Liturgical/sacred art and its devolution (?)

  • Thread starter Thread starter YoungTradCath
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ConstantineTG said:
Really? That image only gives me one impression, Jesus doesn’t stand a chance. Look at how ripped Satan’s biceps are. Do you think a carpenter’s biceps can take on those? He probably benches twice his body weight 😛
Click to expand...
Looks are deceiving from a human prospective. And Satan’s muscular biceps mean diddly squat to the special woman clothed with the Son whom is quoted in Genesis Chapter 3 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.
 
centurionguard said:
Looks are deceiving from a human prospective. And Satan’s muscular biceps mean diddly squat to the special woman whom is quoted in Genesis Chapter 3 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.
Click to expand...
That is not the point. The visual art is meant to catechize. It is easy for us who are already familiar with the teachings of the Church to say, “Satan does not stand a chance regardless.” But Sacred Art shouldn’t even give a hint of speculation especially to the uninitiated.

I cannot find the icon I’m thinking about, but there is an icon of St. Michael the Archangel where the devil is just a little black speck at the end of his spear, as opposed to the bigger and muscular demon that is commonly depicted in Western art. I read a commentary on its comparison once and the writer commented how that the devil in the Western art looks like more than a match for Michael, and even though the depiction is Michael winning, it would have been a close match. Whereas the Eastern icon gave the true message, the mere presence of God’s light instantly defeats the darkness of evil. There isn’t even a struggle, Michael just defeats the devil by his mere presence. And this catechizes the “reader” of the icon that having God on your side is a guaranteed victory, not a struggle to win.
 
As I’ve been trying to make sense of the tragedy from this past Friday, I’ve been using music for comfort. The first thing I listened to was the “Pie Jesu” from Gabriel Faure’s Requiem. The sweet, angelic sound of the solo voice reminded me of the innocent victims. It was like hearing an angel from God, comforting me.

youtube.com/watch?v=_VLY2bd5w8k

Anyway, the reason why I mention my musical experience on this thread is because the massacre made me think again about the many problems in our society and culture. Relativism - moral, cultural, artistic (post-modernism), etc. is one of them and I believe one of the causes of a denigration of our society. Not that relativism in the arts causes mass murders (that’s not what I’m trying to tie together), but I do believe the idea of relativism in all of the arts has added to its devolution. Just like how relativism holds that there is no real, absolute truth and everything is subjective in one’s moral and philosophical beliefs (thus adding to the devolution of our society), so it is within the arts today and how people have been programmed to believe this way of thinking. It’s very ego-centric. “If it pleases me, then it must be good.” I know, for myself, that some of the artworks, music, buildings, etc. which pleases me really isn’t the epitome of superior art. Yet, I’m not ego-centric enough to believe that it must be good/great art if it moves me.

I’m not saying that having a subjective opinion on anything in the arts is bad. People have always been subjective with the arts and I think that if something really does please or move you, you shouldn’t feel belittled for liking it. But, I am against the idea of saying that everything in art is relative, that nothing is better than another. It means that truth in art is only relative and that one cannot judge anything in the arts on one’s technique, beauty, talent, etc.

So, a straight black line on a piece of white canvass or a squiggly crayon lines drawn by a 4-year-old speaks as much truth as “The Pieta”. “Rock and Roll McDonald’s” speaks as much truth and beauty as Allegri’s “Miserere”. In the music world, I hear too much of this artistic relativism. “Well, I think X song is great. I hate X music, so what I like is better than x music.” I have no problem with people hating or loving any specific style of music, btw, but when I’ve asked why they hate x music and why the music they like is obviously so much better, they can’t give an answer. It’s often, “I don’t know. I just like it more.” “I like the beat.” Sometimes, when pressed, they give an answer like, “Music is all subjective and you shouldn’t say one piece of music is better or worse than the other. It’s all about the individual’s connection to it.”

I’m fine with that response to a certain point because, as I said, I’m not completely against subjectivity in the arts. But I believe people should be able to recognize that some of the things in the arts they like and love is not necessarily “great” art. What I’m seeing more and more is that less people have a discerning eye or ear when it comes to that. They are being taught all things are equal… this relativism has added to the devolution of the arts. I’ve noticed it with some of the singers of my generation and generation behind me. They don’t want to work to create near perfection in their art. They aren’t interested in transcending into the ethereal and spiritual planes to help inspire and bring a more absolute beauty to our art form. It’s all about just shaving the surface, making it just good enough to appease the masses and to show off their abilities. Being sloppy doesn’t really matter to them. “No one in the audience is going to know any better, anyway.” (I just went through this with a young singer I was performing with for a concert we did with one of the most sublime pieces in the operatic repertoire.) I don’t like that attitude of just giving half-a–ed attempt and work. It’s insulting to the listener and, for me, it’s insulting to God because that means you don’t truly appreciate the gifts He gave to you if you are willing to just get by with it.

