Art as Torture
Rowland Croucher
post).
--
Shalom!
Rowland Croucher
http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/index.htm
(9200+ articles)
~~~
Clergy/Leaders' Mail-list No. 3-045 (Apologetics and Social Issues)
ART AS TORTURE: Rejecting Christian Ideas of Beauty
BreakPoint with Charles Colson Commentary #030207
The Spanish Civil War has often been called a "dress rehearsal" for
World War II. Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin assisted both sides in
what was a brutal conflict.
But there was one bit of brutality in that war that was completely
homegrown: the use of modern art as a form of torture.
Jose Milicua, a Spanish art historian, recently uncovered evidence
of what were called "colored cells," used by anarchist forces in
Barcelona. The cells, inspired by the work of artists like Wassily
Kandinsky and Salvador Dali, were employed in what their designer
called "psychotechnic torture" of prisoners.
The cells' floors were arranged in a way that forced prisoners to
stare at the walls. The walls were curved and utilized mind-
altering geometric shapes, "color, perspective, and scale."
Lighting created the illusion that the shapes were moving. This
produced feelings of confusion, depression, and distress among the
prisoners.
Spain's leading newspaper, El Pais, insisted that the creators of
such "revolutionary and liberating [artistic] languages" as
surrealism "could never have imagined that they would be so
intrinsically linked to repression."
Maybe those artistic "revolutionaries" did not imagine their art
could be used to torture, but the artists knew what they were
doing. For surrealism and other kinds of modern art, shocking
conventional sensibilities was an important, if not the most
important, function of art. In their conception, art is supposed to
confuse, disorient, and distress. And so what happened in the
Spanish "colored cells" differed only in degree, not in kind, from
what was happening in art galleries.
What's more, the artists, like the creators of the "colored cells,"
saw a connection between their creations and politics. Art can be a
tool for transforming the larger culture.
Just about the only connection they did not draw was the one
between art and beauty. That connection was severed when the West
turned its back on the Christian tradition. And this connection is
central to the Christian understanding of art.
When we see and appreciate beautiful things, we recognize that this
beauty isn't an accident. We know that they are the product of an
intelligence, the artist. And, what's more, that artist is the
product of an even greater intelligence, the Creator of all.
This recognition is why Thomas Aquinas defined beauty as "that
which, when seen, pleases." We are pleased when we see the
beautiful because we recognize "God's good and orderly creation" in
artistic efforts. We glimpse what C. S. Lewis called "joy," that
is, a hint of paradise. It is the quality that distinguishes what
we call "art," like painting or sculpture, from other human
endeavors. And it is this quality of beauty that draws us to art.
Much of twentieth century art is the story of a rebellion against
"any hint of the sublime or beautiful rooted in creation." Is it
any wonder that rejecting the tradition that taught us how to think
and create-a tradition based on a Christian worldview-would produce
ugliness? I have always contended that only a biblical view of life
allows you to live rationally. And those Spanish prisoners driven
mad by modern art would surely agree.
----------------------
"Jail cells 'made from modern art,'" BBC News, 27 January 2003.
Giles Tremlett, "Anarchists and the fine art of torture," The
Guardian (London), 27 January 2003.
Steve Turner, Imagine: A Vision for Christians in the Arts
(InterVarsity, 2001).
=========================================
Copyright (c) 2003 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with
permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of
Prison Fellowship Ministries.
~~~
Clergy/Leaders' Mailing List (Moderated)
This mailing list is open to all Christians via Internet e-mail.
Submissions welcome: <cle...@pastornet.net.au>
(in DOS ASCII Text format please if 'attached' or 'imported')
To subscribe, e-mail to: clergy-...@pastornet.net.au
with SUBJECT reading SUBSCRIBE
Michael
Croucher" <rcro...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
Much of the 20th Century is the story of a rebellion against God, freedom,
and Christianity. No wonder the 20th Century was the bloodiest century in
history and exceeds the atrocities of all previous centuries put together
and brought the bloodbaths of communism, evolutionism, abortionism,
Nazism, athiesm, and now we even understand, ugly art to go with the mix.
--
Michael
People who donšt read newspapers are better off than those
who do because it is better to be uninformed than misinformed.
