The Demise of Western Culture and Art
Institu...@webtv.net
the last 15 years there has been an avalanche of pop culture bordering
on absurdity. What level have we reached when we accept a South Park
standard as entertainment ? Do we add the demise by taking good art
programs out of schools, colleges and universities?
Mr Char
KNBY...@interactive.rogers.com
aesthetics"................
KNBY...@interactive.rogers.com
intellectually, much of the western world could easily sink into a new
Dark Age. We don't seem to care about anything that happened more than
50 years ago. Most peopes understanding of history seems to begin with
who won WW11. We have truly "Silenced The Past".
The West is so obsessed with its own moment of blossoming that it
forgets that fame is a fleeting thing. Flowers fade and die no matter
how vigorous they appear. But the roots of a plant will often survive.
We seem to have forgotten how and why we got here.
Having had the good fortune of studying at a time when, "The Classics"
were still in vogue, I find it worrying that so few people understand
the basics of anything. Music is just loud, debate is now idle chatter,
history is a television station and politics is a television commercial.
Philosophy is just a word and art is what you see on the front of your
corn flakes box. Mind you, so much of this was predicted by deToquville
(read a bit liberally).
One of the most amazing statistics that I have ever heard is that the
Golden Age of Greece was approximately 60 years long. The civilization
that formed the basis of all of western civilization lasted only 60
years. All of that knowledge was lost during the European Dark Ages and
the regaining of it was a key factor in the Renaisance. The Dark Ages
of course was a period of time when the Religious Reich (thank you)
ruled Europe with an iron grip.
Studying the history of thought aesthetics is about as passe as the hula
hoop, but I fear that unless we return to it we are doomed.
AndyB
wrote:
Yet hasn't it always been the case? Genius, by definition is
exceptional and thus exceedingly rare. We can marvel at the genius of
Michaelangelo, Shakespeare, Dante, Beethoven et al, but what is
forgotten is that they too were surrounded by, for want of a better
word, hacks. Shakespeare after all was only a jobbing
actor/playwright at the time.
Nothing changes, the majority of work which can be lumped together
under the category "Art" has always been less than wonderful, and even
that which is now considered "great" art has always had its
contemporary detractors - Van Gogh died in poverty; Emily Dickinson
never published a poem; Raymond Chandler wrote "pulp" fiction which
sold for a few cents; Charles Dickens wrote serials in periodicals;
Beethoven's 3rd Symphony was poorly received, it is now considered by
many to have been his best.
Great artists still abound, we may not recognize it at this
moment in time, but in 30 or 40 years if we're still around, their
names will be known by many.
Rgds
AndyB
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest
exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search
for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
John Kenneth Galbraith
KNBY...@interactive.rogers.com
modern age. Perhaps none more so than Picasso but there are many other
great moderns such as Sartre, Duke Ellington (the greatest of all
American composers) and many others. I think that greatness in art is
given more credit today than at any time in the past. This may be due
to the incredible affluence of the past century. There is probably more
art and culture consumed today than at any other time.
The problem, as I see it, is that the marketplace has placed the double
burdens of time and commercialism on creative people. And this doesn't
work. One does not wake up in the morning and say, "Well I think that
I'll be creative today". Creativity doesn't work that way. Yes there
are the Mozarts and Picassos who could create at bedazzling speed. But
these great geniuses don't operate in a vacuum. History has shown that
human creativity must be nurtured, as in medieval Florence or the Paris
of the last few centuries.
Much as Charles Darwin achieved the greatest advance in evolutionary
theory rather than originating it and Thomas Edison perfected the
incandescent light bulb rather than inventing the idea, great artists
have usually developed in a creative milleu that was fostered by rich
patrons, kings and governments (most notably European ones....anyone??).
Similar creativity also has shown up in the sciences such as the great
universities of Germany, France, England and now the United States.
I've also stated this in another posting, but there is a huge danger
that art for art's sake will be abandoned. The West lost its capacity
of creaivity and intellect before and it can happen again.
Creativity is now viewed as a political movement of the left because
art can only exist in a free and liberal environment if it is to grow
Much as the massive funding for space research and particle physics has
allowed much "pure research" that has resulted in wonderful
technological applications, there must be an environment for art to
thrive as well.
As an example of this point, Jazz music developed completely in the US,
however the creative genius behind the art form was the African soul.
Many of the great jazz artists fled the US because of racism where they
would always be "niggers" despite their artistic genius. Europeans (the
French mostly but others too) welcomed the great American Artistes with
open arms, treated them with all due priveledge
and, had it not been for Johnson's Anti-Apartheid legislation, would
have completely stolen the art form. The jazz scene in Europe and now
Japan (for the same reason) equals and competes with the US this day.
Art is both a part of and a result of culture. Great liberal cultures,
whether in decline or not, produce great art. Repressive closed
cultures (environments) do not......ever seen any great Nazi art??????
And art is not and never has been about money, despite the odd artist
who does make money.
AndyB
KNBY...@interactive.rogers.com wrote:
>Very true but many modern geniuses do get recognized while alive in
>modern age.
Most of the "old masters" and certainly the Renaissance masters were
recognised as great during their lifetimes, and many were extremely
well off, notably Michaelangelo.
