Christianity and Liberalism (excerpts about education)
david_l...@my-deja.com
Machen (1923), originally published by Macmillan it is now in the public
domain: [This is a great little book and what was true about religion
and was true about education in 1923 is still true. Machen was the
Professor of New Testament at Princeton Seminary at the time.]
"The modern world represents in some aspects an enormous
improvement over the world in which our ancestors lived; but in other
respects it exhibits a lamentable decline. The improvement appears in
the physical conditions of life, but in the spiritual realm there is a
corresponding loss. The loss is clearest, perhaps, in the realm of
art. Despite the might revolution which has been produced in the
external conditions of life, no great poet is now living to celebrate
the change; humanity has suddenly become dumb. Gone, too, are the
great painters and the great musicians, and the great sculptors. The
art that still subsists is largely imitative, and where it is not
imitative it is usually bizarre. Even the appreciation of the glories
of the past is gradually being lost, under the influence of a
utilitarian education that concerns itself only with the production of
physical well-being. The 'Outline of History' of Mr. H.G. Wells, with
it contemptous neglect of all the higher ranges of human life, is a
thoroughly modern book.
This unprecedencted decline in literature and art is only one
manifestation of a more far-reaching phenomenon; it is only one
instance of that narrowing of the range of personality which has been
going on in the modern world. The whole development of modern
society has tended mightily toward the limitation of the realm of
freedomfor the individual man. ... In other words, utilitarianism is
being carried to its logical conclusions; in the interests of physical
well-being the great principles of liberty are being thrown ruthlessly
to the winds.
The result is an unparalleled impoverishment of human life. Personality
can only be developed in the realm of individual state. And that realm,
in the modern state, is being slowly but steadily contracted. The
tendency is making itself felt especially in the sphere of education.
The object of education, it is now assumed, is the production of the
greatest happiness for the greatest number. But the greatest happiness
for the greatest number, it is assumed further, can be defined only by
the will of the majority. Idiosyncasies in education, therefore, it is
said, must be avoided, and the choice of schools must be taken away
from the individual parent and placed in the hands of the state.
...
In the state of Oregon, on Election Day, 1922, a law was passed by a
referendumvote in accordance with which all children in the state are
required to attend the public schools. [DLH Note: This law and others
like it were later made invalid because the US Supreme Court declared
them unconstitutional.]
...
When one considers what the public schools of America in many
places already are -- their materialism, their discouragement of any
sustained intellectual effort, their encouragement of the dangerous
pseudo-scientific fads of experimental psychology--one can only be
appalled by the thought of a commonwealth in which there is no escape
from such a soul-killing system.
...
A public school system, if it means the providing of free education for
those who desire it, is a noteworthy and beneficent aschievement of
modern times; but when once it becomes monpolistic it is the most
perfect instrument of tyranny which has yet been devised. Freedom of
thought was combated by the Inquisition, but the modern method is far
more effective. Place the lives of children in their formative years,
despite the convictions of their parents, under the intimate control of
experts appointed by the state, force them to attend schools where the
higher aspirations of humanity are crushed out, and where the mind is
filled with the materialism of the day, and it is difficult to see how
even the remnants of liberty can subsist. Such a tyranny, supported as
it is by a perverse technique used as the instrument in destroying
human souls, is certainly far more dangerous than the crude tyrannies
of the past, which despite their weapons of fire and sword permitted
thought atleast to be free.
The truth is that the materialistic paternalism of the present day, if
allowed to go on unchecked, will rapidly make of America one huge
"Main Street," where spiritual adventure will be discouraged and
democracy will be regarded as consisting in the reduction of all mankind
to the proportions of the narrowest and least gifted of the citizens.
God grant that there may come a reaction, and that the great principles
of Anglo-Saxon liberty may be rediscovered before it is too late! But
whatever solution be found for the educational and social problems of
our own country, a lamentable condition must be detected in the world
at large. It cannot be denied that great men are few or non-existent,
and that there has been a general contracting of the areea of personal
life. Material betterment has gone hand in hand with spiritual decline.
Sucn a condition of the world ought to cause the choice between
modernism and traditionalism, liberalism and conservatism, to be
approached without any of the prejudice which is too often displayed. In
view of the lamentable defects of modern life, a type of religion
certainly should not be commended because it is modern or condemned
because it is old. On the contrary, the condition of mankind is such
that one may well ask what it is that made the men of past generations
so great and the men of the present generation so small. In the midst
of all the material achievements of modern life, one may well ask the
question whether in gaining the whole world we have not lost our own
soul. Are we forever condemned to life the sordid life of
utilitarianism? Or is there some lost secret which if rediscovered will
restore to mankind something of the glories of the past?
Such a secret the writer of this little book would discover in the
Christian religion. But the Christian religion which is meant is
certainly not the religion of the modern liberal Church, but a message
of divine grace, almost forgotten now, as it was in the middle ages,
but destined to burst forth once more in God's good time, in a new
Reformation, and bring light and freedom to mankind."
David L. Hanson
[P.S. It is 76 years later and there still is no "new Reformation" - the
situation has only gotten worse as more churches and denominations have
become apostate. Machen is writing about the fall of the mainline
denominations very early in the 20th century. Many more churches fell
into "New Evangelicalism", which is just plain rank unbelief with a
fancy name, starting in the late 1940's.]
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
PaulDanaher
and I have to say that his pronouncements on art are provincial and
ignorant. "Gone, too, are the great painters and the great musicians, and
the great sculptors. The art that still subsists is largely imitative, and
When we are young, the world is at our feet, we have vast potential. As we
grow older, we feel this potential slipping away. I think that this passage
is a dishonest and inappropriate response to the natural feeling of "What
have I done with my life?", projecting discontent with self into discontent
with society.
Ed Dickerson
>
> This lament at the falling-away from former standards is very commonplace,
> and I have to say that his pronouncements on art are provincial and
> the great sculptors. The art that still subsists is largely imitative, and
Yes, you say it is rubbish. Perhaps you'd care to name some of the great
artists, musicians, and sculptors of the intervening period. I submit
that the few that exist are those who hew to traditional values. As C.S.
Lewis said of modern art which claims to represent a state of emotion: A
puddle is a puddle. It is not a work of art.
AS Tom Wolfe so ably related in "From Bauhaus to Our House," much of
American art (specifically Architecture in that book) has been subverted
by a worship of European trendiness, which in turn was merely an
expression of socialist drivel.
PaulDanaher
news:37D2B295...@netins.net...
> PaulDanaher wrote:
> >
> > This lament at the falling-away from former standards is very
commonplace,
> > and I have to say that his pronouncements on art are provincial and
and
> > the great sculptors. The art that still subsists is largely imitative,
and
>
> Yes, you say it is rubbish. Perhaps you'd care to name some of the great
> artists, musicians, and sculptors of the intervening period. I submit
> that the few that exist are those who hew to traditional values.
1 Do you seriously want to argue that there were no great painters,
musicians and sculptors around in
the early 1920s, in America and in Europe?
2 Do you really want to argue that we haven't had some great artists,
musicians and sculptors since?
In any case, I was responding to this specific quote as applying to
that specific period. If you want
to claim that there were no great artists etc in 1973-74, we could
quibble.
3 What on earth do you mean by "traditional values" as applied to
artists, musicians and sculptors?
> As C.S. Lewis said of modern art which claims to represent a state of
emotion: A
> puddle is a puddle. It is not a work of art.
