Jimmy Akin – Page 522

Neocatechumenal Spin

You may have heard rumblings in recent times about changes regarding an ecclesial movement known as The Neocatechumenal Way (a.k.a., the Neocatechumenate).

This is a movement that goes back several decades and that has a relationship with the Church that has been mixed. While Church leaders, including the previous and current popes, have said positive things about the NW, they have also insisted on changes in the way that the movement operates.

BASIC INFO ON THE MOVEMENT HERE.

Most recently B16 issued a series of decisions designed to pull back the NW from a number of liturgical abuses that have routinely characterized Masses celebrated under its auspices.

Journalist Sandro Magister gives a basic explanation (excerpts):

In the Neocatechumenal Way, communion is taken while seated around a large square table, with a large loaf of bread that is divided among the participants and wine that is passes from hand to hand and is taken in large swallows.

But communion is not the only area in which there is a departure from the traditional liturgy. There are significant innovations in other parts of the Mass.

For example, the readings from the liturgy of the Word are commented upon by the catechists of the group, who make lengthy “admonitions” followed by “resonances” from many of those present. The priest’s homily is hardly distinguished, or not distinguished at all, from the rest of the comments.

The times and places for the Mass are also unusual.

The Neocatechumenals do not celebrate their Masses on Sunday, but on Saturday evening, in small groups and separate from the parish communities to which they belong.

Each Neocatechumenal group corresponds to a different stage of the Way, so each group of 20-30 persons has its own Mass. If there are ten groups of Neocatechumenals in a parish, there will be ten different Masses on Saturday evening, in ten separate locations.

Until recently, the founders and directors of the Way had shielded
these practices by claiming they had received verbal authorization from
John Paul II. But with Benedict XVI, playtime is over.

In mid-December, the founders and directors of the Neocatechumenal Way – Spaniards Kiko Argüello and Carmen Hernandez, and the Italian priest Mario Pezzi – received a two-page letter from cardinal Francis Arinze, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, with a list of “decisions of the Holy Father” which they must obey.

Of the six points detailing the pope’s directives, only one permits the Neocatechumenals to continue what they are doing. This regards placing the exchange of peace before the offertory, a traditional practice in the Christian liturgy which is still in use today, for example, in the Ambrosian Rite celebrated in the archdiocese of Milan.

All the other points require the Neocatechumenal Way to eliminate a large portion of its liturgical innovations.

In the wake of this, Zenit ran an interview with "Giuseppe Gennarini, a spokesman who is in charge of the Way in the United States."

I was interested to read the interview because I wanted to see what kind of response the NW was making regarding the changes the pope has mandated. (I’ve read the letter from Cardinal Arinze containing them. It’s linked below.)

I figured that Gennarini would most likely put a positive face on the matter and express the NW’s intent to comply with the mandates–the same way that Life Teen did following a similar letter mandating that they eliminate prominent liturgical abuses in their Masses.

But I had NO IDEA.

The interview was PURE SPIN on Gennarini’s part. I mean, it goes beyond putting a positive face on the matter. The man is either grossly misinformed about what the letter says or he is in denial.

He represent the letter as fully vindicating and approving multiple things that the NW does in its Masses (not just the one cited–correctly–by Magister) and totally ignores the numerous requirements and cautions expressed in the letter regarding how things are to be done. He conveys the impression that the Vatican has simply rubber stamped current practice when the tone taken in the letter is very different, often saying–in essence–"Look, if you want to do something like this then you can ONLY do it if you start observing the following conditions."

The height of misrepresentation occurs when Gennarini addresses the manner in which the NW distributes Communion:

Finally, the way of distributing Communion as it currently takes place, is allowed for a long period of time, if only "ad experimentum." Such a grant shows that this practice is not irreverent, but fully legitimate, as can be attested by anyone who participates in a Eucharist of the communities.

This concession is written within the context of the final approval of the statutes of the Neocatechumenal Way, which are right now approved also "ad experimentum." When this period "ad experimentum" ends, the interdicasterial commission of the five congregations which approved the statutes … will verify the necessary adaptations.

