Liturgical/sacred art and its devolution (?)

[Sarabande]

Good points, Sarabande.

Some people will say, “You don’t like modernist and post-modernist architecture just because you don’t like it. You don’t like it because it’s new. That’s your opinion.” Well, yes, in part. But why is it? It’s not like I sat down and cultured it.

The thing about it being something new is not really true. Modernist architecture has been around for something like going on a century now, and post-modernist for over forty years. I am 19 years old. This kind of architecture has been part of my life for as long as Baroque, Gothic, Romanesque, and so on. 19 years.

There is something that ties practically all older church architecture together, even of different styles. Gothic, Baroque, Romanesque, Byzantine, “genuine” or not, it doesn’t matter. There is something that ties it all together, something that just makes it all seem part of a whole. They all seem to carry the same basic themes and characteristics, even in their more extreme examples. With only a few exceptions, modernist, post-modernist, and barn/garage style church architecture does not seem to carry these themes. You can take the sparsest ancient monastery church and it is still infinitely, qualitatively different from sparse modern garage churches.

Even people who don’t like Gothic architecture or Romanesque architecture or whatever will almost always agree that it is nevertheless fitting for church construction. There is something about the modern architecture resistance squad (no implication that this is an official group) that is markedly different than those people who oppose other, more traditional kinds of architecture.

This kind of architecture is qualitatively different than all other architecture that came before it. It is clear how church architecture evolved from the earliest churches all the way through about 1950 or so. But it is not clear how the modernist movement and most of what came after it is connected in much of any way to what came before it.

I accept that the idea of sensory over-stimulation has something to do with it. But the philosophical origins of the artistic movements of the last century were not of a time of TV and radio. I maintain that there is something qualitatively different about this artistic and aesthetic movement to everything that came before it.

hmmm… something to ponder. I have to get to bed as I need to be up very early tomorrow morning to cantor three masses, but will need some time to think about before I give my thoughts. If I have the time, I will also ask my brother about this. He is an architect and has some interesting views and visions regarding the artistry in architecture.

 

[JButky]

What is your opinion as to why Western liturgical and sacred art of all kinds is not being produced to a level of quality to rival that of the past? Is this limited only to the Church, or is it a problem that Western society faces as a whole?

I am thinking:

Painting
Sculpture
Architecture
Music
Whatever else

Hmmm, I may not entirely agree with your premise. Comparing “art” across cultural and time periods presents an inherent problem from familiarity. “Becoming” accustomed to a certain sound, style, or technique is as much a part of its appreciation. Being able to study the past and have familiarity with it, automatically brings a preferential bias that does not provide a basis for defining what Sacred “Art” is. It also doesn’t mean that great art is not being currently produced. It’s there, but the noise is amplified around it. If I may explain…

How does one define art? And then how does one compare its merits? Can anyone compare an apple to an orange in terms of its genuine attributes? Baroque vs Impressionism, Gothic vs Roman vs Art Deco?

One must remember that Art is a product of culture and within each cultural delineation there are great artists (sometimes even unknown at the time) Art is also partially borne of technique and many times those techniques are influenced by technology and tools available. Sometimes techniques are created by using tools in ways they were not intended. (eg Artistic pointillism, colors mixed by the eye and not by the brush stroke) Many artists faced ridicule in their day for such attempts.

One most also remember that art forms of particular forms have a lag rate relative to their culture. Less tangible forms such as Music historically show a greater lag in production to their culture. Also, in most cultures, pop art is more prevalent among the masses. Most people rarely had the chance to experience high art on a daily basis. We have the luxury through technology of experiencing a lot. In a sense we are spoiled, so what we view as Art in our culture can appear to be meager or lacking as we sort out the voluminous pop art for the diamonds in the ruff.

I can say that, as a musician, there is some fantastic music being written and there are people developing some amazing skills to produce things that we may not have a conditioned familiarity with yet. Again we need to discuss the all too elusive definition of “Art” and not be too quick to dismiss new high art forms borne of new techniques simply because we have a conditioned or preferential idea of what sacred art is from the privileged perspective we hold.

