I understand what you're saying, and there's a lot of truth to it. But I would also offer that not every method of persuasion is really an argument. Emotionalism persuades a lot of people these days. And not just in the political realm. After all, the entire advertising industry is based on it!
I don't think I have any solution to the issue. (Especially not since it's going on 1 a.m.) I'm just tossing this bit out there as another piece of the puzzle.
Y'know, because it's not already complicated enough.
I agree. However, looked at differently, emotionalism IS an argument to those that are susceptible to that type of data. It's actually *our* failing that we can't construct instances that are appealing to those that find appeals to emotion convincing.
Because we *should* be able to! If the statistics are on our side, we should be able to find emotional examples. If the memes are right, then the statistics should back them, etcetera.
I attempted this and failed when talking to my brother the other day. He and his wife are Bernie Sanders fans, and I use that word intentionally, because their attitude about it is that of sports fans, not people who made a coldly logical choice after weighing the facts. Since it wasn't a logical choice to begin with, no logical argument would have swayed them. An honest try to persuade them would have needed to be an emotional appeal strong enough to break through their emotional commitment -- probably a personal attack. And it's not worth it to win the "argument" but lose the person.
It's actually *our* failing that we can't construct instances that are appealing to those that find appeals to emotion convincing.
You may be right. I think that's where the arts come in. (Or should come in.) The arts appeal more to the emotions/asthetics rather than cold logic. But non-leftist people, Christian people, and others who don't fall into the liberal category often dismiss this aspect.
Art is an amazingly powerful (and subversive) tool for changing people's minds. I know a lot of what I read as a youth still influences me today; even when I've come to disagree with it, I am still more capable of understanding it and having some compassion for people who believe those things than I am when those views come to me through different means.
This is why, for the most part, I try not to discuss politics too often. I figure my art is quietly doing that work for me, in people's subconsciouses where it is more difficult to root out and fight.
Art is an amazingly powerful (and subversive) tool for changing people's minds.
Exactly right.
This is why for the life of me I can't understand why many on the more conservative side, and many Christians as well, not only don't use art (either at all, or properly) to convey their worldview, but also don't seem to be interested in it at all for themselves!
The arts do inspire so much. I remember when I heard that ridiculous Muslim Hug Guy story after the Paris attack, I thought, "This whole situation with Muslims reminds me of Soul of the Fire by Terry Goodkind
( ... )
Thanks for sharing this. It's true how art can deliver a message that stays with you for years, even before you can fully understand what it was you read or watched.
That's why I don't understand why conservatives and especially Christians don't use it more often. And when they try, they don't seem to do it well. It becomes too "over the head" and such. Or just poor quality in general.
Christians used to corner the market on art, architecture, and music. The Church promoted them and created an environment in which they could flourish, because we cared about beauty. But no more. All that ground has simply been abandoned and conceded to the enemy, gradually over a few centuries, and more rapidly over the past fifty years. Now our churches -- which is where we're supposed to offer our best -- are sterile, banal, stagnant ponds, where beauty is rare, often unappreciated and sometimes intentionally rejected. And the rest of Christian cultural life is no better. We're like the nerdy kid who is forever trying to imitate the cool kids (i.e. the world) but is always a day late and a dollar short and winds up looking even more foolish than if he hadn't tried.
I think we're just going to have to go Canticle of Leibowitz, and preserve all the treasures of Christendom in obscurity, until after the bombs have all dropped and the fallout has stopped glowing.
