tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-61317976198366907932024-03-21T10:34:23.627-07:00The Radiance of FormErik Bootsmahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03749834088028424348noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6131797619836690793.post-11042127197792542642016-02-23T04:09:00.002-08:002016-02-23T04:09:12.987-08:00The Cube, the Sphere and the Theology of Architecture<div class="MsoNormal">
The last two post I talked about the shape of the circle and
its relationship to divinity and perfection.
I spoke about how the completeness and simplicity of the form made
almost all cultures revere the form as divine.
This universality of understanding leads us to believe that there is
something both in the nature of the form, and in the nature of man's mind that leads us to say this. No god ever declared it to be so, but the
minds of men simply know that it is so.
Something known naturally is also known then universally by all mankind,
and so has symbolic meaning to all people. <o:p></o:p>So we can say this is known to be divine <i><u>naturally</u></i>. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
These natural symbols then have power beyond any extrinsic
character we put upon them, and thus are very powerful, and so they must be used very carefully. We saw that
the church in the round misuses this symbolism as it places the altar in the same space as the people, symbolizing the
perfection of all that is present, so minimizing the teaching of a journey <i><u>towards</u></i> the perfection of heaven. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But moving on I want to speak about symbols of divinity
that are not purely products of <i><u>natural
reason,</u></i> but rather those that are given by revelation. In the interest of staying with the theme of
basic geometric forms, I’d like to talk now in particular about the form of the
cube. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhX7clPHdgfyYxNide-iLhhw54rTX4P8_J-DhantNtndp0winxsqDyxNK4RWU7mILfllbQWL7rsRRyLDrH2zd_JInWIvhsKBgXN4EaJcCrAksBGW_Ti5giFgPSzrhJE2qgLGCDtlmlRd8r3/s1600/solomon_dimensions.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="212" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhX7clPHdgfyYxNide-iLhhw54rTX4P8_J-DhantNtndp0winxsqDyxNK4RWU7mILfllbQWL7rsRRyLDrH2zd_JInWIvhsKBgXN4EaJcCrAksBGW_Ti5giFgPSzrhJE2qgLGCDtlmlRd8r3/s320/solomon_dimensions.gif" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The perfect cube instituted by God <br />for the Holy of Holies.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The cube is a revealed form, as it is given specifically by
God to Moses in outlining the dimensions of the Tabernacle where the Aaronic
priesthood would worship God. God would
be actually present to the Jews seated atop the Ark of the Covenant, in the
Holy of Holies which took the form of a perfect cube. The symbol of the cube continues throughout
the Old Testament to be used for the permanent Temple of Solomon, where too the
Ark and God were truly present. In the
Book of Revelation would it reappear, when St. John saw the New Jerusalem,
built of gold in the form of a perfect cube.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The connection between this Old Testament revelation and the
vision of paradise to come is outlined well by Dr. Denis McNamara in his book
Architecture and the Spirit of the Liturgy.
He explains that the Tabernacle and temple are a <i>shadow </i>of that divine reality of the New Jerusalem, giving a hint at the reality but not showing it in full. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQd7PR40t9jSb8sXN7yduRpjMat5SU507nngDOHG5x0FdaX13gZqDjCqWET2oCSaLK1ojFtKNj3y2mSAIuHE8ROic21vboNW9djHZ6NjH_WK_Ixrr12cdLIeaf1C3Pi3Fr3tPaiJqrLlp_/s1600/images+%25281%2529.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQd7PR40t9jSb8sXN7yduRpjMat5SU507nngDOHG5x0FdaX13gZqDjCqWET2oCSaLK1ojFtKNj3y2mSAIuHE8ROic21vboNW9djHZ6NjH_WK_Ixrr12cdLIeaf1C3Pi3Fr3tPaiJqrLlp_/s1600/images+%25281%2529.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The divinity of the circle is <br />known to even the pagans.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We live now however in a
time of <i>image </i>where because of God coming to Earth in the
person of Christ, the divine presence is here, in reality, but not in fullness. But we as Christians in that time between <i>shadow</i> and
<i>reality</i>, though we have God truly present as both in the Temple
and in Heaven, we have no divinely instituted form to give symbolism to this
reality. What we must do then is make
use of <i><u>both</u></i> natural and divine
reasons to come up with a solution. This
is of course the same thing as what theology is, which as a philosophical
discipline takes one premise from natural reason, and anotehr from revelation.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
From the very beginning then the church embraced the divine
form of the cube found in Temple and the Synogogue (as Pope Benedict XVI
explained), and carried them forward by use of natural reason to make them
suitable for use by the Christian Church. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRqGNJ9Yf_mVZmqm8LJCdNb9C2_h6J8DJt9cXrpMObE1_8jrDmLv-pU8xWZVpjHPrQctYoVodkf_WKUG7xonczn2k5fhMnVL7H-zTQTEBDnHCcMPBZrockDt-8KvPu4IZIQaf_v0auSuxg/s1600/2000px-Pantheon_section_sphere.svg.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="195" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRqGNJ9Yf_mVZmqm8LJCdNb9C2_h6J8DJt9cXrpMObE1_8jrDmLv-pU8xWZVpjHPrQctYoVodkf_WKUG7xonczn2k5fhMnVL7H-zTQTEBDnHCcMPBZrockDt-8KvPu4IZIQaf_v0auSuxg/s320/2000px-Pantheon_section_sphere.svg.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The perfect sphere of the interior of the Pantheon in Rome</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now the form of the cube, while divinely instituted, is also
a form which can be seen as perfect by natural reason as well. The pagan Greek mathematicians Euclid and Pythagoras
saw it as one of the “perfect” solids, where divinity could be
comprehended. The form is known as
divine both through reason and revelation.
