Monarchy and the Greatest Art
Jackson K. Eskew
monarchies? Isn't it clear that the levelling impulse of democracy is
poisonous to great art? Think very carefully about this or I'm going to
have to write an essay about it.
Join me, friends, in becoming a monarchist!
Jackson K. Eskew
PGPear...@aol.com
You're beginning to repeat yourself.
Paul Pearson
Tormod Hansen
PGPear...@aol.com skrev:
> Jackson K. Eskew wrote:
>> Join me, friends, in becoming a monarchist!
This is my drop of voltage :
"If you find me in the gutter, it's like finding
George Bush jr. in the White House" :)
Where was you on 9/11-2000?
Reading and learing how to cheat and become president
of the last world in our sivilisation kitchen warm up ass.
Delia
Steal a little and they throw you in jail,
Steal a lot and they make you king.
Arjan
"Jackson K. Eskew" <jackso...@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:1158117897.1...@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Are you trying to say that a monarchy is not a democracy?
Arjan
Jackson K. Eskew
Arjan wrote:
> Are you trying to say that a monarchy is not a democracy?
>
> Arjan
Any monarchy worthy of the name is certainly not a democracy.
olom...@comcast.net
Jackson K. Eskew wrote:
> Have you not noticed that the greatest art has been produced under
> monarchies? Isn't it clear that the levelling impulse of democracy is
> poisonous to great art?
Fear and subjugation does produce an artistic discipline that creates
with mathematical precision.
Is it really divine?
Pilgrim
Jackson K. Eskew wrote:
> Have you not noticed that the greatest art has been produced under
> monarchies?
No, I haven't.
> Isn't it clear that the levelling impulse of democracy is
> poisonous to great art?
No, I've found that great art has been made under many different forms
of government. It's difficult to quantify, but a great number of
artists that have inspired me lived under democratic style governments.
Also, many monarchies exist in democratic societies. I've found that
the deciding factor is cultural, rather than political and it's really
very simple. If the arts are supported, they tend to flourish. That
can vary greatly within a single culture. High points often occur
during great cultural exchanges or when new technological discoveries
are made. An example of this is when photography was developed and the
Impressionists and Post-Impressionists began experimenting with visual
theories, color and abstraction, leading to the High Modernism of the
early 20th century.
> Think very carefully about this or I'm going to
> have to write an essay about it.
I've thought a very long time about this, in fact, I have an art degree
with a minor in art history, but I suppose I can't prevent you from
writing an essay about it and it might be rather humorous.
>
> Join me, friends, in becoming a monarchist!
I'm busy and have more sense.
A part of me wonders how you can take yourself so seriously, but the
other part is just fascinated.
Ziglveidt B. Shtoonk
He's right you know. Just look at the marvels that were created under
the Pharoahs! Took generations of slaves to create these monarchic
masterpieces commemorating their reign! But they are impressive and
have lasted for thousands of years.
Or how about the Holy Roman Empire? Truly awe inspiring art at the
service of the Empire. Especially when they finally got around to
casting good ole' Sol Magnus, the sun god, in back of every beatified
head, assuring the worship of believers and pagans alike. What a
stroke!
Personally, I think the works of Hieronymous Bosch and Peter Breugal
illustrate the point perfectly. Such works of beauty are impossible
under any other system than a monarchy!
Come to think of it, wasn't the sheer beauty of the Sex Pistols created
in a monarchic UK?
Pilgrim
Most of history has been lived under a monarchy, so you'll have to show
a little more causation than that. With this argument, you've
dismissed all the work done in the U.S. including the 20th century when
New York was the center of the art world and the French art of the 3rd
Republic. Also, if we can include music in this, you've just
dismissed Dylan.
Arjan
Well name me one monarchy in the world today, that is not a democracy.
Arjan
Pilgrim
The Sauds?
>
> Arjan
we...@bellsouth.net
subject was said by the Orson Welles character after he got off the
Ferris wheel in The Third Man. And the person saying it was not
someone whose worldview I would want to share. Monarchies squash
people, as that character showed. In modern times (not Modern Times),
all you have to do is compare the visual arts in the Soviet Union to
the United States to relieve any anxiety about the leveling impulse of
democracy. You could find more great paintings on one block in New
York in one week than the Soviet Union generated in its whole history.