C. S. Lewis was a wonderful writer and enviably erudite critic of
Renaissance literature. He was also a startlingly ignorant man in many
respects, particularly with regard to modern history, philosophy and art. He
wrote some very insightful things about Christianity, along with some
devastatingly shortsighted and stupid things. A very great man in some ways,
his writings inspired my interest and (partial) understanding of early
European literature. Recognising his shortcomings doesn't diminish his
greatness.
> AS Tom Wolfe so ably related in "From Bauhaus to Our House," much of
> American art (specifically Architecture in that book) has been subverted
> by a worship of European trendiness, which in turn was merely an
> expression of socialist drivel.
I'm not competent to evaluate American architecture. It's generally
regarded as being pretty vital, judging by the number of major international
projects which are using American architects.
Angel Sparrow
coming in in the middle of thinsg again
Ed Dickerson wrote:
>
> PaulDanaher wrote:
> >
> > This lament at the falling-away from former standards is very commonplace,
> > and I have to say that his pronouncements on art are provincial and
> > ignorant.
Not sure who is referred to, but I must agree with Paul.
Every Civilization since the Egyptian Middle Kingdom has lamented
that they did not measure up to the glories of the past.
The Early Middle Ages lamented the fall of Rome, and
the loss of plumbing, roads etc.
The Romans lamented they missed the Periclean Age of Greece.
You can go on.
> > "Gone, too, are the great painters and the great musicians, and
> > the great sculptors. The art that still subsists is largely imitative, > >and
> > where it is not imitative it is usually bizarre." What rubbish!
Hmm, An aversion to madern art is typical of fascists
and other control freaks. As Hitler once said: (loose paraphrase)
If he paints a sky green, he's being contrary and doesn't fit in.
If he actually sees it as green, he needs shooting.
> Yes, you say it is rubbish. Perhaps you'd care to name some of the great
> artists, musicians, and sculptors of the intervening period.
Which period? Modern?
Thomas Hart Benton
Georgia O'Keeffee
And remember, one person's rubbish is future generations
classical. Michaelangelo got into a lot of trouble over
David and the Sistine Chapel (the navel issue). Today they
are masterpieces.
Consider what people four hundred years down the road are going to say
about our photgraphic art. "Consider the unnatural
thinness of the women, the smoothness of the men. Clearly
this society we dedicated to eradicating all natural
reminders of gender differences"
Just as we look at Reubans or Titian and
go "If I weighed 300 lbs, they'd nevr get my clothes off!"
>I submit
> that the few that exist are those who hew to traditional values. As C.S.
> Lewis said of modern art which claims to represent a state of emotion: A
> puddle is a puddle. It is not a work of art.
Quite true. Painting canvases solid black is not art.
Creating statues of people who look so real others as
questions ("The Museum Guard" Nelson Gallery Kansas City)
is. I visited a friend, whose parents
were very active in the arts community and he had a huge
(As in 4'x2') abstract on his wall. I made some
pleased noises, and he admitted he'd done it himself at
14.
> AS Tom Wolfe so ably related in "From Bauhaus to Our House," much of
> American art (specifically Architecture in that book) has been subverted
> by a worship of European trendiness, which in turn was merely an
> expression of socialist drivel.
Must look into that. I'm not a
big architecture buff. I know what I like.
I like the Plaza in Kansas City. I like
lots of neo-classical fountains (capricorni,
merfolk, etc). I like gothic.
I do not like retro industrial.
I do not like pre-fab 50's neighborhoods, with
the exact same house, yard, and tree
on every plot.
> > When we are young, the world is at our feet, we have vast potential. As > >we
> > grow older, we feel this potential slipping away. I think that this > >passage
> > is a dishonest and inappropriate response to the natural feeling of "What
> > have I done with my life?", projecting discontent with self into
> >discontent with society.
Must be a man thing. As women, we feel we have a limited time
that we are beautiful. As Ben Franklin said "when a woman
ceases to be beautiful, she studies to be good."
You will find that men are most vital in their 20s and thirties.
Women tend to become more vital in their midforties,
when the childrena are raised and they have to once again
take stock of their potential and see who they are.
_Passages_ and _Understanding Men's Passages_ by Gail Sheehy
are indispensible reading.
(And I am as quick to use liberal as pejorative as I am conservative.)
Angel, in the middle of the road, and trying not to get run over
Ed Dickerson
>
> Ed Dickerson <edic...@netins.net> wrote in message
> news:37D2B295...@netins.net...
> > >
> > > This lament at the falling-away from former standards is very
> commonplace,
> > > and I have to say that his pronouncements on art are provincial and
> and
> > > the great sculptors. The art that still subsists is largely imitative,
> and
> >
> > Yes, you say it is rubbish. Perhaps you'd care to name some of the great
> > that the few that exist are those who hew to traditional values.
>
> musicians and sculptors around in
> the early 1920s, in America and in Europe?
> 2 Do you really want to argue that we haven't had some great artists,
> musicians and sculptors since?
> In any case, I was responding to this specific quote as applying to
> that specific period. If you want
> to claim that there were no great artists etc in 1973-74, we could
> quibble.
> 3 What on earth do you mean by "traditional values" as applied to
> artists, musicians and sculptors?
>
In painting and sculpture, such things as "pictorialism" which is
largely disdained today. Beauty. "Representational art," etc. All of
these go far back into antiquity, and are largely disdained today in
so-called artistic circles. Jackson Pollack is considered a great
visionary, and Norman Rockwell and Andrew Wyeth mere illustrators.
In muscic, such things as melody, harmony, counterpoint. Increasingly in
what I call "academic" music, so-called serious compositions are mainly
written by a small circle of academics, impressing and amusing each
other. Once again, masters of the form are considered too "commercial"
and trite.
> > As C.S. Lewis said of modern art which claims to represent a state of
> emotion: A
> > puddle is a puddle. It is not a work of art.
>
> C. S. Lewis was a wonderful writer and enviably erudite critic of
> Renaissance literature. He was also a startlingly ignorant man in many
> respects, particularly with regard to modern history, philosophy and art. He
> wrote some very insightful things about Christianity, along with some
> devastatingly shortsighted and stupid things. A very great man in some ways,
> his writings inspired my interest and (partial) understanding of early
> European literature. Recognising his shortcomings doesn't diminish his
> greatness.
>
Your remarks speak for themselves. I'm happy that you've surpassed him
in so many ways.
> > AS Tom Wolfe so ably related in "From Bauhaus to Our House," much of
> > American art (specifically Architecture in that book) has been subverted
> > by a worship of European trendiness, which in turn was merely an
> > expression of socialist drivel.
>
> I'm not competent to evaluate American architecture. It's generally
> regarded as being pretty vital, judging by the number of major international
> projects which are using American architects.
>
> > >
> > > When we are young, the world is at our feet, we have vast potential. As
> we
> > > grow older, we feel this potential slipping away. I think that this
> passage
> > > is a dishonest and inappropriate response to the natural feeling of
> "What
> > > have I done with my life?", projecting discontent with self into
> discontent
> > > with society.
Perhaps you feel that way. I was just saying to my wife today, as we
approach 50, that Browning had it right.
Come along and grow old with me
The best of life is yet to be
The last of life, for which the first was made.
Anyone who can look at the history of the twentieth century and feel
that we are somehow "advanced" (other than technologically) doesn't get
Huxley's "Brave New World." But then, that's the sort of thinking that
reduces mathematics to "opinion," and proves that proof is impossible.
But yes, I would argue that the few, very few real artists of this
century have added to and developed the legacy of Western Civilization,
not repudiated or "de-constructed" it.
Ed Dickerson
>
> Angel here
> coming in in the middle of thinsg again
>
> Ed Dickerson wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > This lament at the falling-away from former standards is very commonplace,
> > > and I have to say that his pronouncements on art are provincial and
> > > ignorant.
