I heard a lecture on beauty by my good friend, Dr. Larry Feingold. I am fully convinced that Aristotle and St. Thomas are right about this, of course. I'm Catholic, after all. [You don't realize how easily, or how often, that is taken for granted.--ed.] Nevertheless, as far as I am able, I will intentionally plant myself in that tradition, and I will take the Catholic philosophical, theological, aesthetic, etc. as a starting position.
So it's not rap I will defend, but pop-folk-rock legend James Taylor. This is my "teenage rebellion" of the day. My musical formation is partially owed to this guy. Don't worry; I will listen to Mozart or Palestrina after this or something. How I wish Dr. Cross knew this man's music as well as I do! Which isn't to say that I know it well, in some respects. But you could do much, much, worse. As a side-note, you'll see in fact that he's the whitest guy ever, in case there had been some doubt.
I appreciate that Dr. Feingold said that there is some goodness in any art, no matter how low-brow, or lacking in the transcendentals. For the purposes of this discussion, that's all I needed to know. [You just want license to indulge your terrible taste in music.--ed.] Perhaps! Ha! But what's really exciting is, I'm always expanding my tastes. I'm no longer an egalitarian, with respect to any art, or with respect to expertise. Therefore, experiencing art in the broad sense is about discernment, from here on in. For whatever it's worth. Inquiry: If the problem with modern art or music is that it prizes self-expression that ends in a kind of nihilism and banality, how do we convey things like sorrow, deep disaffection, and tragedy, in a world made by God, against the backdrop of putatively desiring to be in harmony with Good?
As one example, evangelical Christian movies are preachy, heavy-handed, and arguably, not art. This is because the works themselves are so subordinated to conveying the message of good news as they understand it that the works lack the mysterious power of the beautiful. We want to inspire mankind to its highest end, but we don't want to destroy the natural in that pursuit. It's a trickier set of questions than it may appear. Further investigation is warranted. And long live JT!
So it's not rap I will defend, but pop-folk-rock legend James Taylor. This is my "teenage rebellion" of the day. My musical formation is partially owed to this guy. Don't worry; I will listen to Mozart or Palestrina after this or something. How I wish Dr. Cross knew this man's music as well as I do! Which isn't to say that I know it well, in some respects. But you could do much, much, worse. As a side-note, you'll see in fact that he's the whitest guy ever, in case there had been some doubt.
I appreciate that Dr. Feingold said that there is some goodness in any art, no matter how low-brow, or lacking in the transcendentals. For the purposes of this discussion, that's all I needed to know. [You just want license to indulge your terrible taste in music.--ed.] Perhaps! Ha! But what's really exciting is, I'm always expanding my tastes. I'm no longer an egalitarian, with respect to any art, or with respect to expertise. Therefore, experiencing art in the broad sense is about discernment, from here on in. For whatever it's worth. Inquiry: If the problem with modern art or music is that it prizes self-expression that ends in a kind of nihilism and banality, how do we convey things like sorrow, deep disaffection, and tragedy, in a world made by God, against the backdrop of putatively desiring to be in harmony with Good?
As one example, evangelical Christian movies are preachy, heavy-handed, and arguably, not art. This is because the works themselves are so subordinated to conveying the message of good news as they understand it that the works lack the mysterious power of the beautiful. We want to inspire mankind to its highest end, but we don't want to destroy the natural in that pursuit. It's a trickier set of questions than it may appear. Further investigation is warranted. And long live JT!
Comments