-- Thomas Jefferson
Dana Prescott
Interesting post. While I can't align with those simplistic (or
nostalgic) aesthetic reductionists who believe all art must be
"uplifting" and "comforting", I've still got to admit that being
forced to listen to Elliot Carter (an extremely cerebral and atonal
contemporary "academic composer") for 24 straight hours would reduce
any normal human being's brain to silly putty! His music is absolutely
crazy-making for most of us. On the other hand, Benjamin Britten's
"War Requiem" is also a mighty tough and astringent work -- but it
remains quite accessible, and deeply moving, in its capacity to touch
our innate emotions. The basic flaw in the (alleged) Thomistic thesis
is that if it were rigorously applied, music would never have been
allowed to advance beyond the tropes of plainsong and "organum"
composition which prevailed in the Middle Ages! Ultimately, I think,
it's a competent artist's INTENTIONS which get communicated to us
through his/her work. If we share (or at least respect) the artist's
intentions, we'll be "on frequency" with the work. But if we despise
what the artist stands for, sparks are gonna fly.
Michael
high...@yahoo.com (Dana Prescott) wrote:
I enjoy the work of many artists, musicians, and actors, yet despise the
anti-Christ positions they often stand for.
Dana Prescott
> I enjoy the work of many artists, musicians, and actors, yet despise the
> anti-Christ positions they often stand for.
Hmmmm....still trying to parse that one, Michael. I suppose the
classic illustration of what you say would be the 19th Century German
composer, Richard Wagner, who clearly gave us some of the most
important (and monumental) operatic works in the history of Western
Civilization. He was believed (from his private writings, not from his
music) to have certain anti-Semitic penchants. 75 years later, Hitler
seized upon this quirk of Wagner's private beliefs, and virtually
"canonized" Wagner as the single German composer whose work most
"perfectly" expressed the mythos of the Reich.
Because of Hitler's wicked expropriation of Wagner's artistry (the
fact of which is undeniable), the government of Israel, until very
recently, refused to allow any of Wagner's music to be played in
public within the country. A number of world-famous conductors --
including Jewish ones -- thought this position on the part of the
Israeli government was very harsh and extremist and immature. The
formal ban has now been lifted; but playing Wagner in Israel is still
a dicey proposition, which is likely to be met with disturbances and
cat-calls among the audience members.
Should Wagner be blamed for what Hitler did to him? Should a flaw in
the artist's character (and don't we all have them?) be allowed to
subvert, even to negate, his monumental importance as an artist --
when that flaw itself was really not referenced explicitly in his
music?
Good questions. I don't have easy answers, but I'm open to continuing
the discussion.
Bill Jarrell
And why not mention rock'n roll while you're at it? I don't see
what modern art has to do with Stalin and Hitler? They hated modern
art and their regimes suppressed it. The art that was allowed to
flourish under these regimes had to be didactic and uplifting,
promoting a sense of political order and purpose. Dali, Picasso,
Pollack, Magritte, and even Warhol had no place in these regimes. The
art sanctioned by these regimes was usually stale illustrations and
kitsch promoting the national purpose. Portraits of the leader
surrounded by happy workers and images of muscular soldiers were the
artistic life of these regimes, not random patterns of dripped paint
or folding watches. Stalinist art has more in common with Thomas
Kinkade than it does with Picasso. Stalinist aesthetic theory has more
in common with Francis Schaeffer than it does with the abstract
impressionist school of art.
Bill Jarrell
Dana Prescott
figured I'd share:
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1646/3660569.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wagner's anti-Semitism debated as his 'Flying Dutchman' opens
Michael Anthony, Star Tribune
Published February 21, 2003 OPRA21
Richard Wagner predicted that his music would drive men mad.
While that hasn't turned out literally to be true, many have become
intoxicated listening to the most overheated passages of his operas.
And debates about Wagner's rather poisonous character and its relation
to his work seem never to be resolved.
To set the stage for the Minnesota Opera production of "The Flying
Dutchman," which opens tomorrow night in St. Paul, the University of
Minnesota and several co-sponsors presented an all-day symposium last
Saturday, with scholars from around the country delivering papers on
two major themes: "Wagner's Music" and "Wagner and the Jews."