The evolution of music genres followed closely alongside the basic scientific structure of music and acoustics as well. It followed from simple to complex and in each of its subdivisions as offshoots of genres occurred. (think of the basic overtone series and there is a very logical progression from plainchaint through impressionism. Those centuries provided the time to exploit the structure before new structures were formulated through new techniques. Some techniques may not have succeeded on their own merit, but they were important in their concepts to build new techniques.

The search for great art during your time is often hard to recognize. It may be right there under your nose. You just have to recognize it and filter out the voluminous noise that is ever present.

Joe B

 

[SMHW]

The search for great art during your time is often hard to recognize. It may be right there under your nose. You just have to recognize it and filter out the voluminous noise that is ever present.

Agreed.

There have been many buildings, works of visual art, and musical compositions that have been lost over time. Some of them may have been truly beautiful but most of them were probably quite mediocre. And when we judge those that do survive we don’t use a single set of criteria to judge them. For example, we do not hold early Egyptian glyphs to the same standard that we use to judge the Scripture art of Irish monks.

Art is judged by context and performance. Likewise it can be judged as a whole and by piecework. The same melody can seem profane when played on a kazoo but hauntingly beautiful when played on a different wind instrument. A building can seem beautiful when it is thought to be a library but then judged to be quite awkward when it is revealed to be a church.

Our hope for religious art is usually that it is beautiful when viewed in its entirety and also that it is beautiful in the details.

 

[JButky]

Our hope for religious art is usually that it is beautiful when viewed in its entirety and also that it is beautiful in the details.

One must also ask the question…How do you define beauty? Inherent, as in creation, (e.g. every human being is inherently beautiful despite appearance) or by affectation? In other words, is there a relationship between inherent beauty to a particular application for affectation to occur? For example, a physicist can probably marvel at the inherent beauty of the atomic structure and all that it implies. (All creation is beautiful since it is of God’s creation) But how is that applicable to Catholic worship? Could not someone given such a gift also develop a relation to bring these together to be suitable for worship? Thinking in the extremes I would have to say there is a line of prohibition somewhere. But then again, to state that conclusion may just interfere with a gift God has bestowed on some individual to make it happen. If there is beauty in the details it most certainly must be at this level.

Our Liturgy is public and I would rather think of the relationship of Art usage in Catholic Worship be not a broad appeal in affectation, but that it should first be one of universality. The Mass itself was also produced for us and is the prime force of universality. It is for this reason that any art form be a reflection of that same universality. If there is to be a relationship through art that affects all, it must be produced from this very spring.

Joe B

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

I’ll speak directly to the music question because it is the only one that I’ve had any training in (however informal and slight it may have been). I think it was Pope Benedict who said that there were in Greece two types of music that were based on two gods. There was Apollo’s music which was supposed to uplift the soul and position our minds toward the heavens. Dionysus’ music, on the other hand, merely excited our emotions and was not spiritually uplifting. I think the two basic themes of music still exist today. You can tell a difference between that which lifts our soul and that which excites us. Pope Benedict goes on to say how the music of Dionysus has essentially dominated modern music. And so, I think in this case, there is a clear and real link to the loss of faith that has caused the change in music.

That trend is over quite a while, though. The more recent trend that I have noticed is from music typically being on the upbeat (think jazz and the funk music of the 70s) to being expressly on the downbeat. That is, the beat is now on the 1 and 3’s rather than the 2 and 4’s. You’ll notice it in commercials that feature older music. A beat will be added to it that changes the old beat. This is a trend that banalizes the banal! Besides that, it is also very repetitive and not very interesting. This, I think, may have to do with the gradual devolution in education. I know it’s not a popular idea, but I don’t think that people are as well educated as they were in the past. And so this trend has entered into music, where repetitive, simple melodies have taken the place of complex, interesting music that used to prevail in the past. For proof, just look at how music today is written for pre-teen girls and how that is the most popular form of music, whereas maybe in the 40s it was music made for adults that was the most popular style.

So the music issue, however trivial it may seem, is actually a very important one. Do we want beautiful, rigorous, and uplifting music. Or do we want music that imitates pagan influences and is technically infantile?

