The Modernist Horror

  • Thread starter Thread starter WH1988
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LilyM said:
Really? Truly great art isn’t subjective? And that’s why so many people (learned critics among them) absolutely HATED, with a passion, in their day, the Impressionists and would rather have chewed off their right arms than called their works great art by any set of criteria whatsoever? At exactly the same time as others, who surely knew and were judging, according to your logic, by the same ‘objective’ standard, lauded them from the start?

Heck, there are a lot of people out there who still don’t think much of Picasso, or at least the majority of his works. May very well be some art critics among them for all I know. Certainly those who think little of the artistic merit of his work can’t possibly all be doing so from a position of ignorance of this ‘objective’ standard you allude to.

And please, can someone tell all the people and art critics of Australia who’ve been squabbling over Jackson Pollock’s work ever since our National Gallery bought his Blue Poles for a substantial sum about 35 years ago - do the ‘objective’ criteria prove his work to be great or crud? And pray tell, where can we find a list and explanation of these ‘objective’ criteria, just so we know what they are for future reference?

What about Duchamp’s Pissoir (which is literally just a white enamel urinal)? Andy Warhol’s images of Campbell Soup cans? That Christo artist who has a penchant for wrapping Central Park in fabric?
Click to expand...
Obviously you did not know that Jaca created Art Theory and that all Critics go to him to make sure that they are told what they should consider Art.
 
KenEOTE said:
Obviously you did not know that Jaca created Art Theory and that all Critics go to him to make sure that they are told what they should consider Art.
Click to expand...
Well, I’ll be sure to run all my future art purchases by him then, of course :whistle:

What the heck, jaca, come over my place now - we’ll make a great big bonfire out of everything that according to your ‘objective’ criteria isn’t great art.
 
Jacafamala said:
No, sweety I had read them. I agree with you. Sorry to be getting back to you so late.
Click to expand...
Thank you for responding to my post.

So? You read them. Good. And so?
  • I said earlier that there is no denying that the structure was horrible.
  • There is no denying that we build Churches that are beautiful for the glory of God.
  • There is no denying that failing that a stable will do.
  • We just don’t go out of our way to create something ugly and insofar as that Church is concerned the outside is ugly - it looks like a warehouse. As for the altar, it does not resemble a place of worship. A Church can be modern and very minimalist and still be beautiful. I know such a Church in South Africa that would win first prize. It is outstanding. But the photograph we saw in the first post is not something we would expect to find in a Church.
All this has been said before but I have summarised and reinforced it.

**Now, getting back to what I said about our Parish Priest who said Mass in a Monastery in Portugal earlier this year and found gaps in the ligurgy. Also the fact that this Church has no confessional!!! THAT is SERIOUS, VERY SERIOUS

There should be a “Canonical Court” where we can present our objections of this because it is in no way in confirmity with Vatican II. Even the Popes and Mother Teresa went to confession each week. Why have the Portuguese done away with Confession. This is serious, very serious.

Please, something must be done about it.

How is the Portuguese nation going to get back to its Catholic roots if it modifies Church practices willy nilly.? The Church is supposed to be One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic! We follow the same missals all over the world and in the missal the liturgy is complete!!!😃 :confused: :mad: :tsktsk: :tsktsk: **
 
Look, I would dare to classify Portugal as the most modernist Catholic nation in the world, mostly due to modernist-socialist clergy. Some examples:
  • That church you saw took 10 years to build. The parish is (at least it was 2 years ago) with an huuuuuuuuuuge debt due to the construction of that world wonder, so, I wonder what will happen when in one year I’ll ask them some support to pay my seminary costs - I’d guess they will have a lot of problems with that, and I wonder if they’ll accept to contribute with something as low as 50€/month.
  • It’s almost impossible to get a confession in Portugal. Usually there aren’t any times dedicated exclusively to confession, you have to talk to the priest, which is not easy, and beg him to confess you.
  • I am scared to death each time I listen to a priest/bishop talking on tv. There’s a large probability he will dissent from church teaching. Like 3 months ago, a Bishop went to TV saying that “condoms are okay, the Church is a forum of freedom”. It’s usual to have priests quoting Hans Kung or saying things like “the devil doesn’t really exist”.
  • You’ll get angry if you see some of the Portuguese ‘Catholic’ forums. Those look devil’s apostolates: there you can see people defending abortion, wymenpriests, an huge majority of people promoting contraception, refusing church teaching of the economy of sacraments, and insulting anyone who defends Catholic doctrine as “fanaticals” or “fundamentalists”.
  • Also in that forum, but also common in the streets. It’s usual to insult the Pope, calling His Holiness “fanatical” or worse, and wishing his quick death.
 
