Generally, when I hear about a social experiment in popular media, my face cringes at the thought of another better part of decade of something like Big Brother, or some other addition to the ranks of questionable reality television shows.
Imagine my delight then, when I heard about the Virtual Choir. Have a look:
Eric Whitacre has long been a favourite composer of mine, ever since I first played one of his pieces, October, in my high school wind symphony. From instrumental to choral, virtuosic to simplistic; his music has a profound beauty which captures the heart and stirs the soul.
As Whitacre explains, his Choir was something of a musical social experiment, bringing together voices from around the planet and unifying them in one piece of music. Sheet music was released, along with a 'conductor's track', for each 'performer' to download so they could record themselves singing one particular part. Their videos were uploaded to YouTube, taken by Whitacre and mixed together to create the Virtual Choir. The results were extraordinary, as you can hear.
If you want to be a part of the 2011 Virtual Choir, visit the link on the right and find out how. I definitely want to! Not only is it a social experiment worth hearing about; it's one worth being a part of! SG
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Destination: Mecca, and Glee gets Speared
So a couple of days I purchased a laptop. Slightly impulsive, perhaps, but it allows me to escape the house, travel to remote and exotic locations, and find inspiration to write and write some more. Such is the intent of today's little foray, which finds me down at Mocha Mecca; a little cafe which has opened up just opposite the Riverside Tavern. Perhaps neither as remote nor exotic as, say, the cast of Getaway enjoy experiencing on a weekly basis, but then again I don't have a travel budget the size of a small elephant.
Initially, my ambitions aimed further afield, to the prestigious Macca's Aitkenvale (quiet please; I can't concentrate over your 'Oohs' and 'Aahs'). The purpose of this was to take advantage of the Free WiFi with every purchase. Caffeine, sugar and the world at your fingertips – what's not to love? However, I left my 'corporate expenses' credit card at home, with the rest of my wallet, and even the philanthropic Mr McDonald won't give you a free coffee, even for a good write up on a personal blog which averages two or three hits a week. Sadly, corporate sponsorship seems to be exceeding my reach for the moment.
So, after a return trip home and an overwhelming sense of concern regarding my car's impact on the environment (or was it sheer laziness?) I decided to journey the significantly shorter distance to Mocha Mecca. And I must say that I am enjoying the outcome, despite the name.
The clientele is particularly classier, the view is more aesthetically pleasing (if you ignore the statue of a dog, urinating on one of the trees outside), the mere act of breathing doesn't increase your blood cholesterol, and the manager seems lovely. After waiting patiently for my coffee, typing feverishly away at this epic post, the manager kindly visited my table and apologised for the wait of my coffee and offered to refund it while he made it himself. I was most impressed, considering I had only been waiting about 15-20 minutes, and it's lunchtime. Perhaps he suspected I was a food critic, doing a write-up on his newly-opened enterprise. Was this exceptionally good service merely a bribe to sway the direction of this piece? Probably not. I look like I got dressed in the dark.
Motivations aside, however, I think I may come back again. And perhaps again, depending on whether or not there's any addictive additives in my latte.
Moving on.
So what of Glee's latest offering last night? Having been a fan since the premiere, I've begrudgingly witnessed one or two disappointing episodes against the backdrop of a deteriorating moral code, but last night's episode was the worst. Was the fact that the episode featured Brittany Spears merely coincidental? Perhaps, but considering the bulk of her repertoire is questionable at best, the show's writers didn't have much to work with.
Unfortunately, the episode was plagued with far too many musical interludes (or 'fantasies', as the story depicted them) brought on by highs sought from an ethically-deficient dentist's nitrous oxide, some of which should really have had Channel Ten reconsidering the show's 7.30pm timeslot.
But censorship aside, I hope this isn't the beginning of a trend for Glee. While the show consistently delivers a number high-calibre musical performances, these have previously been integrated well into the rest of the show, adding to the story-telling experience. Sadly, last night seemed to be a series of performances loosely wrapped together by the barest threads of a storyline.
From a financial, profit-driven perspective, Glee certainly has the power to rake in the dosh far beyond many other TV shows. Further to simply selling a series to a commercial broadcaster, followed by DVDs, Glee's musical numbers (averaging perhaps three per episode) are made available on iTunes as they happen, and are sold in droves. These profits certainly have the incentive to drive the show to focus more on developing the show's musical features than a well conceived storyline, and the royalties obtained by the original artists for the show's recreations must certainly have high-profile pop sensations beating down doors for the opportunity to feature their music. And where profile beats substance, an inundation of questionable content may ensue.