This not only states that the NW manner of distributing Communion is "fully legitimate" and allowed "ad experimentum" (i.e., for purposes of experiment to see if the arrangement should be made permanent), it also seems to suggest that at the end of the approval process for the NW’s statutes that the Vatican may permanently allow this manner of distributing Communion.

Now here’s what the letter from Cardinal Arinze actually says:

5. On the manner of receiving Holy Communion, a period of transition (not exceeding two years) is granted to the Neocatechumenal Way to pass from the widespread manner of receiving Holy Communion in its communities (seated, with a cloth-covered table placed at the center of the church instead of the dedicated altar in the sanctuary) to the normal way in which the entire Church receives Holy Communion. This means that the Neocatechumenal Way must begin to adopt the manner of distributing the Body and Blood of Christ that is provided in the liturgical books.

There is no "ad experimentum" approval given in there for how the NW distributes Communion. Quite the opposite. They’ve been given two years to clean up their act.

Gennarni is also exceptionally disingenuous when he says:

Without the intervention of the Holy Father, the approval of these liturgical variations would have never taken place. We feel fully confirmed by Peter. Those who are trying to oppose Benedict XVI and John Paul II are altering the reality.

Judge for yourself who is altering reality, here.

READ THE LETTER.

Brokeback Mountain Review Redone

The review of Brokeback Mountain at the U.S. bishops’ Office of Film and Broadcasting has been heavily edited.

THE REVISED REVIEW IS HERE.

Most of the edits are in a positive direction. Many of Harry Forbes’ over-the-top gushy raves about the gay cowboy love story have been removed. For example, his opening remark that the movie "arrives at last" has now been snipped.

The review still gives the moral aspects of the film a back seat (not even getting to them until late in the review), but some of the deficiencies previously noted have been fixed. For example, the review’s discussion of Catholic teaching on homosexual behavior now reads:

The Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality is unambiguous. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church says, homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered" and the inclination itself is “objectively disordered.” At the same time, homosexually inclined persons “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity” (#2357 and #2358).

That’s a dramatic improvement over the original, which read:

As the Catholic Church makes a distinction between homosexual orientation and activity, Ennis and Jack’s continuing physical relationship is morally problematic.

The bottom line moral assessment of the film is better, but still a bit perplexing. It reads:

Use of the film as an advocacy vehicle to promote a morally objectionable message that homosexuality is equivalent to and as acceptable as heterosexuality does a disservice to its genuine complexity. While the actions taken by Ennis and Jack cannot be endorsed, the universal themes of love and loss ring true. The film creates characters of flesh and blood – not just the protagonists, but the wives, girlfriends, parents, and children — who give the film its artful substance.

However, the physicality of the men’s relationship and the film’s inherent sanctioning of their affair necessitate an O rating.

The opening statement that "use of the film as an advocacy vehicle . . . does a disservice to its genuine complexity" is perplexing. Talking about "use of the film" in the passive voice makes it sounds
like homosexual activists will be "using it" contrary to the true
"complexity" of the film. This generates a "Huh?" reaction.

As noted previously, the film sounds eminently suited to be an advocacy vehicle–and an especially dangerous and destructive one because it is made by a talented director (Ang Lee) who has imbued it with artistic qualities that enable it to better deliver its morally offensive payload to the audience.

Also perplexing is the statement that "the physicality of the men’s relationship and the film’s inherent sanctioning of their affair" are what necessitate an O rating.

Earlier the review cited two morally offensive grounds: (1) the homosexual nature of their relationship and (2) the fact that they commit adultery with each other after having married women.

The review goes out of its way to assert that the adultery aspect is "just as offensive from a Catholic perspective" (an assertion that is quite open to question; St. Thomas Aquinas would not concur), and so it’s no surprise to see the adultery aspect showing up in the justification for the O rating. But notice what’s changed: Previously it was noted that both homosexual behavior and the homosexual orientation itself are problematic (as are any sinful behaviors and sinful orientations–regardless of what the sin in question may be).