Jacafamala said:
Truly great art isn’t subjective. There are certain sets of criteria for different forms of art. If these elements are used well, used in a powerful way to make a statement, the work is great.

A piece of art isn’t great because I like it or because someone else likes it. That would be mere sentimentality. There are certain elements, such as line, form, color that all work together to convey a message.

Now with religious art, specifically Roman Catholic art there’s a specific criteria for greatness, too. You can’t just throw throw that criteria out and start from scratch without completely changing the meaning of your message.

Specifically, what’s been thrown out and what been introduced in the horrific Modernist Altar?

A. The Tabernacle
B. The crucifix
C. Statues and artwork depicting the saints.

Without these things, it indeed does appear to be something other than Catholic.
Click to expand...
I don’t know where you live, but in my travels, I have never found a church without an altar, crucifix or statues and artwork of saints.
specifically NC, SC, Virginia, Florida, Georgia, etc…Maybe it’s an east coast thing?😃

Also, I would love to see where you found these pictures…website? They are gross for sure.🙂
 
WH1988 said:
Look, I would dare to classify Portugal as the most modernist Catholic nation in the world, mostly due to modernist-socialist clergy. Some examples:
  • That church you saw took 10 years to build. The parish is (at least it was 2 years ago) with an huuuuuuuuuuge debt due to the construction of that world wonder, so, I wonder what will happen when in one year I’ll ask them some support to pay my seminary costs - I’d guess they will have a lot of problems with that, and I wonder if they’ll accept to contribute with something as low as 50€/month.
  • It’s almost impossible to get a confession in Portugal. Usually there aren’t any times dedicated exclusively to confession, you have to talk to the priest, which is not easy, and beg him to confess you.
  • I am scared to death each time I listen to a priest/bishop talking on tv. There’s a large probability he will dissent from church teaching. Like 3 months ago, a Bishop went to TV saying that “condoms are okay, the Church is a forum of freedom”. It’s usual to have priests quoting Hans Kung or saying things like “the devil doesn’t really exist”.
  • You’ll get angry if you see some of the Portuguese ‘Catholic’ forums. Those look devil’s apostolates: there you can see people defending abortion, wymenpriests, an huge majority of people promoting contraception, refusing church teaching of the economy of sacraments, and insulting anyone who defends Catholic doctrine as “fanaticals” or “fundamentalists”.
  • Also in that forum, but also common in the streets. It’s usual to insult the Pope, calling His Holiness “fanatical” or worse, and wishing his quick death.
Click to expand...
Seconded.
 
WH1988 said:
Look, I would dare to classify Portugal as the most modernist Catholic nation in the world, mostly due to modernist-socialist clergy. Some examples:
  • That church you saw took 10 years to build. The parish is (at least it was 2 years ago) with an huuuuuuuuuuge debt due to the construction of that world wonder, so, I wonder what will happen when in one year I’ll ask them some support to pay my seminary costs - I’d guess they will have a lot of problems with that, and I wonder if they’ll accept to contribute with something as low as 50€/month.
  • It’s almost impossible to get a confession in Portugal. Usually there aren’t any times dedicated exclusively to confession, you have to talk to the priest, which is not easy, and beg him to confess you.
  • I am scared to death each time I listen to a priest/bishop talking on tv. There’s a large probability he will dissent from church teaching. Like 3 months ago, a Bishop went to TV saying that “condoms are okay, the Church is a forum of freedom”. It’s usual to have priests quoting Hans Kung or saying things like “the devil doesn’t really exist”.
  • You’ll get angry if you see some of the Portuguese ‘Catholic’ forums. Those look devil’s apostolates: there you can see people defending abortion, wymenpriests, an huge majority of people promoting contraception, refusing church teaching of the economy of sacraments, and insulting anyone who defends Catholic doctrine as “fanaticals” or “fundamentalists”.
  • Also in that forum, but also common in the streets. It’s usual to insult the Pope, calling His Holiness “fanatical” or worse, and wishing his quick death.
Click to expand...
This is shocking. All the more reason to begin praying NOW for World Youth Day in Madrid. Let us all begin to do so. Since Madrid is next door to Portugal we would pray that there will be a huge contingent of Portuguese youth attending.

