The attack on God through art - revised

[zeland]

From St. Thomas Aquinas we learn that beauty is that which when seen pleases. This being the case then ugliness can be defined as that, which when seen, displeases or nauseates the observer. Traditionally, the object of art is beauty, and the purpose of that beauty is to elevate the mind and soul of the beholder toward God, the source of all beauty and goodness.

50 or 60 years ago, the overall aesthetic level in America was much greater than today. Then, we were a much more cultured and refined society. People were more modest in their manner of dress, and deportment. Music, movies and entertainment in general were much better, especially from a moral point of view, and men and women had a much better understanding of their roles in society. Overall, we were a much more polite and God fearing country, one that knew the difference between right and wrong. Sadly, this is no longer the case.

Today, our society suffers from a serious lack of good things to appreciate. This is because the value structure that once supported our social refinements is gone. We have done a complete about-face in our attitudes toward sin and God’s laws. We have institutionalized evil (abortion – same-sex unions – for example), and have lost all sense of sin.

America is becoming more and more devoid of refinement and beauty (both physical and moral). These two necessary ingredients of any healthy society have been eroded away by an insidious tide of vulgarity and ugliness which has gone on, mostly unnoticed, for many years, and has now dulled the sensitivities of a large segment of our population. Almost every aspect of our society, from paintings, sculpture, theater, and building architecture to clothing, movies, TV shows, music. etc, has been negatively influenced by this assault against beauty. Even the human body has become a victim of this new art of ugliness, with many young people embracing, to varying degrees, the repulsiveness of the body art culture.

God made the human body beautiful, but our modern society, has done its best to destroy that beauty. We have become very negligent in our habits of dress, manners and deportment. The general clothing styles of much of our population are very immodest (especially in regards to women’s dress), and oftentimes are just plain slovenly. This indifference to our appearance leads to a lack of discipline in the way we think and act. It also inhibits our ability to appreciate true beauty: no discipline of body – no discipline of mind. If we don’t care about how we look, why should we care about how our surroundings look? All of these forms of dress, or “bodily expression”, reveal not only bare or decorated skin, but also the moral confusion afflicting our society.

Much of today’s so-called “art”, has as its purpose, not the conveying of beauty, but only to shock, sensationalize or offend the viewer. Often, it’s underlying purpose is the conveying of some personal or political message or agenda. It forms a secular, godless culture that undermines our values and attacks our Faith.

In his article “The Morality of Tattoos and Body Piercing” (2002), Father Peter Joseph states: *“In Western societies, earrings and makeup are acceptable as a part of feminine fashions and public presentability. But certain types of body piercing and decorations in our society are extreme and unjustified, and some of them are motivated by anti-Christian sentiments.” *

Under the headings of “Diabolical images”, and “Exultation in the ugly”. Father Joseph explains that: “Tattoos of demons are quite common, yet no Christian should ever sport an image of a devil or a Satanic symbol…… This is a mark of the Satanic, which hates the beauty of God’s creation and tries to destroy it, and to ruin others’ appreciation of it. More than just being ugly, some body piercing is the expression of delight in being ugly…… This is truly the sign of a return to barbarity, the behavior of people who do not have any sense of the dignity of the human person.” See: latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_2002_SU_Joseph.html

Is it any surprise that in America’s culture of death, we find many elements of this culture of ugliness. A society that has rejected God, and allowed itself to become immersed in sin, is incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong, between good and evil, and is unable to recognize the inherent beauty of a newborn child, as opposed to the grotesque reality of abortion, oftentimes choosing the latter over the former.

This lack of comprehension of beauty has also infected the Church, and is most noticeable in the style of modern Church architecture and artwork. One need only contrast the true inspirational beauty the Gothic and Romanesque styles of the past, with the blah, banal designs of most modern day churches. Whereas the former, with their magnificent stained-glass windows and artwork, emphasized the vertical and lifted our hearts and minds to God; modern-day churches, with their human-centered horizontal emphasis and distorted artwork, are depressing and do little, if anything, to inspire the hearts of the observer.

