Intellectual justification for EVERYTHING
People cling to logical explanations when they least trust their emotions. I've observed this on a large and personal scale.
I realize I'm about to make a sweeping generalization...but take Modern and Post-modern art. Modernism, for example, emerged at the turn of the 20th century, when society, (European society, at least), felt profound unease about the future. The Romantic era's celebration of unbridled passion had not only come to an end, but was put into question. The buzzword here is "decadence." In response to this, art became increasingly intellectualized. The atonalisim, serialism, and complex textures of the music associated with the Second Viennese School excellently represents this. This music valued the intellectual genius of the composer. I would argue that emotion comes second here, mainly because these pieces fail to make an emotional impact until they're studied....and studied very, very closely. Scrutiny reveals the ingenious construction and relationships inherent in the piece, but none of this is easily heard. This is stuff made by academics, for academics. Post-modern art is marked by a distancing of the individual personality from the music. Consider John Cage's chance operations, fascination with environmental noises, and preoccupation with the unintentional. Cage's music seemed to give him freedom, (freedom? to hear his pusle? the sound of clashing pots and pans? noisy body parts?). Well, I hear alienation in it instead. Cage sounds alienated from his music, while the music sounds alienated from other people. (Honestly, you have to be "initiated" to enjoy that stuff!)
I think it's significant that composition took a turn for the intellectual just when society most questioned it's values. (Turn of the 20th cent. and after the World Wars). I'm a professional student, and I've certainly never looked at things this way before, but....intellectualism is a crutch when it becomes the end and not the means to an end. You turn to the intellect for the last word when you can't trust your conscience/gut.
Alright, for any of you die hards who have read my other postings...you already know by now that I have a bittersweet relationship with my faith. Based on my "Mormon Checkmate" theory, it now makes perfect sense why, last summer, I used to go to the library and check out truck loads of books. I read to save my soul! I woke up sometimes at 4:00 AM just so I could read more.
I was searching for intellectual justification for my ideas. I wanted to recognize Rousseau's philosophy in my lyrics, etc. I needed to read it from someone else first before I felt comfortable thinking it myself. I only felt comfortable being "original" if that originality was somehow linked to bonafide great ideas. I think that's because I've been so afraid of thinking something wrong, going off the deep end. Remember, in Mormonism you're taught that there's a Devil out to get you and a narrow path back to God. Even though my theory doesn't perfectly make sense, (why didn't I stop to consider that the Devil might be in Rousseau?), the idea of not being able to trust my heart holds up. Sponteneity and real originality felt dangerous and I turned to the intellect to give me confidence in my ideas.
You know, Christianity can be hard on people. The idea of having one life that can make or break your afterlife is rough! The idea that Satan is a spirit and can lead you astray is terrifying on a subliminal level throughout daily life. It makes you feel afraid of yourself. The idea of having a conscience that can be stolen from you or infiltrated, leading you down. Perhaps that's why the Catholic Church has such a rich, scholarly tradition. St. Anselm must have felt such sweet relief when he proved God's existence on paper. Then he didn't have to consult his feelings at all. He could cling to the blessed facts.
I realize I'm about to make a sweeping generalization...but take Modern and Post-modern art. Modernism, for example, emerged at the turn of the 20th century, when society, (European society, at least), felt profound unease about the future. The Romantic era's celebration of unbridled passion had not only come to an end, but was put into question. The buzzword here is "decadence." In response to this, art became increasingly intellectualized. The atonalisim, serialism, and complex textures of the music associated with the Second Viennese School excellently represents this. This music valued the intellectual genius of the composer. I would argue that emotion comes second here, mainly because these pieces fail to make an emotional impact until they're studied....and studied very, very closely. Scrutiny reveals the ingenious construction and relationships inherent in the piece, but none of this is easily heard. This is stuff made by academics, for academics. Post-modern art is marked by a distancing of the individual personality from the music. Consider John Cage's chance operations, fascination with environmental noises, and preoccupation with the unintentional. Cage's music seemed to give him freedom, (freedom? to hear his pusle? the sound of clashing pots and pans? noisy body parts?). Well, I hear alienation in it instead. Cage sounds alienated from his music, while the music sounds alienated from other people. (Honestly, you have to be "initiated" to enjoy that stuff!)
I think it's significant that composition took a turn for the intellectual just when society most questioned it's values. (Turn of the 20th cent. and after the World Wars). I'm a professional student, and I've certainly never looked at things this way before, but....intellectualism is a crutch when it becomes the end and not the means to an end. You turn to the intellect for the last word when you can't trust your conscience/gut.
Alright, for any of you die hards who have read my other postings...you already know by now that I have a bittersweet relationship with my faith. Based on my "Mormon Checkmate" theory, it now makes perfect sense why, last summer, I used to go to the library and check out truck loads of books. I read to save my soul! I woke up sometimes at 4:00 AM just so I could read more.
I was searching for intellectual justification for my ideas. I wanted to recognize Rousseau's philosophy in my lyrics, etc. I needed to read it from someone else first before I felt comfortable thinking it myself. I only felt comfortable being "original" if that originality was somehow linked to bonafide great ideas. I think that's because I've been so afraid of thinking something wrong, going off the deep end. Remember, in Mormonism you're taught that there's a Devil out to get you and a narrow path back to God. Even though my theory doesn't perfectly make sense, (why didn't I stop to consider that the Devil might be in Rousseau?), the idea of not being able to trust my heart holds up. Sponteneity and real originality felt dangerous and I turned to the intellect to give me confidence in my ideas.
You know, Christianity can be hard on people. The idea of having one life that can make or break your afterlife is rough! The idea that Satan is a spirit and can lead you astray is terrifying on a subliminal level throughout daily life. It makes you feel afraid of yourself. The idea of having a conscience that can be stolen from you or infiltrated, leading you down. Perhaps that's why the Catholic Church has such a rich, scholarly tradition. St. Anselm must have felt such sweet relief when he proved God's existence on paper. Then he didn't have to consult his feelings at all. He could cling to the blessed facts.
posted by Kristin @ 2:09 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home