Italian art school seeks to revive Catholic dominance of Sacred Art

[KEP1983]

Dony MacManus started a Sacred Art school in Florence with the support of the Archbishop there, Cardinal Giuseppe Betori. Hopefully other Bishops will follow suit, and give up with the failed experiment of iconophobia, and start patronizing beautiful Sacred Art again!

After all, Vatican II stated in “Sacrosanctum Concilium” that every Bishop should patronize the arts and that art schools should be set up around the world to produce art for the Church. Somehow those following the “spirit of Vatican II” ignored that part of the Vatican II documents and insisted that beautiful Churches were opposed to “social justice.” Hopefully this new development is a sign that Bishops will start following Vatican II and set up Sacred Art schools and actually start supporting the arts again.

“Italian art school seeks to revive Catholic dominance of Sacred Art”

washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/italian-school-seeks-to-revive-catholic-dominance-of-sacred-art/2013/09/06/80d7fe72-1717-11e3-961c-f22d3aaf19ab_story.html

 

[Brendan]

After all, Vatican II stated in “Sacrosanctum Concilium” that every Bishop should patronize the arts and that art schools should be set up around the world to produce art for the Church. **Somehow those following the “spirit of Vatican II” ignored that part of the Vatican II documents **

Sure they did… except all the art schools were in Catholic grade schools and the art they produced was felt and burlap banners

Back to the topic, it’s great to see Florence again at the forefront of Catholic art

 

[edwest2]

Bravo!

Ed

 

[YoungTradCath]

I’m very excited to see whatever art their students might produce. The one thing the classical and Renaissance artists consistently got right was the human form.

 

[George_Stegmeir]

Unfortunately, if this Italian Art School ignores the 20th century Art History trends, and movements in the visual arts, they are doomed to produce only second rate Commercial Illustrations and Art.
The problem with this is that both Clergy and Laity have little or no training in the visual arts or its appreciation. They are still mired in “I know what I like”…and what they like looks like a Kodak snapshot. That is their level of art appreciation.
The Clergy and Laity that financed much of Renaissance Art were almost as visually sophisticated as the artists who produced it.
You see, Visual Art goes where the money is. During the Middle Ages and Early Renaissance, The Church bought most of the Art. They were the ones with the money. That is why there are so many paintings of the Virgin and Saints. As the Noble Laity became more wealthy, the High Renaissance came into being with its portraits and paintings of gods and goddesses and depictions of historical events.
It would be almost impossible for contemporary artists to equal the technical skills common in the Renaissance. The reason? Well, most of the artists started to learn drawing when they were 3 and 4 years old, and were taking professionally taught drawing lessons by the age of 5. Then, they began a formal trade apprenticeship in an art studio at 12 years old.
The social conditions that allowed these men to develop their talents do not exist anywhere in the world today, least of all in Italy.
Believe it or not, the best art schools in the world today are in the US, followed closely by Canada and Germany. In fact, the current Art Capitol of the World is no longer New York City, it is in Nuremburg, Germany. It is there that the most collectable contemporary art is being produced and sold.
As for the Church spending the kind of money for art work that would occasion a “neo-renaissance”, that is not likely-not as long as Francis is Pope. He already is on record that such money is better spent on the poor.

 

[KEP1983]

Unfortunately, if this Italian Art School ignores the 20th century Art History trends, and movements in the visual arts, they are doomed to produce only second rate Commercial Illustrations and Art.
The problem with this is that both Clergy and Laity have little or no training in the visual arts or its appreciation. They are still mired in “I know what I like”…and what they like looks like a Kodak snapshot. That is their level of art appreciation.
The Clergy and Laity that financed much of Renaissance Art were almost as visually sophisticated as the artists who produced it.
You see, Visual Art goes where the money is. During the Middle Ages and Early Renaissance, The Church bought most of the Art. They were the ones with the money. That is why there are so many paintings of the Virgin and Saints. As the Noble Laity became more wealthy, the High Renaissance came into being with its portraits and paintings of gods and goddesses and depictions of historical events.
It would be almost impossible for contemporary artists to equal the technical skills common in the Renaissance. The reason? Well, most of the artists started to learn drawing when they were 3 and 4 years old, and were taking professionally taught drawing lessons by the age of 5. Then, they began a formal trade apprenticeship in an art studio at 12 years old.
The social conditions that allowed these men to develop their talents do not exist anywhere in the world today, least of all in Italy.
Believe it or not, the best art schools in the world today are in the US, followed closely by Canada and Germany. In fact, the current Art Capitol of the World is no longer New York City, it is in Nuremburg, Germany. It is there that the most collectable contemporary art is being produced and sold.
As for the Church spending the kind of money for art work that would occasion a “neo-renaissance”, that is not likely-not as long as Francis is Pope. He already is on record that such money is better spent on the poor.