This has been downgraded in the final assessment to just "the physicality of the men’s relationship" making the movie morally offensive. As if it wouldn’t be offensive if the film communicated the message that it’s okay for two men to have an intense, romatic relationship as long as it doesn’t get physical?

This sounds like whoever is editing the review is still foot-dragging.

It’s not the physicality of the relationship that is the source of the problem, it’s the homosexuality of it.

At least, though, we now have an unambiguous O assigned to the film, without the finger-pointing at the Catholic News Service audience and the hinting that the film really still deserves only an L and that the OFB is being forced to assign it a rating other than what it believes the film deserves.

As you can see, not all gushy remarks about the film have been deleted. For example, there’s still the sonorous remark that in the film "the universal themes of love and loss ring true."

There’s are also the remarks that "The performances are superb" and "Australian Ledger may be the one to beat at Oscar time." The former may be true, and the latter probably is true–given Hollywood’s current tendency to reward iconoclastically morally offensive films at Oscar time (Cider House Rules [abortion], Million Dollar Baby [euthanasia], Boys Don’t Cry [transsexualism]).

It is not clear who is making these revisions, whether it is Harry Forbes or someone else. The OFB reviews do not carry bylines and the edited version of the review does not seem to appear on Catholic News Service (where Forbes’s byline was removed when the rating was changed from L to kinda-maybe-sorta O).

What is clear is that whoever did the edits has seen the film. In fact, there is new information in the review about the content of the film, including some that should have been given to the audience the first time.

The review is still flawed and still retains elements of Harry Forbes’ initial gushy rave review, but it’s a lot better than it was.

Waiting For Benedict

George Weigel has an interesting short piece in the L.A. Times that summarizes what B16 has done in office so far and what many expected him to do that–so far–he has not yet chosen to do.

It’s a nice year-end summary that is worth reading and that may provide a guide to coming days.

GET THE STORY.

UPDATE: The link has been changed to a non-registration required version.

The Asian Pope

Who’s the #1 religious leader in the world?

The pope . . . of course.

Who’s the #2?

Well, probably the dalai lama.

There a bit of assymetry, though. The pope is the figurehead of Christianity, which is the world’s largest religion. The dalai lama is the most famous Buddhist leader, but depending on what you count as a religion, Buddhism is only the fourth to the sixth largest religion (after Islam and Hinduism, for example).

But the other major religions don’t have generally recognized figureheads, and so the dalai lama gets second billing alongside the pope, without comparable religious leaders in the picture.

The result is that the media treats the Dalai Lama as kind of "the Asian pope."

The assymetry goes a bit deeper than what I’ve indicated, though, since the position of the pope and the dalai lama are assymeterical within their respetive religions. The pope is the head of the Catholic Church, which the original Christian communion and by far the largest. The communion that the dalai lama heads, though, is neither the original nor the largest Buddhist communion. He is the most influential leader in the Gelugpa sect of Tibetan Buddhism, though even then he is not its head (that would be the ganden tripa).

All of this assymetry encourages one to recognize the uniqueness of the pope as a religious leader, though that isn’t my point in writing.

I simply thought folks might be interested to read an interview (linked below) with the Dalai Lama and to know a little more about him since he makes such frequent appearances in the media.

The title "dalai lama" means something like "the ocean teacher" with the term "ocean" referring to the expansiveness of his teaching. The title is regarded as belonging to the successive reincarnations of a particular individual. The first dalai lama (though the title was not used in his day) was called Gedun Drub, who lived in the 1400s. The present dalai lama (Tenzin Gyatso) is the fourteenth dalai lama. (Dalai lamas have much longer reigns than popes since the office is a life-long one.)

When a dalai lama dies a search is conducted for his reincarnation, and this usually takes a few years. To help find the reincarnation, various children are shown personal belongings of the previous dalai lama, and if one of the children shows familiarity with these belongings, it is a sign that he may be the reincarnation.

To avoid disputes, the reincarnation of the dalai lama is officially recognized by another lama–known as the panchen lama. (Reciprocally, when the panchen lama dies, the dalai lama recognizes his reincarnation. The dalai lama also appoints the ganden tripa, which is a non-reincarnating office.)