Personally, I hope for better things for Glee. Don't let the musical 'sensation' pull the focus away from developing a good story.
And as for Miss Lea Michele, while I love your voice and your versatility, steer clear of Brittany Spears. You do a lot of things well, but Spears isn't one of them. Don't worry, though; that's a good thing. SG
Monday, September 27, 2010
Anti-Art, Fragmentation & Lady Gaga, Part 2
To briefly summarise my last instalment, I reviewed Francis Schaeffer's notion of fragmentation in society, as reflected particularly in the media of music and art. We saw the expression of the beauty present in the universe reduced to simplistic elements, often arranged in a chaotic manner, which appears to level the playing field between the sublime and the mundane, as far as inherent meaning, purpose and value is concerned.
It should further be noted at this point (or perhaps in my previous post, had I not written it in the wee hours of the morning) some the inconsistencies present in this worldview. We have already seen that the universe cannot simply be a dizzying condensation of chaos and chance, when we consider things like aeronautics, physiology and mathematics. As far as the beauty and inherent value of man is concerned, Schaeffer notes that whilst much of Pablo Picasso's work portrayed people as simplistic and elemental, portraits of those persons close to him retained the detail reflecting the beauty in his subject.
Neither the order nor beauty in the world around us should be denied.
Let's continue.
Schaeffer proceeds to discuss the idea of anti-art; that is, a piece of art created simply to make an intellectual statement, rather than express anything concerning the reality of who people are, nor the fullness of the universe.
Take John Cage's 4'33", (watch it on YouTube) as previously discussed, which he believed to be his most important work. While this 'creation' (using the loosest conceivable definition of the word) clearly communicates Cage's ideas about what music can be, I've just communicated the same idea to you using a few words. What's the difference? Sitting down at a piano and 'actively doing nothing' will get you a little more attention. (I will resist making any direct remarks regarding political publicity at this point)
I'd like to move on to Lady Gaga (who I incidentally learned today is six months younger than I am). Now be aware that these comments are my own; Francis Schaeffer had the pleasure to miss out on the world going Gaga, but then he had ample questionable morality to deal with in his own lifetime.
Despite being a worldwide sensation, I feel Lady Gaga is among those artists who should, if she must, be heard but not seen. While she does not boast a glass-shattering voice (in a good way), there is certainly musical talent there. Lyrically, there is nothing profound in her writing, but little is in pop-music today. Visually, well let's just say that those seeking anything wholesome would be well-advised to gouge out their eyes to save themselves further pain. Much of her costuming I expect pushes the boundaries of even today's lax censorship standards, and many of her music videos are arguably not suitable for general viewing, despite their accessibility.
Now, while I do not want to deny Gaga's musical talent, and label her work as 'anti-art', I do want to consider why she has achieved such worldwide success, to the degree that she has and for so long. Is this because she is a musical sensation; an amazing vocalist and a brilliant lyricist? I don't think she's that great. I think the answer is in her image.
Generally, while pushing the boundaries and bending the rules attracts attention, it's not always accepted at first (Debussy, and in his later years Beethoven, knew this). Outright controversy sells well, however, and Lady Gaga has it in spades. Her image doesn't simply push the boundaries on current trends, but rather takes her on a flying leap across the line to land in the headlines (meat bikinis will do that). And, while she denies that her attire is intended to make any kind of political or sociological statements, but rather express herself as an individual, I question how looks created by a number of different designers and stylists can express a person's own, unique individuality.
Perhaps her outrageous and controversial style is what has kept (and continues to keep) the public eye trained squarely on Gaga, when it would otherwise have moved on to the next global sensation. However, she can only push the boundaries so far to keep its gazed fixed upon her. We can only wait in apprehension to see what's next for the "fame monster". SG
It should further be noted at this point (or perhaps in my previous post, had I not written it in the wee hours of the morning) some the inconsistencies present in this worldview. We have already seen that the universe cannot simply be a dizzying condensation of chaos and chance, when we consider things like aeronautics, physiology and mathematics. As far as the beauty and inherent value of man is concerned, Schaeffer notes that whilst much of Pablo Picasso's work portrayed people as simplistic and elemental, portraits of those persons close to him retained the detail reflecting the beauty in his subject.
Neither the order nor beauty in the world around us should be denied.
Let's continue.
Schaeffer proceeds to discuss the idea of anti-art; that is, a piece of art created simply to make an intellectual statement, rather than express anything concerning the reality of who people are, nor the fullness of the universe.
