What is the role of art?

[donsnow]

I think it’s common sense, or a mature knowledge about human nature, to realize and accept that people have strong feelings about religion and can become rightfully offended when the core symbol of their religion is desecrated. There’s nothing wrong about being offended about that, imho.

I also think that we each are entitled to our respective opinions. Nonetheless, I think there’s a difference between on the one hand offering and sharing opinions; but on the other hand going on and on about a difference of opinion.

In closing, I as well think those artists desecrated art itself; because they knew that their art would offend, and did it anyway. And, in such knowledge and doing, their art became a hostile act; which desecrates the spirit of art.

Just my two cents’ worth.

 

[jonfawkes]

There’s nothing wrong about being offended about that, imho.

I won’t say it’s right or wrong, but the danger of being offended is mistaking the finger pointing at the moon for the moon. The trappings of Catholicism are not the truth of Catholicism.

 

[Cecilianus]

I won’t say it’s right or wrong, but the danger of being offended is mistaking the finger pointing at the moon for the moon. The trappings of Catholicism are not the truth of Catholicism.

Icons are the truth of Catholicism; that is the Faith handed down to us by Nicea II.

 

[donsnow]

The crucifix is a non-verbal sermon of Christ crucified; which crucifixion paid the price of our sins; pays our way into Heaven, if we repent our sins. It’s more than a symbol, it’s a reminder and a non-verbal sermon. It’s holy and sacred, even before a priest blesses it, imho.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

The crucifix is a non-verbal sermon of Christ crucified; which crucifixion paid the price of our sins; pays our way into Heaven, if we repent our sins. It’s more than a symbol, it’s a reminder and a non-verbal sermon. It’s holy and sacred, even before a priest blesses it, imho.

Thanks for your words, Don. They edify and clarify. I also agree with the statements of Cecilianus.

I remember when I gave a ride to a Jehovahs Witness lady. She was clearly not comfortable in the presence of my blessed rosary hanging from the rear view mirror in front of us. So I joked that the crucifix that she calls a ‘graven image’ is not about to jump at her or make her an idolater. Oh, what misunderstandings, wrong beliefs or disdain people have about our religious images and icons.

Even if burning of the American flag by citizens has been deemed a protected first amendment right by our courts, don’t we feel some very negative emotions when our national symbol is desecrated? Maybe not for all of us, but I feel a constriction inside. I feel that destruction or disrespect for an image, icon, or sacramental like a rosary, associated with our faith, is a desecration as well.

On to a happier note, however.

This thread reminds me of a 1.5 hour highly informative and engaging lecture on Eastern Church Iconography that I saw on EWTN in November, titled Sacred Craft. Father Brendan McAnerny, a bi-ritual Latin and Melkite priest, explained the theology of icons and examined the distinct and traits of the practice of the art. Truly riveting! I am sure it would show again, but I don’t know when. It is so good that I am tempted to order the DVD of the presentation.

Icons also lift up our minds from earthly things to the heavenly. St. John of Damascus wrote, “we are led by perceptible Icons to the contemplation of the divine and spiritual”. And by keeping their memory before us through the Icons, we are also inspired to imitate the holiness of those therein depicted.

Finally, Functions of Icons has a good discussion on the purposes that holy icons serve:

(1) They enhance the beauty of a church. (2) They instruct us in matters pertaining to the Christian faith. (3) They remind us of this faith. (4) They lift us up to the prototypes which they symbolize, to a higher level of thought and feeling. (5) They arouse us to imitate the virtues of the holy personages depicted on them. (6) They help to transform us, to sanctify us. (7) They serve as a means of worship and veneration.

.

 

[Cecilianus]

Finally, Functions of Icons has a good discussion on the purposes that holy icons serve:

(1) They enhance the beauty of a church. (2) They instruct us in matters pertaining to the Christian faith. (3) They remind us of this faith. (4) They lift us up to the prototypes which they symbolize, to a higher level of thought and feeling. (5) They arouse us to imitate the virtues of the holy personages depicted on them. (6) They help to transform us, to sanctify us. (7) They serve as a means of worship and veneration.

.

AND it’s also believed in the East that icons really do make present - in the same way that sacramentals in the West (crucifixes, holy water, scapulars, etc.) make divine grace present - the realities they represent.

Father Pavel Florensky, an Orthodox priest who was martyred by Stalin for refusing to take off clerical garb at his state-appointed engineering job, explains as follows in his book Iconostasis. Not all Orthodox or Eastern Catholics would agree with Florensky - he goes farther in some of his ideas than some people are comfortable with - but he’s by no means outside the mainstream in this passage:

An icon remembers its prototype. Thus, in one beholder, it will awaken in the bright clarities of his conscious mind a spiritual vision that matches directly the bright clarities of the icon; and the beholder’s vision will be comparably clear and conscious. But in another person, the icon will stir the dreams that lie deeper in the subconscious, awakening a perception of the spiritual that not only affirms that such seeing is possible but also brings the thing seen into immediately felt experience. Thus, at the highest flourishing of their prayer, the ancient ascetics found that their icons were not simply windows through which they could behold the holy countenances depicted on them but were also doorways through which these countenances actually entered the empirical world. The saints came down from their icons to appear before those praying to them.

(Florensky, Iconostasis, pp. 71-72.

 

[donsnow]

Thanks for your words, Don. They edify and clarify. I also agree with the statements of Cecilianus.

I remember when I gave a ride to a Jehovahs Witness lady. She was clearly not comfortable in the presence of my blessed rosary hanging from the rear view mirror in front of us. So I joked that the crucifix that she calls a ‘graven image’ is not about to jump at her or make her an idolater. Oh, what misunderstandings, wrong beliefs or disdain people have about our religious images and icons.