At the moment there is a looming problem with the succession arrangements for the next dalai lama and that problem can be summed up in one word: China.

China took over Tibet when the current dalai lama was a teenager, and he has lived in exile in India for decades. It is probably this fact that accounts for much of the dalai lama’s recognition in the media. If China had never seized control of Tibet, he would just be the local major religious leader of Tibet, but the state of his country has projected him onto the world stage in a much more substantial way.

Now here’s the problem: The communist government of China has reserved to itself the approval of high-level reincarnations in Tibet (citing previous involvement by a Chinese emperor in the selection of the panchen lama).
After the takeover of Tibet, China put the previous panchen lama under house arrest for years and may have murdered him after he gave a speech critical of the communist government. His death led to a split in that the Chinese government now recognizes a different panchen lama than the dalai lama does.

Rather than be reincarnated in Chinese controlled territory, the dalai lama has also announced that he will be reborn in a free country, outside of Chinese control. He’s also suggested that he may not reincarnate at all.

This means that the stage is set for the coming of a false dalai lama–an Asian anti-pope, if you will. In the interview linked below, the present dalai lama states frankly:

As I’ve said earlier, whether this institution [of the dalai lama] will continue depends on the people. Under the best of circumstances, I think that the institution should continue. First, the maintenance of the institution is important. Then, there is the personal history. Both options should be kept open. If the Tibetan people want another reincarnation, then logically while we’re outside, the successor should be someone who can carry out this task, which has not yet been accomplished by the previous Dalai Lama. That means that he must come in a free country. But the Chinese government will also appoint a Dalai Lama. So there’ll be two Dalai Lamas. One Dalai Lama—the Chinese official Dalai Lama—the Tibetan people will have no faith in. Even the ordinary Chinese will have no faith in him. He’ll be a false Dalai Lama.

Another dimension of the problem is that the dalai lama is the head of the Tibetan government in exile, and China is deathly afraid that he or his successors could lead Tibet to attempt to separate from Chinese rule. In response the dalai lama has said that he is willing to renounce (including for his future incarnations) any political role in Tibet if it can have autonomy and freedom.

He is not shooting for independence, though. (That would send the Chinese government into orbit.) Instead, he is looking for something much more modest:

Meaningful autonomy. Autonomy is provided for in the Chinese constitution for minorities and special rights are guaranteed for Tibet. In communist states, sometimes the constitutions they write are not sincerely practiced. It’s a special sort of case with Tibet. It becomes possible to have one country, two systems. Why not? Let’s consider Tibet historically: Different language, different culture, different geographical location. So in order to get maximum satisfaction for the Tibetan people, I think a higher degree of autonomy should be given. Then Tibetan loyalty to the people of China will naturally come. Tibetans will enjoy true autonomy. That is the guarantee for preservation of our identity, our culture, our spirituality, our environment.

In Quebec in Canada, some politicians wanted independence, but when the people were asked, they saw that their greater interest, their greater benefit, was by staying within Canada. It’s similar with Scotland, also. Their high degree of autonomy within Great Britain gives them satisfaction. So giving a higher degree of autonomy brings no danger of separation.

It’s interesting reading the interview it the dalai lama, because on certain issues he seems to have a realistic understanding of the situation (e.g., the coming succession problem, the fact that some kind of autonomy but not full independence is all that can be hoped for at the moment). But on other issues he sounds completely unrealistic. (His suggestion that the U.S. should have had a non-violent response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11, for example, was from outer space.)

One item that was of particular interest in the interview was an equivalent to the woment’s ordination issue. While women can theoretically attain the highest forms of ordination in the dalai lama’s sect, they have not yet achieved such ordinations in comparable numbers, and this is a source of discomfort.

In any event,

GET THE INTERVIEW.

FINALLY! Command Line Info For Windows Explorer

I was going to put up a bleg about this but I found the answer myself and thought I’d share it with others.

For those of y’all using Windows XP (that’s probably most of you), I recently found out how to correct an annoying feature of the OS that I first ran across when I switched to XP.