Take John Cage's 4'33", (watch it on YouTube) as previously discussed, which he believed to be his most important work. While this 'creation' (using the loosest conceivable definition of the word) clearly communicates Cage's ideas about what music can be, I've just communicated the same idea to you using a few words. What's the difference? Sitting down at a piano and 'actively doing nothing' will get you a little more attention. (I will resist making any direct remarks regarding political publicity at this point)
I'd like to move on to Lady Gaga (who I incidentally learned today is six months younger than I am). Now be aware that these comments are my own; Francis Schaeffer had the pleasure to miss out on the world going Gaga, but then he had ample questionable morality to deal with in his own lifetime.
Despite being a worldwide sensation, I feel Lady Gaga is among those artists who should, if she must, be heard but not seen. While she does not boast a glass-shattering voice (in a good way), there is certainly musical talent there. Lyrically, there is nothing profound in her writing, but little is in pop-music today. Visually, well let's just say that those seeking anything wholesome would be well-advised to gouge out their eyes to save themselves further pain. Much of her costuming I expect pushes the boundaries of even today's lax censorship standards, and many of her music videos are arguably not suitable for general viewing, despite their accessibility.
Now, while I do not want to deny Gaga's musical talent, and label her work as 'anti-art', I do want to consider why she has achieved such worldwide success, to the degree that she has and for so long. Is this because she is a musical sensation; an amazing vocalist and a brilliant lyricist? I don't think she's that great. I think the answer is in her image.
Generally, while pushing the boundaries and bending the rules attracts attention, it's not always accepted at first (Debussy, and in his later years Beethoven, knew this). Outright controversy sells well, however, and Lady Gaga has it in spades. Her image doesn't simply push the boundaries on current trends, but rather takes her on a flying leap across the line to land in the headlines (meat bikinis will do that). And, while she denies that her attire is intended to make any kind of political or sociological statements, but rather express herself as an individual, I question how looks created by a number of different designers and stylists can express a person's own, unique individuality.
Perhaps her outrageous and controversial style is what has kept (and continues to keep) the public eye trained squarely on Gaga, when it would otherwise have moved on to the next global sensation. However, she can only push the boundaries so far to keep its gazed fixed upon her. We can only wait in apprehension to see what's next for the "fame monster". SG
Anti-Art, Fragmentation & Lady Gaga, Part 1
These thoughts are brought to you as a result of a night plagued by insomnia, despite the gentle and relaxing sound of the rain falling on pebbles outside my window.
My church bible study group has recently been working through a video series presented by Dr Francis Schaeffer, 'How should we then live?' This essentially seems to be a series of documentaries commentating on our social ancestry; that is, looking at the progression of society up to what is now commonly referred to as 'western society', and some of the key philosophies and ideas which have shaped this journey, for better or for worse.
Last session, we looked at the Age of Fragmentation (AOF), which seems to encompass a number of events ca.1800-1960, and I thought I'd share some things we discussed; some of which I've reflected on further.
The AOF, as I understand it and can reasonably distil into a sentence or two, appears to represent a period in recent history where life and our world were perceived as meaningless - nothing has an overriding purpose. Two key areas which began to express this notion particularly well were art and music. In art, artists' subjects lost their realism and meaning, as they began to be represented abstractly with shapes and symbols (the work of Pablo Picasso is a good example). Furthermore, the notion of art itself appeared to be redefined, as the simple, mundane and even the absurd were elevated to greatness (see Marcel Duchamp's, Bicycle Wheel).
Similarly in the field of music, 'musician' John Cage made his mark. Music characterised by deliberate chance and confusion made Cage lauded as one of the most influential American composers of the 20th century, though this is perhaps best left for the individual to decide. His best-known composition, 4'33" (or 'Four minutes, thirty-three seconds), features three movements during which not a single note is played - just silence - and seems to represent the idea that any sounds (or indeed absence of sound) may constitute music.
(Watch Cage's 4'33" on YouTube)
Together, these expressions of music and art fail to represent the fullness and beauty of the universe, such as it is, reducing it (and the handful of us who reside here) to mere components; none with any meaning, and no component having any more inherent worth than what we sit on. The simple yet inexplicable beauty of a frangipani is held in as high esteem as spinning wheel on a seat. The sweet melodies of Pachelbel's Canon which have accompanied so many brides down the isle on their wedding day can be easily replaced with the twang of a rubber band against the background of a hundred guests shifting awkwardly in their creaky pews. In a universe of chaos, there is no order. In a world without meaning, nothing has worth.
