We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
Oscar Wilde
I have, in all honesty, found myself becoming more-and-more philosophical of late. I don’t particularly know why- I sometimes just find myself drifting into a stream of thoughts which carry me down the river. What a charming metaphor…
Reminiscing to myself a couple of days ago, it struck me just how fast time is passing by. It honestly feels as if I’m jumping from one week to the next- I can just imagine time laughing at me as I try to make sense of it all. For example, it was “only” a month ago that my pet dog Jack died. That feels like it happened last week. It is now, more-or-less, mid-November- soon it will be December and then Christmas.
All this, I will admit, has taken quite a toll on me. In the next month or so, I will be finishing my “UCAS” application form to send away to Universities, who will then have the wonderful “pleasure” of considering whether or not they really want me rampaging around their campus.
I’m still not completely sure about University and, truth be told, it’s scaring the wits out of me. I guess last year was different in that I was in a “comfort” zone- I always knew I had another year to think things through. Although, saying that, it’s not that I haven’t thought the prospect of University through hard enough- I’ve thought about it quite a bit- it’s more the reality of it that’s starting to hit home. However, nervous as I am, I am actually quite excited.
Lately, I have began to “question” a few things. Not so much “question” in the sceptical sense, but more “question” in the curiosity sense (if I may put it that way).
With Christmas approaching, there are waves-upon-waves of advertisements on television showcasing toys and other “Christmasy” goods. I, like many other people, love Christmas. I love the carol singing, the exchange of presents, the festive atmosphere, the sense of fellowship with friends and family and, of course, the snow (my good fellow citizens of Northern Ireland literally pray for snow each year to arrive on Christmas Day- I remember their prayers came true a few years ago…).
Call me an old traditionalist, but there is something about Christmas Cards depicting Victorian-Era villages and people that just captivate me. Maybe it’s the sense of nostalgia seeping through; a reflection to Disney-esque Christmas movies of Charles Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol”.
I wrote a post about a year ago in which I somewhat ranted on about Christmas in (I think) a bad light. To be honest, I think I was in a bit of a huffy mood that day. Nevertheless, looking back, I think my views and attitudes towards Christmas have changed a bit. While I still maintain that the Christian “version” of Christmas has been somewhat sidelined in favour of secular commercialism, I don’t believe that buying and giving presents is intrinsically wrong, nor is the aesthetic appeal of Christmas.
Again, I’m sure most people enjoy and celebrate Christmas- even Atheists (although, usually not in the same way as Christians). What makes Christmas special might vary from person-to-person but, in my opinion, it largely comes down to the aesthetics of it. To some, Christmas decorations (whether on a tree or furniture) are just for looks- a chance to make the interior or exterior of a house (or other building) look nice. To others, decorations are not just for aesthetic appeal but have a symbolic meaning behind them. About three-or-so weeks before Christmas, music for the occasion is played, ranging from the religious to the secular, and various Christmas-themed movies are released.
Maybe the fact that Christmas is inclusive, and can be celebrated by everyone in different ways, is what makes it so popular- it’s a worldwide festival which spans most cultures and peoples. In other words, there’s something in it for everyone.
This may seem like a complete divergence from the topic of Christmas, but it is also (I think) a great opportunity to ask the questions, “What is ‘art’?” and “What is ‘beauty’?”.
Beauty and art are, usually, synonymous with one other. What the two “things” are might cause a bit of controversy. There is the predominant view in society that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” or that “beauty” is relative and subjective. In other words, what I find ugly you might find beautiful. But, I think we have to ask ourselves what “beauty” actually means before we can start speaking in such terms. When we say that someone, or something, is beautiful, what are we referring to? Is “beauty” aesthetic looks or can a personality be called “beautiful”? Is there an objective standard, or measure, by which “beauty” can be judged?
I think that “art” is (or is partly) the visual representation of something or someone, or the representation of an image in a person’s mind. For example, if you sit by a stream and draw the surroundings around you, you are drawing a representation (or version) of what you are seeing. Your painting is not “real-time” in the sense that its final form constantly changes to reflect the changes in nature- in other words, you might position a tree in a particular area in your painting, but that actual, real tree might be cut down two months after you’ve painted it. More-so than that, I think that “art” is not just about painting or drawing shapes, but also using (or having) the correct colours and contrasts in those shapes- if the colours are all mixed up, smudged or badly contrast each other, the painting (or other form of image) will not be “whole” and will look disjointed.