I use Windows Explorer (NOT Internet Explorer) a lot to find files on my hard drive, but I’ve been annoyed with the fact that whenever I open it in XP it wouldn’t show me a hierarchy of folders in the left hand column but instead would show me a bunch of options for what I might do with files (like make a new folder, upload a file to the web, share a folder, etc.). This was VERY annoying as I had to click the "Folders" icon at the top to get the nested folder hierarchy so I could navigate it.

I figured there was a command line switch that I could set to correct this, but I never knew what it was.

Now I do.

To fix the problem, all you have to do is:

Right click on the icon you use to bring up Windows Explorer (I use one that I put in my Quick Launch bar at the bottom of my screen).
Select "Properties."
Select "Shortcut" (if it isn’t already selected).
Go into the field marked "Target:" and scroll to the end of it.
At the end type " /e" (that’s SPACE-SLASH-little e).
Close it all up and you’re done.

This way Windows Explorer will open with something USEFUL (the left nav folder hierarchy) instead of all those stupid "File and Folder Tasks" that you never use.

MORE THINGS YOU CAN DO WITH COMMAND-LINE SWITCHES FOR WINDOWS EXPLORER.

Be sure to note that you can also use a "/root" switch to set it to open a particular favorite location of yours (e.g., "My Documents").

Happy Leap Second!

Some person in authority–I don’t know who, very likely the astronomer royal–has decided that although for such a beastly month as February twenty-eight days as a rule are plenty, one year in every four his days shall be reckoned as nine and twenty.

That’s what we call "Leap Year"–when we get an extra day in the year (making it kind of a misnomer–and yes, I know that it wasn’t the astronomer royal who decided this).

This year, though, we get a leap second.

At 7 p.m. EST (4 p.m. PST), we’ll have an extra second inserted to account for the fact that the earth is slowing down its rotation (but ever so slowly, so we don’t notice).

Have fun with your extra second!

Be sure to party like it’s 1999!

GET THE STORY (WHICH WILL TAKE YOU LONGER THAN A SECOND TO READ).

1.5 Mil

Just passed the 1.5 millionth page view here on the blog.

YEE-HAW!!!

Next stop: 2 million!

BTW, I just made a couple of changes in the style sheet for the blog to (a) make who wrote what post more obvious and (b) make the font for entries larger. Feedback welcome.

Prenatal Testing

A reader writes:

Jimmy. My wife and I are quite pleased that she is expecting our second child. We found out that she was pregnant and the first ultrasound/OB visit is coming up soon.

We did not do any fetal testing with our first child and don’t plan on doing any fetal testing with this child, but I have been unable to find any official church teaching on fetal testing. Obviously there is opposition to almost all abortion, but do you have a good resource for what would be acceptable?

Obviously amnio increases the risk for miscarriage.

Thanks in advance.

First, let me clarify what you wrote regarding abortion. Any deliberate killing of the unborn–either as a means or an end–is homicide and cannot be done, no matter the circumstances. Thus it does not matter if prenatal testing showed that the unborn had a horrible genetic disease. He still has a right to life and can’t be killed.

When and whether prenatal testing is okay depends on two things: (1) the good to be achieved by doing the test and (2) the danger the test itself poses to the child.

If (1) is proportionate to (2) the the test is morally licit. If it is not (i.e., if the danger to the child is proportionately greater than the good to be achieved by the test) then the test is immoral.

Some tests seem to pose little risk to the child and can be done as long as one isn’t tempted to do something immoral (like have an abortion) if one finds out that there is a problem with the child. I gather that ultrasound generally falls into this category.

Other tests, like amniocentesis, pose more of a risk to the child. Such riskier procedures could be performed if there is a proportionate good to be achieved, such as the ability to treat the child in utero and cure the problem. That isn’t possible in many cases yet, but with the growth of gene therapy and nanotechnology it will be possible to help more children in utero.

Things like doing an amnio just so you can find out if the kid has Downs so that he can be whacked, however, are immoral.

So would be (in a few years) doing gene therapy on the kid not to correct genetic flaws but to produce a "designer baby."