Does sin really affect our ability to appreciate the beauty of nature? Yes, absolutely! But then, who is ultimately behind this attack on the beauty of God and his creatures? It is Satan, formerly known as Lucifer, a once shining member of the highest order of angels. This once beautiful creature, who had been destined for an eternity of unbelievable joy and happiness in heaven, has, because of the malice of sin, condemned himself, and his followers, to an eternity of unspeakable misery in hell. Most hideous in appearance, were we able to see him, and malevolent in nature, Satan and his demonic horde ferment a raging hatred against God and all His creation – especially man. Satan is the ultimate link between sin and ugliness, for he is the father of both.

 

[WoundedIcon]

Thomas Aquinas did say that art is one of the intellectual virtues. Maybe when we get lazy and dumb and lack self-control beauty takes a beating. Because art seems to flow from the spiritual and rational having command over the physical, from a rightly ordered mind.

Although I’d disagree with you on tattoos and piercings, except to go so far as to say that I appreciate when people are subtle with them, or use them for traditional looking art (think Christ the King on my forearm, etc.) Any amount of excess makes those two things look awful and ugly. I don’t approve of a face full of metal. Adornment as opposed to modification.

I’m a Goth personally, but for me it’s more about intellect, passion, refinement, and elegance. i.e. I listen to metal but I prefer more articulate, controlled, atmosphere-conveying songs to straight-up heaviness. But in general I have noticed that Christians have basically fumbled their artistic skills and it frustrates me to no end. Because I notice satanic metal bands and such picking up on the old styles (orchestras, Latin choirs, etc.) and twisting them into their worldview. It saddens me that if I want to hear something as beautiful as those things I can’t get it at mass with the way things are today, unless I stick to the EF.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I would hesitate to say that one may never portray the ugly and disordered in art, since art is also about expression and truth. Think of traditional depictions of the crucifixion. It’s really a horrible image, but one people need to see, and which ultimately prompts us to hope and love, not despair.

In general though I believe that in our art, architecture, dress, etc. we should seek to express beauty, nobility, joy, and all those good things.

As a related side note, I’ve done some recent thinking about the evolution of fashion in the design of our buildings, cars, appliances, etc., even everyday items like pens. A hundred years ago these things were made to look ornate, beautiful, and sometimes intentionally traditional (even by the standards of those times). Then, unevenly but nearly universally, things went through first a phase of ugly function-defines-form utility and finally to designs resembling a slick, sterile imaginary future. [To give credit for thoughts not entirely mine, part of this idea I’ve taken from a post on the blog Old World Swine].

Wondering why this change happened, it occurred to me that the common factor through all of it is probably people’s desire for quality, or at least value. Quality once meant fine craftsmanship, hence the fashion for ornate beauty and traditional form in most things before approximately the 1940s. Then, with technology advancing rapidly, newness became the new mark of quality, and newness took the form first of Spartan/assembly line simplicity (perhaps also suggesting more bang for your buck), then slick and/or crystalline “futuristic” designs. Again, the common thread here is quality or value. Perhaps if we as a society finally tire of novelty and put more emphasis on craftsmanship again more delicate or earthy, human forms of beauty may return the objects of our everyday lives.

Here’s my suggestion for the Computer of Tomorrow:

google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://steampunkworkshop.com/images/M19.jpg&imgrefurl=http://steampunkworkshop.com/lcd.shtml&h=480&w=640&sz=110&tbnid=8QjCIz1PqfmmnM:&tbnh=94&tbnw=125&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dsteampunk%2Bcomputer%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=steampunk+computer&hl=en&usg=__NO4LgFdFCDMrFIbNz8gMYnZITuw=&sa=X&ei=khvvTa_JPOfx0gHQ65T3DA&ved=0CCQQ9QEwAA&dur=673

 

[Hokomai]

The tonsure is a form of body modification and is certainly ugly. Do the OP’s comments apply? If not, why not, exactly?

 

[Rolltide]

This lack of comprehension of beauty has also infected the Church, and is most noticeable in the style of modern Church architecture and artwork. One need only contrast the true inspirational beauty the Gothic and Romanesque styles of the past, with the blah, banal designs of most modern day churches. Whereas the former, with their magnificent stained-glass windows and artwork, emphasized the vertical and lifted our hearts and minds to God; modern-day churches, with their human-centered horizontal emphasis and distorted artwork, are depressing and do little, if anything, to inspire the hearts of the observer.

