We've got Vatican II's ambiguities in the church

I think you can't call Roman Protestantism, The Church, anymore than did St. Athanasius call the Arians, Catholic. The 'ambiguities' are present in that sect because, as with Cranmer's example under Henry, they wish to confuse and mislead those who consider Roman CATHOLICISM to be the one, true Faith. They wish to persuade such who possess no sound foundation that their sect - is that sect. And it's not.

evolution in science

Evolutionism is very much a cult in science, like others before it. So it corrupts simple science, as many things do. We see the insistence that God had nothing to do, that materialism, naturalism, is the only explanation, in the self-serving performance of radioactive dating labs, which insist that they be told the age of the sample, beforehand, which they claim to then measure in order to determine its age. They wish not so much to not get it wrong, but particularly to confirm their client's assertions of evolutionism. As the jargon of evolutionism spreads to genetics, for example, so it similarly introduces confusion.

and in art (being no exception)... garbage and blasphemy on display.

Not all art. The architect may be an artist. The mechanic may be. The toolmaker and machinist may be, on any particular job. The middle manager may be. The manipulator in the beaucracy, even the lowest clerk, may be. What they do, sometimes, is an art, not even merely skill.

I think that art is seen as artistic, even if seen so for foul purposes, or if done for such. That which is clever, artistic, productive and useful, on the other hand, if not termed, 'fine art', might still suggest what 'fine art' is, was and should be.

So I think you refer exclusively to the 'fine arts', fair and foul alike. It definitely narrows the scope of - what is it?

And is still presents the fundamental distinction, not between pro and amateur, but between schools, preferences, value systems. My school, but not yours. Yours, not mine. Or their school isn't even art, says our school. And that's the beginning. That's the principal distinction.

Perhaps the amateur is so true to her school, that the great art in the downtown gallery doesn't interest her in the least, and study of it would only force her to walk all the way home, if it were the only possibility of escape as she saw it. Art. School A says it is, school B says it is but it's not great, and not at all for school C.  . . .

I for myself will wait for the thread to evolve to decide if need to defend modern art.  
Some of it I genuinely appreciate.

 When God created man, God made man in His image and likeness. He gave to all human beings on the first place, the ability to imitate Him (or be an image of Him) as creator by propagating our species. Then to some others, He gave the gifts of creating in additional, special ways. On the first place, man can create mechanical or ordinary things, but on the second, closer to His image still, is the gift of art, which surpasses mere mechanical creation by raising it to the level of beauty.

 We are told that God is all good... that He possesses all facets of goodness infinitely... not as we catch them here or there in some experience or quality, but wholly and purely in their highest form. If we want to know what love is, we can examine the love of God. If we want to know what wisdom is, we can listen to His wisdom (in the Bible and through the Church). What virtue or goodness can we think of, that we cannot learn either directly or indirectly (by the instruction) of Jesus Christ Who is God?

When God created, it, too, was good. Like all things, man needn't stop merely at looking at the lives and thoughts of mere humans on this subject either. If creation is a good, then we can find it in it's perfection in God.

What was God's creation like? Before He made life, the laws of nature had to be written. Before life and beauty then, came law to govern that creation (and of course His laws also, from eternity, to govern all thinking creatures). His creation was both deliberate, and to a purpose. God, who knows (and had planned) the very number of our hairs from all eternity, did not simply scatter the chips, and let them fall accidentally where they may. We can be sure that every inch of the created universe, in infinite detail, was not too much for the mind of God to handle, that He had to resort to chance and accident to 'get the job done'. Moreover, God called this universe "good." Indeed, if we can imagine the universe before the disorder of sin entered into it, it must have been beautiful beyond words. Then God created man. We can be sure that God did not create anything that was not created to some purpose, even if only He knows what the purpose was/is. He created with reason a world of order, beauty and purpose. And God tells us that "He saw it was good."

This, then, is the image of the ultimate creation. It is, if you will, (together with heaven and the angels) the supreme work of art. It takes little Catholic imagination to realize that this image... God as the creator, and His creation... are the supreme example of the artist and his art. St. Thomas Aquinas goes so far as to say, "... "the Spirit of God," it is said, "moved over the waters"---that is to say, over that formless matter, signified by water, even as the love of the artist moves over the materials of his art, that out of them he may form his work."

This then, is the Catholic image of art and the artist. It is the Catholic image, because the Catholic realizes that God's creation is full of purpose and order, and if we can acknowledge this about a storm (which follows the laws of nature set down by God) which appears naught but chaos on the face of it, then how much more must there be a divine purpose for the talents God gives to some men, and not to others, according to His will?

