Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Art and Literature for Catholics => Topic started by: Dulcamara on October 08, 2007, 09:28:44 AM
-
Well, I was trying to put together something interesting to post, but I'm afraid it came to naught, so I thought I'd start somewhere less ambitious.
As we all know, modern man has made a general mess of things in just about every field. We've got Vatican II's ambiguities in the church, evolution in science, and in art (being no exception)... garbage and blasphemy on display. This thread, then, is to discuss modern art and it's effects and problems, and real art (such as what it is, what it should be, etc.).
There are, I will say, two levels of art. There is art for hobby... that which one does and does not mind or care how good it is, because it was done for personal amusement simply because one likes to do it... And then there is art on the professional level. This is the place to discuss them both.
You might wish specify which you are referring to, though, wherever there may be any doubt. If I say, for example, that the artist ought to aspire to be more like Michelangelo, chances are I mean the professional artist. But if the statement is so general that one might think you mean any and all art, you MIGHT want to specify. But use your own judgment in any case as to whether or not this is really necessary.
To get the ball rolling (and also so that I am not merely talking at everybody myself... which being chiefly a writer, I tend to do that) I will defer my own comments till a little later. I invite everybody who wants to take part in this discussion of modern art and it's problems, and real art... to go ahead and post their thoughts/observations on modern art and it's effects in the world around us for discussion. (If I started, the first post would be a small novel. :wink:)
Note: By "art" here, is meant not only painting and sculpture and the like, but arts in general too... music, dance, writing and the like... which can be included in this discussion, I believe, with benefit. I believe the problems we see on the canvass today are present, the same in principal, in the other arts, so that the discussion of one art may be used to examine the other arts as well. Since all arts are experiencing this 'crisis,' I think the discussion of any or all of them will be relevant "across the board" as they say.
(http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w278/Miwa-Ki/MichelangelosPieta.jpg)
Art.
(http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w278/Miwa-Ki/11_18_60---Modern-Sculpture--Belgiu.jpg)
Modern "art".
-
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. . . .
-
To get the ball rolling
In speaking then of the 'fine arts', what makes it art?
Apart from various schools, what about exclusivity and rarity? Does it matter (apart from auction value, let's say)?
One writes a book, or a poem. Poe's Raven has caught the imagination over the decades and centuries. But it is printed in seemingly a thousands ways, on on a million pages. It's certainly not rare. But one doesn't possess a unique copy of it. It has no value in that way. But it might well be called, art.
If a statue of Michaelangelo were reproduced artistically, carefully, in say some sort of resin at reduced scale and sold for a fair amount to the tourists, would the reproduction be art, or only the original? If the Raven is art, printed in some throwaway magazine, is the Mona Lisa art printed in some coffee table book? If the original of the Madonna and Child is in a museum, what of the plaster reproduction from Italy, with sharp lines and fine detail, care in selecting the color and glaze, and which now adorns one of the two side altars, or main altar, in a Catholic church (say the SSPV)? Art, but different art? Does it matter whether or not it is 'collectible', at whatever temporized valuation?
If the original were lost, say to fire, would the reproduced images still be art, or would they always only represent what was art? If the Raven, the original manuscripts, or even first editions, were all lost, would the same printed in the 'shopper's circular' still be art, point only to the original inspiration as art, or not be art at all? If it were printed on a Hallmark card?
It is art?
-
I for myself will wait for the thread to evolve to decide if need to defend modern art.
Some of it I genuinely appreciate.
-
I think these paintings are garbage (and it is utterly disgusting that people pay thousands or even millions for such junk).
(http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0Je5wsI.wpHezUAkE2jzbkF/SIG=12j6mg0ra/EXP=1191988360/**http%3A//faculty.acu.edu/~mxb01e/Images/picasso_weeping_woman.jpg)
(http://colours-on-canvas.co.uk/uk_art_images/scaletsunset.jpg)
(http://www.shawnmcnulty.com/art/M/calamity.jpg)
-
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.