This artistic relativism creates an attitude of mediocrity. Too much importance is given to an individual’s subjective preferences and a complete absence of what is absolute truth in the artwork. It leads to less work and study in certain techniques within all of the arts, a sloppiness of the artists in their respective art forms and a “dumbing down” of society and culture when they continue to put out less inspired work. On the other end the post-modernistic idea of the arts (the artistic elitists) also leads to less inspired work and a loss of the truth because there is a loss of true beauty.

I hope I’m making sense. I have been in mourning all weekend and have been a bit too emotional. The arts, especially music, is my way of making sense of this evil, heinous act.
 
ConstantineTG said:
I read a commentary on its comparison once and the writer commented how that the devil in the Western art looks like more than a match for Michael, and even though the depiction is Michael winning, it would have been a close match. Whereas the Eastern icon gave the true message, the mere presence of God’s light instantly defeats the darkness of evil. .
Click to expand...
Very interesting point.
It does seem that most Christian artists go in the opposite direction. I often wonder why Christ is usually portrayed as such a slender man, when all of the carpenters that I know are very muscular. Could it be because until recently, muscles were a sign of the common man? A gentleman, scholar or priest would not be lifting heavy things…?
 
Awesome post, Sarabande. I very much agree.

I’m a traditional painter. I work in the workshop of a “famous” post-modern artist whos work sells in the millions and shows in big museums around the world. The workshop is sort of like how Andy Warhol produced work-- the artist comes up with the concept while hired hands like me actually make the work.

I’ll suggest why Sacred Art has suffered over the last century:
  1. Traditional art was (and in many ways still still is) discriminated against by the elites in the art world. This started with the Modernists and Post-Modernists who tried their best to destroy the art of the past. Think primarily of artists like Picasso and Duchamp, and critics like Clement Greenberg. These artists and critics were sort of like the artistic French Revolution-- in fact, the Modern and Post-Modern art revolution started in France.
  2. People used to learn traditional painting and sculpting in ateliers and academies. That is, you didn’t go to “drawing class” and learn to draw, as well as studying 5 other subjects at the same time. Instead, you studied with a master artist and focused your time on drawing. You primarily acquired skill by studying plaster casts, Old Master paintings, and especially drawing/painting from figure models. A single model pose could take weeks. When the Modernists took over the art world this was all turned on its head. The plaster casts were smashed (literally), traditional teachers kicked out of schools, and the atelier/academy system disappeared and Universities started giving degrees in art, taught by Modernists teachers who themselves didn’t know how to draw/paint. And even if they did know how, it’s very difficult to teach someone to draw/paint classically in a University setting, due to the time constraints of University classes. A single model pose held 3 hours a day, Monday-Friday for weeks, done repeatedly for 3-4 years, is impossible in University settings. But that’s what it takes to learn traditional painting techniques.
  3. Since Sacred Art is almost always traditional, Sacred Art has also been discriminated against. Creating Sacred Art is almost always an automatic excommunication from the Art World. For instance, Salvador Dali was originally a Communist atheist, but converted to Catholicism later on in life. He was kicked out of the Surrealists for doing so. Likewise, Andy Warhol kept his Catholicism secret.
  4. It seems to me that the Church doesn’t spend much time patronizing the arts anymore. It seems most new Churches would prefer Protestantized white walls and ugly architecture over beauty and sacred art that points us to the transcendent (ie God). So instead of the Church leading the culture, they let the atheists and secularists just take control of it. And what are we left with? Artists selling canned feces, unmade beds, urinals, spot paintings, and dead sharks for millions.
  5. I’m aware of a few artists today making Sacred Art for the Church. But most of them are sculptors; I only know of 2 that are painters. And I’m pretty sure one isn’t even a Christian, he just likes to make classical art. I’m also not sure how well they’re all doing financially. I know one guy told me he had to stop teaching because he had so many commissions. That’s a very good thing.
Here are the traditional contemporary artists I’ve found who are doing Church commissions:

sculptors:
anthonyvisco.org/
codyswanson.com/
donymacmanus.com/

painters:
raulberzosa.com/
leonardporter.com/

I’ve recently been thinking of how great it would be to make a living by creating Sacred Art in Churches. But it seems the Church isn’t interested in commissioning artists much anymore. I also want to be able to do my own art, and wonder how that would work into doing Sacred Art (that is, I mostly enjoy painting from life, still lifes, figures, landscapes, etc). There’s also the idea that, if I were even able to do Sacred Art for a living, I’d probably be pigeonholing myself into one niche, and in a niche that doesn’t have that much support anymore.