You make a lot of good points, and I agree with much of it.

It’s true that during the Renaissance people started studying art at a very young age. Three or four years old is a bit of hyperbole, I think. Michelangelo started studying around 13, Da Vinci around 14, and Raphael around 13.

But by the late 19th century people started studying later. William Bouguereau entered the Ecole des Beaux Arts at 20 years old, considered untalented, and was accepted 99th out of 100 applicants. Now he’s considered one of the greatest technicians who ever lived. bouguereau.org/ John William Waterhouse began studying art at 22 years old. Now he’s one of the most famous painters of the 19th century. johnwilliamwaterhouse.net/ Jean-Francois Millet started studying at 23. Now he’s one of the most famous painters from the Barbizon school. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Fran%C3%A7ois_Millet Thomas Eakins began formal studying at 22. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Eakins Alexander Cabanel began studying at 17. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandre_Cabanel Edmund Tarbell got some training at 15, but entered formal training at 21. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_C._Tarbell Lawrence Alma-Tadema began studying at 16 (and only because his family thought he was going to die soon thereafter). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Lawrence_Alma-Tadema Frederic Lord Leighton didn’t enter formal art school until he was 24. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederic_Leighton,_1st_Baron_Leighton Jacques-Lous David entered formal training at 18 years old. biography.com/people/jacques-louis-david-9267043 Sir Edward Poynter started studying at 17. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Edward_John_Poynter

A number of these painters were American or British-- two Protestant countries that never supported the arts much, and certainly never to the extent of the Catholic Church. Yet they still had immense technical skill and began studying at an age similar to college students today.

By the 19th century painting was considered a science, and almost anyone could learn the technique of painting. (That didn’t make them a great artist, but a technically skilled painter.) You don’t need to start drawing at 3 years old to be a great draftsman. You have to learn the principles of drawing, painting, and sculpting. Whether you start at 13 like Raphael or 18-20 like the 19th century French did is irrelevant.

I do think that people could produce art equal to the Old Masters today. There are some who are coming close. People like Odd Nerdrum and Steve Assael are not that far off.

The big thing is that we won’t be able to produce huge complex works. Those take armies of assistants, which cost a lot of money. But instead of large Gothic Cathedrals with a ton of ornament, we could still produce high quality beautiful art for less ornamented Churches.

 

[KEP1983]

Unfortunately, if this Italian Art School ignores the 20th century Art History trends, and movements in the visual arts, they are doomed to produce only second rate Commercial Illustrations and Art.

One of the teachers there is Cody Swanson, who began studying quite young, btw. He’s only 28 now. His work is quite better than “second rate commercial illustration.”
codyswanson.com/corpuschristi.html

There are a number of traditional schools (called ateliers) putting out traditional painters who aren’t just “commercial illustrators.”

grandcentralacademy.org/
florenceacademyofart.com/
angelartschool.com/
charlescecilstudios.com/

And then there’s my teacher who is well known in the Classical Realist community: artrenewal.org/pages/artist.php?artistid=2312

The knowledge and technical skill still exists. There are students who still want it. And 18-20 isn’t too old to learn it, as I pointed out was quite common for 19th century artists to begin studying around that age.

The problem with this is that both Clergy and Laity have little or no training in the visual arts or its appreciation. They are still mired in “I know what I like”…and what they like looks like a Kodak snapshot. That is their level of art appreciation.
The Clergy and Laity that financed much of Renaissance Art were almost as visually sophisticated as the artists who produced it.
You see, Visual Art goes where the money is. During the Middle Ages and Early Renaissance, The Church bought most of the Art. They were the ones with the money.

This is very very true. If there’s no patronage, there will be no revival.