-
This is not an issue of taste. It's an issue of truth, morality, and duty.
It's more a matter of 'schools', as I said. But if you wish to make the primary distinction - good art, bad art - with the good a proper use by the gifted of their gifts for the worship of God, as we imagine will be so much more unimaginably the case in Heaven, then even the 'bad art' might have to be confessed as, art. Tissot spent much time and effort after his conversion to paint those religious scenes from The Life of Christ. They likely influenced the set design of the two versions of Ben Hur. But Tissot was known for other work, prior to that. Was that not equally the work of a talented artist? Not everything Bach wrote was included in a Mass. Dvorak was Catholic. And I tend to prefer his music. But it's because of the music. Those of other schools would surely disagree, because it is Catholic, and because he was Catholic. Say you consider Catholicism to be something like - Lutheranism - for sake of argument. Such a school might rule out certain art, where I as a Catholic would not. That's really the beginning of any 'analysis'. Should one be true to one's school - or can other things be profitably considered to God's glory and in furtherance of a true and genuine Catholic Faith?
-
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.
-
From the website of the Catholic Institute of Arts and Letters -- which, unfortunately, never really got off the ground.
BEAUTY IS NOT A RELATIVE CONCEPT
Beauty never was in the eye of the beholder. St. Thomas teaches that beautiful art must have integrity (all parts forming a whole), harmony (a unity arising from diversity), proportion (an equilibrium of magnitudes), and splendor (a light manifesting the thing's perfection). Additionally, art must order the mind to its ultimate good: it must be moral. As you can see, these are not subjective criteria. They are objective, universal, and applicable to all places and times. And yes, we mean to apply them.
Principles of the Beautiful in Art
Art tends always toward the good, wherefore that which is ordered to evil does not pertain to art.
(St. Thomas Aquinas)
When the faith is empty, art is empty; but when the faith is full, then art is full.
(His Excellency Richard Williamson, Bishop)
Whatever opposes the laws of logic, metaphysics, physics, history, religion, or morals, opposes the beautiful in art.
(Augusto Conti)
The good use of art requires moral virtue.
(Scholastic axiom)
Art belongs to life, and cannot ignore life, and must obey life.
(Arturo Graf)
Art is for beauty, but beauty is for truth and goodness.
(Augusto Conti)
Therefore the dictum "Art for Art" should be corrected: "Art for life's sake" or "Art for man".
(Gelasius Lepore)
The arts may not be directly ordained to morality, but they cannot withdraw from moral goodness.
(Gelasius Lepore)
The arts are truly free, but are not for that reason unchaste and obscene.
(Gelasius Lepore)
In a certain sense, we ourselves are the end of all things contrived by art.
(St. Tomas Aquinas)
All the arts and sciences are ordained to one thing: the perfection of man.
(St. Thomas Aquinas)
Since man works toward his own perfection, it follows that the adequate end of good arts is to promote the greater physical, intellectual, and moral perfection of humankind.
(St. Thomas Aquinas)
Art is an intellective virtue, by which the agent easily and methodically performs his free actions toward a work to be perfected.
(Scholastic definition)
Separated from morality, the arts will no longer aim for anything but pleasure, and disowning their original and essential source, which is the awareness of the supersensible and thus indirectly of the moral principle, they will become corrupt and fall into ruin.
(Carlo Cantoni)
-
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.
-
What about, for example, the Greek style of religious art is not photographic by any means, but it does "follow the rules" as it were.
I think you can have art that "conveys a meaning or message" and isn't trying to be photographically realistic. Still, it can have some kind of harmony, balance, purpose, etc.
Vandaler blames the invention of the camera, but I would blame the Revolution (that which tries to overthrow God and His rules -- which takes various forms, such as the French Revolution) and also modern philosophy which denies objective truth.
Matthew
-
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 docuŠ¼ent 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.
-
What about, for example, the Greek style of religious art is not photographic by any means, but it does "follow the rules" as it were.
