Why Subversion Sucks

 

Photo Credit Ehimetalor Akhere Unuabona

The theory of the unmorality of art has established itself firmly in the strictly artistic classes. They are free to produce anything they like. They are free to write a "Paradise Lost" in which Satan shall conquer God. They are free to write a "Divine Comedy" in which heaven shall be under the floor of hell. And what have they done? Have they produced in their universality anything grander or more beautiful than the things uttered by the fierce Ghibbeline Catholic, by the rigid Puritan schoolmaster? We know that they have produced only a few roundels. Milton does not merely beat them at his piety, he beats them at their own irreverence. In all their little books of verse you will not find a finer defiance of God than Satan's. Nor will you find the grandeur of paganism felt as that fiery Christian felt it who described Faranata lifting his head as in disdain of hell. And the reason is very obvious. Blasphemy is an artistic effect, because blasphemy depends upon a philosophical conviction. Blasphemy depends upon belief and is fading with it. (Heretics by Gilbert Keith Chesterton)

That was a really long excerpt from a book written in the early 20th century by a philosopher/journalist/author G.K Chesterton. I find it to be incredible that a man who lived in a time when none now live (he was born in 1874) can still be so prescient. Sure, philosophers from several millennia have made prescient points that will likely always reflect some aspect of humanity. This author worships a man whose words are over 2,000 years old after all. 

However, Chesterton so well reflects the distinctly modern problems that we deal with. More than that, he saw those problems in their infancy. 

The above block of text deals with just one problem; the problem of the arts. Recently, a very flamboyant man by the name of Sam Smith “wowed” and “shocked” the two people who still watch the Grammys when he dressed up as Satan to sing his (apparently) hit song “Unholy.” As far as satanic performances go, he and Little Nas (cus that’s a name) need to up their game. If you’re going to be satanic, at least make your song be an absolute banger (just ask Slipknot or Ghost or any number of metal bands that have been doing this for decades). 

I personally was more bothered by WAP than this performance. Why? Because we had an entire society all together come together to proclaim that two women, that are close to the age of my grandmothers, dancing practically in the nude is somehow empowering, or worse yet, sexy. “Blugh” is my response. 

Backtracking to Sam Smith; why did the reaction to his performance seem so muted (at least to me)? Simple, as I pointed out with the metal bands, this has been going on for decades. It’s the equivalent of proclaiming unironically that “there is gambling in this establishment?!” in Las Vegas.

Once upon a time this would have provided something akin to shock or disgust. In the past, the US and the West more broadly was, by and large, Christian. Today Christianity is dying slowly and with a whimper. Those who might have stood aghast are trying desperately to cling onto whatever cultural clout they have left. The name of the game today for many mainline Christians is to be tolerant and pray (or not) that the culture accepts us.

Chesterton was entirely correct in his assessment. You need to have something to blaspheme to be blasphemous. Those same artists who defame Christianity would never dare do the same in regards to Islam. Not least because they would likely end up under real risk of physical harm. However, wouldn’t that be the “edgy” thing to do? Especially given both Nas’ and Smith’s sexual inclinations? They won’t and I won’t encourage them too.