To the early Christians, then were working theologically, and as
theology is subject to development, they quickly melded this to another sacred form,
the aforementioned circle and it's development, the sphere.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiejt7mEw9f-DT9Q6EdcU_fS5NOO7r5JR97Mw-1Rc33-dnv250QQ-wbVXizNXlJ-oxZwbwdDzwWGR3Gu0NLdMJj12jji6P6WNgwFddfo-lfo40JzcOYRMOnOyu6KU96vYpBiI6aCgH-1hw6/s1600/Honeymoon+Photos+2011+064.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiejt7mEw9f-DT9Q6EdcU_fS5NOO7r5JR97Mw-1Rc33-dnv250QQ-wbVXizNXlJ-oxZwbwdDzwWGR3Gu0NLdMJj12jji6P6WNgwFddfo-lfo40JzcOYRMOnOyu6KU96vYpBiI6aCgH-1hw6/s320/Honeymoon+Photos+2011+064.JPG" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The apse of the original cathedral of Venice, <br />S. Maria Assunta, Torcello</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now the Romans used this divine form in the Pantheon, a perfect sphere defining the space where the entire cosmos of the pagan gods were to be worshipped. The apse of course was a common form used by the Romans where the seat of authority would sit in judgement, but the form of it is a combination of the cube and the sphere. Melding these three symbols, both of the cosmic sphere, cube of the Holy of Holies, and bringing along with it the Roman authority, the Christians were able to turn this form into a truly uniquely Christian sacred space.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Tradition, like theology, does not abandon truths known in
the past as obsolete, only develops and perfects them, so when we create
architectural forms for Christian worship, we should keep this in mind. In rejecting the form of the temple and the apse, we
do so by also rejecting the theological understandings about that space, and the
ability to symbolize those truths.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Erik Bootsmahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03749834088028424348noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6131797619836690793.post-71791710924470984962016-01-25T06:32:00.003-08:002016-01-25T06:32:53.095-08:00Problems with the Church in the Round: #2 "Perfection"Last week<a href="http://radianceofform.blogspot.com/2016/01/problems-with-church-in-round-1.html" target="_blank"> I wrote about the problems with the "church in the round"</a>, in particular how the location of the celebrant at the center causes a de-emphasis of the importance of the altar as authority over the congregation. In this post I'd like further at the symbolism of the church in the round and how it relates to the eschatology of the Church. <br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_5QedwaGRfEJkgZ0OUWHbMCFe3oGp05yYMgkDNmjzIcwhK44tUnknlarmEeHJxXj5KqOgM9SyF9fomAk9v0O1Oy_eWy47HCItSUinolU5ZWgVfqWTCGIZ6H57Kg4gILNy1X2tMQ1zfXhA/s1600/TrinityShield.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_5QedwaGRfEJkgZ0OUWHbMCFe3oGp05yYMgkDNmjzIcwhK44tUnknlarmEeHJxXj5KqOgM9SyF9fomAk9v0O1Oy_eWy47HCItSUinolU5ZWgVfqWTCGIZ6H57Kg4gILNy1X2tMQ1zfXhA/s400/TrinityShield.gif" /></a>The form of the circle symbolically is one of gathering and binding together. All points of the circle are equally distant from the center point of the circle, being "held together" by that point. The only direction that can be seen in circle has is either inwards or outwards. One cannot really talk about a top or bottom, or front or back or a circular form, at least without reference to something outside the circle itself. Also since it has no real sides like any polygon, one can think of the circle as having an "infinite" number of sides. The circle symbolically then has the nature of completeness and "perfection" as well as infinity. Thus we can see why throughout almost all of human history, the circle is symbolic of divinity. Indeed in Christianity we see an ancient symbol of the trinity, of three intersecting circles is deep with that same meaning.<br />
<br />
But this nature of completeness and perfection of the circle is deeply problematic in the design of a Catholic church. The reason for this revolves around the idea of eschatology. Eschatology, as Dr. Denis McNamara explains in his <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PDWXMMgy9c" target="_blank">excellent series on the Catholic Architecture</a>, is the teaching about the eschaton, or simply about the end of the world. Christianity, in contrast to the ancient pagan religions, proposed that not only did Christ come to earth to die for our sins, but also that he will come again at the end of times, and that <i><b>there will be</b></i> an end of time. The Church has always looked forward to the Second Coming, and thus has always taught that the people of God are marching toward that end, where the work of Salvation will finally be completed. The Church, through the liturgy of the Mass, teaches about the perfection of Heaven and the world to come, but also gives us a "foretaste" of Paradise. When we receive the Eucharist in Mass, we receive Christ truly and thus partake in his perfection in Heaven, but we still remain in this world, fallen as it is, so it is we still are left wanting more.<br />