Could you define more precisely what you mean by Greek style... do you mean icons, as they are popular in the Orthodox Tradition ?
I think you can have art that "conveys a meaning or message" and isn't trying to be photographically realistic. Still, it can have some kind of harmony, balance, purpose, etc.
Sure you can, we agree.
Vandaler blames the invention of the camera, but I would blame the Revolution (that which tries to overthrow God and His rules -- which takes various forms, such as the French Revolution) and also modern philosophy which denies objective truth.
I don't blame the camera, as if I am trying to argue a point. I am pointing out that all those new movements in art took form precisely at the time where photography rendered obsolete the need for paintings to be realistic. My point is merely academic and I do not deny that there where other changes going on also.
-
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
(http://www.vinylzart.com/images/ClassicCanvas-ClaudeMonet-MadameMonetandChild(1875).jpg)
-
A few more impressionists to get a grip on them.
Is this real art ?... I find it hard to argue it's not.
Renoir
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/images/2006/09/26/renoir_boating_416x300.jpg)
Degas
(http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/degas/ballet/degas.etoile.jpg)
-
I think those examples would qualify as art.
They seem to have a bona-fide "style" to them -- that is to say, they have order and are portraying a mood or scene and doing it effectively.
I would contrast this, again, with the red dot on a piece of paper. That conveys absolutely nothing, unless you count "I am not an artist" as a statement.
Matthew
-
I think those examples would qualify as art.
They seem to have a bona-fide "style" to them -- that is to say, they have order and are portraying a mood or scene and doing it effectively.
Sure, I agree with you, but those paintings in their time, where somewhat a radical depart from classical painting.
I would contrast this, again, with the red dot on a piece of paper. That conveys absolutely nothing, unless you count "I am not an artist" as a statement.
:laugh1:
I understand you have an eagerness to distance yourself from that. What would be interesting, is to gradually move the slider of weirdness to see where each individual gets off the train and why. Certainly we all have different tolerance level to what we consider art. It's more instructive to test and feel where the limit is, rather then showing something we hate right off the bat, thus giving the false impression we are all in agreement.
Bold was added in an edit.
-
The coming of photography may have contributed to artists finding different art forms that were not so realistic, but we have to be careful with subjectivity. It is possible to become so subjective that we end up not believing in anything objective anymore. Hence, the sense of reality is lost. Thus, you get the kinds of weird art you find in our time, depending on what kind of art it is, like the red dot just mentioned. Objectively, it is red dot, and that is what it is simply. Subjectively, someone can call it an elephant for all I know even though it is obviously not an elephant. God gave His creation order and beauty with aspects of simplicity and complexity, not oversimplicity and disorder. A red dot is an oversimplification and reminds me of how things are stripped from their proper place, but that is my subjective view at the very least. The red dot is simply a red dot though.
-
The coming of photography may have contributed to artists finding different art forms that were not so realistic, but we have to be careful with subjectivity. It is possible to become so subjective that we end up not believing in anything objective anymore.
Which is the predominant 'school', right now, modernism and post-modernism. Perhaps this idea of value judgments, of schools, was too profound to immediately grasp. I don't know. It's really not. It's the most straightforward beginning of any critique or analysis of what is called, fine art.
This school wishes to flatter themselves not in 'understanding' the piece, but in proving that their value judgments are right. Speaking of profound, that smacks of a profound insecurity. And it suggests that they learn, very little. But it does seem to be the point of a black dot on a white field. What is it, they ask? A polar bear in a snowstorm? No, it is beautiful and harmonic symbolism of evolutionism. It is Thoreau at the pond. No it is this that they 'feel', or that. Or no, it is syncretism. See the beauty and harmony, the order and disorder, how all is lovingly brought together in beauty and harmony. And off they then proceed to explain their own cult of syncretism.
One might suggest that great art is always iconic and a placeholder for a narrative. If so, that would bring one back to consideration of 'schools'. Because this school, and these narratives, are profoundly boring, self-centered and moronic. But then such a school would accuse those didactic iconic medieval images of being boring, ignorant and smug.