 

[LovedMyAlydar]

How nice to see beautiful artwork, I know alot of churches in need of some good artwork. What passes for art in some places is grotesque yuck. Vulgar would be another good name for it. The choppy, blocky nonsense needs to go. I hope they succeed.

 

[YoungTradCath]

He already is on record that such money is better spent on the poor.

Source?

 

[edwest2]

Unfortunately, if this Italian Art School ignores the 20th century Art History trends, and movements in the visual arts, they are doomed to produce only second rate Commercial Illustrations and Art.
The problem with this is that both Clergy and Laity have little or no training in the visual arts or its appreciation. They are still mired in “I know what I like”…and what they like looks like a Kodak snapshot. That is their level of art appreciation.
The Clergy and Laity that financed much of Renaissance Art were almost as visually sophisticated as the artists who produced it.
You see, Visual Art goes where the money is. During the Middle Ages and Early Renaissance, The Church bought most of the Art. They were the ones with the money. That is why there are so many paintings of the Virgin and Saints. As the Noble Laity became more wealthy, the High Renaissance came into being with its portraits and paintings of gods and goddesses and depictions of historical events.
It would be almost impossible for contemporary artists to equal the technical skills common in the Renaissance. The reason? Well, most of the artists started to learn drawing when they were 3 and 4 years old, and were taking professionally taught drawing lessons by the age of 5. Then, they began a formal trade apprenticeship in an art studio at 12 years old.
The social conditions that allowed these men to develop their talents do not exist anywhere in the world today, least of all in Italy.
Believe it or not, the best art schools in the world today are in the US, followed closely by Canada and Germany. In fact, the current Art Capitol of the World is no longer New York City, it is in Nuremburg, Germany. It is there that the most collectable contemporary art is being produced and sold.
As for the Church spending the kind of money for art work that would occasion a “neo-renaissance”, that is not likely-not as long as Francis is Pope. He already is on record that such money is better spent on the poor.

20th Century art history is garbage, especially the second half. I wouldn’t own “contemporary art” even if someone paid me. I follow the elite art magazines. They contain little that could be called art, just distorted examples of things that are undecipherable.

I am currently mentoring a young artist who is producing beautiful figures and designs. He is mostly self-taught. I personally met one of our finer cover artists. I asked him where he learned to paint so well, and found out he was mostly self-taught. So, of the painters and other illustrators we use, many have had little formal training. One highly-regarded painter told us how he learned to paint leaves. He went outside, collected a box full and examined as many as he needed to.

Money? Nothing if one has the desire.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

How nice to see beautiful artwork, I know alot of churches in need of some good artwork. What passes for art in some places is grotesque yuck. Vulgar would be another good name for it. The choppy, blocky nonsense needs to go. I hope they succeed.

Succeed may not be quite the right word. Art that is reverent and communicates clearly to the average viewer is more - far more - important than money. Even if the artist has to work and produces a handful of beautiful works a year, it is for the people and for the realization of the gift given to him by the Holy Spirit, which glorifies God.

That choppy, blocky stuff that communicates nothing needs to go.

Peace,
Ed

 

[manualman]

20th Century art history is garbage, especially the second half. I wouldn’t own “contemporary art” even if someone paid me. I follow the elite art magazines. They contain little that could be called art, just distorted examples of things that are undecipherable.

You silly child! Anybody can see that the Emperor’s new clothes (20th century art) is resplendent, magnificent, consciousness changing! What silly ramblings of you to say that he’s naked…

As an engineer, I’m not remotely qualified to critique art. All I know is that most things I have seen in fancy galleries in my lifetime look like an accident happened in a chemical plant.

Personally, I think it is lack of accountability. When public funding of the arts became common, it became more important for the artist to have the right connections than to actually be GOOD. Back when artists had to make their sponsors happy, it seems to me that we got better art.

I’m open to better theories.

 

[edwest2]

What is called modern art is actually a sub-culture that has church-like elements. In order for your art to be considered art, it must be approved by the art instructor. There is little freedom to create outside of narrowly defined boundaries. The next filter is a kind of priesthood called Art Critics. They do, in fact, take vague, nonsensical and uninterpretable works and give some their blessing. This then gives the artist some standing in the art cult and the ability to attempt to have his work shown in one of the places of worship known as art galleries. Of course, the gallery owner acts as a filter. Once “important” art critics notice the work, the artist may receive the title “important,” which increases his chances of being shown in the finer galleries. As word spreads, and the praise increases, the artist may be allowed entry into one of the cathedrals of the fine art world, the art museum. Demand, and the dollar price of his work increases.