<br />
But when the circular form is used in a church, the symbolism of the circle conflicts with this teaching. The circle as said before, has a notion of completeness, of perfection and infinity. We lose the sense that there is something lacking, which we are heading towards, namely the perfection of <br />
Heaven.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMalwUT2SgUKIb9NGii3_sPjuhhw2jA0ZVlHEXbzGGF1rCpwJwcEWx6jC54ptTTRQrDluqzCnhcEIyrauJeUvfvm3U-EPWmxHzWs5JKLWVCpP5poRQFtnS_TMH_JtblpGsuKUzjiJuRPEf/s1600/images+%25281%2529.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMalwUT2SgUKIb9NGii3_sPjuhhw2jA0ZVlHEXbzGGF1rCpwJwcEWx6jC54ptTTRQrDluqzCnhcEIyrauJeUvfvm3U-EPWmxHzWs5JKLWVCpP5poRQFtnS_TMH_JtblpGsuKUzjiJuRPEf/s1600/images+%25281%2529.jpg" /></a></div>
When you consider the ancient pagans at Stonehenge, you can see this in act, there they saw that seasons changed, but always came back to the same place, a perfect world, symbolized by the circle of stones.<br />
<br />
So when we have a church in the round, symbolically it communicates that this church where we stand, is complete and perfect just how it is. Coming to church, being in communion with the people we see "face to face" is all that we need, and there's nothing beyond.<br />
<br />
When you couple this with a de-emphasis on the authority and importance of the altar, as we saw in the last post, that notion of community alone becomes even more overwhelming. We begin to lose the sense of being on the pilgrim's path toward salvation, and begin to think that just seeing friends and simply "being nice" to them is all that there is to the Church.<br />
<br />
<br />Erik Bootsmahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03749834088028424348noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6131797619836690793.post-21317896325833289402016-01-18T12:42:00.004-08:002016-01-18T13:03:49.978-08:00Problems with the Church in the Round: #1 Orientation<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpHG34q9n22VmlEb60sfDXZWHS-Z9zcOJfjrf9zBLlFOBP0TK4YdY2bRDWLCzUkesCPwpd4wgkgJGVHPI1WtYuMgnJpN0Kmh8xq-FH3toeset856KjIU4h5fubFCnpYeKIhmy_HMYrg6y9/s1600/St+Michael+-+Henrico+%25281%2529.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="179" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpHG34q9n22VmlEb60sfDXZWHS-Z9zcOJfjrf9zBLlFOBP0TK4YdY2bRDWLCzUkesCPwpd4wgkgJGVHPI1WtYuMgnJpN0Kmh8xq-FH3toeset856KjIU4h5fubFCnpYeKIhmy_HMYrg6y9/s320/St+Michael+-+Henrico+%25281%2529.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The church in the round.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The church in the "round" is a particular form of church architecture that has been all the rage for the past 50 years since the end of the Second Vatican Council. The form of the church puts the altar of sacrifice, admittedly the focus of Catholic worship in the Mass, at the direct center of the church.<br />
<br />
Whether it be a new purpose-built church or a church which has been renovated since then, the seating around the altar is intended by the liturgical designers and architects to foster "a sense of community" and to emphasize the "sacred meal" aspect of the Mass. I'd like to take a few posts here to take a look at what sort of ideas and symbols are communicated by this form of church and what sort of philosophical and theological problems arise from those ideas.<br />
<br />
The first problem of the "church in the round" is a problem of orientation and emphasis. The church in the round sets the altar of the church directly in the center of the church. The liturgical designers note that being circular, the seats are all arranged closer to the altar, allowing for ease of visibility. Oftentimes the church floor is sloped downward to the altar, much like in a theater, making the altar easier to see. Aspects of community too then would be emphasized, as everyone could see the face of their fellow parishioners and literally gather "around the altar."<br />
<br />
The liturgical designers of this sort of church note that the Council asked for the altar to be "truly central" (p. 91), meaning that it be the symbolic focus of worship. Therefore, what could be more symbolic of an altar being central to attention than it being literally central as well! The configuration then was a "win-win" situation, as it both got you community and gathering, but also kept the focus on the altar and the sacrifice of the Mass.<br />