And that is where one, being true to their school, says one is art, the other is not, and there can be no meeting of the minds.
I think the appropriate distinction, if it must be one or 'tother, once schools are established, within a school one may speak not of professional and amateur work, though one may, but would prefer instead to consider competent art, and masterpieces. Both would still be art, fine art, and agreeable to the school. But the masterpiece would be different.
And then, identifying ones school, here it would seem to be that of a particular sort of order and effort, and not at odds with a general Catholic 'sense', one might ask - what is a masterpiece? Rodin's massive sculpture of the torments of hell? The pieta under glass? Medieval inlay of a candle box for Extreme Unction? or the sculpture of an elaborate silver altar crucifix with relic, such as shown faded in the Prayer photo in another thread?
-
Working our way out from impressionists, let's see what reaction this one draws.
This is from Georges-Pierre Seurat, a truly unique artist that grew out of the impressionist movement and laid down the foundation of pointillism. (a process by which colour are not mixed, but rather juxtaposed in a series of little points of different colours forming in the eye and brain a unified colour) This is an extremely tedious way of painting. The painting below is his crowning achievement and took 2 full years to produce.
Still art ?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/Georges_Seurat_031.jpg/800px-Georges_Seurat_031.jpg)
-
it is nice and decent art... isn't it? :rolleyes:
-
Art (of all kinds) reflects the philosophy of a man. Once philosophy went of the track (beginning with the Nominalism of Occam), it was inevitable that art should do the same.
As much modern 'philosophy' is nonsense, so is the 'art' that is the reflection thereof.
-
Art (of all kinds) reflects the philosophy of a man. Once philosophy went of the track (beginning with the Nominalism of Occam), it was inevitable that art should do the same.
As much modern 'philosophy' is nonsense, so is the 'art' that is the reflection thereof.
Even as I suggested:
This school wishes to flatter themselves not in 'understanding' the piece, but in proving that their value judgments are right. Speaking of profound, that smacks of a profound insecurity. And it suggests that they learn, very little. But it does seem to be the point of a black dot on a white field. What is it, they ask? A polar bear in a snowstorm? No, it is beautiful and harmonic symbolism of evolutionism. It is Thoreau at the pond. No it is this that they 'feel', or that. Or no, it is syncretism. See the beauty and harmony, the order and disorder, how all is lovingly brought together in beauty and harmony. And off they then proceed to explain their own cult of syncretism.
It's a place-filler, an icon, a symbol. It could be anything. And then I went on to discuss that, a bit. The symbol ought to have a meaning in itself, and not be simply a place-holder. And that's our agreement. Because ultimately what is symbolized matters. If the black dot means nonsense, in a thousand forms, and a thousand speeches, then even the black dot is unnecessary. The 'art' could be an empty wall, which I'm sure has been done. It can be nothing at all, and the narrative would remain unchanged. But if the symbol is of something meaningful in itself, then that symbol is necessary, as the figures in a Fra Angelico piece. But it still refers to much more.
-
Most of the discussion here seems to be geared toward convincing everyone that art is what man says it is. What about it being what God meant it to be? And if you want to talk about men, I don't think anybody here is smarter than St. Thomas Aquinas. I think he had the whole "religion's implications for the world/life" thing down pat.
It comes back to that the creative process we do as artists is the image of God the creator in us. And God didn't create a fuzzy, ambiguous, distorted, out of focus or disordered universe. From Him proceeds perfect order, perfect clarity, perfect truth.
There are a lot of ways to use the talents God gave us, but the more we stray from what those talents actually are, and are meant to be, the more we loose sight of God's will and the glory we could give to God in our talents.
The singer can argue that modern songs screamed at the top of one's lungs are art. But all illusions fade when we think of chant, or picture what will be playing in heaven. If there's art in heaven, I doubt very much that it will be any of the schools of modern art discussed here.