 

[Sarabande]

I agree with all you posted, JButky. I won’t go into everything you addressed. I’ve been writing this post piecemeal throughout the day and often typing with one hand, so I hope my thoughts don’t sound too disjointed and that I make some sense.

Yes, pop art has always pervaded the culture. It’s even more so now because of the access it has to us and we have to it. I should mention that I don’t find anything wrong with pop art, per say. I enjoy it myself in certain settings and situations.

I personally believe that something “old” does not always equate something inherently “beautiful”. So, just because a polyphonic motet was composed during the Renaissance, a piece of art was painted in the Baroque period or a church was constructed in the Middle Ages, does not necessarily mean that it was the epitome of mastery, brilliance and true beauty.

I think you alluded to or even spoke about it in your post that what we see now from the past is usually the creme de la creme. I know that, especially in music, there were many mediocre or bad composers or individual mediocre pieces by otherwise brilliant composers whose music didn’t survive. Sometimes they are rediscovered and they have a little bit of a popularity for a time because it’s “new” to the current musicians and people are curious to what they are.

Sometimes, brilliant works which were considered “ok” or were major flops in the composer’s lifetime, are now considered great masterpieces. This is the same with artwork and architecture. With the arts right now, we are seeing everything from the magnificent to the subpar which has been true for centuries and we, as a society, have to be able to wade through it to find the gems. What may be the difference now is that it can be much harder than in the past due to the fact that our society is so fast and inundated with so much “noise”, as you put it, that many people can’t or have a more difficult time experiencing and picking out the depth and richness of true beauty in art.

I believe there are still brilliant people in the arts now, but they are being drowned out and they are not being heard or seen by more people. I also believe that some of these brilliant people are stifled by what the culture wants now so they sometimes do not always see their fullest potential. This isn’t anything particularly new, but it seems to be more pervasive because the culture promoting mediocrity is so much stronger than before.

 

[Sarabande]

Another thought which could lend to what we are seeing today. Look at history in the arts. In the past, who were the main patrons of the arts, especially in the sacred/religious arts? The Church, aristocrats, royalty, etc. The artists, composers, architects, etc. were creating works that met the sensibilities of what the Church and the wealthier patrons desired. The only time people of modest means or poverty might be exposed to these “higher” arts were in churches and at mass or services, but really no where else. Their ideas of what was beautiful and enjoyable would have been different. Concentrating on music, since that is what I know best, “Die Zauberflote” comes to mind. A singspiel composed for an opera house specifically catered to the lower classes. There was no recitative in the opera, so any recit parts were spoken, making it more accessible and less “boring” to the masses. It was fantastical, a joke, poking fun at everything from the Church, masonry and the upperclasses amid gorgeous music. The lower classes loved it. Oddities were also popular with various classes. Castrati come to mind. Although some apparently had these other-worldly voices due to being castrated at young ages before their voices turned, their popularity was driven by the fact that they were essentially freaks and they showed off their abilities with over-the-top ornamentations, cadenzas, fioreture, etc. It didn’t matter if it was tasteful. They became celebrities and much loved even if many may have been mediocre. True beauty wasn’t as important. Sort of reminds me of some of the popular crossover classical/opera singers whose voices really aren’t that brilliant, but because of certain oddities or deficiencies they become more well-known and loved than those who have superior techniques, artistry, ability and talent. Although, the Church also used them in their choirs as it was unseemly at one point in history for women to be performing in public, even during liturgy.

Then you have the typical pub and drinking songs and folk songs performed and sung by the locals. Often times, those well-loved pieces were brought into the churches by the masses. After a while, the Church would crack down on it and require a “refinement” of the music so that it was more appropriate and “beautiful” for use at mass. That was how sacred polyphony came about. Most of us know that it was banned by three different popes at different points in history because the earlier versions of polyphony sounded too profane and secular. It was “popular” music. A refinement of how it was performed and composed was required before it became accepted and perhaps considered beautiful in a “spiritual” sense.