The keynote speaker was Gottfried Wagner, the composer's
great-grandson (and great-great-grandson of Franz Liszt), who is,
among other things, a Kurt Weill scholar and a founder of the
Post-Holocaust Dialogue Group, which promotes discussion among
descendants of the Nazis and those who were victimized by them.
Often called the "black sheep" of the Wagner family, the 56-year-old
Gottfried has spent more than a decade lecturing and writing about his
family and its connections to the Third Reich and Adolf Hitler.
Gottfried Wagner has revealed how his father, Wolfgang, and his
pro-Nazi grandmother, Winifred, cloaked their close relationship to
Hitler in order to maintain control of the Wagner shrine at Bayreuth
after World War II. Gottfried has been banned from the Bayreuth
Festival, where the operas are presented each summer, and he and his
father, who directs the festival, haven't spoken since 1990.
All the speakers held the view that Wagner's character, especially the
anti-Semitism expressed so overtly in his 1850 essay, "Jewishness in
Music," shouldn't be ignored or whitewashed. Both Marc Weiner of
Indiana University and Paul Rose of Penn State went further,
identifying what they perceive as anti-Semitic stereotypes in Wagner's
operas: Alberich and Mime in the "Ring" and, more obviously,
Beckmesser in "Die Meistersinger."
"Anti-Semitism is a crucial and indispensable element of the operas,"
said Rose, author of "Anti-Semitism in Music: Wagner and the Origins
of the Holocaust."
But the odd thing, Weiner said, is that those stereotyped figures are
the operas' most interesting characters. "Siegfried and Siegmund are
boring," he said, referring to Wagner's blond, brawny, Nordic types,
seen by some as precursors to Hitler's "pure" Aryans.
Nor should knowledge of Wagner and his operas keep us from
appreciating these works, he said. "If I refused to listen to Wagner's
music because I'm Jewish, I'd be doing what Wagner wanted," he said.
Gottfried Wagner, whose vigorous blond good looks ironically suggest a
modern-day Siegfried or Siegmund, argued in his talk for an
"alternative Wagner research," a long-range project that would correct
some of the distortions about his great-grandfather and his
descendants. "For instance, the Wagner family and the [Bayreuth]
festival hold the letters between Hitler and the Wagners and won't
give them up," he said.
Sexism in 'Dutchman'?
What bothers him about "The Flying Dutchman" isn't so much
anti-Semitism but sexism. "Wagner's women all die to save a man.
That's Senta," he said, referring to the opera's main female
character, the dream-sick girl whom the wealthy Dutchman offers to buy
from her father.
Indeed most productions of the "Dutchman" portray Senta as a passive
-- and willing -- victim, making the active figure the Dutchman, the
ship captain who is doomed to sail through eternity until he is saved
by a woman's love. The Minnesota Opera production, staged by David
Roth with designs by Keith Warner, might alter that perspective a bit,
however, in that it presents the action as Senta's dream.
Bass-baritone Greer Grimsley will portray the Dutchman. He is most
noted here for his dramatically compelling portrayal of Scarpia in
"Tosca" a few seasons back and for playing all four villains in "The
Tales of Hoffmann."
He has sung the Dutchman in Italy, in Germany and in Utah. The German
production, for the Deutsche Oper in Berlin, was staged by the
renowned Götz Friedrich updated to 1944; the Dutchman's crew was made
up of war refugees.
The character, regardless of production concepts or of Wagner's own
prejudices, is shrouded in myth and symbol -- a challenge for the
actor. "That's one thing about Wagner that's so interesting," Grimsley
said. "He deals a lot in myth, but at the same time he makes these
characters palpable.
"As far as the Dutchman, none of us knows what it's like to be undead
for hundreds of years. But the search for someone's soulmate, for
someone you've dreamed about, is very real. It's something a lot of
people dream about."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think this poses the pertinent issues of the thread extremely well.
Closer to home, Ezra Pound, one of the most important and influential
20th Century American poets (who was instrumental, as an editorial
"hidden hand", in helping give shape to T.S. Eliot's "The Wasteland"),
was also a professed fascist during the 1930s, aligning himself with
the Axis, rather than the Allies. His fascist political views got him
committed (unfairly and unwarrantedly, some would say) to a mental
institution, upon his capture by U.S. troops in Italy, and forcible
repatriation to the United States.