The same could be said with regards to photography. It too is “art” in the sense that, in order for a picture to look nice or “connected”, the perspective must be suitable for the subject matter in question and the picture shouldn’t have smudges or “noise”.
No doubt some will accuse me of being too idealistic- trying to create the perfect visual form of reality. After-all, some might say, isn’t it wrong to apply such standards (or judgements) with regards to people? Isn’t it “wrong” to try to “create” the perfect physical form of a Human Being? Isn’t that far too shallow? Besides, isn’t “beauty” in the eye of the beholder…?
I must stress that I don’t see myself as idealistic- I am not trying to create the “perfect” Human Being, even though I do think it’s an interesting ethical (as well as artistic) question.
So, what is the objective standard of “beauty” (if there is one)? How do we know, or determine, what is “beautiful” and what is “ugly”?
Most of us all have the same physical, bodily “parts”. We all mostly have eyes, ears, feet etc. It is only when each of these are in the right position that the body functions properly. You need your arms in that position to lift objects efficiently; you need two legs in that position to move efficiently; you need two eyes in that position to see efficiently. While you can live and survive with one of each of these, you ideally need both in order to function properly. If your feet become your hands and your hands become your feet, you wont be able to function as well than if you have hands “attached” to the end of your arms and feet “attached” to the bottom of your legs. You can’t replace your hands with your ears, or else you would be unable to lift or grasp objects.
I know it sounds absurd and silly, but the point being is that if a body part is missing, corrupted or “moved”, the body cannot function efficiently- everything needs to be in the right place in order for the body to work well. It’s a bit like a car and its functions- it needs four wheels in the right position to properly move and manoeuvre, as well as an engine in the right place to give it enough power.
The same applies with regards to “beauty” (in the physical sense). If one eye is more lopsided than the other, the face will not look as beautiful than if both eyes are aligned with each other- the image will be distorted. If one ear is higher than the other, or both “stick out”, the face will not look as beautiful than if both ears are equally aligned and positioned- again, the image will be distorted. Although it might sound cold, harsh and idealistic, there is a certain element of symmetry involved in a face, body or thing in order for it to look physically attractive or “complete”.
For example, in mostly every fashion magazine, it is slim models who are showcasing the clothes. Even on billboards, advertising something to do with fashion (for example), a physically attractive person is “used” as the means of advertising the product (I don’t mean “used” in the manipulative sense, although that does happen…).
Most men are attracted to women, physically, who have a “hour-glass” figure. Likewise, most women are attracted to men, physically, who have a “six-pack” figure. That’s just a fact of life- people are more physically attracted to those who are themselves physically attractive. Although, saying that, some people don’t care what a person looks like, or aren’t fussed when it comes to the issue of aesthetic beauty.
Again, some people might raise the argument that this is shallow thinking. I would agree, though, that you shouldn’t judge someone based solely on looks- the personality, I think, matters as well. However, I would argue that it’s not necessarily wrong either to be attracted to someone on a physical basis. You don’t buy the ugliest painting in a shop, or the one most distorted, you buy a painting which looks visually compelling. You buy the one which looks nice above your fireplace, or the one which contrasts nicely with the colour of your living room. You buy the one which will make visitors say, “Wow, that’s a nice painting”. So, there is a certain standard of judgement involved.
Generally, the Christian response to the aesthetic “obsession” that most people have is to quote what Jesus said:
Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way as you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
Matthew 7 v 1-2
Sometimes, the following verse is also quoted:
But the Lord said to Samuel, ‘Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The Lord does not look at the things human beings look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.’”
1 Samuel 16 v 7
While these verses are usually taken within the context of aesthetics, I think it’s somewhat difficult to pin them down as talking solely about looks. Again, in my opinion, it comes down to what you mean by “appearance” (or even “looks”). Appearance, while usually talked about in the aesthetic sense can, I believe, also refer to behaviour. For example, someone could say, “He looks like an idiot”. This doesn’t generally mean that an idiot has a particular aesthetic “quality” to them but that their behaviour leads people to believe that he or she is an idiot.