>
> Every Civilization since the Egyptian Middle Kingdom has lamented
> that they did not measure up to the glories of the past.
>
> The Early Middle Ages lamented the fall of Rome, and
> the loss of plumbing, roads etc.
> The Romans lamented they missed the Periclean Age of Greece.
> You can go on.
>
Yes, and Marcus Aurelius lamented the corruption of the Rome of his day.
Debunkers could have repeated your argument. But he was right. Rome had
declined from its height. That some always feel nostalgia for a
non-existent past does not change the fact that civilizations do in fact
decline. Inevitably, some will observe the decline. And those who have
already been corrupted by it will argue as you have. I specifically
don't think you're that way, Angie, but I believe Paul is.
The sophisticated, world weary, ho hum, how naieve and immature you
Americans are, especially Christians, plays thin with me. Europe is more
tolerant of corruption than we _were_. Anyone who thinks our tolerance
of Bill Clinton's perfidy in office is an indication of maturity is
deluded. But Clinton is, sadly, only symptomatic of a declining culture
willing its own demise.
> > > "Gone, too, are the great painters and the great musicians, and
> > > the great sculptors. The art that still subsists is largely imitative, > >and
> > > where it is not imitative it is usually bizarre." What rubbish!
>
> Hmm, An aversion to madern art is typical of fascists
> and other control freaks. As Hitler once said: (loose paraphrase)
> If he paints a sky green, he's being contrary and doesn't fit in.
> If he actually sees it as green, he needs shooting.
>
>
I have no reason to be upset with you, but that's a cheap shot, and
guilt by association as well. Hitler loved his dog and was a vegetarian,
but it doesn't make dog lovers or vegetarians fascists or control
freaks. I have no aversion to abstract art in and of itself. But much of
modern art is just self-indulgent drivel.
No doubt Hitler would have denigrated Mapplethorpe's 'homo-erotic art,'
well, me, too. Or perhaps the lady who laquered her infant's diapers
(and contents) and described what the child had eaten to produce such
'masterpieces.' These were displayed at the Art Institute in Chicago
while I lived nearby.
> > Yes, you say it is rubbish. Perhaps you'd care to name some of the great
> > artists, musicians, and sculptors of the intervening period.
>
> Which period? Modern?
> Thomas Hart Benton
> Georgia O'Keeffee
>
Both retained pictorialism or representationalism. Neither asked us to
look at a series of jagged lines and perceive deep meaning therein.
> And remember, one person's rubbish is future generations
> classical. Michaelangelo got into a lot of trouble over
> David and the Sistine Chapel (the navel issue). Today they
> are masterpieces.
>
Far too facile. Too easy. And Salieri's music is appropriately
forgotten. Wouldn't be remembered at all except for his association with
Mozart. The argument over Michaelangelo's work wasn't about artistic
skill or merit.
> Consider what people four hundred years down the road are going to say
> about our photgraphic art. "Consider the unnatural
> thinness of the women, the smoothness of the men. Clearly
> this society we dedicated to eradicating all natural
> reminders of gender differences"
> Just as we look at Reubans or Titian and
> go "If I weighed 300 lbs, they'd nevr get my clothes off!"
>
Reubens managed to get the eyes on different sides of the nose.
> >I submit
> > that the few that exist are those who hew to traditional values. As C.S.
> > Lewis said of modern art which claims to represent a state of emotion: A
> > puddle is a puddle. It is not a work of art.
>
> Quite true. Painting canvases solid black is not art.
Just so. And placing lumpy globs with holes through them is not
sculpture.
> Creating statues of people who look so real others as
> questions ("The Museum Guard" Nelson Gallery Kansas City)
> is. I visited a friend, whose parents
> were very active in the arts community and he had a huge
> (As in 4'x2') abstract on his wall. I made some
> pleased noises, and he admitted he'd done it himself at
> 14.
>
> > AS Tom Wolfe so ably related in "From Bauhaus to Our House," much of
> > American art (specifically Architecture in that book) has been subverted
> > by a worship of European trendiness, which in turn was merely an
> > expression of socialist drivel.
>
> Must look into that. I'm not a
> big architecture buff. I know what I like.
> I like the Plaza in Kansas City. I like
> lots of neo-classical fountains (capricorni,
> merfolk, etc). I like gothic.
> I do not like retro industrial.
That's Bauhaus. Designed as 'worker housing' in Europe, became the
dominant boxy buildings you're talking about. Meanwhile, they considered
Frank Lloyd Wright 'provincial.'
> I do not like pre-fab 50's neighborhoods, with
> the exact same house, yard, and tree
> on every plot.
>
> > > When we are young, the world is at our feet, we have vast potential. As > >we
> > > grow older, we feel this potential slipping away. I think that this > >passage
> > > is a dishonest and inappropriate response to the natural feeling of "What
> > > have I done with my life?", projecting discontent with self into
> > >discontent with society.
>
> Must be a man thing. As women, we feel we have a limited time
> that we are beautiful. As Ben Franklin said "when a woman
> ceases to be beautiful, she studies to be good."
>
> You will find that men are most vital in their 20s and thirties.
> Women tend to become more vital in their midforties,
> when the childrena are raised and they have to once again
> take stock of their potential and see who they are.
>
> _Passages_ and _Understanding Men's Passages_ by Gail Sheehy
> are indispensible reading.
>
> (And I am as quick to use liberal as pejorative as I am conservative.)
>
> Angel, in the middle of the road, and trying not to get run over
Better look again, you're straying to the left. Modern society paints
the lines all on one side of the road.
Ed
Yocomomoco
long time.
"David, Bienvenidos. Mucho tiempo, no te he oido de ti."
My ancestors swung by their necks, not their tails.
I suport publick skool
Yocomomoco
wrote:
>This lament at the falling-away from former standards is very commonplace,
>and I have to say that his pronouncements on art are provincial and
>ignorant. "Gone, too, are the great painters and the great musicians, and
>the great sculptors. The art that still subsists is largely imitative, and
>where it is not imitative it is usually bizarre." What rubbish!
\|/ ___ \|/
~@ / Oo \~@
/ | _ _ | \
--- \_U_/ ---
Mis antepasados se colgaron por el cuello, no por la cola.
I suport publick skool
Ed Dickerson
>
> Ed Dickerson <edic...@netins.net> wrote in message
> news:37D2B295...@netins.net...
> > >
> > > This lament at the falling-away from former standards is very
> commonplace,
> > > and I have to say that his pronouncements on art are provincial and
> and
> > > the great sculptors. The art that still subsists is largely imitative,
> and
> >
> > Yes, you say it is rubbish. Perhaps you'd care to name some of the great
> > that the few that exist are those who hew to traditional values.
>
> musicians and sculptors around in
> the early 1920s, in America and in Europe?
> 2 Do you really want to argue that we haven't had some great artists,
> musicians and sculptors since?
> In any case, I was responding to this specific quote as applying to
> that specific period. If you want
> to claim that there were no great artists etc in 1973-74, we could
> quibble.
> 3 What on earth do you mean by "traditional values" as applied to
> artists, musicians and sculptors?
>
In painting and sculpture, such things as "pictorialism" which is
largely disdained today. Beauty. "Representational art," etc. All of
these go far back into antiquity, and are largely disdained today in
so-called artistic circles. Jackson Pollack is considered a great
visionary, and Norman Rockwell and Andrew Wyeth mere illustrators.
In muscic, such things as melody, harmony, counterpoint. Increasingly in
what I call "academic" music, so-called serious compositions are mainly
written by a small circle of academics, impressing and amusing each
other. Once again, masters of the form are considered too "commercial"
and trite.