Even if burning of the American flag by citizens has been deemed a protected first amendment right by our courts, don’t we feel some very negative emotions when our national symbol is desecrated? Maybe not for all of us, but I feel a constriction inside. I feel that destruction or disrespect for an image, icon, or sacramental like a rosary, associated with our faith, is a desecration as well.

On to a happier note, however.

This thread reminds me of a 1.5 hour highly informative and engaging lecture on Eastern Church Iconography that I saw on EWTN in November, titled Sacred Craft. Father Brendan McAnerny, a bi-ritual Latin and Melkite priest, explained the theology of icons and examined the distinct and traits of the practice of the art. Truly riveting! I am sure it would show again, but I don’t know when. It is so good that I am tempted to order the DVD of the presentation.

Icons also lift up our minds from earthly things to the heavenly. St. John of Damascus wrote, “we are led by perceptible Icons to the contemplation of the divine and spiritual”. And by keeping their memory before us through the Icons, we are also inspired to imitate the holiness of those therein depicted.

Finally, Functions of Icons has a good discussion on the purposes that holy icons serve:

(1) They enhance the beauty of a church. (2) They instruct us in matters pertaining to the Christian faith. (3) They remind us of this faith. (4) They lift us up to the prototypes which they symbolize, to a higher level of thought and feeling. (5) They arouse us to imitate the virtues of the holy personages depicted on them. (6) They help to transform us, to sanctify us. (7) They serve as a means of worship and veneration.

.

Thank you, InSearchofGrace,

Especially for that last paragraph. It reminded me of the time that a young priest, after hearing my confession, told me for my penance to spend a silent hour on my knees in front of the altar. Around the altar of the Cathedral are statues of St. Patrick (my patron saint and confirmation name), the Sacred Heart of Jesus, another saint, and above the altar, high up above the stained glass crucifix, is a statue of Mary with the moon at her feet and the crown of twelve starts, angels on each side of her. Once I got used to silence and found that where ever my eyes strayed were holy images, I just soaked it in. After an hour, I was, of all things, refreshed.

So, all that sacred art definitely made a positive influence on my soul.

God loves you,
Don

 

[Student09]

Wow, this thread really took off after I stopped checking it!!! I’m sorry that I wasn’t there when it was still going … On the other hand, I’m kind of glad that I wasn’t there for the off-topic debates.

I just have to comment on this:

Back to the OP. The role of art is to communicate a clear message.

I find that statement problematic. If the purpose is simply to communicate a message, then why not just state the message? If you say, “Art communicates the message more effectively, or more powerfully …” well, that’s probably true, but that could also describe propaganda (which I would not consider to be true art even when it has visual or poetic elements and so on).

When I look at a painting or listen to a piece of music, I don’t do it because I’m trying to “get the artist’s message.” It’s not just a roundabout way to find out what the artist wanted to tell me. I may be getting a message, but I don’t think that’s the primary purpose. I think it has more to do with beauty and an elevation of the mind through beauty.

But not all art elevates the mind through beauty - I agree with you there, Ed. While I have seen some non-representational art that I found truly beautiful and moving, much of it is quite ugly or sometimes simply ludicrous (like the tape on the floor!) and seems even to celebrate the contamination of our culture. Your story about the squiggles for your art final is very disturbing but I can easily believe it (I have friends in art school) and it confirms some of my suspicions about a lot of the “art” that gets tossed around today. I don’t think it’s a condemnation of all abstract art, however, as some abstract art can be very good. And sometimes, representational art can be used in a propagandist manner to convey a very ugly an offensive message. It may have a clear message in that case which the artist is trying to shove in our faces, but I would not call that good art, maybe not art at all.

Incidentally, some of the most beautiful and uplifting non-representational paintings I have ever seen (maybe the most) were done by an artist whom I met in person, who is almost totally unknown and basically starving amid the ruins of his house because he can’t sell his paintings … I guess they are too beautiful for modern tastes or something.

Anyway, thank you, Ed, and 3Doctors and all who have contributed to this thread on topic.

Also, thank you very much for the link to John Paul II’s letter! It’s truly inspiring … I’ve been looking for something like that.

 

[edwest2]

Art that is shown in museums or art galleries must first go through a filtering system. An art critic, or group of art critics, declare the work or body of work “important.” The curator of the museum must be knowledgable enough to add his own (name removed by moderator)ut as well. After all, with hundreds or even thousands of items to choose from, and with limited space, he certainly can’t decide to show it all. The art gallery owner needs to know the tastes of his patrons since he is operating a business as well.

And what makes it important? The words associated with it as written by art critics. These are the people who break it down for their fellow critics, the art world in general and then, the public. I will create an example here:

“His lyrical lines remind me of Jasper Johns with hints of Homer. This new collection shows the artist growing and maturing. I cannot wait for what he may offer in the future.”

The art lover does not have the time to sit through and examine everything so the critic classifies and describes his reactions.

The same with music. Every classical work has book after book written analyzing every tiny thing. This helps inform the listener about the composer’s motivations, interests and influences. Unlike visual art, it uses sound to create moods, stir emotions or quiet them. But all musical works have embedded within them certain conventions that are recognizable to the trained ear. Certain types of music receive labels, like Bluegrass. So when you read an article about the most influential Bluegrass musicians, you have a good idea of what to respect.

I have never seen a piece of abstract that stands on its own. To me, it is either decorative or mostly unintelligible. I don’t like being confused, so it doesn’t inteest me beyond a first look.