However, I suppose it could be argued that behaviour also reflects the aesthetics of the body.
For instance, if a person drinks too much alcohol while clubbing and stumbles onto the street, falling over (possibly even vomiting), they will not look as aesthetically attractive than if they are sober and their behaviour “normal”. Pardon the crude description, their arms will be flailing, their balance will be off course and their speech will be slurred. Most people do not find that aesthetically attractive because, in a way, it distorts the image of the body and “twists” it.
To be honest, I don’t think it’s wrong for a Christian to be attracted to someone on a physical basis. In other words, I think it’s OK for a Christian to feel attracted to someone physically. There is nowhere in the Bible, to my knowledge, which explicitly says, “You must not feel physically attracted to the opposite sex”. Indeed, if anything, I think that beauty is celebrated in the Bible in the Book of Song of Songs- a book not often touched upon by Christians:
He
I liken you, my darling, to a mare
among Pharaoh’s chariot horses.
Your cheeks are beautiful with ear-rings,
your neck with strings of jewels.
We will make you ear-rings of gold,
studded with silver.He
How beautiful you are, my darling!
Oh, how beautiful!
Your eyes are doves.
SheHow handsome you are, my beloved!
Oh, how charming!
And our bed is verdant.Song of Songs 1 v 9-11, 15, 16
So, lads, next time you happen to meet a charming girl in the café, give her a compliment by telling her that her eyes look like doves- do be careful, though: she will either highly appreciate it, be highly offended by it, or think that you’re a bit creepy. It’s all about timing. Not that I would know, of course…
In keeping with what seems to be the predominant theme of “art” in this post, there are many people who believe that “art” encompasses more than just visual representations of the real world. For instance, many people believe that music is “art” and, indeed, musicians and singers are often referred to as “artists”. So, what makes their music “artistic”?
Like paintings and looks, people have their own “taste” in music- some like Heavy Metal, some prefer Rock, while some prefer Classical (or a different genre).
Perhaps this redefines, or changes our perception, of what “art” really is. Whereas “art” is usually considered to be the visual representation of something, music is, in a sense, sound “representation” (the same could possibly extend to writing, in that what a person writes is “art”, or a creative process of thoughts). Indeed, music and “art” (in the conventional sense of the word) are very similar.
Just like the colours and shapes in a painting all need to properly contrast and represent something (or someone) in order to be considered “art” (or be a proper representation of something), the notes, vocals and instruments in a piece of music all need to compliment each other properly in order for there to be any sort of consistency- if the notes are all radically different, as well as the instruments and vocal ranges, the music will not sound like a unified piece of creative expression, but will be a muddle of different sounds, tones and pitches.
So, what makes “good” music? How can we distinguish between a good piece of music and a bad piece? What types of music are pleasing to the ear and what types are downright horrible?
Maybe I should clarify that statement. I’m not necessarily trying to suggest that one genre of music is worse than another. What I am saying is that there is a certain element involved in music which determines its uniqueness.
Again, I believe that what makes “good” music is the proper synchronization of vocals and instruments- there needs to be a balance between the two- the vocals need to compliment the instrumental notes, and the instrumental notes need to compliment the vocals. As well as that, the lyrics (if there are any words) need to properly reflect the facts of life, of reality, or of a person’s thoughts, desires and values. I’ve somewhat often taken the stance that lyrics are, essentially, poetry- not so much because they rhyme but because they are similar to how poetry is usually structured.
Another interesting link between “art” and music is that of emotion. In visual art, certain colours are said to represent particular emotions- red represents anger (or lust, passion, warmth and comfort), green represents envy, blue represents coldness etc.
In music, certain tones and pitches stir particular feelings and emotions in the listener- an aggressive, rock tone might stir up feelings of anger or hate, whereas a harmonic tone might stir up feelings of calmness and contentment. Some artists, in a bid to be different or to “break the mould”, have incorporated many different styles and genres, to the point where it’s unclear whether the music is Rock or whether it’s Dance (or Pop, Rap, R & B etc). While that can sometimes work, it usually doesn’t and if many different styles are incorporated, something usually gets sacrificed or water-downed.