Western society typically has a "soft spot" for great artists, and
tends to try to "cut them some slack", because of the vital importance
of what they contribute to our humanity. (Even Mozart was something of
a libertine rake and a cad, especially in his early 20s, and had more
than a touch of "sociopathic narcissism" ingrained into his
personality! Do we discount the glories of his music because of that?)
Juicy thread! Other comments?
Dana Prescott
> > Much of the 20th Century is the story of a rebellion against God, freedom,
> > and Christianity. No wonder the 20th Century was the bloodiest century in
> > history and exceeds the atrocities of all previous centuries put together
> > and brought the bloodbaths of communism, evolutionism, abortionism,
> > Nazism, athiesm, and now we even understand, ugly art to go with the mix.
> And why not mention rock'n roll while you're at it? I don't see
> what modern art has to do with Stalin and Hitler? They hated modern
> art and their regimes suppressed it. The art that was allowed to
> flourish under these regimes had to be didactic and uplifting,
> promoting a sense of political order and purpose. Dali, Picasso,
> Pollack, Magritte, and even Warhol had no place in these regimes. The
> art sanctioned by these regimes was usually stale illustrations and
> kitsch promoting the national purpose. Portraits of the leader
> surrounded by happy workers and images of muscular soldiers were the
> artistic life of these regimes, not random patterns of dripped paint
> or folding watches. Stalinist art has more in common with Thomas
> Kinkade than it does with Picasso. Stalinist aesthetic theory has more
> in common with Francis Schaeffer than it does with the abstract
> impressionist school of art.
>
> Bill Jarrell
Excellent and accurate scholarly points, Bill. Certainly the
underlying intentionality of leftist/anti-fascist artists is something
which political progressives will celebrate and affirm, and political
(perhaps also theological) conservatives will loathe and despise. The
reasons for this difference of response run deep, and seem ultimately
to strike radically differing, embedded, perhaps innate, traits of
human characer, rather than being truly explicable by one's
intellectual espousal of some external ideological "froth"
The caveat is that this doesn't mean that leftist/insurrectionist art
is something to which we might turn for ongoing spiritual nourishment.
Returning to my preferred art (music), I'm glad that very tough
compositional work (such as the "Holocaust" and "Hiroshima" memorial
pieces of a whole variety of modern composers) is being produced. It's
vital that it be written and recorded for history. It's dishonest NOT
to address, through art, these catastrophic woundings of our humanity.
But I would still never be tempted to leave one of those musical
pieces on "repeat play" on the CD deck overnight, if I wanted to
create a environment of subtle, peaceful, blessed energy, which would
actually invite angelic beings to "come and visit" at the Dream
Boundary. (Believe me, this WILL indeed happen, if you choose your
ambiant aesthetic environment consciously and appropriately.) An album
of devotional chanting, or a Bach Cantata, would be a much more
sensible option to "invite the angels" to draw near to you, while
you're "out of the body".
Perhaps we just need to make peace with the fact that differing art
serves differing purposes, in the affirmation and preservation of the
whole spectrum of our human experience on this planet. Some of these
affirmations show us heaven. Some of these affirmations show us hell.
We need to appreciate the fact that "both exist". But we also need to
appreciate the fact that we have the power, the choice and the option
to align ourselves with one or the other "kind" of experience, by the
willful choices we make.
Bill Jarrell
> bjar...@bellsouth.net (Bill Jarrell) wrote in message news:<cb528405.03030...@posting.google.com>...>
>
> > > Much of the 20th Century is the story of a rebellion against God, freedom,
> > > and Christianity. No wonder the 20th Century was the bloodiest century in
> > > history and exceeds the atrocities of all previous centuries put together
> > > and brought the bloodbaths of communism, evolutionism, abortionism,
> > > Nazism, athiesm, and now we even understand, ugly art to go with the mix.