It should be noted that the term “Gothic” originated as a slur, referencing what many believed to be a style that was ugly and barbaric. From Wikipedia:

“Gothic architecture” does not imply the architecture of the historical Goths. It has a much wider application. The term originated as a pejorative description. It came to be used as early as the 1530s by Giorgio Vasari to describe culture that was considered rude and barbaric. At the time in which Vasari was writing, Italy had experienced a century of building in the Classical architectural vocabulary revived in the Renaissance and seen as the finite evidence of a new Golden Age of learning and refinement.

The Renaissance had then overtaken Europe, overturning a system of culture that, prior to the advent of printing, was almost entirely focused on the Church and was perceived, in retrospect, as a period of ignorance and superstition. Hence, François Rabelais, also of the 16th century, imagines an inscription over the door of his Utopian Abbey of Thélème, “Here enter no hypocrites, bigots…” slipping in a slighting reference to “Gotz” and “Ostrogotz.”

In English 17th-century usage, “Goth” was an equivalent of “vandal”, a savage despoiler with a Germanic heritage, and so came to be applied to the architectural styles of northern Europe from before the revival of classical types of architecture.

According to a 19th-century correspondent in the London Journal Notes and Queries:
There can be no doubt that the term ‘Gothic’ as applied to pointed styles of ecclesiastical architecture was used at first contemptuously, and in derision, by those who were ambitious to imitate and revive the Grecian orders of architecture, after the revival of classical literature. Authorities such as Christopher Wren lent their aid in deprecating the old mediæval style, which they termed Gothic, as synonymous with everything that was barbarous and rude.

On 21 July 1710, the Académie d’Architecture met in Paris, and among the subjects they discussed, the assembled company noted the new fashions of bowed and cusped arches on chimneypieces being employed “to finish the top of their openings. The Company disapproved of several of these new manners, which are defective and which belong for the most part to the Gothic.”

The art critics of the 1700s had the same attitude toward Gothic as you do toward modern art. They wanted a return to “classical” art, which for them specifically meant that of the Greeks. For many, only this “Neoclassical” style was sufficiently elevating for the worship of God. Most art styles have their merits and their problems, as well as their supporters and detractors. The fact that a such a wide variety of art forms can be offered up to God should be a good thing, in most cases.

 

[laszlo]

A comment

The definition that beauty is what pleasing comes from Kant, and even he added, beauty is what pleases w/o interest, to distinguish between the beauty made by the desire of kidneys and the real beauty.

St Thomas Aquinas was Aristotelian, and he believed that the beauty is part of the overall value system: truth - good - beauty. He strictly taught that metaphysically every existing thing is beautiful, and we distinguish as beauty what synchronizes all the immanent values.

He also was a humble man, he knew the power of the enemy, and never taught that we need to be, or even can be competent judges related to the values: truth, good, beauty.

Moral: our taste cannot be used as compass.

 

[Hokomai]

The tonsure is a form of body modification and is certainly ugly. Do the OP’s comments apply? If not, why not, exactly?

I should point out that I was here referring to the Roman tonsure (shaved all round on top) and not the old Irish tonsure (shaved from front to back). The latter is most attractive, and I am finding it more so as the years go by.

 

[GloriousOrder]

I’m sorry friend, but the degeneration in art is correlative more to a time 90-100 years past, not 50-60 years past. Frank Lloyd Wright was already working long before the 1950’s, and Jackson Pollock was producing his ugly filth in the 1940’s. Jugendstil is rather corrupt and exaggerated, a sort of grotesque childishness in architecture, by 1905. Art Nouveau was just as ugly, in a way, as modernist cubist office buildings.

The true sense of classical proportion and right-order died with the 1760’s.

 

[Rolltide]

The true sense of classical proportion and right-order died with the 1760’s.

… an age which in turn believed that the degeneration of art occurred after the fall of Greece, and longed to rid Europe of medieval, Gothic, and Baroque “filth”. lol

 

[Neo_The_One]

Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo are few historic artists that made Catholic art brilliant.