HERE’S A STATEMENT FROM THE USCCB FROM 1996 ON THE SUBJECT OF GENETIC TESTING.

From what I can tell, this statement doesn’t seem to have Magisterial authority, but it does contain a helpful summary of recent Magisterial interventions on this topic:

More and more frequently, expectant mothers are undergoing amniocentesis, chorionic villus sampling, and other tests to detect genetic anomalies in their unborn children.

The most detailed Catholic teaching on this and related subjects appears in a 1987 statement from the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith called The Gift of Life (Donum Vitae). It asks: “Is prenatal diagnosis morally licit? If prenatal diagnosis respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safeguarding or healing as an individual, then the answer is affirmative” (sec. I, no. 2).

The Holy Father builds on this declaration in his recent encyclical The Gospel of Life (Evangelium Vitae), holding that prenatal diagnostic techniques are morally permissible “when they do not involve disproportionate risks for the child and the mother, and are meant to make possible early therapy or even to favor a serene and informed acceptance of the child not yet born” (no. 63).

However, some prenatal testing poses significant risks to the unborn child, especially when performed on embryos before selection for implantation in the womb. Disturbing test results can also tempt individuals to make decisions not in accord with sound morality. The Holy Father goes on to note:

But since the possibilities of prenatal therapy are today still limited, it not infrequently happens that these techniques are used with a eugenic intention which accepts selective abortion in order to prevent the birth of children affected by various types of anomalies. Such an attitude is shameful and utterly reprehensible, since it presumes to measure the value of a human life only within the parameters of “normality” and physical well-being, thus opening the way to legitimizing infanticide and euthanasia. (no. 63)

Hope this helps, and congratulations on your new pre-born baby!

B16’s Visit To Cologne Synagogue

You may remember that during Pope Benedict XVI’s visit to Cologne, Germany, for World Youth Day last August, he also set aside time to visit the synagogue in Cologne, which was reminiscent of John Paul II’s historic visit to Rome’s synagogue in 1986. Although the pictures were posted by a German news site at the link below in August, I recently found the link when I dropped in on a sedevacantist site that was still in a lather over the event four months later. I thought the pictures lovely and couldn’t resist posting one of my favorites here: a picture of a Jewish man wearing a commemorative yarmulke (i.e., a Jewish skullcap that looks similar to the episcopal zucchetto) that had been made in honor of Pope Benedict’s visit.

SEE THE PICTURES.

(NOTE: To better see the lettering on the yarmulke, you can click on the image to see the full-size photograph.)

But, Is It Art? Part I

Hey, Tim Jones, here.

I’ve been asked by some commenters here at JA.O what I thought about abstract art, and whether I appreciate any modern art (like that of Robert Motherwell, shown at left).

Now, I am no expert on anything. I am a practicing artist (a painter ) *begin hypnosis – VISIT MY WEBSITE – end hypnosis* with a Master’s degree in Fine Art. Maybe something worthwhile rubbed off while I was in college, but I do not present myself as any kind of Art Pundit.

I am also really not that well-read, so I can’t lay claim to any great depth of historical knowledge.

What I can try to do is to clarify some terms and state, in very simple language, what I believe art is and is supposed to "do". Art should not be presented (in my view) as the exclusive purview of highly trained experts. If you have to read a paper to understand a painting, it has already failed as a work of art, in my opinion.

I had a professor once, who traced the meaning of the word art back to it’s Latin root ars, pointing out that this was also the root of the word artificial. He went on to say that, in a sense, everything that is not from nature, that is "man-made", could be called "art".

This was received with knowing nods of approval at the time, probably even from me. It is an idea that still holds a great deal of sway in the world of modern art. The idea was that we should not take a narrow view of what is and is not art, which sounds okay, until you try to really begin talking about art.

The truth is, this is just not the way that people think and talk. In this broad, philosophical view of art, the tissue that I just used is "art". So is the notepad I just scribbled on, my shoelace, and every other human artifact you can think of.

The logical conclusion to this kind of thinking led the Dada-ists to hang latrines in museums, and still resonates to this day.