But, as critics rightly point out, we cannot live on a foundation of pure chaos when we acknowledge order in the practicalities of day to day living; the aerodynamic principles which keep a plane in the air; the myriad of chemical signals, electrical signals, and finely-honed muscle movements, all involved in lifting a cup of coffee to your lips first thing in the morning. The full aesthetic nature of the universe can neither be denied as we acknowledge that most people would prefer to queue for hours to view Da Vinci's Mona Lisa, than gaze upon a black canvas. A recording of JS Bach's famous Tocatta and Fugue would sell marginally better than the swinging of a door on some creaky hinges.
To be continued. SG
My church bible study group has recently been working through a video series presented by Dr Francis Schaeffer, 'How should we then live?' This essentially seems to be a series of documentaries commentating on our social ancestry; that is, looking at the progression of society up to what is now commonly referred to as 'western society', and some of the key philosophies and ideas which have shaped this journey, for better or for worse.
Last session, we looked at the Age of Fragmentation (AOF), which seems to encompass a number of events ca.1800-1960, and I thought I'd share some things we discussed; some of which I've reflected on further.
The AOF, as I understand it and can reasonably distil into a sentence or two, appears to represent a period in recent history where life and our world were perceived as meaningless - nothing has an overriding purpose. Two key areas which began to express this notion particularly well were art and music. In art, artists' subjects lost their realism and meaning, as they began to be represented abstractly with shapes and symbols (the work of Pablo Picasso is a good example). Furthermore, the notion of art itself appeared to be redefined, as the simple, mundane and even the absurd were elevated to greatness (see Marcel Duchamp's, Bicycle Wheel).
Similarly in the field of music, 'musician' John Cage made his mark. Music characterised by deliberate chance and confusion made Cage lauded as one of the most influential American composers of the 20th century, though this is perhaps best left for the individual to decide. His best-known composition, 4'33" (or 'Four minutes, thirty-three seconds), features three movements during which not a single note is played - just silence - and seems to represent the idea that any sounds (or indeed absence of sound) may constitute music.
(Watch Cage's 4'33" on YouTube)
Together, these expressions of music and art fail to represent the fullness and beauty of the universe, such as it is, reducing it (and the handful of us who reside here) to mere components; none with any meaning, and no component having any more inherent worth than what we sit on. The simple yet inexplicable beauty of a frangipani is held in as high esteem as spinning wheel on a seat. The sweet melodies of Pachelbel's Canon which have accompanied so many brides down the isle on their wedding day can be easily replaced with the twang of a rubber band against the background of a hundred guests shifting awkwardly in their creaky pews. In a universe of chaos, there is no order. In a world without meaning, nothing has worth.
But, as critics rightly point out, we cannot live on a foundation of pure chaos when we acknowledge order in the practicalities of day to day living; the aerodynamic principles which keep a plane in the air; the myriad of chemical signals, electrical signals, and finely-honed muscle movements, all involved in lifting a cup of coffee to your lips first thing in the morning. The full aesthetic nature of the universe can neither be denied as we acknowledge that most people would prefer to queue for hours to view Da Vinci's Mona Lisa, than gaze upon a black canvas. A recording of JS Bach's famous Tocatta and Fugue would sell marginally better than the swinging of a door on some creaky hinges.
To be continued. SG
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Assured of Love?
In an attempt to further reflect on things I'm reading currently, I thought it might be beneficial to recount an idea by noted Christian author, John Piper. It deals with the uncertainty that many of us face, as we ask the question, 'Does God really love me? If only I could be sure!'
I know this is an idea that subtly nags many of us, or if you're like me you've asked the question outright several times. Also, if you're like me, you might know God's love 'in your head', but not 'in your heart' - in our bad times we repeatedly recite, 'Yes, Jesus loves me; the Bible tells me so' (or something more age-tailored), but this idea doesn't translate to that love and peace which calms the storm that we feel in our hearts. We look for something more solid; more tangible. Something we can hear, touch, or see.
Piper uses a peculiar illustration, yet makes his point well, which has helped me translate that 'head knowledge' into 'heart knowledge' a little bit better. Or, to put it another way, helped me find greater satisfaction in what God has chosen to reveal to me, as far as assurance of His love is concerned.
Piper uses the example of a spouse, and essentially asks the question, 'How can you be sure that your spouse will not kill you?'
Peculiar indeed...