Christians used to corner the market on art, architecture, and music.I wish understood how and why that changed. I suppose there were various reasons
( ... )
Catholicism dominated art in Europe until the rise of Protestantism (religious art was banned by Elizabeth I and the Anglican Church) and the Italian Renaissance; the Renaissance being ushered in because of radical change in European politics (prompted by the rise of humanism). Religious art has never recovered; at least not to the extent in which it once permeated all culture. It was less about promoting beauty and more about maintaining Catholic religious dominance. Art was very strictly regulated during that time, and what was considered beautiful was primarily what was also considered proper in terms of portrayal of Christian values (and the importance of the church). Artists of all breeds who did not adhere to these parameters were not supported, respected, or financially assisted
( ... )
If present-day Christians are looking for a powerful means to spread their beliefs, art *could* technically be a way to do so...but in today's world, art is respected less than it has ever been; or, at best, has become a pastime of the elite.
And that is a shame in and of itself! There's so much ugliness in the world. Why wouldn't you WANT to be surrounded by beauty and then be willing to support those who have the talent to create it? I do not understand that mindset. But I've heard it expressed quite often.
Centuries ago, art was recognized as one of the best ways to communicate, document, inspire, and proselytize. Now that we have the internet and information is widely circulated, there is little need.
That is a fair point, especially if we are looking at art as simply a means to an end. But art also has value in and of itself. We as human beings seem to have a deep need to create and to enjoy beauty.
It is also possible that unless Christianity once again dominates civilization, their particular brand of art will continue to
( ... )
Why wouldn't you WANT to be surrounded by beauty and then be willing to support those who have the talent to create it?I think many people do want to be surrounded by, help create, and support it, but the price tags of theatre, symphonies, many museums and so on is exorbitant. Lin-Manuel Miranda is doing the unprecedented: holding performances of Hamilton for inner-city kids who would probably never have the chance to attend a Broadway production at full ticket price (let alone said Broadway production at the height of its popularity). The effect it has had on those children is amazing - they are awed and excited - art can change your life, especially around the formative years. Think of what would happen if the average Joe got to experience Broadway theatre as easily as those with $250-$1000 to spend on prime seats? Even regional theatre is often too expensive for a night out for most. Ticket prices are high for live theatre outside of Broadway because of the expense of putting on the show combined with lagging audience attendance
( ... )
I don't think I have any solution to the issue. (Especially not since it's going on 1 a.m.) I'm just tossing this bit out there as another piece of the puzzle.
Y'know, because it's not already complicated enough.
Reply
Because we *should* be able to! If the statistics are on our side, we should be able to find emotional examples. If the memes are right, then the statistics should back them, etcetera.
Reply
Reply
You may be right. I think that's where the arts come in. (Or should come in.) The arts appeal more to the emotions/asthetics rather than cold logic. But non-leftist people, Christian people, and others who don't fall into the liberal category often dismiss this aspect.
And that's why our side is losing.
Reply
This is why, for the most part, I try not to discuss politics too often. I figure my art is quietly doing that work for me, in people's subconsciouses where it is more difficult to root out and fight.
Reply
Exactly right.
This is why for the life of me I can't understand why many on the more conservative side, and many Christians as well, not only don't use art (either at all, or properly) to convey their worldview, but also don't seem to be interested in it at all for themselves!
Reply
Reply
That's why I don't understand why conservatives and especially Christians don't use it more often. And when they try, they don't seem to do it well. It becomes too "over the head" and such. Or just poor quality in general.
It's endlessly frustrating for me!
Reply
I think we're just going to have to go Canticle of Leibowitz, and preserve all the treasures of Christendom in obscurity, until after the bombs have all dropped and the fallout has stopped glowing.
I am doing my part.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
And that is a shame in and of itself! There's so much ugliness in the world. Why wouldn't you WANT to be surrounded by beauty and then be willing to support those who have the talent to create it? I do not understand that mindset. But I've heard it expressed quite often.
Centuries ago, art was recognized as one of the best ways to communicate, document, inspire, and proselytize. Now that we have the internet and information is widely circulated, there is little need.
That is a fair point, especially if we are looking at art as simply a means to an end. But art also has value in and of itself. We as human beings seem to have a deep need to create and to enjoy beauty.
It is also possible that unless Christianity once again dominates civilization, their particular brand of art will continue to ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment