O
OsculeturMeOsculo
Guest
I am more of a music person.
- Status
R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
And then we include scientists like Einstein
V
Viki63
Guest
I think we should remember that these people are dead and can’t defend themselves.
I’m saddened to see Michelangelo on that list, and think he doesn’t belong there. He is said to have been a devout Catholic whose faith deepened at the end of his life . . .that could describe many saints. He may have written homoerotic poetry but there is no proof he acted on such feelings.
My father, who was an excellent Catholic, respected Michelangelo as the greatest artist ever, and I’m pretty sure he was right.
I’m saddened to see Michelangelo on that list, and think he doesn’t belong there. He is said to have been a devout Catholic whose faith deepened at the end of his life . . .that could describe many saints. He may have written homoerotic poetry but there is no proof he acted on such feelings.
My father, who was an excellent Catholic, respected Michelangelo as the greatest artist ever, and I’m pretty sure he was right.
Last edited:
B
Benadam
Guest
We surely can’t remove great art just because the artist lacks sanctity. Artists aren’t role models.
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself
Patron
The majority of artists, musicians, authors and filmmakers had immoral personal lives. Many of them seem to have suffered from some mental illness as well, often in a place and time where diagnosis and treatment were limited or unavailable. I can enjoy an art work without associating it with its creator’s sins.
In the case of Picasso specifically, I have known for years he was a jerk to women. I never liked his art well enough to hang it in my house or rush out to exhibits of it, so I didn’t much care, apart from wondering why his women didn’t kick him to the curb.
In the case of Picasso specifically, I have known for years he was a jerk to women. I never liked his art well enough to hang it in my house or rush out to exhibits of it, so I didn’t much care, apart from wondering why his women didn’t kick him to the curb.
Last edited:
I never was a big fan of Picasso.
Prefer the likes of Monet, JMW Turner, Manet etc.
Last edited:
H
HolySpirit
Guest
I think I will take down my Picasso’s after I finish destroying all of the historical monuments in my city. I also have plenty of books to ban, buildings with names of bad people to knock down, and heck, the name Washington, DC makes my blood boil.
Who has time for paintings?
Who has time for paintings?
F
friardchips
Guest
Hi. This subject seems to highlight the fact that living a Catholic life, through which people can express faith in the ways shown to us in Scripture ie.:- faith in Christ, and helping others, are the most important. As one area in Scripture tells us, loving God with our whole heart is very close to the other commandment, which is to love one’s neighbour. Art, while it is important, as it expresses love for God, and on a lesser note, gratitude on some level for creation, is a secondary witness.
That said, maybe the finished pieces of artwork, whether it be music, painting or otherwise, were expressions emanating from the better side of the artists, while it might have been the case that history only noted down the worse side of certain people, outside of their art - maybe these people expressed sorrow, and maybe they helped others. Artists presumably, a lot of the time, work in two spheres: they make commentaries and ask questions of society and life, with the other being the expression of hope.
We cannot write people off. What we can judge though, is the art itself - does it have something to say, is it uneventfully neutral, or does the work make for a negative influence. Some work, almost certainly, ought to be considered unhealthy to have around.
For example, I enjoyed ‘The Magic Flute’ , and any symbols are not going to affect me, because they do not have power in themselves. One can let symbols affect them. I can choose to enjoy the work because of what I see and hear. However, I do hate Freemasonry, and for legitimate reasons, and so, if this was truly the case, beyond a certain level of doubt, I will not respect it, and not because I am judging the artist, in entirety, but rather, because I hate Freemasonry. Writing all the work off, achieved by this person, would seem to be a mistake, going by the fact that he also wrote ‘Requiem’ and the ‘Coronation’, both of which, are glorious. Which does point again to the fact that we ought to go by the work, piece by piece, and not so much, the life.
There is, of course, the possibility that an artist vocally expresses a hatred for God, personally, in which case, up until the stage at which the artist then renounces his ill-will, his or her work could be considered unrighteous and therefore unworthy to be taken notice of, even if the artist’s own views are not obviously expressed in their work - there could still be demonic elements in the work on a subconscious level. Rebellion has its consequences.
That said, maybe the finished pieces of artwork, whether it be music, painting or otherwise, were expressions emanating from the better side of the artists, while it might have been the case that history only noted down the worse side of certain people, outside of their art - maybe these people expressed sorrow, and maybe they helped others. Artists presumably, a lot of the time, work in two spheres: they make commentaries and ask questions of society and life, with the other being the expression of hope.
We cannot write people off. What we can judge though, is the art itself - does it have something to say, is it uneventfully neutral, or does the work make for a negative influence. Some work, almost certainly, ought to be considered unhealthy to have around.
For example, I enjoyed ‘The Magic Flute’ , and any symbols are not going to affect me, because they do not have power in themselves. One can let symbols affect them. I can choose to enjoy the work because of what I see and hear. However, I do hate Freemasonry, and for legitimate reasons, and so, if this was truly the case, beyond a certain level of doubt, I will not respect it, and not because I am judging the artist, in entirety, but rather, because I hate Freemasonry. Writing all the work off, achieved by this person, would seem to be a mistake, going by the fact that he also wrote ‘Requiem’ and the ‘Coronation’, both of which, are glorious. Which does point again to the fact that we ought to go by the work, piece by piece, and not so much, the life.
There is, of course, the possibility that an artist vocally expresses a hatred for God, personally, in which case, up until the stage at which the artist then renounces his ill-will, his or her work could be considered unrighteous and therefore unworthy to be taken notice of, even if the artist’s own views are not obviously expressed in their work - there could still be demonic elements in the work on a subconscious level. Rebellion has its consequences.
Last edited:
K
kill051
Guest
I agree with your father, and I must repeat the caveat I gave in answer to another commenter’s query about Mozart: I did not post the list in order to slander these people, but merely to make the point that none of us is perfect, and that genius in the arts does not necessarily correlate to an unblemished moral excellence. In fact, the two things rarely go together, to the point that they would often, though not always, appear to be mutually exclusive.
F
friardchips
Guest
One could say that to be in such a position comes the responsibility to also try and be a good role model. All are called to be saints. Not everyone chooses that path. While it is not good to compare ourselves self-righteously to others, the intentions of the heart are often given away, by external manifestation. Some of these artists might not have been well-known in their time, however, or sought to be public figures, as their work might have received recognition only after their deaths, and yet, even in one’s private life, one’s example either shines or fades.
Last edited:
K
kill051
Guest
I do agree with this, and yet I cannot help my love of the work of every artist on the list I posted, and some I didn’t, like James Joyce, whose Finnegans Wake and Dubliners are some of the most dog-eared, well-loved volumes in my collection, even while I realise that Joyce himself was virulently anti-Catholic and did everything he could to malign the Church. Wagner’s hideous anti-Semitism and gross megalomania do not prevent my tears of ecstasy when I hear The Ring of the Nibelungen, Tristan und Isolde, or Parsifal. It’s kind of like ice cream to me: I know it’s bad for me and all that, but I can’t help the soul-edifying joy I feel when a cold mouthful of Fudge Ripple or Chocolate Chocolate Chip overwhelms me. It’s the same with art.
Last edited:
F
friardchips
Guest
There was an article - I think it was from the Catholic Gentleman website but might be wrong - concerned with the notion of what a good gift consists. ‘Gift’, in this context, is to mean a kind of offering, either to God, directly, or to God, through His people.
Last edited:
K
kill051
Guest
Sounds right. Catholic Gentleman is one of my favorites.
K
KyPerson
Guest
I don’t like Picasso - never did. I always knew he was a horrible man but an artist’s personality doesn’t affect the way I look at his art. I love Caravaggio and he killed a man.
M
MaryClare
Guest
I think if we boycott every artist that ever did or was accused of a sinful practice we might have no art at all.
Anyway this makes me think that we need to remember fathers are victims of abortion too. They need prayers as much as the women.
Anyway this makes me think that we need to remember fathers are victims of abortion too. They need prayers as much as the women.
R
RosalieM
Guest
My art history prof told us we should separate the art work from the artist; and I agree…most especially in the case of Vincent Van Gogh. 
As for Picasso’s women not kicking him to the curb: They were probably overwhelmed by his ego, his ensuing fame; and I get the feeling he was very charismatic – like a famous rock star
.
As for Picasso’s women not kicking him to the curb: They were probably overwhelmed by his ego, his ensuing fame; and I get the feeling he was very charismatic – like a famous rock star
.
Last edited:
F
friardchips
Guest
Looked in an Encyclopedia and noticed some details about the artist that this discussion was centred around. It reads: ‘During his “Blue” and “Rose” periods (1900-07), he turned from portrayals of the poor and outcasts’.
Subjects painted, depicting poverty and seclusion, are not indicative of a heart void of compassion.
The information did state that his work turned to that of harlequins and dancers yet to do so was not necessarily evil.
Then he painted ‘Guernica’, which hardly suggests a view held from the wrong side of the line.
Another thing to remember, is that information about people can be wrong, or misconceived.
Subjects painted, depicting poverty and seclusion, are not indicative of a heart void of compassion.
The information did state that his work turned to that of harlequins and dancers yet to do so was not necessarily evil.
Then he painted ‘Guernica’, which hardly suggests a view held from the wrong side of the line.
Another thing to remember, is that information about people can be wrong, or misconceived.
Last edited:
A
anon64350612
Guest
I am not a fan of Picasso, either.
Don Quixote (the print I have) is an ink sketch drawn with a brush, and is unlike most of his other work. I only like it because it is Don Quixote.
Don Quixote (the print I have) is an ink sketch drawn with a brush, and is unlike most of his other work. I only like it because it is Don Quixote.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
A third thing to remember is that many if not most people are a mix of good and bad. I know people personally who are regarded as very nice, good people by many, but who have done a few pretty rotten things in their private life known only to their inner circle of friends. Someone may be very cognizant of the plight of the poor and downtrodden, or very good at helping all kinds of people outside their own family, yet their personal relationships with their own spouses and children are a huge stumbling block for them. It doesn’t make them monsters, it just means they are human, and need prayers.
F
friardchips
Guest
Yes and no. Yes, humanity is fallen; no, when people do wrong in certain ways, they are being monstrous (effectually, siding with Satan).
Last edited:
- Status