Go ahead leave, but you're not gonna find such great company anywhere else... :-(I'm not a "TAW member" anymore anyway, so I might be breaking the rules of "no debating".
Upvote
0
Go ahead leave, but you're not gonna find such great company anywhere else... :-(I'm not a "TAW member" anymore anyway, so I might be breaking the rules of "no debating".
These "feelings" are not absolute though and usually with a little effort & education, something you (not specifically you Mariya, but the general "you") formally didn't "like" might become something that you grow very fond of. And if you don't grow to like it, then at least you will have a better understanding of why you don't like it.
I definitely don't subscribe to the belief that contemporary art is a degradation of any former kind of "angelic" art (with the possible exception of Pop art).
That's all I've been trying to say in this thread.
This time, for real, I am taking my leave. I'm not a "TAW member" anymore anyway, so I might be breaking the rules of "no debating".
You seem to be dying for someone to engage in Chesterton's thoughts here, and I hope you don't find me too presumptuous should I attempt. Oh, and I'm not Orthodox, so if I say anything not kosher here (irony fully intended), just let me know.
Obvious observations first, it would seem he's not a fan of modern art. A few of the quotes stuck out to me though. For example:
This one I find interesting for several reasons, but must notably because the subject is not the artist, but the critic. And there seems to be a contradiction. If a critic truly believed that a necessary quality for a masterpiece is that it its unpopular, then it would seem the highest compliment he could pay it would be to rate it poorly. An odd reaction to a masterpiece! The other option is that the critic is not actually reviewing the art, but responding to how others view it. "It's unpopular? A masterpiece!" This is not much more rational, but the contradiction is less evident, so I believe this second scenario to be closer to the truth, if Chesterton had a valid insight. I'm assuming he did, since I know next to nothing about art. Anyway, if this sort of indirect review is indicative on how we view the works of those around us, then it really is a beneficial insight. What makes something good or bad, beautiful or ugly, true or false is not because of what others think, but because the object under consideration possesses these attributes. Final thought: the desire to be authentic in your thoughts, and dedicated to truth regardless of what others say is a good thing. But to believe you must always be against the grain in order to be correct is a gross error. And I think this is really what Chesterton was driving at.
Thanks for the quotes! Sorry for only getting to the point at the end.
rusmeister said:Thanks for your response! I find that the number of people who actually take GKC on is quite small - most either agree in silence, or disagree but have no response (and subsequently no good basis for disagreement) other that to say that "he is bad" (or stuffy, or Victorian, or some epithet supported by nothing in particular) or that all things are a matter of opinion and taste. So dying? Well, I hope not , but eager? Sure, just as a physicist who has found an unheard of scientist whose theories explain all phenomena hitherto observed and turn all modern physics upside-down. Or what would you do if you found an unheard of writer named "Tremblepike" who wrote on every subject under the sun in every imaginable genre and predicted the course of events in our time better than Nostradamus, and was kept out of the public school curriculum because he makes enemies of the Faith look like the bumbling thinkers that they are, only as a result nobody had ever heard of him, so they look at you like you are crazy?
So yes, I think he can enrich the thinking of all Christians, including Orthodox Christians. The man who turned CS Lewis from atheism deserves a little more respect than what we give him. He just accomplished so much that the mind can hardly take it in. He cannot be simply "read". He has to be discovered.
I don't think there's any contradiction, even seeming, though. The thing is that the critics generally think the public, the common man to be stupid, while, he, the elite specialist, who knows so much better than they, ah, now HE knows what good art is! So they think that if it is popular, it is poor, because "Bah! The public! What do THEY understand?"
Since the critics are in opposition to the public, rather than being representative of the public, there's no contradiction. Chesterton was always standing up for the common man, who is generally right without being able to articulate why, against the snobs and elites imposing their own anti-man and anti-God visions on him.
But I certainly agree with what you say on possessing attributes.
One thing I see, thinking about recent revelations, is a direct correlation between the insistence that there is only taste and preference and a general denial of truth, and so that kind of attitude is on a collision course with our Faith.