But at any time, just as in the isolated fashion design cult, the art critic might say of his later works (after consulting his multi-volume set of adjectives and similes): "Francesco has graced us with many bold concepts and a new vision for the last four years as evidenced by the reviews of his work shown at The Pretentious Gallery, The Nom De Plume Gallery and his most auspicious showing at The Pate de Foie Gras Gallery in the upscale Cul de Sac District. Today, he labors but has deviated from his vision. This writer senses a change but perhaps not for the better. His bold palette has turned away from the warm harmonies of his previous works. Subdued and somewhat tentative, I sense an artist who is exploring, but will he choose to move forward or, like a rushing river, become still after triumph? Exhausted, but hopefully just for a moment. I wish him that renewal that can come at any time. That spark that relights the flame and dispels…

It’s more about a strange psychology than anything.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Rebecca_BE]

For me, I believe that religious art should be beautiful, transcendent and devotional. NOT sappy, and kitchish, nor undecipherable by a non “art-teest”.

 

[edwest2]

I don’t know what the words sappy or kitchish mean in this context, but, yes, the average person should see something beautiful and recognizable.

Peace,
Ed

 

[KEP1983]

Personally, I think it is lack of accountability. When public funding of the arts became common, it became more important for the artist to have the right connections than to actually be GOOD. Back when artists had to make their sponsors happy, it seems to me that we got better art.

I’m open to better theories.

I think your theory is part of the problem, but not all of it.

A big issue that a lot of people don’t realize-- including artists-- is the fact that the CIA secretly supported modern art as a “weapon” for propaganda during the Cold War. independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html
gizmodo.com/5686753/how-the-cia-spent-secret-millions-turning-modern-art-into-a-cold-war-arsenal

I think there was also the expansion of atheism and communism among “intellectuals” in the early 20th century that influenced art. If you look at the artists that created and influenced Modern Art most of them were atheists. Even in the late 19th century, the Impressionists who preceded the Modernists were mostly “intellectual” atheists (Monet and Matisse). In the early 20th century Picasso and Marcel Duchamp laid the groundwork for most 20th century Modern art, and they were both devout atheists. Most famous 20th century artists that came after them were atheists who followed in their footsteps-- after all, these artists were a community, and mostly only allowed their own “intellectual” atheists into the group (for instance, Salvador Dali later converted from Marxism/Atheism to Capitalism/Catholicism and was excommunicated from the Surrealists). Clement Greenberg, a Marxist atheist, was the most important art critic to promote Modern Art during the 20th century. After him abstract and modern art completely dominated and destroyed all traditional art in the west-- he was the one who got society to accept that traditional art is “kitsch”-- a term that he popularized.

Traditional art was built upon a belief in a transcendent higher power-- namely God. Art was an icon that pointed us toward a higher truth. When these atheists came along they wanted to both 1) reject their Judeo-Christian heritage, which figurative art played an important role in and 2) reject the concept of transcendence, which nearly all prior realist art was built upon.

I think this last point is very important, and most art critics are probably completely ignorant of it (since most are atheists). As Fr Robert Barron has said, we should first view things through a theological lens, and not first through a political/social/economic lens.

When we look at the great old artists-- Michelangelo, Raphael, Bernini-- all of them were painting transcendent works pointing to something higher, something beyond themselves. But when atheism spread through the intelligentsia in the 19th century the whole transcendent nature of art disappeared. Matisse and Monet painted lily pads and ugly splotches, not Jesus and saints. They were materialist artists who denied a transcendent reality, so they painted nothing but the material world devoid of a transcendent reality. The next group of atheists-- Picasso and Duchamp-- simply took the atheist art to its logical conclusion; nihilism and absurdity. And that’s where art has stayed for almost 100 years.

I’m getting a little off topic here, but, I have no clue why the Church didn’t try to fight against this. The Church simply abandoned the arts and culture sometime along the way. And now we’re paying for it, because as Bishop Paprocki recently stated, over the course of the last few decades the media has twisted peoples minds into subconsciously hating the Christian faith. And where did the media come from? Artists. Artists created photography and film, which eventually turned into cinema/television/internet/etc.