Ok… I think I’m starting to go off in a tangent which should be reserved for another thread. Getting back to what I started with… today, although there are still wealthy patrons of the arts, much of the arts is now driven by a broader range of society, many of whom may not have much experience, knowledge or exposure in the kind of art which require much more training, education, refinement, experience, etc. So, what they may like and want may not be the utmost in quality or brilliance. I’m not sure if the Church actually commissions much work any more from composers or artists in the way they did in the past. I think it may still happen, but not at the same rate. And let me hasten to say that I don’t necessarily believe that the wealthy and the Church always had the best taste when they were at their height of funding the artists, musicians and composers of the day. They often wanted the best in talent, but that did not necessarily mean they wanted the best from the artists, themselves, but for them to create something which satisfied their sensibilities and tastes.

Then there is that old question of do the arts drive culture and society or are the arts a product of our culture and society. Which came first?

 

[Sarabande]

One must also ask the question…How do you define beauty? Inherent, as in creation, (e.g. every human being is inherently beautiful despite appearance) or by affectation? In other words, is there a relationship between inherent beauty to a particular application for affectation to occur? For example, a physicist can probably marvel at the inherent beauty of the atomic structure and all that it implies. (All creation is beautiful since it is of God’s creation) But how is that applicable to Catholic worship? Could not someone given such a gift also develop a relation to bring these together to be suitable for worship? Thinking in the extremes I would have to say there is a line of prohibition somewhere. But then again, to state that conclusion may just interfere with a gift God has bestowed on some individual to make it happen. If there is beauty in the details it most certainly must be at this level.

Our Liturgy is public and I would rather think of the relationship of Art usage in Catholic Worship be not a broad appeal in affectation, but that it should first be one of universality. The Mass itself was also produced for us and is the prime force of universality. It is for this reason that any art form be a reflection of that same universality. If there is to be a relationship through art that affects all, it must be produced from this very spring.

Joe B

Yes, very interesting and something to think about. Do we, as a people, have to dig deeper to discern if something is inherently beautiful when we are brought to emotion after hearing or seeing something beautiful OR ugly for that matter? To create something with inherent beauty, do artists have to look to history in order to see what has always been considered beautiful, rather than just something which was beautiful for a fleeting moment - for only a generation or less, perhaps? When they educate themselves with that, do they then build upon it with their own innovations, creativity and mastery of whatever tools, ability, knowledge, etc. that they were trained in? I think those who are masters do this. They take that which have stood the test of time and build upon it. It may not always be an immediate success, but if it is in the future and has “staying power”, then perhaps that is an aspect of inherent beauty. I do think inherent beauty is God-given… whether it is in nature or brought to us by the creativity and ability of humans. That is what brings us to a higher spiritual plane. Fleeting beauty such as what we see in popular arts or what we may get emotional over, don’t stand the test of time. Not that we can’t become emotional over inherent beauty, but there is something deeper… it’s something I can’t explain well, but I have felt both kinds of emotion, so I know what it is when I see it or hear it.

It makes me wonder that if these artists are truly building upon the strong, tested foundations of their ancestors or have mastered the particular arts, would they immediately or eventually be recognized as something beautiful? An example of that for me is the music of Richard Strauss. I could not bear listening to his vocal music as a teenager. I just didn’t get it. It evoke such a powerful, negative emotion from me at the time. I intellectually understood his mastery as a composer, but could not see the beauty in it. It wasn’t until I actually sat myself down and really listened to all of the nuances in the music and let it envelop me that I began to appreciate it and love it. His final trio from “Der Rosenkavalier” is one of the most gorgeously spiritual pieces written as a secular piece. Like it was kissed by God. As a teen, I would have hated it because it went against what I was used to. I preferred music that was very easily accessible… which is totally ok, btw. (It’s why when you are teaching music appreciation to kids, you don’t start off with someone like Strauss or even Brahms.) In my 20s and now my 30s, by understanding music more, experiencing more in life, etc., I have been able to see the multiple layers, colors and depths of this music. I had to take the time to do this. If I didn’t, I probably would have never discovered it. This could be the same for society as a whole. It might take years, generations for a society to sometimes recognize something inherently beautiful and thus it is then added to their ancestors’ foundation in their own art form for new artists to build upon.