>Perhaps none more so than Picasso but there are many other
>great moderns such as Sartre, Duke Ellington (the greatest of all
>American composers) and many others. I think that greatness in art is
>given more credit today than at any time in the past.
Yes, and I also think we are quicker to bestow greatness on artists
today than they were in the past. As such, true greatness has
probably been devalued.
> This may be due
>to the incredible affluence of the past century. There is probably more
>art and culture consumed today than at any other time.
>
>The problem, as I see it, is that the marketplace has placed the double
>burdens of time and commercialism on creative people. And this doesn't
>work. One does not wake up in the morning and say, "Well I think that
>I'll be creative today". Creativity doesn't work that way. Yes there
>are the Mozarts and Picassos who could create at bedazzling speed. But
>these great geniuses don't operate in a vacuum. History has shown that
>human creativity must be nurtured, as in medieval Florence or the Paris
>of the last few centuries.
But then as I say, most artists of the past made a living out of
selling their wares. In fact, although certainly some artists were
"driven", like Van Gogh or Dickinson, to produce work, most were doing
it earn a crust. Most great art was, in its day, commercial art and
not simply art for art's sake.
>
>Much as Charles Darwin achieved the greatest advance in evolutionary
>theory rather than originating it and Thomas Edison perfected the
>incandescent light bulb rather than inventing the idea, great artists
>have usually developed in a creative milleu that was fostered by rich
>patrons, kings and governments (most notably European ones....anyone??).
>
>Similar creativity also has shown up in the sciences such as the great
>universities of Germany, France, England and now the United States.
>
>I've also stated this in another posting, but there is a huge danger
>that art for art's sake will be abandoned. The West lost its capacity
>of creaivity and intellect before and it can happen again.
Yet I would argue that certainly in the field of literature, and
especially in American literature which seems to have retained a
vibrancy which IMHO, English literature has lost, we have writers as
talented as there has ever been.
It might be argued that "serious" music has suffered in the
post-modern age, in fact it can be argued it has been almost
completely eclipsed by popular music there can be reasonable arguments
made that, if rarely, an artist like Bob Dylan - whose music does
nothing for me I'm afraid - has touched true greatness, and should be
compared against the great composers rather than the minnows that
scramble about in his shadow.
Film is a relatively new medium, yet it is an immensely powerful
medium which too strives for greatness, and indeed in some instances
has almost certainly come very close, and probably has actually
reached it.
>
> Creativity is now viewed as a political movement of the left because
>art can only exist in a free and liberal environment if it is to grow
>Much as the massive funding for space research and particle physics has
>allowed much "pure research" that has resulted in wonderful
>technological applications, there must be an environment for art to
>thrive as well.
>
>As an example of this point, Jazz music developed completely in the US,
>however the creative genius behind the art form was the African soul.
>Many of the great jazz artists fled the US because of racism where they
>would always be "niggers" despite their artistic genius. Europeans (the
>French mostly but others too) welcomed the great American Artistes with
>open arms, treated them with all due priveledge
>and, had it not been for Johnson's Anti-Apartheid legislation, would
>have completely stolen the art form. The jazz scene in Europe and now
>Japan (for the same reason) equals and competes with the US this day.
>
>Art is both a part of and a result of culture. Great liberal cultures,
>whether in decline or not, produce great art. Repressive closed
>cultures (environments) do not......ever seen any great Nazi art??????
Pre-communist China, the archetypal closed society, did, and still
does, produce great art as did Tsarist and even late-communist Russia,
but in general I accept what you're saying with the proviso that the
Nazis, or Stalinist eras failed to produce great art because artist
were controlled and not allowed to have freedom of expression. Such
freedoms can be present even in repressive societies if the rulers
view art as important in itself rather than merely as a means to
spread propaganda. Russian artists after Stalin still lived in a
repressive regime, yet many of the Russian population were highly
educated - moreso than in the west - and the state actively sponsored
certain notable artists and mediums (ballet and opera spring to mind).
>
>And art is not and never has been about money, despite the odd artist
>who does make money.
I'd agree that "Great Art" cannot be about money, but not all art is
great, and some of what can be labelled as art, is most certainly
produced only for the money. Cue the huge argument...."but what is
Art?"
AndyB gracefully bows out here.
KNBY...@interactive.rogers.com
artist.....lol!!!! I would never try to formulate a definition of art,
especially not online for the world to see. However I do think that
aesthetics has much to do with it and utilitarianism doesn't necessarily
have much to do with it at all.
However to return to the issue at hand, art is an expression of
aesthetics and, at least to my mind, may be viewed as a garden. It must
be nurtured and tended for its own sake. Gardeners create their gardens
for the sheer delight of doing so. Art is limitless and boundless and
is a true reflection of the society which creates it and the
philosophies upon which that society is based. Gregorian music reflects
the somber centrally controlled society that produced it. Western art
of the last 100 years has become increasing abstract and seemingly
without form, but in fact it is simply about new forms. It reflects a
world that, with great difficulty, threw off the shackles of despotism,
narrow mindedness, theocracratic control etc.
I think that there is a political tendency in western society to view
art as the leading edge of anarchy and therefore to stop funding it.
But all that that would accomplish would be to shoot the messenger.