> > As C.S. Lewis said of modern art which claims to represent a state of
> emotion: A
> > puddle is a puddle. It is not a work of art.
>
> C. S. Lewis was a wonderful writer and enviably erudite critic of
> Renaissance literature. He was also a startlingly ignorant man in many
> respects, particularly with regard to modern history, philosophy and art. He
> wrote some very insightful things about Christianity, along with some
> devastatingly shortsighted and stupid things. A very great man in some ways,
> his writings inspired my interest and (partial) understanding of early
> European literature. Recognising his shortcomings doesn't diminish his
> greatness.
>
Your remarks speak for themselves. I'm happy that you've surpassed him
in so many ways.
> > AS Tom Wolfe so ably related in "From Bauhaus to Our House," much of
> > American art (specifically Architecture in that book) has been subverted
> > by a worship of European trendiness, which in turn was merely an
> > expression of socialist drivel.
>
> I'm not competent to evaluate American architecture. It's generally
> regarded as being pretty vital, judging by the number of major international
> projects which are using American architects.
>
> > >
> > > When we are young, the world is at our feet, we have vast potential. As
> we
> > > grow older, we feel this potential slipping away. I think that this
> passage
> > > is a dishonest and inappropriate response to the natural feeling of
> "What
> > > have I done with my life?", projecting discontent with self into
> discontent
> > > with society.
Perhaps you feel that way. I was just saying to my wife today, as we
Ed Dickerson
>
> Angel here
> coming in in the middle of thinsg again
>
> Ed Dickerson wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > This lament at the falling-away from former standards is very commonplace,
> > > and I have to say that his pronouncements on art are provincial and
> > > ignorant.
>
> Every Civilization since the Egyptian Middle Kingdom has lamented
> that they did not measure up to the glories of the past.
>
> The Early Middle Ages lamented the fall of Rome, and
> the loss of plumbing, roads etc.
> The Romans lamented they missed the Periclean Age of Greece.
> You can go on.
>
Yes, and Marcus Aurelius lamented the corruption of the Rome of his day.
Debunkers could have repeated your argument. But he was right. Rome had
declined from its height. That some always feel nostalgia for a
non-existent past does not change the fact that civilizations do in fact
decline. Inevitably, some will observe the decline. And those who have
already been corrupted by it will argue as you have. I specifically
don't think you're that way, Angie, but I believe Paul is.
The sophisticated, world weary, ho hum, how naieve and immature you
Americans are, especially Christians, plays thin with me. Europe is more
tolerant of corruption than we _were_. Anyone who thinks our tolerance
of Bill Clinton's perfidy in office is an indication of maturity is
deluded. But Clinton is, sadly, only symptomatic of a declining culture
willing its own demise.
> > > "Gone, too, are the great painters and the great musicians, and
> > > the great sculptors. The art that still subsists is largely imitative, > >and
> > > where it is not imitative it is usually bizarre." What rubbish!
>
> Hmm, An aversion to madern art is typical of fascists
> and other control freaks. As Hitler once said: (loose paraphrase)
> If he paints a sky green, he's being contrary and doesn't fit in.
> If he actually sees it as green, he needs shooting.
>
>
I have no reason to be upset with you, but that's a cheap shot, and
guilt by association as well. Hitler loved his dog and was a vegetarian,
but it doesn't make dog lovers or vegetarians fascists or control
freaks. I have no aversion to abstract art in and of itself. But much of
modern art is just self-indulgent drivel.
No doubt Hitler would have denigrated Mapplethorpe's 'homo-erotic art,'
well, me, too. Or perhaps the lady who laquered her infant's diapers
(and contents) and described what the child had eaten to produce such
'masterpieces.' These were displayed at the Art Institute in Chicago
while I lived nearby.
> > Yes, you say it is rubbish. Perhaps you'd care to name some of the great
> > artists, musicians, and sculptors of the intervening period.
>
> Which period? Modern?
> Thomas Hart Benton
> Georgia O'Keeffee
>
Both retained pictorialism or representationalism. Neither asked us to
look at a series of jagged lines and perceive deep meaning therein.
> And remember, one person's rubbish is future generations
> classical. Michaelangelo got into a lot of trouble over
> David and the Sistine Chapel (the navel issue). Today they
> are masterpieces.
>
Far too facile. Too easy. And Salieri's music is appropriately
forgotten. Wouldn't be remembered at all except for his association with
Mozart. The argument over Michaelangelo's work wasn't about artistic
skill or merit.
> Consider what people four hundred years down the road are going to say
> about our photgraphic art. "Consider the unnatural
> thinness of the women, the smoothness of the men. Clearly
> this society we dedicated to eradicating all natural
> reminders of gender differences"
> Just as we look at Reubans or Titian and
> go "If I weighed 300 lbs, they'd nevr get my clothes off!"
>
Reubens managed to get the eyes on different sides of the nose.
> >I submit
> > that the few that exist are those who hew to traditional values. As C.S.
> > Lewis said of modern art which claims to represent a state of emotion: A
> > puddle is a puddle. It is not a work of art.
>
> Quite true. Painting canvases solid black is not art.
Just so. And placing lumpy globs with holes through them is not
sculpture.
> Creating statues of people who look so real others as
> questions ("The Museum Guard" Nelson Gallery Kansas City)
> is. I visited a friend, whose parents
> were very active in the arts community and he had a huge
> (As in 4'x2') abstract on his wall. I made some
> pleased noises, and he admitted he'd done it himself at
> 14.
>
> > AS Tom Wolfe so ably related in "From Bauhaus to Our House," much of
> > American art (specifically Architecture in that book) has been subverted
> > by a worship of European trendiness, which in turn was merely an
> > expression of socialist drivel.
>
> Must look into that. I'm not a
> big architecture buff. I know what I like.
> I like the Plaza in Kansas City. I like
> lots of neo-classical fountains (capricorni,
> merfolk, etc). I like gothic.
> I do not like retro industrial.
That's Bauhaus. Designed as 'worker housing' in Europe, became the
dominant boxy buildings you're talking about. Meanwhile, they considered
Frank Lloyd Wright 'provincial.'
> I do not like pre-fab 50's neighborhoods, with
> the exact same house, yard, and tree
> on every plot.
>
> > > When we are young, the world is at our feet, we have vast potential. As > >we
> > > grow older, we feel this potential slipping away. I think that this > >passage
> > > is a dishonest and inappropriate response to the natural feeling of "What
> > > have I done with my life?", projecting discontent with self into
> > >discontent with society.
>
> Must be a man thing. As women, we feel we have a limited time
> that we are beautiful. As Ben Franklin said "when a woman
> ceases to be beautiful, she studies to be good."
>
> You will find that men are most vital in their 20s and thirties.
> Women tend to become more vital in their midforties,
> when the childrena are raised and they have to once again
> take stock of their potential and see who they are.
>
> _Passages_ and _Understanding Men's Passages_ by Gail Sheehy
> are indispensible reading.
>
> (And I am as quick to use liberal as pejorative as I am conservative.)
>
> Angel, in the middle of the road, and trying not to get run over
Better look again, you're straying to the left. Modern society paints
the lines all on one side of the road. Just an example: Off the top of
your head, how many people can you think of the media has labeled
"arch-conservative" or "extreme right wing." Now do the same for
"ultra-liberal" and "extreme leftist."
Ed
David L. Hanson
dont_spam...@mindspring.com (Yocomomoco) wrote:
> First of all, let me welcome David back into the fold. It's been a
> long time.
