Category: Culture

Winding Up to a Conclusion

Rockwell_connoisseur
(Note; I use the word "abstract" in this post as a synonym for
"non-representational" art, that is, art that doesn’t depict or
represent any object. In truth, all visual art involves abstraction,
but I use the word here as a less cumbersome way of saying
"non-representational" – T.J.)

The topic of this post (at my blog Old World Swine) brought me back to a series I authored
here at JA.O , on how I understand modern abstraction in
terms of where it fits in the broad movement of art history.

In retrospect, I see that project was too great a stretch for a
layman and average schlub like myself. I have absolutely zero credentials as either a philosopher or art
historian. I am a working artist (Masters Degree, thanks) not that widely read
or traveled. What I can do is talk very honestly about art from my own
non-expert perspective and hope that this becomes a useful bit of grist
for the mill. I’ll begin with a little background that might help explain
why it has taken me so long to finish this series of posts.

A commercial art client with whom I worked for years had a very large abstract painting hanging in his office. It was dreadful
– the kind of thing one would buy at a discount furniture store – a mass
produced vomitous mess of cream and "earth tones". It was bad in every
way that a painting can
be bad. The abstract equivalent of a black velvet Elvis.. I saw this
painting off and on for years, and one day the undeniable bad-ness of
it got me thinking; I
had seen a lot of other abstract paintings that were much better than
this one. If they really were better, I thought, what made
them better? If we can talk at all about "bad" and "good" abstract art,
that almost proves there must be something worthwhile in the good abstract art, doesn’t it?

Where I had been all set to consign abstract art to the dustbin, I
decided to hold off and rethink my position. I mulled things over for
quite a while, and ended up reaffirming my first intuitive response to
abstraction (that it is a subset of decorative art), while at the same
time developing a genuine appreciation of abstract art in its proper place.
I can now say that there
are a number of pieces of abstract art that I think are successful,
interesting, even engaging… just not what I consider to be great art,
for reasons I’ll get to in the next post. One of the things great art does is move
the viewer, and I have never once been moved by a piece of abstract art. I don’t see how that works.

There is, of course, the real possibility that I may just be missing
something, that I am a thick-skulled, irrecoverable rube – what C.S.
Lewis called a "trousered ape" – who simply lacks the imagination, the
emotional depth and psychological complexity to plumb the mysteries of
abstract art. That’s fine. I’ll admit the possibility… but it’s not
for lack of honest effort.

I have looked at and thought hard about abstract art for years. In
some circles – circles I occasionally run in – verbalizing a lack of
sufficient enthusiasm or appreciation for abstract art is a social
blunder on the level of making fun of the handicapped – much worse, in
fact (in the latter case, one could always pull a Mel Gibson and claim
it was the booze talking). This is just not something a sophisticated
and civilized person is ever supposed to say… particularly an artist. It will
change what people think of you. It will cost you work and connections
and references. I once knew an art history professor who was denied
tenure partly because (he seemed certain) he had spoken well of Norman
Rockwell.

I’m convinced that many people, especially in the art world, never
say what they really think about abstract art because they are keenly
aware of the social stigma attached to such opinions. They are
frightened to death of being shut out and denied opportunities, of
being thought of as ignorant hicks. But it is only by moving beyond
this stigma and speaking plainly that we can begin to have a real
conversation and honestly evaluate the benefits and detriments of the
modernist movement in art, which began over one hundred years ago. We
are in a unique position in history (the information age) that allows
us to calmly and rationally toss out the bad and retain the good when
it comes to the visual arts. We need desperately to get about this
work.  We need especially to develop an aesthetic of beauty that
resonates with the modern world. That is our job as artists.

Next – my thoughts on the good and bad of modern abstract art.

He’s Everywhere!

Chesterton4Old World Swine, at it again;

As other Catholic bloggers have ably pointed out, presidential hopeful
Mike Huckabee, in his victory speech
after the Iowa primary, quoted – and cited – G.K. Chesterton. Okay, technically he misquoted Chesterton, but not badly. It was still heartening to hear.

Any time I see GKC gaining influence in the world, I count that as a
good thing. So I was delighted to see him popping up in a book I was
given recently, written by Evangelical author Ravi Zacharias.

The book – Can Man Live Without God (Thomas Nelson)- was a Christmas
gift from my sister and her husband. They would describe themselves – I
think – as Bible Only, non-denominational Christians, or (in their
view) just basic Christians. My brother, a pastor who’s church they
attended for some time, maintained that this faith was not even
Protestant… that it was just plain meat-and-potatoes Christianity and
had nothing at all to do with any historical Christian "movement" of one
stripe or another. He truly believed this.

