Then Again

The debate over aesthetic standards in visual media becomes even more interesting when we take into consideration the dominant force of the World Wide Web. The statistics are impressive. Take YouTube, for instance. A recent report indicates close to 80 million total video uploads, increasing by 200,000 a day. Along the same lines, faith-based Tangle.com (formerly GodTube.com), attracts a modest 600,000 viewers per month, offering over 250,000 religiously oriented clips.

The numbers aren’t as important as the social trend. Television’s marketshare continues to diminish as more viewers choose to inform and entertain themselves on the web. And while this seems like a bland observation, it’s likely that this migration is going to have an effect on the social consciousness (or subconsciousness) as it relates to production value.

Translation: We are becoming more and more accustomed to viewing media that is either poorly produced or copied from a copy, then compressed for the web, and calling that legitimate entertainment. So while Entertainment Tonight spends multiple millions of dollars a year to attract about 5 million viewers, YouTube’s “Fred” uses a simple camcorder to produce 3 minute amateur shorts that attract similarly sized audiences. His latest release, Fred on April Fool’s Day, garnered close to 6 million views in just one month.

Of course, we’re not comparing metric apples to apples, only pointing out that the implications for the future of aesthetics in visual media may be enormous.

Questions abound. What are the effects of web environments such as YouTube on perceived aesthetic standards? Is a more interactive web medium altering the rules of engagement? Perhaps aesthetic thresholds are time based—I can stand horrible for five minutes (ala Fred), but not sixty. Or perhaps horrible is the new black, thought of as less disingenuous than a polished piece prepared for prime-time. If so, what are the repercussions for television’s traditional business model.

And if aesthetic standards are different for television and the web, what happens when the two become indistinguishable? Technologies such as the NetFlix Roku and AppleTV are redefining the boundaries of television and the web.

While no one has access to a crystal ball, I’ll go as far to suggest that we are witnessing the beginnings of a dramatic revolution in the democratization of visual content production, whose currency has long been production value. Until recently, organizations and producers who could afford “network quality” production held the keys to large and influential audiences.

What we are seeing now is the proliferation of content created around the world with little to no traditional “production value”, which is being watched and shared by millions of viewers. The implications for faith-based organizations on shoe-string budgets are worth noting. In the end, if Fred can garner an audience of millions, what’s keeping them from doing the same? Distribution is no longer an issue. Production value is losing its…well, value. Which leaves us with one dominant currency currently driving the visual media world—creativity.

Form vs. Function

Flipping through channels the other day I came across a worship service, produced by a local Christian church. It left much to be desired. Washed out colors, long camera shots from boring angles, ancient graphics.

It bothered me. My initial thought was: here is another church taking the most powerful message on earth and subjecting it to mediocrity, at best.

However, my reaction made me question my assumptions about aesthetics and where I stand on the ever-present debate of form vs. function. And this, especially in the context of current cultural forces.

I once debated a program manager of a religious television network along these lines. He insisted on playing old material that matched the description of the above worship service. His perspective was that the content itself was too good to shelve. I argued that poor production value compromised the effectiveness of the network as it attempted to compete in the present television milieu.

Of course, that was based on my assumption that competition was his main goal (or even one of his goals), as is mostly the case with traditional television outlets. Which makes for an interesting set of questions.

What do religious organizations hope to achieve by having a presence on television? Is the goal to maximize audience size or to simply fulfill a (co)mission of presenting a message?

In theological terms, which ranks above the other, form or function? And is that even a fair question or one that could be easily answered?

What assumptions are we making when it comes to television? Is television itself an aesthetically oriented medium or simply a broadly applied vehicle of communication?

And are certain aesthetic approaches more effective at creating and communicating messages over one medium vs. another (a derivative of Marshall McLuhan’s “the medium is the message” argument).

Further, what role do aesthetics play in the expression and presentation of religious messages? Historically, communities of faith have, for the most part, embraced artistic expression. Arguably, prior to the Renaissance, the Christian church at-large dominated the (western) world of art and relied heavily on creative forms of presentation.

By contrast, a significant portion of today’s Church seems to have streamlined its commitment to the arts, and to aesthetic value in general.

One wonders if this shift from form to function was influenced by larger cultural dynamics such as the Modernism movement in western architecture. Catalyzed by the likes of Adolf Loos, who claimed that “ornament is criminal” and Louis Sullivan who coined the phrase “form (ever) follows function”.

The connection is rather loose. However, I can’t help but wonder whether there’s been a cultural trickle down effect leading to the function-oriented view adopted by some churches.

In the end, a counter movement is also evident as more and more newly started local churches are integrating artistic value into both facility design and ministry. The trend has led to conferences such as C3 (Creative Churches Conference) hosted by the Fellowship Church in Grapevine, TX.

At the same time, flipping through local channels on any given Sunday morning makes the case that the above questions still linger in our society. I’ll be considering perspectives and implications to these questions in upcoming entries.

(Image courtesy of autowhich)

The Veil of Authenticity

The word “authentic” has always bugged me. Examples: authentic Mexican food, authentic history, the authentic use of an object. The reason for my angst is that, while the word can be defined in various ways. authenticity implies purity: purity of origin, purity of identity, purity of purpose. However, my argument is that nothing is truly authentic; nothing is pure. Rather, everything we observe and understand, from a philosophical framework to Mexican food is the result of a syncretic process. In other words, what we know today is a result of two or more elements coming together to form a third, which eventually combines with a fourth to create a fifth, and so on. Take, for example, the violin—an instrument associated with the classical music genre. No orchestra is complete without it. Arguably (for most), the violin’s purity of purpose lies within the classical environment. But we are beginning to see a very different use for this instrument. Consider Jonathan Chu, classically trained violinist. On a given weekend, however, Chu cannot be found performing with the local philharmonic but rather on stage with rock-based bands such as Skillet and Big Daddy Weave. Musical heresy for most purists. In fact Chu’s MySpace page indicates that among his influences are Itzhak Perlman and Stevie Ray Vaughn. So the use of the violin has evolved. The concept is less profound than it is practical, reminding me to stay open to possibilities: possibilities of origin, possibilities of identity, possibilities of purpose. Piercing the veil of authenticity also encourages me to embrace change, a reality which is not only inevitable, but necessary as society seeks to create deeper meaning and a greater understanding of its elements.