Anyways, interesting discussion and something I’ve been thinking a lot about recently!
 
KEP1983 said:
Awesome post, Sarabande. I very much agree.

I’m a traditional painter. I work in the workshop of a “famous” post-modern artist whos work sells in the millions and shows in big museums around the world. The workshop is sort of like how Andy Warhol produced work-- the artist comes up with the concept while hired hands like me actually make the work.

I’ll suggest why Sacred Art has suffered over the last century:
…
  1. People used to learn traditional painting and sculpting in ateliers and academies. That is, you didn’t go to “drawing class” and learn to draw, as well as studying 5 other subjects at the same time. Instead, you studied with a master artist and focused your time on drawing. You primarily acquired skill by studying plaster casts, Old Master paintings, and especially drawing/painting from figure models. A single model pose could take weeks. When the Modernists took over the art world this was all turned on its head. The plaster casts were smashed (literally), traditional teachers kicked out of schools, and the atelier/academy system disappeared and Universities started giving degrees in art, taught by Modernists teachers who themselves didn’t know how to draw/paint. And even if they did know how, it’s very difficult to teach someone to draw/paint classically in a University setting, due to the time constraints of University classes. A single model pose held 3 hours a day, Monday-Friday for weeks, done repeatedly for 3-4 years, is impossible in University settings. But that’s what it takes to learn traditional painting techniques.
…

Here are the traditional contemporary artists I’ve found who are doing Church commissions:

sculptors:
anthonyvisco.org/
codyswanson.com/
donymacmanus.com/

painters:
raulberzosa.com/
leonardporter.com/

I’ve recently been thinking of how great it would be to make a living by creating Sacred Art in Churches. But it seems the Church isn’t interested in commissioning artists much anymore. I also want to be able to do my own art, and wonder how that would work into doing Sacred Art (that is, I mostly enjoy painting from life, still lifes, figures, landscapes, etc). There’s also the idea that, if I were even able to do Sacred Art for a living, I’d probably be pigeonholing myself into one niche, and in a niche that doesn’t have that much support anymore.

Anyways, interesting discussion and something I’ve been thinking a lot about recently!
Click to expand...
👍 Agree with all you say, and thank you. (I had to cut some of what you wrote out in order to post) I’m glad I made some sense. I sometimes don’t know with the “mommy mind” I have and am sometimes so scatterbrained trying to keep things in order and together. lol!
The artists’ websites you posted are wonderful. Inspirational and beautiful!!!

Your second point about art schools (and I think some of the other artists on here have posted similar things… I haven’t had the time to read all of the responses in depth… my apologies to everyone with that) hits home to me. It is the same with musicians. It used to be that a musician would study privately with one or more teachers - coaches, voice 1teachers, language coaches, etc. A university setting, although could and does have some advantages, does not provide the kind of artistic training needed for musicians. It makes it more “academic” rather than artistic. It also makes it more commercialised. There is a coldness to that and it can be soul-breaking. I’ve seen so many of my peers lose their love in music after attending academic institutions. It also sometimes turns people into musical snobs and elitists (on both ends of the spectrum, btw). It can take the inspiration out of the musician to bring out inherent truths in the music they are playing or singing. Not all of the time, but I’ve seen it too often.

Most of my training has been “old school”… private, individualised training, although I did end up attending a conservatory for what my piece of paper describes as an “artistic diploma” because I wanted to study with a particular teacher there and because the music world has also bought into the lie that a piece of paper from an academic institution automatically makes you a good musician and they won’t look at you or take you seriously without one. I personally think that is rubbish.
 
So ultimately, from what I can tell, my suspicions are correct:

Our problem is primarily cultural and sociological.

:cool:
 
YoungTradCath said:
So ultimately, from what I can tell, my suspicions are correct:

Our problem is primarily cultural and sociological.

:cool:
Click to expand...
I personally think that’s the problem over the past century or so. Of course people who love modern/post-modern art would disagree with me.

There’s a new revival of traditional realism happening in the “underground” within the artworld now though. There was a handful of traditional artists who didn’t buy into the university system, and got traditional training. For instance, I studied privately in France, not in a university. My teacher is in his late 80’s now. His teacher studied in 19th century France back when people really knew how to paint. There’s a number of these small schools still around, and young people are interested in it and these schools are growing.