>
> "David, Bienvenidos. Mucho tiempo, no te he oido de ti."
Thank you, I have been reading the postings for years but haven't been
inclined to post much for the last two years or so. We graduated our
oldest son from our homeschool this year but he is still staying home
to work on his classical and sacred piano, and study using college
correspondence courses.
I knew that Dr. Machen's comments would be critized because many of us
don't understand what beauty is. I plead mainly ignorance in the areas
of visual and musical arts myself. How could I not, after having been
government schooled and then educated technically (engineering and
computer science) at the university? However, I am certain that there
is a huge qualitative difference between Handel's Messaiah and let's
say a Steve Green song, or a huge difference between a Rembrandt
painting and a Picasso. (Hint: the former is beautiful - the later in
each case is not.)
As I have told our sons, my wife and I are not capable of undoing the
cultural damage that has accumulated to their generation in just one
generation. We have taught them that history is important, that art is
important, and that there is beauty and there is ugliness. And we can
give them resources to help them learn the difference.
That is what we have tried to do. In music, we have succeeded. They
love the beautiful music of the past and a limited amount music of the
present that doesn't violate beautiful music "standards".
Most importantly, they both profess the Lord Jesus Christ and love Him
and His Word the most. One of Machen's points is that being saved -
the old fashioned Bible way - leads one toward beauty in life.
David L. Hanson
"Ye MUST be born again"
PaulDanaher
news:7r1kh8$ett$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Er, beautiful music "standards"? What are these, please?
> Most importantly, they both profess the Lord Jesus Christ and love Him
> and His Word the most. One of Machen's points is that being saved -
> the old fashioned Bible way - leads one toward beauty in life.
>
> David L. Hanson
> "Ye MUST be born again"
>
>
Kanga C.
with my two eldest, their dad, my brother and his wife, a few others.
And this week as I've been doing some reading, I've come across some
interesting quotes and comments.
Like what, you ask? Why, I'm so glad you asked. Allow me to share:
First off we have Francis Schaeffer, in How Should We Then Live. In talking
about Rennaissance art, he points out that the trend is toward increasingly
meaningless art.
Then I read a quote by Degas concerning his "Woman getting out of the Bath."
He says something like, "See how times have changed! Two hundred years ago I
would have painted 'Susannah Bathing." Now, I just paint "Woman in a Tub."
And then, the crown jewel of my reading this week, a little thing from Art and
Antiques, the March '94 issue. I love this. I keep referring back to it.
Here we go:
Oh, wait, there's two, and both too good to pass up. The first one:
"Catherine Howe paints pictures that attack the male chauvinism inherent in
abstract expressionism. Says the artist, 'I'm purposefully misinterpreting it
so I can take this great American painting genre and use the parts I want-
simultaneously referring to it and contradicting it.'
... "I'm trying to open up possibilities of meaning.'"
But the real prize is this:
"Sean Landers's works may at first seem a bit self-centered. Whether they are
personal ramblings done on yellow legal pads [drat! why didn't I think of
that?! Could have paid for hsing materials this year with my personal
ramblings on white notebook paper], or green ceramic leprechauns that allude to
his Irish ancestry.. or videos that record the narcissistic presentation of the
artist's nude body, all the pieces are autobiographical and reveal aspects of
the artists neuroses. [Catch that? *All* the pieces are *autobiographical.*
That's important. You'll see why inna sec] It's almost as if Landers takes on
different roles, as an actor portraying different characters does. "It all
depends on my psychological state at the time the work is made," the artist
says. "Even though the whole thing is autobiographical [ there's that word
again] , if you met me in real life you'd see that I have none of these traits
[what?! NONE of them??? Well, just what does autobiographical mean then?].
Even people who know me don't recognize me in the work. I'm trying to get
people to like me."
What a load of belly laughs.
Blessings,
Kanga
If one child takes up all your time, then seven can't take anymore. Adapted
from Elizabeth Eliot's mother
PaulDanaher
> Angel Sparrow wrote:
> >
> > Angel here
> > coming in in the middle of thinsg again
> >
> > Ed Dickerson wrote:
> > >
> > > PaulDanaher wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This lament at the falling-away from former standards is very
commonplace,
> > > > and I have to say that his pronouncements on art are provincial and
> > > > ignorant.
> >
> > Not sure who is referred to, but I must agree with Paul.
> > Every Civilization since the Egyptian Middle Kingdom has lamented
> > that they did not measure up to the glories of the past.
> >
> > The Early Middle Ages lamented the fall of Rome, and
> > the loss of plumbing, roads etc.
> > The Romans lamented they missed the Periclean Age of Greece.
> > You can go on.
> >
>
> Yes, and Marcus Aurelius lamented the corruption of the Rome of his day.
> Debunkers could have repeated your argument. But he was right. Rome had
> declined from its height. That some always feel nostalgia for a
> non-existent past does not change the fact that civilizations do in fact
> decline. Inevitably, some will observe the decline. And those who have
> already been corrupted by it will argue as you have. I specifically
> don't think you're that way, Angie, but I believe Paul is.
I would ask you to step outside, Ed, but you've chosen to make that comment
on the ng. So now you get to explain why and how you believe I'm corrupted
by - what? the Rome of my day?
<snipped>
Before Angel flew in, I addressed three questions to you. I repeat them here
for your convenience:
1 Do you seriously want to argue that there were no great painters,
musicians and sculptors around in
the early 1920s, in America and in Europe?
2 Do you really want to argue that we haven't had some great artists,
musicians and sculptors since?
In any case, I was responding to this specific quote as applying to
that specific period. If you want
to claim that there were no great artists etc in 1973-74, we could
quibble.
3 What on earth do you mean by "traditional values" as applied to
artists, musicians and sculptors?
<snipped>
Some member of the Douglas Family
> David L. Hanson wrote...
> >
> > We have taught them that history is important, that art is
> > important, and that there is beauty and there is ugliness. And we can
> > give them resources to help them learn the difference.
> > That is what we have tried to do. In music, we have succeeded. They
> > love the beautiful music of the past and a limited amount music of the
> > present that doesn't violate beautiful music "standards".
>
> Er, beautiful music "standards"? What are these, please?
According to the dictionary "art" is a skill acquired by experience or study
and the use of that skill & imagination in the production of things of
beauty. "Music" is the science or art of combining tones into a composition
having structure and continuity.
Based on those definitions alone if someone were to study music they would be
able to learn that there are indeed standards for what could be considered
beautiful music and what could be considered unskilled music. An analogy
would be construction (erecting buildings). There are obvious standards that
would demonstrate whether or not the building was built by a skilled worker
or a hack, whether we particularly like the architecture or not. I don't like
opera as a style, but I know the difference between a well crafted opera and
a hack job. Whether modern "artists" like it or not there are standards to
all arts.
Btw, to David Hanson, have you heard of a musical dramatic troupe called
Stomp? If you have I would love to hear your opinion of their act. To
everyone else, despite the name the troupe is not some punk rock band. I'm
fascinated by their ability to produce music with incredibly ordinary
objects.
MaG
JRice43497
part:
> Gone, too, are the great painters and the great musicians, and the great
sculptors. The art that still subsists is largely imitative, and where it is
not imitative it is usually bizarre.
On Monday, the 6th of September, 1999, Ed Dickerson <edic...@netins.net>
commented, in part:
>> Perhaps you'd care to name some of the great artists, musicians, and
sculptors of the intervening period. I submit that the few that exist are those
who hew to traditional values.
On September 5th, Paul asked:
>>> What on earth do you mean by "traditional values" as applied to artists,
musicians and sculptors?
