More on Famous Composers and Artists

My Friend Writes More:

"It is not the financial support, or the "commercialization" of art. What I wonder is to what degree we've been duped by a bourgeouis inheritance that is alien to an authentic Catholic perspective of art and the role of the artist. OK, so my kid can identify a Renoir and a Rembrandt. So what. That act values two ideals: the artist as an individual, and the work of art as an individual piece of creativity. And I wonder if these two values are true, or manifestations of modernism. To look at the Bayeux Tapestry, or Chartres, neither of these values are present. I suspect that "Look Mommy, It's a Renoir" is the child of modernism in this way: it glorifies the radically individual creative person performing a radically individualized act of creativity. So that's the wonder.

Of course, it needn't be said (so I'll type it instead) that Renoir, and Rembrandt and Beethoven created astonishingly beautiful things. That stands on its own. I have noticed that those in the know don't permit the questioning of so-called creative genius. We have sanctified the individual act of art, and the individual artist. It all must remain above questioning.

So, as with economics, a "distributist" or Traddy, or whatever you want to call someone who sees modern life for what it is, has to wonder if Warhol is the child of Renoir, and if truer art might involve a guild.

When Whistler was alive, he sued Ruskin for Ruskin's public derision of his paintings. I trust Ruskin, and I think he more clearly saw the radical turns in art as it was fresh on the scene."

--------------

Much here worthy of discussion and exploration. I think our current culture is in many ways a sinkhole but I still say, "CAREFUL." I have seen many erstwhile conservative and/or Catholic cultural commentators point to a 'trend' in modern life that may indeed be harmful, or less than ideal. Then they jump to pointing out how a particular artist was influenced by such a trend, and then jump to the conclusion that everything he created therefore must be 'disordered' and should be shunned - WITHOUT EVEN LOOKING AT THE WORK OF ART ITSELF. This is a cautionary note I wish to get out of the way. (I know you ackowledged it above, but I think it bears repeating.) Even God has chosen to work with a fallen creation and our own weak wills so that he can bring good out of evil. I mean, one has to be careful about this but, think about the whole "felix culpa" business of the Exsultet. The background of original sin was the "canvas" for the artwork of Redemption. The problem I have with some of the distributist/Traddy schemes is that they strike me as almost socialist - the creation of an ideal society based on the past (or usually someone's debatable reconstruction of aspects of the past) rather than the future (as with socialism). In both cases what isn't taken into account is man's fallen nature AND his ability to transcend his surroundings.

Nay, to even use parts of his surroundings to a good end.

That being said, to anyone who wishes to start a discussion along the lines of Ruskin and the Pre-Raphaelites I say, "Great, go to it." I just haven't seen anything rise even to that level in the circles we travel in because these are not actual artists - and, yes, it would be good to consult such people who know intimately about art. At least all I have seen have been historian/social critic types in love with ideas and theories, but with limited musical/artistic culture, and 'concerned parents' who understandably don't want junior's morals corrupted.

The results would be comical if not sad. Said 'concerned parents' decide junior should only listen to Gregorian chant. It might work with some personality types, but with others they end up with a CD collection made up of half Gregorian Chant and half Heavy Metal (but nothing in between). One particular institution teaches the theory that modern popular music is an abomination (which it indeed can be) and that the ideal society should have 'art music' and 'folk music.' A theory that is very German, therefore, interesting and, I think, from the neo-Marxist Frankfurt School (which I don't think this institution is aware of as they got it through the intermediary of John Senior). Still, all-in-all, an interesting idea. Problem is it gets bastardized into, "you should only listen to Gregorian Chant and Irish folk music." At least by the time it gets to the students. I here of a student of said institution who would go out jogging with his iPod so he could secretly indulge in the 'sinful pleasure' of listening to Schubert's Ave Maria.

It may be a false story, but there is a grain of truth in it. Don't get me wrong. I think many people listen to atrocious crap and their lives would be immensely improved if they listened to Gregorian Chant and Irish folk music. They don't have a clue. However, the "conservative Catholic" reaction goes too far. It is not really Catholic, but Puritanical.

It is not CULTURED, therefore it is not Catholic.

It is ideology masquerading as informed opinion about music. There is no getting around it. Teach people about good music and art (give them that as part of their regular diet) no matter what soil it grew in, and there will be a chance.

I just wanted to get that rant out of the way. Now we can talk about Ruskin and the Medieval Guilds - at least after I do one post about Mr. Neutron and London's West End. (It's getting late.)