 

[JButky]

Just need to share something for a moment. In keeping with this thread… Here’s a piece by a living composer paired with architecture and scenes from creation.

Ola Gjeilo’s “The Ground”

youtube.com/watch?v=DDYY57k2Qko&list=ALHTd1VmZQRNqpY497-MUBF8NeQIBbnYid

Joe B

 

[Sarabande]

Just need to share something for a moment. In keeping with this thread… Here’s a piece by a living composer paired with architecture and scenes from creation.

Ola Gjeilo’s “The Ground”

youtube.com/watch?v=DDYY57k2Qko&list=ALHTd1VmZQRNqpY497-MUBF8NeQIBbnYid

Joe B

Yes, he is an example of someone who has built upon the foundations of the past to create something masterful, brilliant and beautiful. It’s funny that you have posted this, because my friend just brought his music to my attention this past week with his Ubi Caritas. youtube.com/watch?v=3AYY8yoQCuw

That said, I do not think he is someone most people would have heard of, let alone hear at mass. My friend actually did hear this piece at mass, but it was a parish which really works hard to bring masterful and beautiful liturgical music for mass.

This composer, Harold Boatrite, is another living composer (although an older one) who is truly a brilliant man and composer. I had the pleasure to meet him a few times when my husband was taking composition lessons from him. His “Ave Maria” is superb… again building upon what was already set as tried and true, yet, once again, someone who is not known in larger circles for Church music.

newliturgicalmovement.org/2008/08/music-of-master-composer-harold.html

Anyway, just adding to examples of modern beauty. It’s new, but no where near ugly and devolved.

 

[centurionguard]

Funny how it goes - that Cool-Whip feeling is exactly what I sometimes (not always) experience in the older more traditional-style churches. I get bombarded with statues upon paintings upon stained glass upon ornate carved wood upon bronzed and gilded whirligigs until I’m so visually overstimulated that it gets cloying and I long for something simpler. It’s the visual equivalent of music that is so loud that you cannot hear yourself think.

Could it be that music in the era of Baroque, Gothic, and Romanesque archetecture is a big factor for the flowing lines we see in these types Church archetecture? I certainly think it had a strong influence.

Its like asking someone why they prefer Classical music over Rock Music.
Psychologically their is an acquisence of more harmony in nature of one music style over the other more brash style of music. Place a group of professional painters in a room for a study and ask them to paint with classical musical in the background and rock music played in a separate test. I think you’ll see far difference in the flow of painting styles in both test. Music and Archetecture go hand in hand IMHO. The more abstract the music the more abstract the expression of art.

 

[JButky]

Oh yes, his Ubi Caritas is one of my favorites. The CWU choir has a brilliant recording of it and a second take with Ola improvising on piano as well.

Maybe the answer to the poster’s original question can be found in posting the good stuff. Tavener, Rutter, Gorecki, Kilar, Arvo Part, Lauridsen, Whitacre, Preisner, Vavilov, Szymanowski.

They tend to get drowned out, but they are there!

Joe B

 

[Anthony_V]

What is your opinion as to why Western liturgical and sacred art of all kinds is not being produced to a level of quality to rival that of the past? Is this limited only to the Church, or is it a problem that Western society faces as a whole?

I am thinking:

Painting
Sculpture
Architecture
Music
Whatever else

Let me say from the beginning that I do not buy the money thing, except for music, as music is an ongoing and living thing. But for the physically stable arts, things that are “one pop purchases,” in a manner of speaking, I cannot understand why they have been so fabulously destroyed.

There are a few possible answers:

1. Western culture at its basic level is now dead (plausible)
2. The Church prohibits Western expression in the liturgy (false)
3. At a common level, contempt or lack of understanding of the value of beautiful art (plausible)
4. A loss of skill (somewhat plausible, but there are plenty of artists out there who can make truly gorgeous art in any of the Western traditions)
5. Connected to 1 above, a sort of utilitarianism that says that nothing but the very basic is required (plausible)
6. Connected to 1 above, Western culture has been replaced by something else entirely (plausible)
7. Western people are, consciously or subconsciously, afraid to express their own culture out of fear of offending those not of Western descent (plausible)

I believe it is some combination of these.