If God as Creator and His Creation are the supreme picture of art and artist, then in it's perfect form, this is indeed what art is, and what the artist must aspire to imitate. We might say that according to this divine guideline, art is "something which is formed where before it did not exist (even if out of materials which do exist beforehand), deliberately and to a (good) purpose, beautiful (at least as much as truth is beautiful) and ordered, in agreement with nature (including natural and supernatural laws... eg, with nature according to God's laws both natural and moral), and with love (as one must have love for his neighbor to at the very least avoid morally corrupting them, or better still, to be moved to impart any good thing, truth or knowledge, or to in any way move the soul toward it's creator).

By this standard, we might say that the fable can be art if it is structured, deliberate, unoffensive to God, and expresses an article of truth, however simple. Because it expresses truth, one might also say it is beautiful, because truth is beautiful. A beautiful painting of the Madonna and Christ Child expresses an even higher truth, and will move us to contemplate God and His mother. In contrast, the urinal on display in some museum (I wish I were making it up) as art, was not even made (the material... in this case the urinal... in the raw was called the art) and serves no purpose whatsoever as art, except that everybody knows it's as ridiculous as the "emperor's new clothes," and the "artist" laughed all the way to the bank.

Modern art, as a rule... speaking NOT of any art simply made in this day and age, but the kind of art like that urinal, which is usually called "modern art" ... is devoid of the characters evident in Our Divine Artist, and His divine art. The artist who dips her head in a paint can and flings it about some paper on the floor, does not plan where every line, every dot will be. Her creation is neither ordered, nor to a purpose (as man was made for the specific purpose of attaining heaven, not merely to decorate the earth). It is only "beautiful" insomuch as beautiful colors are used, and only then because God's colors are beautiful... not because the splashes and dots of paint move our intellect or our hearts by their 'created' shape. Since God is perfect order and reason, it is perhaps even doubtful whether her creation is even unoffensive to Him. It certainly does not resemble His creation. Neither does the artist haphazardly creating this 'accidental' art mimic the Divine Artist Who planned every hair of our heads from all eternity.

Modern art, rather, reminds me much more of the characteristics of the devil and his works. The devil despises everything that is like God. He is against reason, order, any and every good purpose, beauty, and morality. Hell is supposed to be complete chaos (kind of like what the modern artist does to many a canvas). He is the distorter of all order and nature (modern sculpture anyone?), and must certainly be against reason which will automatically lead man to God (modern art tends to be inexplicable... unable to be interpreted by anyone but the artist... kind of like the Pentecostal version of "tongues.") More than this, the concept that is born of the acceptance of this kind of 'art' is the unspoken idea that "all men are artists." If I can dip my hand in paint, smear it on paper and call it art, then anyone can make art. This concept is totally contrary to the Catholic concept of God and His gift of talents to particular men. It smacks of ego and pride. God is, after all, "elitist." He chooses whom He wills to give the gifts that please Him. We are not equally beautiful or intelligent. We are not equally tall, nor are we equal in color scheme (skin, hair and eyes). It is idiocy to look at society and try to proclaim that every man has a gift so obviously exclusive... every bit as exclusive as beauty or stature.

Talents are given to men, not for an ego rub, but because God has a divine purpose in giving them. It means that for some reason, for some work, He wants THIS man to be able to look at the world around him, and understand, be inspired, and create in the image of His Creator... something following the example set down by Him in that first act of creation. Like Dante's fictional journey through the afterlife... something ordered, to a good purpose, beautiful (at least for it's truth), and agreeable to God. The detail in that work was astounding. It was written art. When the Sistine Chapel was painted, it was not painted by flinging paint around, thinking on interesting color combinations, or with the aspiration of being new and witty. It was every bit to a good purpose, beautiful and so forth. The urinal is not. A canvass smeared with a myriad of colors is not. The big red dot in the middle of a blank page is not. The blasphemous display of a religious article in a jar of urine is not. Pornography is not. These latter correspond perfectly with the characteristics, attitudes and marks of the devil and his domain, but certainly do not smack of divine inspiration.

Even children's art or stories can be real art, if they are good. If the artist, however, had no talent, and didn't even try to seriously attempt what they drew or wrote, it is a different matter. God's creation was also an act of perfect skill. We hardly imitate that if we have none, and don't even try to aspire to use any. Children's art and stories were not always idiotic, moronic, or stupidly drawn or exaggerated monstrosities. (Antique books reveal, rather, that even there respectable art was often used. And before feel-good liberalism became the plot of every tale, there USED to be morals to the stories that went deeper than "be nice.") Spongebob Squarepants need not apply.

