The Chicken and the Art

First, I want to say "thank you" and "welcome."  Portia, at Portia Rediscovered, offered us some nice words and linked us to her site.  This followed, I think, from Portia and I (part of the "herd") having to team up to set frequent commenter MBMc straight on Francophilism.  Due to Typepad's difficulties yesterday, I couldn't reply or acknowledge the kind gesture--I'll provide the link to her site on our blog list too, and I'll also link to Mr. Cline's "sufrensucstash" blog.  To Portia's readers, you can get up to speed with All These Things by reading our first post here.  We're always hoping for a vibrant discussion, so please give us your comments!

Speaking of vibrant discussions, Philomena's dating life, and the comments about it, have sparked a discussion about the direction of our culture and art.  Timothy replied to my query about art degrading culture, or culture degrading art.  And, as a bonus, it's replete with Vanilla Ice references!

Here's the crux of Timothy's thoughts--but to understand the origin of the thread, or why Vanilla Ice is ever cited, you'll need to read up here:

In this case I believe I will have to go with the egg in that I think that the "art" accurately reflects our currently depraved state. Throughout history there have always been those interested in the devious and profane. For these individuals, culture has rarely failed to meet their needs and I believe that our time period is no exception.

Over the past 50 years or so, we have seen a rapid deterioration of the walls of morality that have guarded us against this type of material. In addition, we are producing a people group who has a tremendous probability of having a traumatic home life and/or divorcing. This of course leads to "looking for love in all the wrong places, looking for love in too many faces" to the extent that our present culture scarcely knows what a functional relationship looks like. Combine all of this with the myriad ways we now have at our fingertips to get our "art" out to the masses and you are left with a market of biblical proportions. This particular type of material sells exceptionally well in a day and age where anything goes, points are added for shock value, and pushing the envelope is expected. Of course, as you mentioned, the market then begets more market and I again echo Vanilla Ice, "will it ever stop? Yo, I don't know". Suffice it to say that we are hungry for it and it seems that everyone who can get their hands in the proverbial cookie jar is more than willing to deliver.

Additionally disturbing to me in this whole mess, though, is the general female response. Why embrace it? Why is one of the most popular songs on the radio "Promiscuous Girl" (sung by a bunch of women, I might add)? When did we start feeding females this lie that the harlot was desired above all else to such an extent that they actually started to believe it? Where id we go wrong? Where do we go from here? Maybe the hearts of men are always evil all the time.

So, is art pushing culture the wrong way, or is it reflecting the culture it is created in--and why are the ladies O.K. with the current art "egg"?  Your thoughts?

Thomas More

P.S. And in a slightly less related chicken/egg fashion, read this critical, late-breaking story (funny.)

allthesemore@yahoo.com

Comments

[Philomena]

There's so much to say in response to this, but I'll weigh-in straight away on "why are the ladies OK with this". I don't we are if we are truly honest. BUT, there's a strong sense that we can expect very little and so we should lower our expectations to avoid disappointment. I work with a group of guys who are always talking about their dream of finding women they can sleep with and never call again. Is that what guys really want? I don't believe that either (wishful thinking?!) but it's the most immediate quick-fix for their need for intimacy. And the most immediate quick-fix for women is to tailor themselves to fit what men apparently want, to get some attention, however brief. It's a vicious messed up cycle and the only way out is to believe there's something better out there that's worth holding out for. As Timothy says, it's hard to hold on to the belief of something better if we've never experienced anything different.

[Thomas More]

Philomena,

Good points. Hopefully you can expound on these later. I doubt very much that people generally, or women specifically, are "ok" with their portrayal in contemporary music. But, clearly, many go along and give in to it.

Why? Maybe for the reasons you list, maybe it's easier to conform than shout into the wind. I don't know.

I will say though, that holding onto the belief of something better, even if we've never experienced it, is a must. To settle is to destroy a part of ourselves.

Why? Because the belief that there is or should be something better CANNOT come from nowhere. Essentially, if the heart longs for something better, truer, more pure, it seems to point to design. That is, the heart was not made to settle for the norms of a group of guys at the office. They probably don't even believe what they say, and are just all trying not to look soft to the other guys by responding: "no, I'd really like someone I can cuddle and grow old with..." Though that's exactly what they probably feel in their heart of hearts--in addition to their various other desires, which I'm not saying don't exist.

You wouldn't be imagining, hoping, longing for the proper relationship if we weren't designed in a way that allowed for it. No relationship will be perfect in this world, but there will certainly be some that aim in the right direction.

When we see God using marriage as an example of our relationship with Him, we must assume relationships are to be more than mere physical satisfaction, without a follow-up call. There is something eternal in all relationships, at any level of intimacy, a bond between different beings is no small thing.

TM

[Portia]

Sir Thomas,

Excellent points. C.S. Lewis would be proud, as you echo his very own sentiments found in his writings on desire.

I know most people don't like being preached to in their hour of anguish, least of all me, so Philomena, I'm with you girl. But I also believe every word TM wrote. It's that pesky verse from Hebrews 11:1 that always reminds me of the same. :)

[Thomas More]

As Philomena will confirm, that's the first time in recorded history that anyone--much less a female--ever agreed with everything I said!

TM

[Philomena]

No, go ahead and preach away Portia! I need every word of good sense I can get. I am actually very grateful that there is hope of something better, however hard that hope is to hold onto. At the same time it's extremely sad that there are those who genuinely believe the 'quick-fix' is as good as it gets. I think we should all go and spread some Good News;)

[Tim (not Timothy)]

Perhaps the problem is that we are constantly being told by brilliant academics that there is no such thing as a need for intimacy (or a relationship where you grow old together, for that matter). Those of us who desire intimacy are merely delusioned and should wake up to the reality of things. Facing this reality, anyone seeking intimacy turns to what seems to be the best alternative: as much manufactured intimacy with as many people as possible - in order to numb the desire for intimacy.

On the other hand, the media tells us that we'll find true intimacy when we find our soul mate. So if there is a lack of intimacy in your relationship, it's not because you haven't worked enough toward intimacy - it's because the other person isn't your soul mate. You then have a licence to leave that relationship for another. (Or worse: if you meet someone with whom you appear to have more intimacy, you can immediately leave your marriage even if you thought you had intimacy.) Faced with this reality, we bounce from relationship to relationship, always mistaking for intimacy the initial rush of getting to know someone - and then leaving as soon as the rush is over.

So now the question is who is responsible for this belief that we must not work toward true intimacy? I'm not sure, but it can't help that Christians can't seem to offer a more consistent example. I would like to believe that Christian marriages are more intimate than non-Christian, but that's hard to quantify. Instead, we're left with the fact that Christian marriages are just as likely as non-Christian marriages to end before death-do-us-part.