So this isn’t just about paintings on museum walls. When the Church abandoned art, it abandoned the artists who shape culture-- art, music, film, television, etc-- and it’s the arts, not politics, that really shape how a culture believes and thinks. That is, sexual music and Hollywood film cause much more damage to our youth than politicians do, and it’s the youth that form the future of the culture. So the Church abandoned cultural shepherding, and Satan quickly took control of art and turned it into the mass media that could wage war against the Church.

 

[KEP1983]

What is called modern art is actually a sub-culture that has church-like elements. In order for your art to be considered art, it must be approved by the art instructor. There is little freedom to create outside of narrowly defined boundaries. The next filter is a kind of priesthood called Art Critics. They do, in fact, take vague, nonsensical and uninterpretable works and give some their blessing. This then gives the artist some standing in the art cult and the ability to attempt to have his work shown in one of the places of worship known as art galleries. Of course, the gallery owner acts as a filter. Once “important” art critics notice the work, the artist may receive the title “important,” which increases his chances of being shown in the finer galleries. As word spreads, and the praise increases, the artist may be allowed entry into one of the cathedrals of the fine art world, the art museum. Demand, and the dollar price of his work increases.

Haha, this is awesome, so true! I love it!

 

[George_Stegmeir]

Haha, this is awesome, so true! I love it!

KEP1983, you have it backwards. In any era, throughout the entire history of mankind, the visual arts are the result of the society in which they were created and are influenced by the people who paid for it. Not the other way around as you have it!
As for atheists creating the art, Show me where Rubens or Rembrandt were church goers. Yes, they did produced some religious paintings, but only on commission; and, their religious works reflect the subject matter their commissioners wanted and the major beliefs of their society at that time. Thus, since Holland was largely Protestant at the time of Rembrandt, he did not paint The Virgin Mary.

 

[KEP1983]

KEP1983, you have it backwards. In any era, throughout the entire history of mankind, the visual arts are the result of the society in which they were created and are influenced by the people who paid for it. Not the other way around as you have it!
As for atheists creating the art, Show me where Rubens or Rembrandt were church goers. Yes, they did produced some religious paintings, but only on commission; and, their religious works reflect the subject matter their commissioners wanted and the major beliefs of their society at that time. Thus, since Holland was largely Protestant at the time of Rembrandt, he did not paint The Virgin Mary.

Right, and Protestant art largely became about non-transcendant subject matter. They painted still lifes and portraits. They still tried to reflect God through commonplace subject matter at least-- something the impressionists and modernists didn’t have.

But whether or not Rubens, Rembrandt, Caravaggio, etc were church-goers (I’d bet Rubens was, Rembrandt certainly was), they were still philosophically deeply rooted in a Judeo-Christian culture. The art done at the time reflects that culture-- even if the artist wasn’t a full believer. There was no atheist modernist subculture for them to be rooted in. So the work they produced still reflected the culture they came from.

And I’m afraid you have it wrong about the influence between art and society. Culture is shaped by the arts-- music, art, film, television, etc-- not the other way around. Sure,the Cardinals and Popes paid for the Renaissance art. But their beliefs came from the Bible and the arts. Fra Angelico, Dante, and the Gospel writers all preceded the Cardinals and Popes of the Renaissance and shaped the culture that these Cardinals and Popes were born into. Artists, especially musicians and filmmakers, influence the way the youth think, and the mindset of the youth are the foundation of the future of every culture. If you degrade the youths minds with Lady Gaga and The Daily Show, it’ll influence the way they think, and the majority of them will grow up to be sexular humanists angry at religion. This is why dictators such as Hitler and Stalin embraced media and the arts and aimed them directly at the youth. Whoever wins the youth wins the future. There have been numerous scientific studies to show this, and even Bishop Paprocki recently talked about this.