The reason I do not accept price as a valid reason is because:

1. Many or most of the most aesthetically brutal or garage-like churches and art since the artistic devolution has been insanely expensive.
2. A parish church is a work of ongoing scale. That is, a parish church can be constantly added on to, little by little, in the aesthetic realm. This puts price in check over time. Perhaps we have lost this concept of constantly improving the aesthetic aspects of our churches. I think this is plausible.

Western culture is, even if only in a fantasy sort of way, based largely on European ideals and principles. So why is it that the aesthetic expression of Western culture has been effectively eviscerated so fabulously in many places?

The thing that prompted me to start this thread is this fantastically hideous cover of OCP’s latest edition of Breaking Bread. Now, Breaking Bread is not exactly the best liturgical resource and OCP is not exactly the best liturgical publishing company, but this is an absolutely egregious example of… well, of I don’t even know what to call it. Please view here:

cdn.ocp.org/shared/images/products/bb-131.jpg

Please note that I do not intend this thread as some central complaining zone. I intend for this to produce real discussion and for it to not be a place to moan about how “my parish is so ugly” etc.

While I think some of this devolution could be attributed to utilitarianism (as mentioned), I believe it has more to do with the transformation of the politico-philosophical thought of society. There is a certain rebelliousness that defies authority and traditional principle–an artistic progressivism. Plus, subjectivism heavily impacts the understanding of the person in today’s society. When we see deformed works of “art” entitled odd things, it is a rash way of expressing the feeling of hopelessness and misunderstanding. The lack of objective meaning in things brings about the question of identity–hence utilitarianism, which serves a subjective purpose. This is deeply disturbing to me when I see modern art in churches or other Christian things. I understand the concept of absorbing philosophy and making sense of it in light of Christ, but that’s near impossible when the entire purpose of such philosophy is to not make sense.

Once, I went to a modern “art” museum with a priest friend of mine to view sculptures. Some of them were welded bits of metal in a seemingly spontaneous fashion. They may have meant something to the artist, but the viewer is utterly confounded. It is precisely that confusion, the fact that we don’t know the artist’s inner life, that the artist aimed to project. In this manner, it’s a sort of rebelliousness: “You don’t understand me now, and you never will from the outside” I’m not insisting that all artists are self-absorbed (some of them use the opportunity to share a heartfelt biography), but I am insisting that philosophical relativism and humanitarianism play a key role in how society expresses itself.

On the other end of the spectrum, we see entirely unoriginal pop music aimed towards the younger crowd. Taylor Swift for example writes songs about her life, the human experience, etc. Her goal is not to create a work of art per se, but to connect to the audience in a literal and sensible fashion. Why? Because it sells. The focus is on the self, and you don’t need to hear that from me to know it.

If there is a catering to this culture in terms of art, there is a catering to the personal interests of the general public. Whether this is in terms of more intellectual absurdity or popular sensationalism, the art is aimed so strongly at the self-desire that the exterior loses its meaning and no longer needs to be “art”.

How many times have you heard “I’m perfect the way I am”?

For me, being rebellious against the rebellion is my way of getting away. I like the finer things, classical music, philosophy and theology, the pursuit of idealistic and historical knowledge, etc.

 

[Candescent]

1. A loss of skill (somewhat plausible, but there are plenty of artists out there who can make truly gorgeous art in any of the Western traditions)

I think that the Art ‘Establishment’ detests religious art. Pick up a copy of Art News and have a look.
When I was in Art school, the worst insult you could give another artist was to say that they had made a ‘pretty picture’. We were taught that anything spiritual or inspirational demonstrated a lack of depth and intelligence. Many young artists are shy and easily hurt; I personally saw an artist who made wonderful sculptures of the Madonna, just give up art completely in the face of the ridicule her work earned.

 

[ConstantineTG]

But the thing is, I don’t know if this is how it happened.

When the Counter-Reformation was initiated by the Church, the Western Church widely began to build the great Baroque churches, fantastically florid churches full of imagery, as a sort of sensory counter to the Protestants. I don’t see the absolute destruction until perhaps the 1950’s/1960’s and definitely the 1970’s. Or this is how I understand it.