Ed replied, in part:
>> In painting and sculpture, such things as "pictorialism" which is largely
disdained today. Beauty. "Representational art," etc. All of these go far back
into antiquity, and are largely disdained today <snip>
>> <snip> ... I would argue that the few, very few real artists of this century
have added to and developed the legacy of Western Civilization, not repudiated
or "de-constructed" it.
>> Reubens managed to get the eyes on different sides of the nose.
David then jumped back in and added:
> I knew that Dr. Machen's comments would be critized because many of us don't
understand what beauty is. I plead mainly ignorance in the areas of visual and
musical arts myself. How could I not, after having been government schooled
and then educated technically (engineering and computer science) at the
university? However, I am certain that there is a huge qualitative difference
between <snip> a Rembrandt painting and a Picasso. (Hint: the former is
beautiful - the later <snip> is not.)
> We have taught [our sons] that there is beauty and there is ugliness. And we
can give them resources to help them learn the difference. That is what we
have tried to do. In music, we have succeeded. They love the beautiful music
of the past and a limited amount music of the present that doesn't violate
beautiful music "standards".
> Most importantly, they both profess the Lord Jesus Christ and love Him and
His Word the most. One of Machen's points is that being saved - the old
fashioned Bible way - leads one toward beauty in life.
I suggest the following definition of beauty, for purpose of the conversation
in this thread: anything is beautiful which is filled with our Father's
presence, which is filled with the Light. (I am thinking of, for example,
1John 3:5 ... "in Him there is no sin.") Whether any of us, on a given day,
can *see* that beauty, or *experience* it, is of course a difficult matter (at
least for most of us). Is it possible that, when reading The Book of Job, we
can see great beauty in all the "ugliness" Job had to deal with ... Job knew
that his *only* choice was to cling to God's fully-represented presence in
*all* the things he was encountering. Now *that* is truly *representational*
art ... the choice to hold that our Father is fully represented in *all*
things, such that we can praise Him in all things!!! Over and over in
Scripture, we are instructed to praise the Lord in *all* things. Job was able
to do that. A great many of us are unable to praise Him even if we're only
dealing with sights and sounds we find in museums and concert halls! What's
wrong with *that* picture? Are we, in these "complaints" of ours, "making a
joyful sound unto the Lord?"
Let me be completely clear about one matter. I have precisely *zero* interest
in "what Picasso did," and precisely zero interest in praising Picasso for what
he did. Still, there is the issue of what our Father offered us through
Picasso. Our Lord uses *everything* toward our upbuilding. It seems to me
that He has used Picasso to teach us ... in that respect, I assert, "Picasso"
is as beautiful as "Rembrandt." When His children have prayed to our Father,
and soon saw the art of Picasso, was our Father handing those children a stone?
I offer the following in support of my assertions.
You might want to read *Picasso*, by Gertrude Stein. Gertrude and Pablo were
close friends, and she describes what Picasso was attempting to do with cubism.
Before reading her explanation, I had had *no* idea what he was up to. So
much of his work seemed "bizarre" to me ... but it is anything *but* that, if
you actually understand what he was attempting. Keep in mind that Picasso was
a *brilliant* "representational" artist ... he had been that since early
childhood. Eventually, though, he became committed to painting *only* what he
*saw* ... which meant *not* painting what he did *not* see! To have an
experience of this ... when you next look at someone, take the time to notice
what you are actually *looking* at. My own tendency, I have noticed, is to
actually *see* one of the *eyes* of the person I am looking at ... or, perhaps,
more accurately, I see some aspect(s) of one of their eyes, and perhaps some
shadowing, or perhaps a bit of eyebrow (or etc.) ... yes, of *course* I realize
that there is "probably" another eye over on the other side of their nose ...
:-) ... but I am not actually *looking* at that in a given moment.
Why is this important? Well, we all know the phrase, "things are not always
what they appear to be." That is the limitation of "representational" art. I
am thinking, right this moment, of a "photographic" painting of one of our
State's judges (that judge is now deceased). It hangs in one of our court
houses. Looks just *like* the guy! Truly "representational." He is, among
other things, one of the most *dignified* looking of men. Trouble is ... I
*knew* the fellow. The "representation" of him truly does *not* represent him!
If "truth is beauty," the painting is a lie and *deeply* ugly. In fact, like
the rest of us, he was a man of *many* aspects. If one had zipped into his
life at varying intervals, over the years, and one wanted to address the
*truth* about this man ... *especially* from the point of view of "the state of
his soul" ... one would almost certainly see something along the lines of a
collage ... or perhaps something *cubist* in nature.
One of the least "beautiful" paintings I can imagine is Picasso's "Guernica"
... I actually had a chance to stand in front of that painting for a number of
hours. It is a *horrifying* painting. And it *deeply* speaks to the truth of
the human condition. I could take *anyone* to see it, and have *great*
confidence that ... in its presence ... there would be a *deep* level of
clarity as to why our Father sent Jesus to us. It also *hints* at what Jesus
took upon Himself on our behalf. It is easy, when we see such a painting, to
see only the devil's presence. But what of praising the Lord in all things???
When I look at such a painting, I must work *hard* to see our Father's hand.
But that is *my* choice, and *our* choice, in each moment of our lives. He
told us that He set before us life and death, and that we are, therefore, to
choose life. When I look at a painting by Picasso, I can choose to see what
our *Father* hath wrought, or merely what some *man* "accomplished." Picasso,
it seems clear, had only the slightest idea of what his own work pointed to.
All one needs to do is look at how he lived his life ... how abusive he was in
*many* relationships ... or at how he viewed the horror (from his own point of
view, per his self-portraits at the time) as he suddenly confronted his own
impending death.
At what point do we actually begin to tell the truth about the extent of our
separation from God, which defines "sin." Most of us have been taught to put
forward a *pretense* into the world. And so there is much agreement that
"representational" ... "art" ... of monster-kings ... sweet, gentle,
dignified-looking "representations" ... can actually be thought "beautiful."
Or that "wedding day" pictures, or often "family pictures" ... completely
"representational," as "art" is "judged and evaluated" ... is "beautiful." As
a divorce lawyer, I often learned of the horrors which were concealed behind
the "representation," which *represented* only a lie, a facade. It is a
*difficult* thing to truly *represent* the *truth*!!! To even *begin* to
address that issue, visual art had to engage in the "representationally
acceptable" lie of *perspective*! But if art ... or the best of it, at least
... strives for truth ... sooner or later, *many* perspectives must be brought
to bear, or what is "represented" cannot even *point* in the direction of true
beauty, which is the glory of God! Is it not a beautiful thing to see another
human actually *realize* what *sin* is ... a condition of separation from God
... and that they are, in that sense, a sinner? If one only points to the sin
to *condemn*, the *experience* is indeed ugly. But if one points to sin as a
function of the desire to be one with our Lord ... is the experience not
*totally* different? It is too easy to talk about things which are merely
superficial, or at least appear to be, on the surface. But a *serious* artist
... how would you *expect* them to convey, for example, their own *experience*
of the discovery of what *sin* is in their life? Is it inconceivable to you
that such an artist might paint a canvas entirely in black? Might that not be
the *truth* for that individual in that moment? Is that not more deeply
beautiful, in its *potential*, for the art which may follow?
As a counselor, for many years, to people who are *deeply* in conflict ... I
can tell you that I *celebrate* a moment when they finally tell the *truth*,
instead of *lying*, or instead of painting their life as though it is *truly*
represented by that "photograph" they are so proud of! In that blackness, if
one points to it, such people can *always* see the wonderful grace of our Lord
at work, bringing their soul forward. As humans, we are told we should "learn
to discern what is good and what is evil." This entails a *process*! As we
look at the lives of our children, it is available for us, in each moment, to
see either *manifested* beauty ... and to praise God for such moments ... or we
can see our Father's hand at work, providing each next opportunity for our
children to step further into His presence.