>
> > And why not mention rock'n roll while you're at it? I don't see
> > what modern art has to do with Stalin and Hitler? They hated modern
> > art and their regimes suppressed it. The art that was allowed to
> > flourish under these regimes had to be didactic and uplifting,
> > promoting a sense of political order and purpose. Dali, Picasso,
> > Pollack, Magritte, and even Warhol had no place in these regimes. The
> > art sanctioned by these regimes was usually stale illustrations and
> > kitsch promoting the national purpose. Portraits of the leader
> > surrounded by happy workers and images of muscular soldiers were the
> > artistic life of these regimes, not random patterns of dripped paint
> > or folding watches. Stalinist art has more in common with Thomas
> > Kinkade than it does with Picasso. Stalinist aesthetic theory has more
> > in common with Francis Schaeffer than it does with the abstract
> > impressionist school of art.
> >
> > Bill Jarrell
>
> Excellent and accurate scholarly points, Bill.
Thank you.
> Certainly the
> underlying intentionality of leftist/anti-fascist artists is something
> which political progressives will celebrate and affirm, and political
> (perhaps also theological) conservatives will loathe and despise. The
> reasons for this difference of response run deep, and seem ultimately
> to strike radically differing, embedded, perhaps innate, traits of
> human characer, rather than being truly explicable by one's
> intellectual espousal of some external ideological "froth"
>
I don't see it in terms of leftists and political conservatives
being at odds over art. In some ways I think they're similar because
they both reject the idea of "art for art's sake" in favor of the
belief that true art is suppose to serve their worldview. All art may
reflect a worldview, but alot of the great art wasn't in service to
some cause. I was talking about the Soviet and Nazi regimes. The
official art in these regimes was didactic. I was taking exception to
the suggestion that modern art and surrealist art was somehow
connected to these regimes and their attrocities.
I think Colson's essay can be dismissed as vapid. The Spanish
anarchists were trying to convert Nationalist prisoners. What they did
would be like making al-Quieda(sp?) prisoners listen to Lee
Greenwood's "God Bless the USA" in the hope that it might change them.
The Spanish anarchists had theories about modern art freeing people
from conventional beliefs. They weren't using it as a torture device.
They liked it. They thought everyone should like it. Colson fails to
note that art is often in the eye of the beholder and anything could
be used as torture. For some people opera would be torture while rap
would be torture for others. Colson's theory that modern art only
exists as a torture device, like a psychological thumbscrew, is
rubbish.
As for linking modern art to Stalinism, it should be noted that the
Communists purged the anarchists.
> The caveat is that this doesn't mean that leftist/insurrectionist art
> is something to which we might turn for ongoing spiritual nourishment.
> Returning to my preferred art (music), I'm glad that very tough
> compositional work (such as the "Holocaust" and "Hiroshima" memorial
> pieces of a whole variety of modern composers) is being produced. It's
> vital that it be written and recorded for history. It's dishonest NOT
> to address, through art, these catastrophic woundings of our humanity.
> But I would still never be tempted to leave one of those musical
> pieces on "repeat play" on the CD deck overnight, if I wanted to
> create a environment of subtle, peaceful, blessed energy, which would
> actually invite angelic beings to "come and visit" at the Dream
> Boundary. (Believe me, this WILL indeed happen, if you choose your
> ambiant aesthetic environment consciously and appropriately.) An album
> of devotional chanting, or a Bach Cantata, would be a much more
> sensible option to "invite the angels" to draw near to you, while
> you're "out of the body".
>
> Perhaps we just need to make peace with the fact that differing art
> serves differing purposes, in the affirmation and preservation of the
> whole spectrum of our human experience on this planet. Some of these
> affirmations show us heaven. Some of these affirmations show us hell.
> We need to appreciate the fact that "both exist". But we also need to
> appreciate the fact that we have the power, the choice and the option
> to align ourselves with one or the other "kind" of experience, by the
> willful choices we make.
I agree. Sometimes the purpose art should be showing us hell. Take
Picasso's most famous painting Guernica. It's about an air raid during
the Spanish Civil War. It's not something one would want to look in
the morning. But it is something to look at and then ponder the
brutality of war. It serves a different purpose from a Georgia O'Keefe
picture of a flower. I would prefer looking at that when I got out of
bed.
Bill Jarrell