It seems like a ridiculous question, but consider: a spouse is an independent being beyond your control. Furthermore, there is nothing that they could do to prove to you beyond any shadow of a doubt, that they would never try to take your life. At some level, you could no more predict their thoughts and actions any more than you can a total stranger.
And yet you would feel confident, as you lay down to sleep next to them, that you would wake up the next morning. Why is that?
Piper suggests two reasons. Firstly, your previous experiences with that person, as you see first-hand what they are like; how they treat you, others, etc. Secondly, your knowledge of that person and their character, which I think is largely derived from what that person reveals about themselves, and we learn about that person from others.
And most of us do not demand a further symbolic 'proof'. Even if we did, what kind of sign could satisfy us beyond any doubt? I can't think of any, but generally, our combined experience and knowledge of someone is enough to satisfy us in a relationship.
Yet for some reason, like with so many things, we hold God to a different standard.
We have a lifetime of experience to reflect on God's goodness to us; His mercy and His sustaining grace; His divine providence in many situations whose outcomes remind us that God is still in control. Our knowledge of His character is drawn not only from what God has chosen to reveal to us in His divine word, the Bible, but also as we share our experiences with our Christian Brothers and Sisters, as we are privileged to see God demonstrating His love and divine character in the lives of others.
In short, we have all the things which satisfy us in our earthly relationships. Why is this not sufficient for us to be assured of the love of our Heavenly Father; the One who can love us perfectly and completely, unlike our earthly loved ones who are tainted by sin?
Why do we seek further 'signs of proof'? (Question: Is there a greater proof of love than the sacrifice of the life of His own son?)
So, if we are satisfied by knowledge and experience in our flawed, earthly relationships, then if we, by faith, take the Bible at its word, our knowledge and experience of God should assure us of His love.
And while an assurance of God's love will not quell the storms raging in our fragile hearts, it may give us something to cling to as we ride the waves. SG
I know this is an idea that subtly nags many of us, or if you're like me you've asked the question outright several times. Also, if you're like me, you might know God's love 'in your head', but not 'in your heart' - in our bad times we repeatedly recite, 'Yes, Jesus loves me; the Bible tells me so' (or something more age-tailored), but this idea doesn't translate to that love and peace which calms the storm that we feel in our hearts. We look for something more solid; more tangible. Something we can hear, touch, or see.
Piper uses a peculiar illustration, yet makes his point well, which has helped me translate that 'head knowledge' into 'heart knowledge' a little bit better. Or, to put it another way, helped me find greater satisfaction in what God has chosen to reveal to me, as far as assurance of His love is concerned.
Piper uses the example of a spouse, and essentially asks the question, 'How can you be sure that your spouse will not kill you?'
Peculiar indeed...
It seems like a ridiculous question, but consider: a spouse is an independent being beyond your control. Furthermore, there is nothing that they could do to prove to you beyond any shadow of a doubt, that they would never try to take your life. At some level, you could no more predict their thoughts and actions any more than you can a total stranger.
And yet you would feel confident, as you lay down to sleep next to them, that you would wake up the next morning. Why is that?
Piper suggests two reasons. Firstly, your previous experiences with that person, as you see first-hand what they are like; how they treat you, others, etc. Secondly, your knowledge of that person and their character, which I think is largely derived from what that person reveals about themselves, and we learn about that person from others.
And most of us do not demand a further symbolic 'proof'. Even if we did, what kind of sign could satisfy us beyond any doubt? I can't think of any, but generally, our combined experience and knowledge of someone is enough to satisfy us in a relationship.
Yet for some reason, like with so many things, we hold God to a different standard.
We have a lifetime of experience to reflect on God's goodness to us; His mercy and His sustaining grace; His divine providence in many situations whose outcomes remind us that God is still in control. Our knowledge of His character is drawn not only from what God has chosen to reveal to us in His divine word, the Bible, but also as we share our experiences with our Christian Brothers and Sisters, as we are privileged to see God demonstrating His love and divine character in the lives of others.
In short, we have all the things which satisfy us in our earthly relationships. Why is this not sufficient for us to be assured of the love of our Heavenly Father; the One who can love us perfectly and completely, unlike our earthly loved ones who are tainted by sin?
Why do we seek further 'signs of proof'? (Question: Is there a greater proof of love than the sacrifice of the life of His own son?)
So, if we are satisfied by knowledge and experience in our flawed, earthly relationships, then if we, by faith, take the Bible at its word, our knowledge and experience of God should assure us of His love.
And while an assurance of God's love will not quell the storms raging in our fragile hearts, it may give us something to cling to as we ride the waves. SG
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)