So, what separates art and fine art from non-art? Here is where it might help to draw and define some broad categories. You will see that there will be a good deal of possible overlap between them.

To get the ball rolling, I offer these working categories:

DESIGN – Everything that people make has a design. A tent, a spear point (like the one pictured) a clay pot, a mocassin, a tissue – all are made with an ideal design in mind. The actual object may be more or less close to the ideal, but the design is still evident. The design of an object can be pleasing, but this is not necessary. While some man-made objects may incidentally strike people as pleasing, the same is true of non-man-made objects. Design – in itself, then – would not be what we would call "art" in any commonly understood usage of the word. Art certainly incorporates design, but art is more than just design. Some design is so consciously elegant, though, that it becomes…

DECORATION – You might think that early in human history, people made plain things and gradually began to decorate them over time. There is no evidence for this, in fact. People have always decorated things. It’s what we do, and part of what makes us qualitatively different from the animals. From the beginning, people wanted to make their stuff look cool. So, clay pots received etched, painted or stamped decoration. Clothing was beaded and fringed and dyed. Spears were hung with feathers. People tattooed their skin. Decoration is just built into human beings.

Some of these decorations had symbolic meaning, and some did not. Decoration could be a simple geometric pattern, or an actual picture of something else. The purpose of the decoration, though, was always to add something (appeal, interest, information, etc…) to an already existing object, and was not there to be appreciated simply for itself. So while art can incorporate elements of decoration, decoration – by itself – does not constitute art. Decoration can, however, begin to take on the characteristics of…

ILLUSTRATION – Now we come to the real magic of art; that is, the ability to invoke, or to make present (in a way that is truly mysterious) something that is not there. Not only objects and creatures, but events and environments can be re-presented, merely by the etching of lines or the arrangement of pigment. You probably already have an intuitive grasp of something else that separates illustration from decoration – storytelling. Where do we generally find illustrations? In books.

Illustration exists, not to enliven some existing object or tool, but at the service of a story, or narrative. Many great pieces of art are illustrations, including so many of the wonderful religious icons you are familiar with. Norman Rockwell was proud to be called an illustrator. The strong narrative (story) element in his art makes it very illustrative. All illustration is art, then, but at times it can be elevated to…

FINE ART – What sets fine art apart from illustration is the way it treats this element of narrative or story. All images tell some kind of story, of course, but in fine art the narrative element is subordinated to the visual, sensual properties of the depicted objects (like in the piece at left, by artist Jeff Legg).

It might be a landscape, a woman, a bowl of fruit… but a piece of fine art exists as an homage to some discreet part of creation. Fine art is meant to be appreciated in itself, and by itself. It needs no underlying narrative (as a religious icon or other illustration does) to make sense of it.

Many great illustrations (like Michelangelo’s Pieta) cross over into the area of fine art, owing to the importance that they give to the native visual properties of the depicted objects, environments or people. Great artists often walk a line between illustration and fine art.

There is a danger, in pushing an illustration toward becoming fine art, that the visual elements of the image will overwhelm or detract from the desired narrative. This is why many religious icons are so graphic and simple. Too much attention to realism would actually serve as a distraction. As long as people can readily recognize who the icon symbolically represents, things like realistic shading or accurate anatomy are unnecessary.

There is, conversly, also a danger in allowing a piece of fine art to become bogged down in sentiment and narrative, to the detriment of the image. If an object can’t stand on it’s visual properties alone, then it’s presence in a piece of fine art becomes questionable.

Now, because of the arrangement of the above categories, you may have the idea that I think that fine art is superior to illustration, illustration to decoration, etc… . This is not the case. All of these things are good and necessary in their own right. The reason they are placed in a kind of ascending order is because each successive category comprehends, or incorporates, all the previous categories. So, all art involves design, but not all design is art. This will also be important in the next post…

BEYOND? – There are those who posit another kind of art that passes beyond mere illustration or representation, and becomes something greater. I will examine that idea in my next post, where I discuss Realism, Abstraction and Non-Objective Art.

There will be a quiz next Thursday. Bring two #2 pencils.

If you have read this far, God Bless You!!