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
Monday, September 27, 2010
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
Saturday, January 30, 2010
New Job a Dead End
Greetings all,
Well, to those of you who don't already know, I have managed to get a new job. Still within QH in the hospital, but moving towards a speciality, you might say. I've taken up a permanent role in Oncology and Palliative Care!
Hence the title of my blog, which I realise is slightly dark, but I've decided that a good sense of humour (though used with discretion, depending on the audience) will be paramount to doing well in the job.
So starting end of Feb, after my much-needed break, I'll be an HP4, working half-time in Pall Care, and half-time in Oncology.
The job took my interest for a few reasons, I think.
1) I've always been interested in Oncology and Haematology, though both very difficult and challenging areas.
2) I've been in acute medical so long that I needed a change, and perhaps what it highlighted to me was that due to the high patient turnover, you're very much admitting patients, sorting out issues, then discharging them. There is very little time to build rapport with individual patients, many of whom you don't see again. Being permanently in Onc and Pall Care will be very different. Patients come in and out of clinics and hospital, as the disease progresses. You get to know each patient, their illnesses, their social issues, and see them more over the longer term. Hence, you get to form a relationship with these patients, and a trust, which may lead to being able to have more of an influence over their treatment; not only their physical health but their coping skills.
Of course, this will make it difficult when they finally come to the terminal palliative phase, and finally die, but I hope that in that, too, I can make a difference to not only ease their death, but also share my faith (though on my personal time) should there be an opportunity to do so. I think being a Christian in this setting, where the staff are constantly surrounded by death, there would be many opportunities for evangelism to them also.
For example, in the last week, we had about 8 patients die. Quite a lot for a week, I think, even in a Pall Care unit. The nursing staff were quite fragile, so what an opportunity to love.
I think I will have the emotional strength (mostly due to the perspective that comes from being a Christian) to deal with this, but please pray that God may strengthen me to this end.
So I am looking forward to this job. I hope I do well. The feedback I had from my interview said that the panel were convinced that I would be able to do the job and do it well, so I am very encouraged by that!
I hope that God is leading me in a planned direction, and will use this job not only to grow my faith in, trust in, and dependence on Him, but also on my love for Him, my confidence in Him for my salvation, and my love for others to the extent that I can share the hope that I have in Jesus Christ.
Scott
I write when I'm inspired
Dear all,
While I love your commitment and dedication (nearly to the point of holding a gun at my head) to get me to keep writing and updating my blog, I should inform you that I write when,
a) I'm inspired; and,
b) I have the time
Unfortunately those two things don't always occur simultaneously, so you'll just have to deal with it.
Having said that, I have now been blessed with three glorious weeks of holidays! Praise God, and the benevolence of QH, such as it is.
Hopefully time and inspiration will come a-flocking.
Love to all,
Scoot
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)