The crisis in art, I believe, is rooted in the fact that today it is denied almost universally that God has anything at all to do with it. That art is from man, by man, for man. (Never mind that the very word 'inspiration' means something like "to breathe into" ... Who's doing the breathing today, I wonder? What spirit?) There is an attitude that art is a toy of man, which we all possess, and if we don't quite understand it, college courses will make up the difference. Yet everything in these modern monstrosities smacks of the spirit of the devil rather than "the image and likeness of God." Objectively speaking, the traits we attribute to God and His creation are those found in the art of memorable masters of old. There is surely a reason why the very first signs of this revolution in art were so upsetting to real artists. Could the man who painted The Last Supper take seriously The Melting Clocks if he'd seen it? Why not? But common sense revolts at the idea that something disordered, distorted, ugly even... could pass itself off as art. We could not mistake the devil for God. How could we mistake madness for sanity?

Art is given to us by God. It is His gift to men, for His purposes. God did not leave us clueless for examples in anything good. He is our example in everything, whether directly (our knowledge of Him in itself) or indirectly through the Bible or the Church. Those who create buildings or machines can look to the same blueprint of God's creation. They too, are subject to both natural and supernatural law. A builder of bridges does well to remember that God set down laws in His creation. If he ignores the laws, the bridge will collapse, possibly hurting or killing people. In art, if we ignore the laws, at the very least we make something useless... a waste of our precious time and that of others, and at worst we may lead souls closer to hell (as in the case of art that is sinful in itself or which spreads error or falsehood). Good (or "real") art, on the other hand, will at the very least be to some good purpose... even if it's a wholesome bedtime story for little Johnny that has some good moral in it. At most, the artist who patterns himself and his creation after God and His, can move souls closer to their creator by contemplation of God and truth, such as Gregorian chant elevates the soul in prayer, or a picture of Christ Crucified moves us to repent of our sins.

There has been a revolution in art, and it has attempted to take something God meant to a purpose, and make it man's ego-booster. It detaches God's gift and His image as Creator in man from every aspect and virtue that is like God and His Creation. That's not an opinion like "grape jam is better than strawberry." It's to look at where art came from and why, and to realize that what's being done with it reflects more of God's polar opposite (the devil) than it does of God.

Whatever "schools" call themselves, God is the ruler... the Divine Measure of all of our works. Under any name or title, sin is still sin, disorder still disorder, and evil still evil. Evil, by the way, can be defined as "a lack of something good that is due." Like, for instance, the lack of order or reason or purpose.

When we draw a silly picture, or write a silly poem or a ridiculous story for our own amusement, we may get a good laugh and entertain ourselves. There's nothing wrong with that. But when we propose to put that on the same level with the gift God intended to glorify Himself and instruct souls in the way of truth (even if only on the minutest level like the moral of a fable), we are attacking something real, something God-given... and if we profess that they are the same publicly, we may even be seen as mocking that which God instituted. It's one thing to share a ridiculous picture with your buddies for a good laugh. It's another to seriously claim that the ridiculous nonsense is equal to divinely inspired art.

My problem with modern art is a lot deeper than opinion. As a (hopeful) word artist, I have given the topic a lot of thought, recalling that our creations may lead ourselves and others closer to heaven or hell. I came to realize that those who aspire to real art have no further to look for a model or teacher than God (at least where principals, purpose and morals go... English grammar may be in the realm of schooling...). The closer our art is to the spirit and likeness of what God did in His Creation, the more we can be sure that we are probably doing what He would want us to do with whatever talent He may have given us. The farther we get from that image, the more we get into pride and the opposite characteristics.

This is not an issue of taste. It's an issue of truth, morality, and duty.

Hi Dulcamara, first, your post, was well written.  I recognize and appreciate the effort you put into it. I will not counter-argue your point of view which if I summarize it vulgarly, amounts to a sacralization of Art.  For this is a point of view shared on a Traditional Catholic board, it can sit comfortably and needs not disturbed.

However, it could be complemented and enriched with other points of view.

It is manifest that modern art as detached itself from realism, but this was not solely an inner movement of revolt to break away from classical art. It was also, a liberation from the requirement to be realistic.  This liberation was not brought upon only by modern ideas - although it was a contributor - but also because of technological advancements:  Photography and later on, cinematography.

Prior to photography, the best talents where mainly occupied in immortalizing the portraits of the noble who could afford it and reproducing with fidelity, scenes that could not be admired otherwise. The emphasis on realism was a requirement and served a purpose.  The break away from realism in art and the birth of new styles coincides with the invention of photography in the mid-1800's.

