Sermons in Song: Interpreting Art
Interpreting Art
The recent exchanges regarding worship have left me thinking about the hermeneutics of art. Truly, if we are going to evaluate a musical expression, we can only do so in accordance with our understanding of the interpretation of that communication. For example, what is more important in the communicative act? Is it the communicator, the form, or the audience? I would propose that this question reveals more about the choices we make regarding music than most would realize.
For many years, conservative interpreters have held up the communicator as the determiner of meaning, and because of this "authorial intent" has become the battle cry against the opposite side of the equation that suggests that the audience determines meaning, giving us "reader / response" theories of interpretation. It is in this tug of war that we find the difficulty in interpreting artistic expressions.
First, we need to acknowledge that art is communication, so principles of hermeneutics can be applied (in so far as they are not specific to linguistic expressions). Second, we need to realize that, in the communicative process, art is not itself the communicator nor the audience. Art is the form employed for the purpose of communicating something to someone. The third element that tends to confound the issue is the notion of "culture." Essentially, when we are evaluating culture, we are really interpreting the meaning of individual expressions or categories of expressions within some identifiable cultural milieu.
Since the art we have been discussing is music, let's aim there. The Bible mostly gives us global or abstract principles specifically regarding music. These principles mainly relate to what we are to do with music rather than the kind of music we employ. Colossians 3:16 is an example, where we are told what to do with music in the church, but we are not given direct information about how to do it. However, there is some information about the kind of music we use, but this comes in the form of adjectives that are themselves abstract. For example, Psalm 95 speaks of singing "joyfully" (among other descriptive language).
The Bible does give us a good deal more information regarding how we are to communicate, and since art is, itself, communication, these principles are certainly applicable to the question. Even so, we are not given specific information on any mechanical elements of how to do this. The reason should be obvious: languages are way too different to allow for such distinctions. So if there is no direct help, how are we able to make wise choices?
One tempting approach (and it is used by many) is to assert that the music is irrelevant as long as the words are good, but then we would have to say music is not, itself, a form of communication. The only problem with that notion is that music, in particular, is undeniably communicative (even without words). This drives us to ask, if that is so, how we are to determine the meaning of a given artistic expression?
The main conservative approach is to parse the features of the form itself to determine meaning, but that doesn't even work well in language, which is far more precise than any abstract art. The reason this approach is not effective is that our understanding of the form is inextricably bound up with our own cultural environment. We are the audience, and we have an opinion regarding the nature of the communication. Of course, the performer has an opinion on what they are working to communicate as well, but none of these three elements can be effectively evaluated in isolation.
This means that understanding the meaning of a given musical expression must take into account the performer, the form, and the audience. In each case, the context is critical in order to gain any clear impression of what is actually being communicated.
Our culture's view of art mirrors its views on interpretation in general: the audience's impression is all that matters. We could assert that the performer's intention is all that matters, or we could also assert that the form is universally communicating something. In each case, we cannot effectively parse the meaning of music, for all three are inextricably tied to one another. Context drives meaning, both in language and in art.
If we are going to evaluate the appropriateness of a given musical expression, we must seek to understand the context in which it is performed (a campfire is different than a cathedral), the form that is being used (guitar is different than organ), and the people that make up the audience (rural south is quite different than urban LA).
So does music communicate? Absolutely! Should we bother to try to understand what it communicates? We must! How are we to do it? Simply, the best way to understand how our culture interprets its music is to consider that particular kind of music's place in a movie score. There is a reason you don't hear death metal in romantic scenes or easy listening in a fight scene. This one tool gives us great insight into the broader culture's understanding of particular forms, and Christians who would communicate clearly to a particular audience must consider the emotional force of the musical forms they chose.
For many years, conservative interpreters have held up the communicator as the determiner of meaning, and because of this "authorial intent" has become the battle cry against the opposite side of the equation that suggests that the audience determines meaning, giving us "reader / response" theories of interpretation. It is in this tug of war that we find the difficulty in interpreting artistic expressions.
First, we need to acknowledge that art is communication, so principles of hermeneutics can be applied (in so far as they are not specific to linguistic expressions). Second, we need to realize that, in the communicative process, art is not itself the communicator nor the audience. Art is the form employed for the purpose of communicating something to someone. The third element that tends to confound the issue is the notion of "culture." Essentially, when we are evaluating culture, we are really interpreting the meaning of individual expressions or categories of expressions within some identifiable cultural milieu.
Since the art we have been discussing is music, let's aim there. The Bible mostly gives us global or abstract principles specifically regarding music. These principles mainly relate to what we are to do with music rather than the kind of music we employ. Colossians 3:16 is an example, where we are told what to do with music in the church, but we are not given direct information about how to do it. However, there is some information about the kind of music we use, but this comes in the form of adjectives that are themselves abstract. For example, Psalm 95 speaks of singing "joyfully" (among other descriptive language).
The Bible does give us a good deal more information regarding how we are to communicate, and since art is, itself, communication, these principles are certainly applicable to the question. Even so, we are not given specific information on any mechanical elements of how to do this. The reason should be obvious: languages are way too different to allow for such distinctions. So if there is no direct help, how are we able to make wise choices?
One tempting approach (and it is used by many) is to assert that the music is irrelevant as long as the words are good, but then we would have to say music is not, itself, a form of communication. The only problem with that notion is that music, in particular, is undeniably communicative (even without words). This drives us to ask, if that is so, how we are to determine the meaning of a given artistic expression?
The main conservative approach is to parse the features of the form itself to determine meaning, but that doesn't even work well in language, which is far more precise than any abstract art. The reason this approach is not effective is that our understanding of the form is inextricably bound up with our own cultural environment. We are the audience, and we have an opinion regarding the nature of the communication. Of course, the performer has an opinion on what they are working to communicate as well, but none of these three elements can be effectively evaluated in isolation.
This means that understanding the meaning of a given musical expression must take into account the performer, the form, and the audience. In each case, the context is critical in order to gain any clear impression of what is actually being communicated.
Our culture's view of art mirrors its views on interpretation in general: the audience's impression is all that matters. We could assert that the performer's intention is all that matters, or we could also assert that the form is universally communicating something. In each case, we cannot effectively parse the meaning of music, for all three are inextricably tied to one another. Context drives meaning, both in language and in art.
If we are going to evaluate the appropriateness of a given musical expression, we must seek to understand the context in which it is performed (a campfire is different than a cathedral), the form that is being used (guitar is different than organ), and the people that make up the audience (rural south is quite different than urban LA).
So does music communicate? Absolutely! Should we bother to try to understand what it communicates? We must! How are we to do it? Simply, the best way to understand how our culture interprets its music is to consider that particular kind of music's place in a movie score. There is a reason you don't hear death metal in romantic scenes or easy listening in a fight scene. This one tool gives us great insight into the broader culture's understanding of particular forms, and Christians who would communicate clearly to a particular audience must consider the emotional force of the musical forms they chose.