That would be great.

WP1988 I will pray for you.

P.S. O seu ingles e bom mas gostava de assinalar que nao se diz “an” quando se segue uma palavara com h silencioso, isto e h nao aspirado - assim diz-se a huge, a hotel mas diz-se an hour porque o h e silencioso.
👍 🙂
 
WH1988 AND DAPDN

I meant to ask you. Do you have EWTN in Portugal? If so, you should promote it. Although it is an English network one can also get some programmes in Spanish.

I can assure you that it would have enormous influence.

Here in South Africa we purchase the “parabolica” with modem but I believe in some countries it is on the cable network which is even better. Gosh if you could get EWTN in Portugal I guarantee you that it would make an enormous difference.

👍 :extrahappy: :yup: :extrahappy:
 
To be honest, Cinette, I don’t have the slightest idea about it. I had never heard of EWTN until I started frequenting CAF. One thing is for sure: Cable TV doesn’t have it - we have, instead, a Charismatic brazilian channel, called “Canção Nova”.

By the way, since the best possible thing we can do is to fight with the Weapon that Our Lord gave us, that is, Prayer, I took the initiative, and started a Rosary for Portuguese and European Clergy and Lay Catholic Orthodoxy.

I invite you all to pray with us for these intentions.

Pax Christi!
 
DAPDN said:
To be honest, Cinette, I don’t have the slightest idea about it. I had never heard of EWTN until I started frequenting CAF. One thing is for sure: Cable TV doesn’t have it - we have, instead, a Charismatic brazilian channel, called “Canção Nova”.

By the way, since the best possible thing we can do is to fight with the Weapon that Our Lord gave us, that is, Prayer, I took the initiative, and started a Rosary for Portuguese and European Clergy and Lay Catholic Orthodoxy.

I invite you all to pray with us for these intentions.

Pax Christi!
Click to expand...
Thank you for the invitation - it will be done!

Tem uma Caixa Postal? Eu posso mandar umas gravacoes - vai ficar maluco! Eh proveniente dos EU e projectado em 144 paises. Aquilo e uma maravilha autentica!:clapping: :yup:
 
So even architectural styles are infallible now? Sheesh.

This “Church” is just a parody of the Churches of old, like something out of a satire.

The interior looks just like the synagogue I sent my daughter to for summer camp.

I wouldn’t worry about it too much, as this Church will most likely be closed eventually.
 
Yes, It Is In Fact A Very Ugly Building And No Amount Of Arguing Will Make It Anything But Ugly. God Deserves Something Better Than That. More Political Correctness, I Guess. Gotta Say Its Got A Right To Be Called Beautiful, Even If We All Know It Is Not.
 
