Messiah College Faith & Culture: Closing Thoughts

| | Comments (2)

As promised, here are some final additional thoughts on the Messiah College Faith & Popular Culture Conference.


  • Over Thai food at dinner one night, someone asked about the place of evil in the discussions at these conferences. There's a lot of talk about "good" art and looking for truth, but what about evil and sin? One of the examples he raised as an example of extreme evil was rape. What does "discernment" look like in the face of so great an evil? In this particular example, I think discernment involves realizing that the action is a distortion of human sexuality, which God created good. But in the context of the general question, I wondered what the role of confession might be at a conference like this. Certainly, some art has a confessional quality to it, but the content of that art is not the content of the conference. Also, I wondered about the role of suffering. If Jesus is God, who becomes human to show us the way through suffering to eternal life, how does suffering relate to the discussion of discerning "popular culture"? Is suffering, in the context of the conference, just an abstract concept represented in art to be deemed true or untrue by us detached discerners or does suffering have implications for the conference itself? It seems like attentiveness to suffering as its manifested in our own lives is essential for understanding sin and evil as artists represent it in their work.
  • There seemed to be a very vague understanding of what makes culture "popular," meaning "popular" culture mostly ended up being "things we like" or "things we're currently into." With the exception of U2, there was little discussion of other art that could be considered statistically popular. So what do we mean when we hold a conference on faith and "popular culture"? Should we be talking about Ashley Simpson and The Wedding Crashers? Who decides what work has value for these discussions? I'm not saying that the conference would look any different if we discussed these questions--perhaps popularity and value are assigned by the informal participation of the conference community--but I do think we need to go a step further in defining "popular" and articulating the process of selection.
  • Another question that came to mind as we progressed through the weekend was: where are the women? Two out of perhaps 10 speakers were women and 1 out of 6 performers. Not that I care to start bean-counting when it comes to gender, but the situation was noticeable--also in the lack of women participating in the comment times and mentioned as examples of artists who are "getting it." What is it about the nature of this topic that's more appealing as a participatory experience to men? Is there still a tendency to hold women to a higher standard in their scholarship, hence they're less likely to be invited or participate? Is the communication style of women ill-suited to the topic? Is there a perception that a female will have fewer compelling ideas or ideas that will be received with greater skepticism by both male and female listeners? Is there some power element to cultural engagement that makes it more appealing to men as a concept and a practice? I'm not sure what to make of this, but it would be worth discussing I think. In talking about it with someone, he suggested that I host a separate gathering just for women at the next conference. Definitely not a long-term solution, but it's worth thinking about, especially as there are some aspects of being a woman that bear discussing in the context of faithful engagement.
  • The unique nature of a conference struck me at this event, particularly in contrast to the sort of 24/7 online work that *cino is doing. There is value in creating a resource that is available whenever, wherever, but there is also unique value to an event that spans an identifiable period of time. A conference is more likely to be remembered as a crucial turning point than a visit to a web site. Also, there is no substitute for cultivating face-to-face relationships. These thoughts convinced me that *cino needs to get back in the gathering business. Thankfully, one of our friends who just moved to a farm in Ontario contacted me the day after we arrived home from the conference with a desire to co-sponsor and plan an event next summer. So watch for more details, if you're into that sort of thing: outdoor experiences, late night discussions, connecting with kindred spirits, story telling and hearing, etc.


I think that's all for now. Thanks to those of you who have slogged through these notes and had enought energy left at the end to comment!

2 Comments

The absence of female speakers/participants is certainly something that we've noted in organizing the two events of this type that I've been involved in. Greenbelt has been doing better at this of late, but whatever this cycle is, it's a really hard one to break.

As a conference organizer it takes a lot of guts (or a _really_ healthy budget) to start inviting unknown out-of-town speakers, which unfortunately what booking more women speakers often boils down to. But if we don't invite them, how will they ever become better known...

It'd be interesting to start compiling a list of women (and other 'minority group', faith and culture conferences tend to be very white) outside of our immediate circles whose work is compelling enough to push back the name recognition factor.

Kirstin, here's my take on why more truly popular artists weren't discussed in a conference about popular culture: Why bother?

I'm more familiar with the musical realm than I am with movies, television, etc., but I can truthfully say that I didn't talk about the most popular musical artists because I don't think they're worth talking about. I ignore them. I may be missing an occasional worthwhile song or artist by studiously ignoring what MTV and the Top 40 want to shove down my throat, but I'm willing to take my chances. My experience is that the signal-to-noise ratio is so low that it's not worth seriously contemplating. As it is, I usually find out what's popular anyway, and become at least marginally familiar with it simply by living in the culture in which we live (hi, David Dark). But I'd rather focus on the signs of life out there, and champion musicians and bands who actually have something worth sharing.

Is this the worst kind of effete aesthetic snobbery? You bet. But we all make judgment calls on how we spend our time and money, and I'd rather spend mine on something that might endure, that might have a shelf life greater than fifteen minutes, and that might actually nourish my soul.

As I tried to communicate in my workshop, I think you can find that in all sorts of musical genres and from all kinds of people who don't necessarily share my worldview. But I still want substance. And popular culture -- at least the most popular forms of popular culture -- is notoriously lacking in nourishment.

Leave a comment

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Kirstin Vander Giessen-Reitsma published on November 22, 2005 5:08 PM.

12/4 Lectionary Notes: Forever and a Day was the previous entry in this blog.

12/11 Lectionary Notes: A backwards prophecy is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.