I was a little leary of the book, therefore. But, one of the things I
have hoped to accomplish this year is to read more, and seeing as they
were thoughtful enough to give me the book, I was only too happy to read it.

Mr. Zacharias got my attention right away by mulling over the lyrics of
King Crimson, one of my favorite bands (although I prefer their later
work – Discipline more than Court of the Crimson King).
He waits until chapter 8 to begin quoting G.K. Chesterton, but he
returns to him more than to any other Christian source – several
times throughout the book – as well as drawing heavily on Malcolm
Muggeridge and C.S. Lewis.

Few, I think, would have their mind changed one way or another by
reading this book. Zacharias says nothing new, which is fine by me (I
saw on television a Christian ministry that advertised their
charismatic leader had "a message unlike any other in the Christian
World!" – exactly what we don’t need). What Zacharias
manages is to pull together a quick survey of the most dominant
philosophical voices of the twentieth century (that is to say, atheists
of differing flavors), outlines the major defects of their thought and
its disastrous consequences for society, and gives voice to the most
able defenders of Truth. He straightforwardly presents Christ as the
answer to all of man’s deepest longings.

I think Francis Schaeffer did a more thorough job of dissecting atheist
philosophy and the ills of modern society (from this perspective) than
does Mr. Zacharias. The book is too brief for him to be very
philosophically rigorous, but he does provide a workable introduction
to these broad ideas and their historical background for those who are
not already familiar with them. He quotes Nietzche, Kant, Descartes,
Huxley, Bertrand Russel and the like from the Life is Meaningless side,
and refutes them using Chesterton, Lewis, Pascal, Muggeridge and others
(including contemporaries like Norman Geisler and Peter Kreeft). He has
good language for Mother Teresa (Mr. Zacharias is of East Indian
heritage) and St. Augustine, and takes no overt jabs at the Catholic
Church. The book is forwarded by Charles Colson, a friend of Catholics
(or as some would have it, a dirty rotten Papist sympathizer).

On the whole, I was very cheered that the book drew from such sources
(especially Chesterton, of course). It ought to make any observant
reader want to read both Chesterton and Muggeridge. It also gives me a
terrific opportunity to pass on some of Chesterton’s writing, from
which the world can only benefit.

Have others noticed Chesterton’s thought beginning to loom large on
the Christian horizon? Is sanity breaking out here and there? Are
post-modern, post-Protestant Christians ready now to hear what he has
to
say?

No “There” There

183403_2Tim Jones, here. From my blog, Old World Swine;

The painting at left, by Italian artist Angelo Casciello is an illustration that is part of the new lectionary approved by the Italian bishops. Sandro Magister comments;

The Italian bishops’ conference has entrusted the illustration of the
new Lectionary to thirty contemporary artists, with their styles. It’s
the first time that a liturgical book has been associated with modern
images. An audacious undertaking – and one immediately criticized

I have tried to find a clearer version of this piece of art online, but
so far have been unsuccessful. I would like to see it better so that I
can do a more fair critique. I realize there might be objections to
critiqueing the piece in this format, but right now it is all I have to
go on.

I also Googled up the websites of the other artists named in the
Magister article, and they all seem to be pretty well within the same
broad stylistic milieu.

Where to begin?

Let me just say what this painting is not; It isn’t beautiful, it
isn’t technically accomplished, well composed or evocative.
It probes none of the human experience of the event it depicts (the healing of the man born blind), and it
utterly fails to draw the viewer in or make them care about seeing it
again.

It is not really a work of art. Like so many modern abstract pieces, it
is a placeholder representing the idea of a work of art. There should
be a little rectangle in the middle with the words "place artwork
here". What this painting is, is easy. The shame of it is, there are
probably many living artists in Italy who could have provided, even in a very simple format, art of beauty and depth.

Now, of course, there will be those who will counter that they like
this piece and find it terrific in all kinds of ways, but I can only
respond in advance that lots of people liked disco, too. I would like
to hear explained why and how this is a good painting. To fall back on
"beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is a cop-out. There is certainly
a subjective element to beauty, but that is not nearly the end of it.
Some things are really beautiful and some things are really ugly, to
the point of making mere opinion superfluous. This is why people drive
as fast as they can through Nebraska to get to Yellowstone Park, and
not the other way around. Sorry, Nebraska. I give thanks for you every
time I open a bag of tortilla chips, but there is just not much to look
at there.