Even the picture Blessed Mother left in Guadalupe (Our Lady of Guadalupe) is geared heavily toward realism in terms of it's facial features, even though it resembles a painting. And the image Christ left on the shroud isn't exactly Picasso either.
-
Art (of all kinds) reflects the philosophy of a man. Once philosophy went of the track (beginning with the Nominalism of Occam), it was inevitable that art should do the same.
As much modern 'philosophy' is nonsense, so is the 'art' that is the reflection thereof.
Yeah... this is more or less the conclusion I came to. What does modern man seem to be doing in just about everything? Throwing off God, and everything that reminds us of God. In art, that means throwing off everything that reminds one of the creator, or of His ordered and beautiful creation.
^.^ Sorry to repeat myself. I guess I do that a lot. Anyhow, I think you're on the money here. It seems like at some point, either those who couldn't make decent art decided to make lesser art and try to force the world to call it equal, or else someone was proud and wanted to 'reinvent' art... art that they could do, incidentally... and make quite a name for themselves.
The very idea that we can reinvent what God has instituted, has led man to ruin on more than one plane.
-
I do not wish to contradict Dulcamara. But I do find that your definition of art is narrow.
For one thing, you might say that Art was created by God, and he did invent all things. However, Art, as we know it today, was formalized by the Greeks who pretty much systematized it in the way we know it today and they did this, within the parameters of Greek Mythology.
Furthermore, art also acts as a collective memory throughout the ages. This is why we can at a glance differentiate an Egyptians mural from an Aztec sculpture etc... Cultural identity and Art are very closely related.
-
However, Art, as we know it today, was formalized by the Greeks who pretty much systematized it in the way we know it today and they did this, within the parameters of Greek Mythology.
Furthermore, art also acts as a collective memory throughout the ages. This is why we can at a glance differentiate an Egyptians mural from an Aztec sculpture etc... Cultural identity and Art are very closely related.
If I am interested in social issues, it would do me no good to look at the present day disaster of society, and defend earlier stages of that disaster under the pretext that what came before the very first stages of it were formulated by some Greek.
If I read your statement correctly, you're basically saying that all of that realistic, beautiful and meaningful art is "nice" ... it's "pleasant" ... it's even "good art" ... but having only "good art" like that art, while it was all right for back then, is not all right for the enlightened, all encompassing styles that came after it. That the cave drawings of ancient barbarians are equal to The Last Supper or the Pieta because the stick figure men hunting stick figure animals are also historical representations...
I could go on, but I'll stop there. Let me cite you a parallel to this that I have found VERY relevant.
I submit to your consideration that these are the very same kinds of arguments which have poisoned and (all but) destroyed the church today from within.
The modern Catholic or theologian will tell you that St. Thomas and St. Peter, and Pope Leo are very "nice". They make sense. They're even what they would call "good theology." They would call the Canonized Mass, "good" and "beautiful" and "very dignified." But hard upon the heels of their praise will follow the exact same arguments which you use to dethrone true art. "St. Thomas was a very good man. He was very pious! He meant well! His Summa Theologica is wonderful!..." >honorary swinging of the thurible here< ... "BUT! That was THEN. That was so long ago! NOW things are different! NOW we're enlightened! Now we know better than that poor, old, ancient, backwards little man, pouring over all of those cold hard facts and worrying about all of his little details! I mean, you know... he was so NICE... but ... it just doesn't cut it for today! We're so much more progressive now! We're so much more enlightened than to be bound by cold, hard things like FACTS! I mean, let's face it, facts are ugly, because they hurt people's feelings who don't want to believe in them. It's so much nicer, so much better to believe that you can just believe whatever you want, and then everybody can join in and we'll all worship God together!" >end of incense, chucking of St. Thomas into the nearest trash can<