LilyM;Really? Truly great art isn’t subjective? And that’s why so many people (learned critics among them) absolutely HATED, with a passion, in their day, the Impressionists and would rather have chewed off their right arms than called their works great art by any set of criteria whatsoever? At exactly the same time as others, who surely knew and were judging, according to your logic, by the same ‘objective’ standard, lauded them from the start?
Click to expand...
The artists from the Salon didn’t understand the work. However, their opinion didn’t stand the test of time.
Heck, there are a lot of people out there who still don’t think much of Picasso, or at least the majority of his works. May very well be some art critics among them for all I know. Certainly those who think little of the artistic merit of his work can’t possibly all be doing so from a position of ignorance of this ‘objective’ standard you allude to.
Click to expand...
Personal likes or dislikes have nothing to do with it.
And please, can someone tell all the people and art critics of Australia who’ve been squabbling over Jackson Pollock’s work ever since our National Gallery bought his Blue Poles for a substantial sum about 35 years ago - do the ‘objective’ criteria prove his work to be great or crud? And pray tell, where can we find a list and explanation of these ‘objective’ criteria, just so we know what they are for future reference?
Click to expand...
Depends on what it is your looking at. If it’s formal art, then how it holds up in terms of line, form, composition, also what message it conveys. How all these things are conveyed successfully are all important.
What about Duchamp’s Pissoir (which is literally just a white enamel urinal)? Andy Warhol’s images of Campbell Soup cans? That Christo artist who has a penchant for wrapping Central Park in fabric?
Click to expand...
If it’s conceptual art, it has a different set of criteria. These usually involve ideas about the world; about society in general and how well these are expressed, and originality has everything to do with the criteria for the work’s greatness.

Religious art has it’s own set of criteria, too.

Like Duchamp’s work, the attitude I’m getting from you is, well, shall we say, a bit “pissoir”. If you’d like to continue a dialogue, then let’s tone it down a bit. K?
 
Jacafamala said:
The artists from the Salon didn’t understand the work. However, their opinion didn’t stand the test of time.

Personal likes or dislikes have nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...
I agree that personal likes and dislikes have nothing to do with it - I’m talking about cases where it goes further, where the value of certain works AS art is what is called into question, and that by educated art critics who of all people should be fully aware of and pretty much in agreement about these ‘objective’ criteria of yours.

And I’m talking about cases like Jackson Pollock where time (half a century since he painted Blue Poles) hasn’t especially resolved the debate about whether his art is great (and thus worth the money that was paid for it) either, so it’s clearly not merely a case of some not understanding the criteria or misapplying them or what have you.
 
LilyM said:
I agree that personal likes and dislikes have nothing to do with it - I’m talking about cases where it goes further, where the value of certain works AS art is what is called into question, and that by educated art critics who of all people should be fully aware of and pretty much in agreement about these ‘objective’ criteria of yours.

And I’m talking about cases like Jackson Pollock where time (half a century since he painted Blue Poles) hasn’t especially resolved the debate about whether his art is great (and thus worth the money that was paid for it) either, so it’s clearly not merely a case of some not understanding the criteria or misapplying them or what have you.
Click to expand...
Pollock’s work is all about paint; paint and movement. His work is territorial on many levels. It’s territorial in the way he used movement to create it. It’s territorial in the the way it he used layers to create space. Pollock’s art is great; heroic. Abstract expressionism in general is heroic. I don’t see any debate about it in the art world, when his paintings sell for millions, one would have to say he’s been very well celebrated.

But we’re getting sort of off track. I’d like to move back to the question of great religious art in the Catholic tradition, if I may. So, I’ll throw that out for you, Lily. What do you think makes for great Catholic art?
 
Jacafamala said:
Pollock’s work is all about paint; paint and movement. His work is territorial on many levels. It’s territorial in the way he used movement to create it. It’s territorial in the the way it he used layers to create space. Pollock’s art is great; heroic. Abstract expressionism in general is heroic. I don’t see any debate about it in the art world, when his paintings sell for millions, one would have to say he’s been very well celebrated.

But we’re getting sort of off track. I’d like to move back to the question of great religious art in the Catholic tradition, if I may. So, I’ll throw that out for you, Lily. What do you think makes for great Catholic art?
Click to expand...
Can anyone answer this or only Lily?
 
Jacafamala said:
🙂 Sure, answer; this is a public forum.
Click to expand...
I think truly great religious art is done for the glory of God. I tend to think there is a style that is religious. I think all styles of art and music and the like can be used to glorify Christ. God gives each of us talents. Some of us use those talents to honor him some of us don’t.
 
KenEOTE said:
I think truly great religious art is done for the glory of God. I tend to think there is a style that is religious. I think all styles of art and music and the like can be used to glorify Christ. God gives each of us talents. Some of us use those talents to honor him some of us don’t.
Click to expand...
Ken, did you mean to type “I don’t think there is a style that is religious.”?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top