like nothing ever happened?); they wanted a fresh start and turned to the presumably more objective beauty of post-tonal techniques, particularly 12-tone and serial methods (although these techniques were well on their way to fruition before the wars). The lecture seems built on cliches and relates to modernism in the sense that the lecturer explores an expanded definition of beauty. But in that definition he relates beauty to goodness and implies that true art must have something redeeming about it. He says music with lyrics like "I had sex with a corpse" is not art but profanity; the art critic looks for beauty in holiness, not beauty in profanity. What, then, is holy about a work such as Erwartung, a character piece that explores the darker sides of desire? Is such a work not art? Is it redeeming in that it's a model on how to not behave when in love? Might it be considered good because it shows how both adultery and jealousy can take you to a living hell? Of course I think there's a difference between Erwartung and a piece that seemingly employs negative ideas for pure shock value, but I also think the artistic value of a piece has more to do with perceived purpose than "beauty in holiness."

Well the idea that art doesn't need to be "pretty" is already something that shows up in the 19th century, such as in Liszt's transcendental etudes where there's an annotation on no.4 that the chords must be played so harshly that they're shaking. This harsh character certainly was not deemed "pretty" at the time and was used in certain contexts for grand effect (that section is the actual main theme of the etude.)

This got more extreme with the whole concept of absolute music, as in music for its own sake where whatever parameters of "beauty" that had to do with nature fell out the window in favor of what the composer wanted, etc.

My big complaint with what this guy says, is that he is stating (pretty much) that art has to be written from a 'moral world view'. What exactly is morality anyway? I mean, in Western Culture, we have already had a good -what?- 300 to 500 years of music written within a moral world view! Certainly, an artist today should be allowed to express the full spectrum of human experience through his/her art. If you want to compose a piece of art that portrays 'Roman Showers' then by all means - do so! If you want to compose a piece of art that vividly depicts a woman's menstrual cycle - go for it. It's a free world that is far removed from the strict, moralistic restrictions set forth thousands of years ago. Artistic vision, like God, is not contained by restrictions - and will never be.

But what's the beauty of boundaries?

Well, this certainly won't calm any of the waters so far -- judging by the nasty goings on in the shoutbox at the moment. But I do have a couple of things to add here.

I watched the video the other day and I must say that my take on it is far different from most of what has been posted. The main point that I got from Mr. Zacharias' answer is that the artist is undeniably free to create as he is moved to create; however, our response to that act of creation is what he is talking about in terms of moral worldview. I am a Catholic -- the AMDG is a giveaway -- and that causes me to go down a certain path in life. It gives me the foundation on which I can base my judgments about things. And that includes artistic expression.

And I will say right now that this is my choice. Certainly others have made different choices about their own beliefs. We are creatures of Free Will, and we accept or reject religion as our consciences inform us. Me, I have chosen to accept Catholicism. This belief leads me to understand the nature of Man in a very specific way that has to do with the inherent goodness of his soul while at the same time acknowledging the concupiscence which accompanied the fall from grace through Adam.

Ok, you're either with me at this point, or you're going "Phew!!!" Getting back to the video, Mr. Zacharias seems to be saying not that you have to have a moral worldview to create art, but for Christians our response to the created work relies on our ability to make prudential judgments based on what we hold creation to be -- good and beautiful. It's probably easier to make these about literature, movies, and art, rather than music, but there are sometimes when we can do this.

Why was Wagner's music not played in Israel until only recently? Why, for that matter, do some people associate Wagner's music with Naziism? I can't remember the tenor off hand -- Jon Vickers, I think -- who refused to sing the role of Tannhauser because he thought it to be immoral. Do all these things have to do with the artist's spark of creation or are they the judgments of others on whether or not to accept the art as good. I would suggest the latter, certainly. And again, this I think is the point of the video. Don't confuse the exercise of one's Free Will to create something with the response of others to the work. This I think is probably the greatest sin of our age -- Pride. The notion that because I created this thing, it is therefore good -- not merely technically or aesthetically good, but good in a metaphysical or trancendant sense.

Ok, let's wrap this up now. You all have probably had enough by now. Feel free to start turning the guns in my direction.

Sincerely,

Brian Sagraves

Well, this certainly won't calm any of the waters so far -- judging by the nasty goings on in the shoutbox at the moment. But I do have a couple of things to add here.

I watched the video the other day and I must say that my take on it is far different from most of what has been posted. The main point that I got from Mr. Zacharias' answer is that the artist is undeniably free to create as he is moved to create; however, our response to that act of creation is what he is talking about in terms of moral worldview. I am a Catholic -- the AMDG is a giveaway -- and that causes me to go down a certain path in life. It gives me the foundation on which I can base my judgments about things. And that includes artistic expression.

And I will say right now that this is my choice. Certainly others have made different choices about their own beliefs. We are creatures of Free Will, and we accept or reject religion as our consciences inform us. Me, I have chosen to accept Catholicism. This belief leads me to understand the nature of Man in a very specific way that has to do with the inherent goodness of his soul while at the same time acknowledging the concupiscence which accompanied the fall from grace through Adam.

Ok, you're either with me at this point, or you're going "Phew!!!" Getting back to the video, Mr. Zacharias seems to be saying not that you have to have a moral worldview to create art, but for Christians our response to the created work relies on our ability to make prudential judgments based on what we hold creation to be -- good and beautiful. It's probably easier to make these about literature, movies, and art, rather than music, but there are sometimes when we can do this.

Why was Wagner's music not played in Israel until only recently? Why, for that matter, do some people associate Wagner's music with Naziism? I can't remember the tenor off hand -- Jon Vickers, I think -- who refused to sing the role of Tannhauser because he thought it to be immoral. Do all these things have to do with the artist's spark of creation or are they the judgments of others on whether or not to accept the art as good. I would suggest the latter, certainly. And again, this I think is the point of the video. Don't confuse the exercise of one's Free Will to create something with the response of others to the work. This I think is probably the greatest sin of our age -- Pride. The notion that because I created this thing, it is therefore good -- not merely technically or aesthetically good, but good in a metaphysical or trancendant sense.

Ok, let's wrap this up now. You all have probably had enough by now. Feel free to start turning the guns in my direction.

Sincerely,

Brian Sagraves

Nicely put, Brian. I like how you approached the same conclusion that Ravi made - but came from it purely from your own position (which you also state clearly, as opposed to Ravi.) My big complaint with him is that he appeared to me to just be plucking ideas from the air - no clear coherent 'personal' opinion or philosophy was given by him (in my opinion.) Another video, which spurred the conversation you witnessed in the shoutbox was even more irking to me. I also, don't truly believe that an artist really looks at his work and goes 'oh, this is beauty!' What is beauty, anyways? Can beauty be quantified, observed, studied, classified?

Beauty is in the eye and the ear of the beholder, not to mention that beauty isn't mandatory, since it is not always presented in life. Speaking of art as something that should be beautiful is quite limiting - you can express whatever you want. Now, can we move to something more useful? :P