Or again, "The old Mass was so NICE! It was so lovely! Those old Catholics... they were really so pious! They all meant well!" >honorary swinging of the thurible< "But, you know... that was THEN! That was way back when people were so backwards and didn't know better! We're so much more enlightened now! So much more progressive! We've learned so much! We can't possibly go back to something as backwards as the OLD Mass! It was good for those backwards old Catholics, but not for us enlightened, modern men! I mean, imagine us modern, enlightened men, worrying so much about all of this symbolism and all of these outward signs... and, what's all this CHANTING business? It's so medieval! Now we've got the New Mass! And it's so much more inclusive! So much less offensive! So much more FREE! So much more enlightened than that old, prehistoric, antiquated Mass!" >end of incense, chucking of the Old Mass into the nearest trash can<
What you are basically saying is, "well, of course the old art WAS art. It was good. It was nice. It was beautiful even. There's nothing wrong with the OLD art. Who could possibly say there's anything wrong with the old art?" >honorary swinging of the thurible< "But you know, OLD art was made by those old, backwards Greeks, who concerned themselves over petty details like truth and beauty and purpose and craft... and all that bothersome, cold business about what art is and how art should be and so forth... I mean, REALLY... what could those old, backwards, ancient greeks possibly know about ART? But we're MODERN men! We're so much more enlightened than those old greeks! We're so much more PROGRESSIVE! We're so much more FREE! We realize that EVERYTHING is art, and that EVERY man is an artist, and that's so much nicer! So much more progressive! So much more enlightened, than those backwards greeks with their truth and their philosophy and their petty little details. I mean, who wants art to be so SUPERIOR. So ELITE! We want an all-encompassing art, which will be so much freer, so much kinder to every man!" >end of incense, chucking of art into the nearest trash can<
This is the very attack that the devil has used to undermine the Bride of Christ. On the one hand, in order to be agreeable (or perhaps because they still have enough working brain cells that they realize they can't totally deny the propriety and beauty and truth of what came before), they get out the thurible and say all kinds of nice things about those old dinosaurs that lived way back when (pick your age), and what they did, and how it was so nice and so great, and how nobody is saying there is anything wrong with it, because how could anything be wrong with something (THAT REALLY WAS) so nice, so beautiful, so true?
But then they put down the thurible, and proceed to then trash (after all) what they just were praising, and say how it's so backwards, so constraining, so ancient, so, in short, nonsensical, that we modern, enlightened men couldn't possibly have anything to do with it. OR at the very least, we couldn't possibly ONLY have that ancient relic of the past. We need, they will say, at the very least IN ADDITION TO (but more likely in place of) what came before) something new, which they will profess to be so much better, so much more enlightened, so much more all-inclusive than what came before it.
But you know... some things simply ARE beautiful. Some things simply are true. Some things simply are exclusively correct, in whatever age we found them, and no matter how old they are now. Some ideas are correct, were correct thousands of years ago, and are still exclusively correct today, like the doctrine of the Trinity, or the fact of sin, or the truth about human nature. OR... art, which the greeks did not invent, but for all of their errors raised it to a higher plane because of their own natural talents given them by God... the gall and the guts and the nerve and... dare I say the humility... to look at a thing, contemplate what it is by nature and how it SHOULD be done (as they comprehended and esteemed a great deal the idea of a right and wrong way to do things), and then, once they figured that out, to proceed to do it that way, or hold that truth, without question.
The greeks weren't devils. St Thomas stood on the shoulders of Aristotle! They had gifts from God, regardless of who or what they choose to worship, and they used those gifts to incredible ends which we can still see today in the effect they had on art. And like with theology or the Mass, it doesn't matter what comes after the discovery of the truth. (Though I dare say the greeks, whatever they knew of art, still were missing the last and highest piece of the puzzle.) The truth and the beauty cannot be denied because it's a new year now, and we all have big egos and want to be great artists.
St Thomas probably would have said the pictures you showed were all art. But he also would likely have said that they were only GOOD art inasmuch as they were ordered and so forth, so that to whatever degree they were fuzzy, vague, disordered, unrealistic, ugly and what have you, they were NOT good art. Just as a child's finger painting is art, but not good art.