We might not call your average Latin parish of the USA built in 1905 with a wedding cake altar an “exquisite example of Catholic architecture.” It might be cluttered, in a slightly unappealing [edited] I just ate WAY too much chocolate cake kind of way, but churches even this late in time still exude a heavily God-oriented focus. But perhaps what you mention about artists taking their liberties is right.

I mean seriously, how did we get from this…

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

to this…

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Cat]

I mean seriously, how did we get from this…

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Ee69PGXIV...AMc/lPsUIriCaK0/s1600/pantocrator-palermo.jpg

to this…

http://www.wallpaperhi.com/thumbnai...1366x768 wallpaper_www.wallpaperhi.com_63.jpg

Well, well, well! I personally like the modern depiction! What a great image!

Like I said, I’m a Philistine when it comes to art. I like my people to look real, as though they were photographed. I’m a big fan of Norman Rockwell.

Now I’ll go eat me some good ol’ shortenin’ samwiches on white bread, and feed the ol’ hound dog before we go out and hunt down some possum for lunch.

 

[Sarabande]

I mean seriously, how did we get from this…

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Ee69PGXIV...AMc/lPsUIriCaK0/s1600/pantocrator-palermo.jpg

to this…

http://www.wallpaperhi.com/thumbnai...1366x768 wallpaper_www.wallpaperhi.com_63.jpg

And this is an example of someone who has talent and is more than likely very well-meaning, but does not have a sense of taste. I laughed out loud when I saw this. I understand the premise of what the artist is depicting, but it looked like the visual equivalent of a story you’d see in “The Onion”. I can picture the headline, “Satan Challenges Jesus to an Arm Wrestling Match for Control Over the World”. (Don’t get me wrong. I enjoy reading “The Onion”. It’s brilliant in its satire and wit, but I don’t read it for the art of sublime and inspirational writing.) On the other end, it is also the type of art my non-religious/athiest friends incorporate to make fun of religion and of the belief in God in general on their Facebook pages.

I will note, again, that the arts were not free from tasteless art, music, architecture, literature, etc. from otherwise highly talented or average artists throughout the centuries. It’s just that many of it didn’t survive.

There is obviously a market for this kind of art. I don’t think people who like this kind of art are philistines. I always say it’s ok to enjoy and like things that may not be high art (I know I do), but to understand its place, just like you have to understand the place of high art. (ie. I wouldn’t put a Renoir painting on the wall at a carnival or have Mozart’s “Ave Verum Corpus” playing at Chucky Cheese’s or playing at a dance club where you want to hear and move to actual dance music. Both would be ridiculous at those places.)

 

[Sarabande]

[edited]

http://www.lladro.com/sculptures/imgCat/imagennor/01008587.jpg
[edited] Whether or not you like the Lladro sculpture, there is a refinement in the artwork (although, admittedly, I don’t know much about sculpture). [edited]

 

[centurionguard]

it might just be me, but I think there is a difference between this:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_JRkgseRT7...ater Sports Piss Toilet Bad Religious Art.png

and this:

http://www.lladro.com/sculptures/imgCat/imagennor/01008587.jpg

Both are modern, but one is tasteless in terms of using an artist’s talents to create Blessed Mother urinals. Whether or not you like the Lladro sculpture, there is a refinement in the artwork (although, admittedly, I don’t know much about sculpture). Number one… not being made for use as a urinal.

:bigyikes: I hope those urinals didn’t find themselves inside a Catholic Church washroom.
These days it wouldn’t surprise me if they did. Complete Idiocracy.

 

[Sarabande]

[edited]

Funny that you mentioned “idiocracy”. It reminded me of that movie with the same name from a few years back. The premise is similar to what is being discussed here. By constantly making the “lowest common denominator” number one, it essentially made the society and culture completely devoid of intellect and depth of feeling and spirituality, among other things. The two most average people from today’s world were the most brilliant in the future world. It was an over-the-top devolution of society and culture. Not a particularly great movie, as it was supposed to be a comedy as well, but it was an interesting commentary on what the creators of the story and movie were thinking about our current society and how it plummeted.