I know you said monarchies, and the Soviet Union wasn't exactly that,
but a monarchy isn't an option today. It's either freedom or fascism,
and fascism, along with all the other life-supressing characteristics
it has, destroys art. (Even if you want to quibble on the detail, name
a monarchy in the current era that has generated an artistic output to
equal that of the Western democracies. My one-word answer to whatever
you say would be, half-seriously, "Elvis." I'll take a bit of cultural
messiness along with freedom and rock 'n' roll.)
Pilgrim
w...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> Save your energy on the essay. Everything that can be said on that
> subject was said by the Orson Welles character after he got off the
> Ferris wheel in The Third Man. And the person saying it was not
> someone whose worldview I would want to share. Monarchies squash
> people, as that character showed. In modern times (not Modern Times),
> all you have to do is compare the visual arts in the Soviet Union to
> the United States to relieve any anxiety about the leveling impulse of
> democracy. You could find more great paintings on one block in New
> York in one week than the Soviet Union generated in its whole history.
> I know you said monarchies, and the Soviet Union wasn't exactly that,
> but a monarchy isn't an option today. It's either freedom or fascism,
> and fascism, along with all the other life-supressing characteristics
> it has, destroys art. (Even if you want to quibble on the detail, name
> a monarchy in the current era that has generated an artistic output to
> equal that of the Western democracies. My one-word answer to whatever
> you say would be, half-seriously, "Elvis." I'll take a bit of cultural
> messiness along with freedom and rock 'n' roll.)
The Soviet Union did have a very interesting art movement in the very
beginning of it's life, but then they repressed it, forcing most of
them to flee, mainly to France or the U.S., or to subsume their
creative abilities to the state, much like Plato would have it.
I'm waiting for Jackson's essay on the flowering of the arts under the
Saudis. I think he'll do a brilliant job proving his case.
We're waiting, Jackson.
Jumbo
> Have you not noticed that the greatest art has been produced under
> monarchies? Isn't it clear that the levelling impulse of democracy is
> poisonous to great art?
Again, the usual shortage of aedequatio.
It's not monarchy, it's a leisured class (complete with slaves) that
makes for the greatest art.
Do Sophocles and Plato make your list of all-time greats? Which
kings/queens did THEY work under?
Come on, read better books.
Delia
As Voltaire said, the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman,
nor an empire. I wonder if Voltaire counts. He made his reputation
and his living under a highly incompetent absolutist monarch by
tearing down said institution with savage wit.
Jackson K. Eskew
Delia wrote:
> As Voltaire said, the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman,
> nor an empire. I wonder if Voltaire counts. He made his reputation
> and his living under a highly incompetent absolutist monarch by
> tearing down said institution with savage wit.
Delia, one thing is certain: Your wit certainly isn't of Voltairean
proportions.
I bid you adieu.
Pilgrim
Jumbo wrote:
> Jackson K. Eskew wrote:
> > Have you not noticed that the greatest art has been produced under
> > monarchies? Isn't it clear that the levelling impulse of democracy is
> > poisonous to great art?
>
> Again, the usual shortage of aedequatio.
>
> It's not monarchy, it's a leisured class (complete with slaves) that
> makes for the greatest art.
Or expendable income. Some of the greatest Dutch art was made under a
merchant oligarchy.
Delia
Pilgrim wrote:
> Jumbo wrote:
> > Jackson K. Eskew wrote:
> > > Have you not noticed that the greatest art has been produced under
> > > monarchies? Isn't it clear that the levelling impulse of democracy is
> > > poisonous to great art?
> >
> > Again, the usual shortage of aedequatio.
> >
> > It's not monarchy, it's a leisured class (complete with slaves) that
> > makes for the greatest art.
>
> Or expendable income. Some of the greatest Dutch art was made under a
> merchant oligarchy.
And the Renaissance artists were supported for the most part by a
merchant class who had become rulers by virtue of the wealth they had
accumulated. Artists were dependent on commissions. It didn't matter
who was handing them out, popes, merchants, princes, or the NEA.
Delia