Modern Art

[Mariya116]

I'm not a "TAW member" anymore anyway, so I might be breaking the rules of "no debating".

Go ahead leave, but you're not gonna find such great company anywhere else... :-(

 

[rusmeister]

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 agree.

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".

I appreciate that, Photini, and if you do leave, I want to extend apologies - I had not even noticed that you had abandoned Orthodox faith (judging from your chosen faith icon), and I won't speak in the same way to someone who rejects it, as I can not take things like a common faith and worldview for granted. I don't even think it terribly useful to disagree over art in such cases - it's like talking the fine points of scrabble with a patient dying of cancer - it's an evasion of what's REALLY important.

Instead of "angelic", I would say "that which brings us closer to God". Because I hope that you DO want that.

Anyway, my apologies for my inattentiveness. I was clueless.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You did it, Rus! You did it! ....You went a whole post without a reference to Chesterton!

 

[88Devin07]

Wow, how did this thread get like this?

I must clarify that to an extent, I do like modern art... By that I mean works like "A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte" or some of van Gogh's work. Or even some by both Manet and Monet.

However, that is about the extent of my love for modern art. What I desire most, is that we completely abandon the previous 100 years of architecture, and somewhat of the last 150 years of art and return to classicism, neoclassicism, to the traditional.

While I can't speak for art, Modern architecture (by this I mean the category of Modern Architecture, not contemporary architecture) serves only to exalt man. Not only that, but it is dead, bland and cold, not to mention a lot of it is ugly as sin.

Look at work by Le Corbusier, Mies van der Rohe, Oscar Neimeyer, Walter Gropius and Alvar Aalto. While they are heralded as great architects by our modern world, I believe that they have provided us with some of the ugliest buildings out there, and not only that, but have largely contributed to many of the problems rampant in architecture and our built environment today.

Only a return to a truly beautiful architecture can remedy our state. Work like Palladio, Joze Plecnik, Lutyens, early Frank Lloyd Wright and great works of architecture like Versailles, the Grand Opera House in Paris, St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, Basilica di Santa Maria del Fiore in Florence, and most other architectural work prior to the late 1800s and very early 1900s.

Just look up these architectural styles and you will see some of the greatest work that humans have ever produced, far better than modern forms of architecture... Classical, Roman, Byzantine, Romanesque, Renaissance, Gothic, Baroque, Classism, Neo-Classical, Neo-Renaissance and Neo-Baroque.

Its hilarious how the public still loves traditional architecture, and yet architects seem to still hold onto modernism and post-modernism. They need to just give it up and embrace traditional architecture.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Probably my favorite modern art masterpieces come from Art Van Da Ley and Professor Von Nostren....

 

[rusmeister]

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.

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.

 

[Sidheil]

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.

I do like Chesterton. His book Orthodoxy was part of what got me interested in philosophy. And the ability to think as deeply as he did, and still write to a popular audience is quite commendable.

I see what you're saying, I suppose I was thinking that when he said unpopular he was referring to critical reception. Popular reception is probably a more accurate reading though. It reflects the tendency of modernity to be increasingly specializing the roles of people in society, and even more damaging, to attempt to define then solely by that role. The opinion of the people doesn't matter, they can't really criticize art. After all, they don't get paid to do it!

I've heard it said that Christianity is the only true humanism, and I think that was something Chesterton really got. Anyway, it's late here, but I'll try to respond more thoroughly tomorrow.