Neither our societies, through history, nor our art, has *ever* "declined."
"Decline" is only a word which applies to our human judgments about "the human
experience." None of which matters at *all* ... it is *all* passing away! The
*only* thing which matters is what *God* has been doing in our lives. And that
*never* declines ... it simply manifests in magnificently diverse ways through
time. Who *cares* if "Rome" was up or down or sideways, in any given moment?
And who *cares* whether a particular art form was in an "ascendant" state or a
"decline." I hope we will mature ... and *soon* ... beyond our squabbling over
the moon in the water, in our attempts to judge a country or person or art or
music ... and instead put our attention on the *real* issue, which is: how did
our Father use those "human" things toward the progress of our respective
*souls*?
I have had sharp pains in my back for several days now. Should I put my
attention on the pain, or (worse) how I "feel" about the pain ... or should I
praise our Father for whatever He may be doing on my behalf in and through what
I, in my infinite "human wisdom" think of as (merely) pain. Shall I waste my
time bemoaning my "declining" physical condition, as my body begins to show its
age? My goodness ... shall I talk about how I "used to be" an *athlete*, and
now I am in my "declining years?" What an insult to our Father, who is as hard
at work on my behalf now, using the vehicle "older body" to teach me, as He was
when His vehicle was my younger body! We are to praise the Lord in *all*
things. It is not a difficult thing to praise Him in the art of Picasso. Who
cares what you or I "think of" that art? Why must we continue to put our
attention on what "people" do, much less on our *judgments* of what they do?
Why, when our Father's glorious presence fills *all* things, when He *uses* all
things, do we bother to look *anywhere* other than at what *He* is doing on our
behalf?
Ed asked:
>> Perhaps you'd care to name some of the great artists, musicians, and
sculptors of the intervening period. I submit that the few that exist are those
who hew to traditional values.
I respectfully suggest that *no* artist is great, except as our Father works
through her or through him. We have no reason to be "naming artists" in the
first place, except to give glory to God. And if we are going to be giving
glory to God for art and music and sculpture, we might as well look at what our
Father is doing in and through *any* artist or musician or sculptor. Are we so
sure we see those individuals, and their respective contributions, in precisely
the way our Father sees them? If our Father brings *any* art into our
presence, is it not a more senior prayer to ask what our Father might have us
gain from our encounter, instead of telling our Father what we happen to
*think* of that artist, or that art, in a given moment? Did you just encounter
a truly *lousy* sculpture? Is it possible that is sitting in front of you
because it "represents" the manner in which you "sculpted" your relationship
with your child an hour ago, when you turned away as though you were an
ill-shaped lump of stone? *All* art presents us with the opportunity to look
at the manner in which we are creating our *own* lives ... and, at a minimum,
remove another beam of timber from our own eye. He uses *all* things toward
His purposes on our behalf. *That* is the *only* thing we should be paying
attention to when we look out at what we think of as "life," instead of wasting
so much of our time *judging* everything in sight. "It" is *all* His!!! He
permeates *all* of it. What He asks of us is that we accept His invitation to
live inside His holy presence *all* the time ... and to learn to praise Him in
*all* things. To love our neighbor. Even if that neighbor is a lousy artist
or musician or sculptor.
With our family's love to you and yours,
John
Ed Dickerson
>
> Ed Dickerson <edic...@netins.net> wrote in message
> news:37D3FC8F...@netins.net...
> > >
> > > Angel here
> > > coming in in the middle of thinsg again
> > >
> > > Ed Dickerson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > PaulDanaher wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > This lament at the falling-away from former standards is very
> commonplace,
> > > > > and I have to say that his pronouncements on art are provincial and
> > > > > ignorant.
> > >
> > > Not sure who is referred to, but I must agree with Paul.
> > > Every Civilization since the Egyptian Middle Kingdom has lamented
> > > that they did not measure up to the glories of the past.
> > >
> > > The Early Middle Ages lamented the fall of Rome, and
> > > the loss of plumbing, roads etc.
> > > The Romans lamented they missed the Periclean Age of Greece.
> > > You can go on.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, and Marcus Aurelius lamented the corruption of the Rome of his day.
> > Debunkers could have repeated your argument. But he was right. Rome had
> > declined from its height. That some always feel nostalgia for a
> > non-existent past does not change the fact that civilizations do in fact
> > decline. Inevitably, some will observe the decline. And those who have
> > already been corrupted by it will argue as you have. I specifically
> > don't think you're that way, Angie, but I believe Paul is.
>
> on the ng. So now you get to explain why and how you believe I'm corrupted
> by - what? the Rome of my day?
>
the general decline of civilization in the twentieth century.
> <snipped>
>
> Before Angel flew in, I addressed three questions to you. I repeat them here
> for your convenience:
>
> 1 Do you seriously want to argue that there were no great painters,
> musicians and sculptors around in
> the early 1920s, in America and in Europe?
> 2 Do you really want to argue that we haven't had some great artists,
> musicians and sculptors since?
> In any case, I was responding to this specific quote as applying to
> that specific period. If you want
> to claim that there were no great artists etc in 1973-74, we could
> quibble.
> 3 What on earth do you mean by "traditional values" as applied to
> artists, musicians and sculptors?
>
> <snipped>
You'll see my answers in another post already posted.
Ed Dickerson
detail. I know what Picasso was trying to do. Probably the most
successful painting ot the type is "Nude Descending a Staircase" where
what the painter "was attempting to do" is quite clear. Whether it was a
worthwhile thing to do, or even more importantly, whether one gains a
great deal from viewing the results of his doing it are matters
altogether separate. Most modern art either ignores the mass audience or
attempts to outrage it.
It used to be understood that the artist was attempting to communicate
something transcendant (yes, even serious portrait painters) and their
ability to communicate that to ordinary people was what marked them as
exceptionally skilled, or great. Among other things, modern artists are
lazy. They insist that the audience learn their vocabulary, what they're
trying to do. No longer do artists accept the responsibility of
communicating, now it's up to the audience to understand. So I can do
anything, or nothing, and, if a few opinion makers like it, it's up to
the rest of humanity to understand the deep significance I claim for it.
You can find beauty in a cess pool if you look long enough. Your whole
argument centers around the audience, not the artist. That's my point as
well. Yup, look long enough at something, or nothing, and you can
perceive some meaning and "truth" in it. But that's your doing, not the
one who produced the blank canvas. You have become the artist, finding
and expressing beauty, while the one who produced the artifact has done
little or nothing to aid in that endeavor.
<snip>
PaulDanaher
news server and miss the content.
I would like to contribute a couple of personal experiences which bear our
IMO what John is saying here. First, I lived in Europe, which gave me an
opportunity to see originals. (I now live - by choice - just outside
Washington DC, which gives our family the opportunity to see lots of
originals!!) I've lost count of the times that I've stood in front of a
painting and realised for the first time what the artist was trying for - it
startec with Vlaminck at the Tuileries, and went on from there. In London we
had exhibitions of "modern" art (1920s and 1930s really) at the Tate, and
any amount of Henry Moore and Barbara Hepworth (even better, IMO) just lying
around as I walked to work. Just recently, although my wife still hates him,
I saw some Chagal that I really enjoyed at the National Gallery here.