My friend and I were sitting one day listening to the music on his iPod. He had an ear-phone in his ear, while I had the other in mine. He’s quite a big fan of Heavy Metal music and so what he played was quite aggressive material. To be honest, while he enjoys that particular taste of music (and that’s fine), it’s not to my own personal liking.
Truth be told, when listening to the music, I found it very difficult to distinguish between the songs- I wasn’t sure whether what was playing was a new song or was the same song I had been listening to. I came to the conclusion that day that most Heavy Metal music sounds the same. The vocals, to me, didn’t have any sort of clarity to them- there were times when I was wondering whether the singer was randomly screaming or trying to ask for a glass of water…
Maybe my friend could enlighten me.
I’m not a big fan of so-called “reality T.V.” programmes and I rarely watch them. In the U.K., The X-Factor attracts millions of people every Saturday night. This year’s show has been quite controversial in that the twin duo (I think they’re twins…), John and Edward (dubbed “Jedward”), have gotten more votes and gotten through the rounds than some of the better singers in the “competition”.
I personally don’t think it matters whether the voting is deliberate or not, the fact remains that, at least in my opinion, “The X-Factor” (and shows like it) are “cheap” ways of getting fame. As the phrase goes, “All publicity is good publicity”. “Jedward” may be horrible singers and performers (and they are) but the fact remains that they are getting a lot of attention and media coverage.
The sad reason why they are getting so much attention is because they are bad singers and performers. To me, there is no logic in that whatsoever. People are, essentially, rewarding “Jedward” for their flaws. If the pair win the show, they will receive a music contract and probably a lot of money and attention, while bands and musicians who work for their keep will be sidelined.
On GMTV a few days ago, an “insider” into the latest X-Factor gossip was being interviewed. The interviewer mentioned “Jedward’s” lack of musical talent and asked whether The X-Factor was really a serious music competition any more. The interviewee replied that, even though “Jedward” may be horrible singers and performers, she thought that they are nevertheless good entertainment for a Saturday night. She also commented how Simon Cowell (one of the judges) “realised” that “Jedward” were good television entertainment and that’s why he decided to let the vote go to the public.
I don’t want to turn this into a X-Factor rant (though, I could easily do that…) but I would have to disagree with her. My criticism is not aimed solely at “Jedward” but at “reality T.V.” as a whole. I have a Facebook profile which I use, more-or-less, everyday. It’s gotten to the stage where I can predict what is going to be talked about in my friends’ “Status Updates” every Saturday night: X-Factor and “Jedward”. I am, in all sincerity, quite fed up hearing about the two, and I don’t mean that nastily.
An interesting thing I notice when I do watch The X-Factor (or similar shows) is the reaction of the studio audience to the judges’ verdicts. If a judge says that the performance or singing is bad, or not up to scratch, the audience boo at him or her. If another judge gives a positive reaction, the audience cheer and whistle.
There is, I believe, the notion floating around that it’s somehow “bad” or “wrong” to be critical of others, or to give criticism- we all must say how good somebody is at something, even if they’re really not- we all must boast their ego. In other words, people are afraid to voice the truth for fear of hurting another person’s feelings. Of course, I do believe that if you are to give criticism, that it should be valid and properly grounded- there is a difference, I think, between criticism and spite.
I often hope (pray, almost…) for a cultural shift. A shift away from shallowness to something deeper and more meaningful. People often say on Monday that they can’t wait until Friday and the weekend. While it’s nice to have a break, there is also something special about working and using your mind and body during the week to fulfil a goal- a way of injecting meaning into your life.
To me, awe-and-wonder is not in the pop-culture of The X-Factor (of which I’ve never seen myself as a part of), it is in the beauty of aesthetic art, in the stars and nature, in the company of family and friends, in the technology, science and philosophies of the world, in the notes and lyrics of music with meaning, in the literature of my favourite novels (and Blogs), and in the application of the mind to solving life’s problems and mysteries…
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing.
Albert Einstein