You might want to explore this avenue before condemning artists who do not strive for realism since realism can be achieved now through a simple photograph. Artist are no longer restrained to reproduce reality as a requirement, and can instead, interpret reality, which is also a God given skill.

 That viewpoint having been already more or less exhausted by Chant, I will only add this to clarify my earlier post...

 When I profess that art must be in line with God and therefore Catholic principals, that is not to say that anything not explicitly "Catholic" (eg, expressly religious in subject) is an evil. If I write a story about a philosopher who goes through several errors but finally embraces the truth, even if the truth he embraces does not deal directly with God, I will have written a thing which is in itself a defense of that which is good. In painting, Thomas Kinkade is known for his use of light in his works. While not expressly religious, they reflect the beauty of something which is real, and thereby elevate the mind of man to contemplate that beauty, and subsequently it's author.

Now if we look at the picture of the modern sculpture I posted earlier... where does IT lead man's mind? To begin with, it doesn't even make sense. It is not what most sane people would call beautiful. It does not reflect any truth or bring us to any kind of enlightened contemplation. It's a hunk of stone carved into a form that makes no sense, is not even that aesthetically pleasing to look at, and at best gives recognition to the 'artist' for the public display of it's absurdity.

 If the artist had kept it to themselves, and didn't profess it to be art, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Recreation is a necessity for man, too. But to put that on the level with truly great art which does what art needs to do... is a grave injustice to the real artists, and a denial of what real art is.

 I wasn't saying that all art must be religious in subject matter, but we cannot believe that God gave it to us simply to make ugly nonsense. Non-religious works of art can reflect truths that enlighten man. Truth belonging to God, it's kind of hard not to get back to Him eventually though.

You might want to explore this avenue before condemning artists who do not strive for realism since realism can be achieved now through a simple photograph. Artist are no longer restrained to reproduce reality as a requirement, and can instead, interpret reality, which is also a God given skill.

 On the contrary... the snap of a button on a camera did not supersede God's gift of talent to men. Or to give an example of what I mean... Prior to cars, and where horses were not readily available, people used their God-given legs to get from one place (even from one country) to another. Then cars enter the picture. Suddenly we can just get in our cars, and go. We no longer need our legs? And what good has come of the existence of cars in terms of those God-given legs? Yes, we can travel great distances quickly, and without peril of exhaustion. Also, morbid obesity is a problem now more than ever. Mankind has invented a number of things that are more convenient. But in the end many of them (while easier and perhaps in some ways somewhat safer), simply lead to morbid laziness, and... curiously, the inability for men to do what they COULD do before. For instance, the average person is no longer able to walk more than a mile or two. The average person does not, any longer, know how to grow their own food (other than the part about sticking seeds in the ground). The average person (thanks to e-mail and telephones) will curiously spend a lot more time at home physically alone, than we did when we had to see someone face to face in order to talk to them. We can get our news now by turning on the television, but because that is precisely where most people get their news, they now absorb whatever lies are published on it.

My point being, the camera was an interesting way to realistically docuмent something without having to paint it. But if, as a result, mankind throws away his ability and knowledge of how to realistically paint... is the camera really good? And should we really throw such ability and knowledge away? Shall we all cut off our legs since we have cars? Shall we stay at home perpetually now, because we have the telephone and television?

Technology isn't necessarily evil, but that which makes things easier tends to make us lazier... and that is not a good thing. Neither is giving up God's natural (and usually better) thing.

Moreover, the photograph is NOT a creation any more than the act of printing out this article would be. You may produce a physical product, but we do the same thing when we make a sandwich, and don't claim that IT is art. We can take pictures of beautiful scenes, but how is that to our credit? We didn't create the scene as Dante had to imagine how to artistically portray in words the reality and truths of hell, purgatory and heaven. Thomas Kinkade's paintings are realistic, but NOT of real places. They still required his talent and imagination.

Finally, since Christ is bodily in heaven, we will be hard pressed to take His picture. We cannot take pictures of even any real things which are no longer with us, or as they are. Shall we paint in the deformed and bizarre manner of the added examples of modern art, the birth of Christ or a scene of ancient Rome?

I would venture to say that we still need real art, as much as we still need our legs.

Dulcamara,

Be wary to not engage yourself on the slippery slope of arguing art, as a technical skill.  

Painting realistically is a technical skill, one that very few can attain. It is remarkable, and can only draw admiration, but it is no guarantee to move the soul.  Other forms of paintings can also be very effective.  Monet's painting (Impressionism) for instance are very appeasing.

Monet