According to Catholic News Service, there are a number of translation
and typographical errors in this new Italian lectionary… so many that
they are issuing a set of corrective adhesive stickers to cover them
all. One wonders if they could not issue a new set of illustrations
in the same way.

GET THE STORY.

Combox Critique Roundup at Old World Swine

I just wanted to thank everyone who came by my blog, Old World Swine, to participate in may first ever "Combox Crit" (this is when I put up a piece of art for critique on my blog).

The project was a rousing success. I have posted a summary of my thoughts on the painting and the comments I received. I will definitely do this again soon.

Again… thanks!

Combox Critique

I want to ask Jimmy’s readers for some help with an experiment over at my new blog, Old World Swine.

From time to time I would like to gather opinions on a selected piece of artwork posted on my site. This critique is not restricted to artists or art professionals, though they will be much appreciated. All that is necessary is that you give a brief, honest response – including negative stuff – and be as specific as possible. For the purposes of the online "crits" I would rather you take a pass on comments such as, "I like it, you’re very talented" or "I hate it. I hate realism". That doesn’t really help.

Other than that, I would like to get your thoughts. The usual rules of combox etiquette still apply, of course.

Thankee!

Philip Pullman Is A Liar

But at least one liberal scholar has called the trilogy a “theological masterpiece,” and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops rates the film “intelligent and well-crafted entertainment.”
*VOMIT*
LINK:
‘Golden Compass’ raises religious debate

Philip_pullman_20050416
Or, if you want to quibble about the word "lie," he is a dishonest man.

Here’s why:

Pullman is the author of the His Dark Materials trilogy, which is overtly anti-Christian and the first volume of which has been made into a movie titled The Golden Compass. Naturally, the Catholic League and its head Bill Donohue are warning parents against it, and Pullman is quoted as saying the following:

"To regard it as this Donohue man has said – that I’m a militant atheist,
and my intention is to convert people – how the hell does he know that?"
he said, in an interview with Newsweek magazine.

First, note that what we have here is a vehement non-denial denial. Pullman isn’t denying that he’s a militant atheist with the intention to convert people (at least in this quote; he may have made an actual denial elsewhere, in which case he’s a flat-out liar). He’s vehemently questioning how one would know that in order to convey the impression that he is not a militant atheist out to convert people and that he’s indignant at the statement that he is one.

Because it’s a non-denial denial, one can quibble over whether it constitutes a lie, just like one can quibble over whether various non-denial denials issued by the Nixon White House (or other White Houses) were technically lies, but the clear intent here is to deceive.

But let’s answer Pullman’s question: How "the hell" does Bill Donohue know that Pullman is a militant atheist out to convert people?

Because Pullman himself has said so!

In an interview published in
the Washington Post (Feb. 19, 2001), he stated:

“’I’m trying to undermine the basis of
Christian belief,’ says Pullman. ‘Mr. Lewis [C.S. Lewis, author of The Chronicles of Narnia] would think I
was doing the Devil’s work.’”

Similarly, in an interview published in the Sydney Morning
Herald (Dec. 13, 2003), Pullman stated:

“I’ve been surprised by how little
criticism I’ve got. Harry Potter’s been taking all the flak. I’m a great fan of
J.K. Rowling, but the people—mainly from America’s Bible Belt—who complain that
Harry Potter promotes Satanism or witchcraft obviously haven’t got enough in
their lives. Meanwhile, I’ve been flying under the radar, saying things that
are far more subversive than anything poor old Harry has said. My books are
about killing God.”

And indeed they are. In the end, the heroes of the novels
actually kill God.

So Pullman is simply being dishonest when he vehemently questions how anyone could know that he is a militant atheist out to convert people. He himself has made it abundantly clear in press interviews.

This kind of transparent disingenuity really makes Pullman come across as a small and pathetic individual.

For all the protestations atheists typically make about embracing truth rather than a fairy tale, it seems Mr. Pullman leaves something to be desired in the truth department.

And why not?

If, on his view, we’re just walking bags of chemicals then why shouldn’t the bag of chemicals that is Philip Pullman not spout any string of syllables needed in order to maximize its bank account and the amount of power it has to command pleasurable sensory feedback?