You can't discount truth and beauty because of the age, nor change the nature of them because we want to do something "new and exciting, and all-inclusive" which will not offend the tender ego of the lesser artist. And we don't have to be great artists ourselves even, to recognize that just as God is unchanging, truth, and true beauty are unchanging, regardless of our frequently toxic egos. We can't deny timeless truth. And whoever finds or speaks the truth, is in the right, to whatever degree they have found it, even if they were old Pope St. Leo, even if they were "the dumb ox" St Thomas, and even if they were ancient, idol worshiping greeks!
The truth is all that matters. And our arts, of whatever field, are only "good" insomuch as they agree with what GOD made them, and with what IS real art, regardless of how much it hurts if we're not good enough ourselves to be good at them. And they are bad insomuch as they fail to be all that makes art good, regardless of how good we think or want to say they are. That's cold, hard, unmoving truth. God made art, not the greeks, and not Picasso. And it is now, and always will be what God meant it to be, egos or no egos.
-
Hi,
If I am interested in social issues, it would do me no good to look at the present day disaster of society, and defend earlier stages of that disaster under the pretext that what came before the very first stages of it were formulated by some Greek.
If I read your statement correctly, you're basically saying that all of that realistic, beautiful and meaningful art is "nice" ... it's "pleasant" ... it's even "good art" ... but having only "good art" like that art, while it was all right for back then, is not all right for the enlightened, all encompassing styles that came after it. That the cave drawings of ancient barbarians are equal to The Last Supper or the Pieta because the stick figure men hunting stick figure animals are also historical representations...
That is not what I meant. Past masterpieces are still masterpieces and even more so now, since past paintings where executed in precarious conditions as opposed to todays modern means, mediums and tools. Unfortunately, you spent much text in not understanding what I meant properly.
What you are basically saying is, "well, of course the old art WAS art. It was good. It was nice. It was beautiful even. There's nothing wrong with the OLD art. Who could possibly say there's anything wrong with the old art?" >honorary swinging of the thurible< "But you know, OLD art was made by those old, backwards Greeks, who concerned themselves over petty details like truth and beauty and purpose and craft... and all that bothersome, cold business about what art is and how art should be and so forth... I mean, REALLY... what could those old, backwards, ancient greeks possibly know about ART? But we're MODERN men! We're so much more enlightened than those old greeks! We're so much more PROGRESSIVE! We're so much more FREE! We realize that EVERYTHING is art, and that EVERY man is an artist, and that's so much nicer! So much more progressive! So much more enlightened, than those backwards greeks with their truth and their philosophy and their petty little details. I mean, who wants art to be so SUPERIOR. So ELITE! We want an all-encompassing art, which will be so much freer, so much kinder to every man!"
I brought the Greeks in to outline the facts that Art as we know it today was systematized by them. It's a human invention, laden in Greek mythology. Per example, Muses (Inspiration) are a sisterhood of Greek goddesses etc... I do not seek more dignity to one form over another but rather establish that art is profoundly human both in it's roots and experience.
But then they put down the thurible, and proceed to then trash (after all) what they just were praising, and say how it's so backwards, so constraining, so ancient, so, in short, nonsensical, that we modern, enlightened men couldn't possibly have anything to do with it. OR at the very least, we couldn't possibly ONLY have that ancient relic of the past. We need, they will say, at the very least IN ADDITION TO (but more likely in place of) what came before) something new, which they will profess to be so much better, so much more enlightened, so much more all-inclusive than what came before it.
Who does or say this ? Would it not be only a construct of your imagination, in order to facilitate your argument ? I don't remember ever once seeing claims that classic art is lesser in order to make the point for another form of art. Regardless, if you do track down someone who argues and reasons as above, I will join you in disagreement.
It is your argument that realistic art is superior, which does not mean that someone who disagree will try and assert that other forms are superior themselves. The argument is that other forms are different, but not superior.
Take care in this season of rejoice.
Edited for clarity