 

[edwest2]

I think your theory is part of the problem, but not all of it.

snip

I think there was also the expansion of atheism and communism among “intellectuals” in the early 20th century that influenced art. If you look at the artists that created and influenced Modern Art most of them were atheists. Even in the late 19th century, the Impressionists who preceded the Modernists were mostly “intellectual” atheists (Monet and Matisse). In the early 20th century Picasso and Marcel Duchamp laid the groundwork for most 20th century Modern art, and they were both devout atheists. Most famous 20th century artists that came after them were atheists who followed in their footsteps-- after all, these artists were a community, and mostly only allowed their own “intellectual” atheists into the group (for instance, Salvador Dali later converted from Marxism/Atheism to Capitalism/Catholicism and was excommunicated from the Surrealists). Clement Greenberg, a Marxist atheist, was the most important art critic to promote Modern Art during the 20th century. After him abstract and modern art completely dominated and destroyed all traditional art in the west-- he was the one who got society to accept that traditional art is “kitsch”-- a term that he popularized.

snip

I think this last point is very important, and most art critics are probably completely ignorant of it (since most are atheists). As Fr Robert Barron has said, we should first view things through a theological lens, and not first through a political/social/economic lens.

snip

the atheist art to its logical conclusion; nihilism and absurdity. And that’s where art has stayed for almost 100 years.

snip

So this isn’t just about paintings on museum walls. When the Church abandoned art, it abandoned the artists who shape culture-- art, music, film, television, etc-- and it’s the arts, not politics, that really shape how a culture believes and thinks. That is, sexual music and Hollywood film cause much more damage to our youth than politicians do, and it’s the youth that form the future of the culture. So the Church abandoned cultural shepherding, and Satan quickly took control of art and turned it into the mass media that could wage war against the Church.

And who controlled the content of movies and on TV during the 1950s and 1960s? You couldn’t say sex on television. Profanity - right out. It was clean and wholesome. I loved Leave it to Beaver and I Love Lucy. In fact, a man would appear on TV and tell you he was from your station’s Standards and Practices Department and that they watched everything we watched to make sure it was suitable for the entire family. In fact, TV broadcasts in the 1960s ended after the late news, followed by a film of a beautiful jet flying through the air and a man reading a poem that ended with: “… and touched the face of God.” Who began to make the bad/negative changes that started in the 1970s? Certainly not the average viewer.

The Church abandoned what? The late 1960s and 1970s were referred to as the golden age of dissent in the Church. They worked to destroy what they could, or distort it, from the inside.

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704586504574654282563939764.html

There was an all-out attack on the Church starting in 1968, and the focus was on destroying the family, destroying authentic relationships between the sexes and perverting normal human sexuality. The ‘sex without love and commitment revolution’ couldn’t be stopped, even by the Pope! There were birth control pills to sell !

When Pope Paul VI issued Humanae Vitae in 1968, affirming the Church’s constant stand against artificial birth control, here’s what happened:

"Within 24 hours, in an event unprecedented in the history of the Church, more than 200 dissenting theologians signed a full-page ad in The New York Times in protest. Not only did they declare their disagreement with encyclical’s teaching; they went one step further, far beyond their authority as theologians, and actually encouraged dissent among the lay faithful.

"They asserted the following: “Therefore, as Roman Catholic theologians, conscious of our duty and our limitations, we conclude that spouses may responsibly decide according to their conscience that artificial contraception in some circumstances is permissible and indeed necessary to preserve and foster the values and sacredness of marriage.”

Did you catch the part about “an event unprecedented in the history of the Church.” ? Defy the POPE ?! And Pope Paul VI warned us then what would happen if his words weren’t heeded. Who paid for the photographers, models and printing, and bought, rented or leased the porn bookstores that opened everywhere in the 1970s? We’re talking millions of dollars. And then the planned addiction pattern followed. What about strip clubs and topless bars? Who made all that legal? And the Hippies, what did they give us? Smoke dope, live with your ‘old lady’ without benefit of marriage and porn and profanity were all good. I had a Hippie friend who looked like he walked out of Hippie Boot Camp one day. He had the regulation length hair, talked perfect Hippie, and was a very bad role model because that group was open about living in sin. And if a parent, relative or friend tried to point out the error of their ways, we got: “Don’t trust anyone over 30!” Leave us alone!! We’re grown adults!!! We’ll live how we want!!!" “WE got FREEEEEEDOM!”

Just before they entered our neighborhoods in the late 1960s, we were taught to stay away from the relatively few bad role models. We were told dirty magazines were sinful. Illegal drugs were bad for you. No sex before marriage. PERIOD. But as they lived out open scandal, the media followed.

Thank you for the priceless information on art and artists. It fills in a blank in my collection of “what went wrong and why” history.

God bless,
Ed