The Kind of Story that Vatican TV Really Should Not Do

Popefire_2Okay, so they were having a bonfire in Poland on April 2 (which happens to be the anniversary of JP2’s death) and a guy snapped pictures of the flames and later, after looking at the pictures back home, decided that one looks like John Paul II and must be some kind of manifestation from beyond the grave and Vatican TV does a story on it, complete with an endorsement from a Polish priest saying that’s what it is.

This is the kind of story that Vatican TV really shouldn’t do.

Even if they ran the story with all kinds of disclaimers, those disclaimers won’t make it through into the popular media. The mere fact that Vatican News Service is carrying this story will be taken as indicating that the Vatican supports this interpretation of the bondfire image.

This is bad because it strains credulity enough to have saintly images appearing in tortillas an pieces of toast and on the sides of buildings. Finding one in an image of something as dynamic and as constantly-changing-in-shape as fire is completely beyond the bounds. If you take enough pictures of any bonfire, you’ll be able to find such images in it.

And then there is the fact that fire isn’t exactly the most . . . er . . . traditional symbol of what it’s like in heaven. I mean, if you want a message that JP2 is in heaven rather than . . . one of the hotter regions . . . is a bonfire the best place for such a message?

This is just superstition, and the Vatican News Service abetted it, wittingly or unwittingly.

GET THE STORY.

(CHT to the reader who e-mailed.)

The Nattering Nabobs of Know-Nothingism

TheviewcurrentI have never seen an episode of ABC TV’s The View.

Until Rosie O’Donnell got in trouble on it, I hadn’t even heard of the program, though it’s apparently been on for more than ten years.

From reading about the show and seeing clips of it, I have, however, come to hold a very low opinion of it.

What I have seen and read about the show leads me to the conclusion that it is shallow and bubble-headed and frequently shameful, embarrassing, and even disgusting. In other words, it swings between the two extremes of insipid, inconsequential fluff, often with prurient undertones, to completely idiotic attempts to take on serious subjects by a group of commentators who don’t have the first clue what they’re talking about.

Since the commentators are also all women, the show is clearly aimed at a female audience, and if I were a woman, I’d be insulted that ABC thinks this is the kind of junk that I’d be interested in.

The show also seems to deliberately stir up controversy in order to attract ratings by hiring sick puppies like Rosie O’Donnell and Whoopi Goldberg (note that it’s Barbara Walters in the clip who first introduces a disgusting suggestion, which Goldberg then amplifies and makes even worse; there’s plenty of sick puppyism to go around on this show).

So it comes as no surprise that, if this pack of intellectual mendicants (not in the good sense, in which Dominicans are intellectual mendicants) were to choose to take on the subject of Archbishop Raymond Burke’s statement that he would deny Rudy Giuliani Holy Communion that they’d make more errors than you could shake a stick at.

And they did.

Reading the following transcript of part of yesterday’s show (which sure sounds authentic, though I haven’t been able to verify that yet, so caveat emptor,though I have partial confirmation from another source) is like playing one of those "How many things can you find wrong in this picture?" games.

Man, is it painful!

ABC–and its owner, the Disney corporation–should be ashamed of itself that it’s putting out this kind of offensive and brainless twaddle.

Since the hosts of The View obviously don’t have a clue, ABC should get one and cancel the show.

Transcript below the fold (CHT to the reader who e-mailed).

Continue reading “The Nattering Nabobs of Know-Nothingism”

Shiny!

CHT Glen Reynolds for the following link to an Amazon.Com interview with Joss Whedon about Firefly.

The interview is occasioned by the release of the collector’s edition of Serenity on DVD.

In it, in addition to discussing the new collector’s edition, Whedon reveals that he’s got another canonical Firefly comic book series coming out later this year, titled "Better Days" (about how the Firefly crew reacts to success when one of their jobs actually goes right).

He also says that the movie Serenity made money, though not the kind that leads to an automatic sequel. Apparently he’s hoping that DVD sales of the new collector’s edition will lead the studio to consider a sequel. (Deja vu all over again!)

HERE’S THE INTERVIEW. (Note to the Amazon guys: Join the digital age, dudes! Put your interviews in nice, friendly mp3s so linking to them is an easy thing!)

AND THE COLLECTOR’S EDITION.

AND THE ORIGINAL CANONICAL COMIC BOOK "THOSE LEFT BEHIND" IN TRADE PAPERBACK.

AND THE ORIGINAL FIREFLY SERIES ON DVD.

AND ON FIREFLY IN GENERAL.

(Added Tip: How to remember Joss Whedon’s name . . . Remember, it’s not "Norway," it’s "Joss Whedon." CHT: SDG)