When I was a professional radio chorus singer in London, I had the
opportunity to work with many of the great conductors of our day. For
"modern" music - from the 1920s onwards - there was Boulez. There were many
times a "difficult" work caught life and suddenly made magnificent musical
sense at his hands - Webern, Stravinski, Krenek, Cage, Ligetti .... Amateur
and semiprofessional choruses had already introduced me to Poulenc, Satie,
Bartok. Later I discovered Penderecki, Alban Berg, Henze, Prokofieff,
Shostakovitch, Tippett, Britten and Zimmermann through my work as an opera
singer (chorus, then some solos).
A couch potato in art doesn't see much of the game (and American football
bores the ears off me).
Another point which is very relevant is that an artist today can't just
repeat what others have done before. They have to be different, or else
they're just painting copies of other people's work. It's not easy to find
so much difference. Academics have the same problem - if you read a
published paper outside your own field, it's typically striking that the
author is squirrelling ideas (got to make them stretch out) and especially
outside the sciences trying to impose their own terminology, which
trademarks an idea as their own even if it isn't. Educators might notice the
recent emergence (complete with textbooks, workbooks, videos, conferences
etc) of SBE (standards-based education). Not exactly a new idea, but new
packaging (anyway you slice it, it's still baloney).
Finally, there's the caricature of the small-town American - ignorant,
suspicious and dismissive of ideas which are unfamiliar ("not grown on his
own shit" as the German saying has it), intellectually inbred and
xenophobic. Oh, and furiously resentful if they feel they're losing an
argument.
JRice43497 <jrice...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:19990907095024...@ng-bk1.aol.com...
> On Saturday, the 4th of September, 1999, david_l...@my-deja.com wrote,
in
> part:
>
> > Gone, too, are the great painters and the great musicians, and the great
> sculptors. The art that still subsists is largely imitative, and where it
is
> not imitative it is usually bizarre.
For the record, he quoted Machen, Professof the NT at Harvard Seminary, in a
1924.book.
> On Monday, the 6th of September, 1999, Ed Dickerson <edic...@netins.net>
> commented, in part:
>
> >> Perhaps you'd care to name some of the great artists, musicians, and
> sculptors of the intervening period. I submit that the few that exist are
those
> who hew to traditional values.
>
> On September 5th, Paul asked:
>
> >>> What on earth do you mean by "traditional values" as applied to
artists,
> musicians and sculptors?
>
> Ed replied, in part:
... but not, sadly, to me.
Ed Dickerson
Adieu!
Kanga C.
>suspicious and dismissive of ideas which are unfamiliar ("not grown on his
>own shit" as the German saying has it), intellectually inbred and
>xenophobic. Oh, and furiously resentful if they feel they're losing
>an
>argument.
What a shabby response.
Jenny Harkins
>Angel Sparrow wrote:
>>
>> Hmm, An aversion to madern art is typical of fascists
>> and other control freaks. As Hitler once said: (loose
>> paraphrase) If he paints a sky green, he's being
>> contrary and doesn't fit in. If he actually sees it as
>> green, he needs shooting.
>
>I have no reason to be upset with you, but that's a cheap
>shot, and guilt by association as well. Hitler loved his
>dog and was a vegetarian, but it doesn't make dog lovers
>or vegetarians fascists or control freaks.
He was also an 'artist". Just shows to go 'ya!
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Angel Sparrow
Jenny Harkins wrote:
>
> Ed Dickerson <edic...@netins.net> wrote:
> >I have no reason to be upset with you, but that's a cheap
> >shot, and guilt by association as well. Hitler loved his
> >dog and was a vegetarian, but it doesn't make dog lovers
> >or vegetarians fascists or control freaks.
I never said I was above cheap shots,
and vegetarians and dog lovers are
suspect in my book anyway.
>
> He was also an 'artist". Just shows to go 'ya!
Actually more of a draftsman. HAd they
had CAD in the teens ad 20s, we might have
missed a whole war.
I've seen his work. Not bad, but
not really art. Very much drafting and architecture work.
Angel
Marty & Paola Addamiano-Carts
PaulDanaher wrote:
> David L. Hanson <david_l...@my-deja.com> wrote ...
> > dont_spam...@mindspring.com (Yocomomoco) wrote:
> > > First of all, let me welcome David back into the fold. It's been a
> > > long time.
> > > "David, Bienvenidos. Mucho tiempo, no te he oido de ti."
For a long time from you I haven't heard from you? Isn't that
redundant?
> > [...]
> Er, beautiful music "standards"? What are these, please?
For any "art" I'm trying the mimesis test lately--does it "say"
something about people in some way (and if so, then it's art)?
This is a nice test, because even the solid blue canvases rank
(heh! In more ways than one!). I end up thinking "Well! This
tells me a *load* about this stupid artist!" and so, it is art
and there's no disput'n it. _____________________________Marty
JRice43497
On Tuesday, the 7th of September, 1999, Ed Dickerson <edic...@netins.net>
wrote, in part:
> I know what Picasso was trying to do. Probably the most successful painting
ot the type is "Nude Descending a Staircase" where what the painter "was
attempting to do" is quite clear.
My ancestors urged that Picasso, instead, paint a Naked Assertion Defending a
Spare Case, but he declined.
Ed Dickerson
No doubt he declined into a blue period.
nob...@nowhere.com
<edic...@netins.net> wrote:
No doubt having had his blue suede shoes stepped on.
Wait, that was somebody else!!
Yocomomoco
<david_l...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>I have been reading the postings for years but haven't been
>inclined to post much for the last two years or so. We graduated our
>oldest son from our homeschool this year but he is still staying home
>to work on his classical and sacred piano, and study using college
>correspondence courses.
You oughta share with us the nature of the college correspondence
courses. Some of us have kids in the high school years and we know
first hand that it's a different ball of wax than teaching fonix to a
5 year old. Then what about college? At least I'm interested in what
kind of correspondence course he is in.
Cheers,
SAO
David L. Hanson
dont_spam...@mindspring.com (Yocomomoco) wrote:
> You oughta share with us the nature of the college correspondence
> courses. Some of us have kids in the high school years and we know
> first hand that it's a different ball of wax than teaching fonix to a
> 5 year old. Then what about college? At least I'm interested in what
> kind of correspondence course he is in.
We found it easier to teach our sons when they were older (we started
home education in Jan 1992 when our two ds were 9 and 11 years old).
By the time, they were 14 or 15, they taught themselves the "academic"
subjects. We provided the resources and direction, and the "train them
up in the way they should go" education.
Our oldest, 18, has studied Biblical Greek (three 4 semester credit
classes) and Hebrew (one 4 semester credit class) from Moody Bible
Institute. He finished one of these classes each year for each of the
last four years. Our youngest,16 , has been studying German using
courses from UT-Austin's high school correspondence program. He is
going to switch to Biblical Greek next month. Both of these have worked
very well for us. When our oldest started, I found two schools that
offered Biblical Greek through distance learning, Moody and Taylor
University. I still remember the lady at Taylor who told me that there
was no way that a 14 year old could possibly do their courses because
they were too hard. Our oldest has never had a final grade less than
99 in any of the classes he took from Moody.
Today, distance learning is growing rapidly. Any student who is well
self-motivated and wants to obtain an accredited college degree at home
can do so (depending on the major). One of John Bear's guides to
distance learning is a great way to learn about (John Bear sold the
rights to his "name" and his books to some company but that company is
continuing to publish the books.) Our sons are going to major in piano
performance which can't be done through distance learning so they are
going to attend Bob Jones University. I expect our oldest to start
next year with about 30 semester hours (the maximum accepted) through
correspondence classes and CLEP tests, though.