19th century French Academic art, which used to be hated, is started to be embraced again. Bouguereau was the most hated of all artists by the modern and post-modern art establishment. His works are being sold at auction in the millions now.

This slow re-acceptance of realism and skill has been happening for the last decade or so. But there’s still a lot of art critics and artworld elites who largely reject it. So perhaps within the near future traditional training and painting may be “allowed” again. If so, maybe new sacred art could be made.
 
Awesome video,

I love the Gregorian Chant too, so do our youth, but our Lord loves me and many others with a different musical preference too. For the sake of his sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and the whole world!

I would never put down your music or try to equate it with something evil. Have mercy on us too. We love Christ too. I’d rather sing one song in heaven than a million on earth.
May God Bless You Always.

iblessem
 
iblessem said:
Awesome video,

I love the Gregorian Chant too, so do our youth, but our Lord loves me and many others with a different musical preference too. For the sake of his sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and the whole world!

I would never put down your music or try to equate it with something evil. Have mercy on us too. We love Christ too. I’d rather sing one song in heaven than a million on earth.
Click to expand...
Simply because our Lord loves people with other musical preferences does not mean that 1) those musical preferences are valid (think devil worshiping profane music… he loves those people, he doesn’t love their music), and 2) it does not mean their music is suitable for Mass.

I firmly stand by what Christ’s authority, the church, has said on the matter: chant has the first place, the principal place (Vatican II, sacrosanctum concilium no. 166) and the further a piece of music gets in style from chant, the less suitable it is for Mass (tra le sollecitudini).

That’s what Christ has asked of us for music at Mass.
 
You need to watch the Life Teen video and maybe Fr; can explain it better than I. I understand that you believe yourself to be always correct and may God Bless you always, but do not hinder the little children from coming to the Lord.

Love & blessings:thumbsup:
 
iblessem said:
You need to watch the Life Teen video and maybe Fr; can explain it better than I. I understand that you believe yourself to be always correct and may God Bless you always, but do not hinder the little children from coming to the Lord.

Love & blessings:thumbsup:
Click to expand...
Thank you for assuming the worst motives of pride.

I am not going on my own will, but simply what the church has shown us in music. All you have shown is a video by some random priest talking about music.

Which one has more authority? The church documents, of course.
 
do you think it might have anything to do with ecumenism? many decades of trying to steer closer to the protestant ship hoping they might jump on board. so change the appearance of the church, no more traditional scary catholic art. architects and bishops are the big culprits maybe more than artists as art develops by natural selection. with the loss of the patron system after the protestant reformation artists will produce what will sell or else they teach.
 
In speaking about the topic of this thread when it comes particularly to modernistic art depiction seen within the walls of our Church.

For the time being let me begin with the awfully grotesque scenery behind Pope in the Throne Room at the Vatican.

This is called La Resurrezione (‘The Resurrection’) by Pericle Fazzini in the Vatican’s Paul VI Audience Hall, completed in 1971.

And it still exist today at the end of 2012. All papal successors after Pope Paul VI have sat in this gross looking throne.

You can find this La Resurrezione picture all over the internet.

beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2012/12/the-popes-grotesque-unholy-throne-room-2523390.html
 
As a was making my way toward Rome recently for my first visit, a met an Anglican woman from the UK who had just toured the Eternal City. She was frankly aghast at the “decadence” of Italian churches, that they should have spent so much money on marble, sculpture, painting, and architecture while Rome’s poor continued to suffer (as if the churches had been built last month). Interestingly, while I have heard that kind of reasoning before, I’ve never heard it applied to museums, stadiums, or elaborate government buildings. Or the stunning Anglican cathedrals of England.

After having seen those same churches, my view was quite the opposite. The world needs beauty, and it seems that the Church is one of the last custodians of it. It seems that people are increasingly calling the beautiful ugly and embracing the ugly as “sophisticated” (a modern form of Gnosticism). The Church is open to all. The rich and poor alike can experience that “foretaste of heaven” that truly beautiful churches offer. Have you ever seen an ugly Orthodox church? They understand this principle. Even the tiny Greek Orthodox chapel on the hill above Corinth, attended by only a few townspeople, is more inspiring than that one wealthy American church I’m thinking of which has no statues, icons, imagery, or even a crucifix.

And then there is that grotesque thing in the Papal audience hall, which when first unveiled, was called the “spinach bomb” because of it’s resemblance to an exploding bowl of leafy greens. I have never heard anyone say kind things about it, which to me looks more like an apparition from hell than flying spinach. Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but some eyes need corrective lenses.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top