<br />
However, this latter aspect, the idea that Christ himself is offered on the altar, that God is present in the church, over time seems to have been steadily eroded. A recent paean to a parish renovation in what we might well assume to be a church in the round, in National Catholic Reporter was illustrative. While the author talked glowingly about how often she "looked for" her friends and various people, not once did she mention that she looked for God in the church. The purpose of this author's church seemed to be more on socializing than the worship of God in the Mass.<br />
<br />
Why then is this sense of sacredness and presence of God so lacking? There are of course many reasons, but one striking one philosophically is of orientation, or rather the lack of orientation. Despite the claims of the liturgical experts that the church in the round would increase the importance of the altar, the arrangement in fact actually almost nullifies the importance of the altar. The reasons for this are apparent when we look at the form of buildings, and how architecture is derived from our own human form.<br />
<br />
As human beings we of course have the ability to communicate, and most universally through speech. Our speech of course comes through our mouths, and because we only have one mouth, the sound tends to emanate from only one side of our head. Logically then if you want to hear a person speaking, you stand in front of them and face toward their face. This then is even more important when someone of authority is speaking. Everyone who gathers to hear them stands not around them but in front of them, oriented facing toward them.<br />
<br />
As societies developed throughout history, the places where authority resided, mostly kings and other lawgivers, would be built so that the speaker would stand or sit at one end of a large space, and the audience facing toward him. The shape of the architecture then is determined in a very real way by human nature. This is so attuned to our universal human nature that almost every single example of the architecture of authority is made this way, no matter what time or place the building was made.<br />
<br />
In the Old Testament God instituted both the form of the Tabernacle in the desert, and the Temple in Jerusalem and the Israelites would have recognized that a universal form, where the the rational place for authority, was placed at one end of the space, facing the gathered. So even more so for the highest possible authority, the One true God, would the form be appropriate and good.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifZl6GKN-FL9WnsHVIhaY9RQSIQPmn9-Eg63FdIXO6l9S13LHnAZCdDbFjLysMcobNI7gN9URtk_VJ3Jxhf38mqbg9MylObS0x_goV_GfRqOnzd8hhJqg2nWUbe8PYh_HW5RP9dDluNwcf/s1600/basiciliainside.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="207" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifZl6GKN-FL9WnsHVIhaY9RQSIQPmn9-Eg63FdIXO6l9S13LHnAZCdDbFjLysMcobNI7gN9URtk_VJ3Jxhf38mqbg9MylObS0x_goV_GfRqOnzd8hhJqg2nWUbe8PYh_HW5RP9dDluNwcf/s320/basiciliainside.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
So when the Christians gathered to worship, the location of God, in the aspect of the Eucharist would be just the same sort of place, in one of highest authority. The Christians then adopted the Roman Basilica was just as naturally as a duck to water. It is no coincidence that the apse of the lawgiver is located analogously to where the Holy of Holies sits in the Temple. The form is nearly identical because the nature of the use is identical. Placing authority at the end of a space, in order to be seen and more importantly heard.<br />
<br />
Now the problem of the church in the round and the presence of the sacred and of God becomes apparent. When the altar is set below and amidst everyone, the authority is lessened, if not negated entirely. According to our natures, we look to authority to be placed facing us, to be situated even a few steps above us. What would we think of a judge seated not in the usual raised box bench, but seated at floor level at the center of the court? The authority he holds would be lessened, as we could look down on him, or be in a position to not even hear him. So too for a President being sworn in, or delivering a State of the Union address, or even a teacher in front of a lecture hall. <br />
<br />
So in church in the round the altar, the priest and the sacrifice of the Mass itself lose the true position of authority, and cannot compete with the overbearing symbolism of the community, the meal and the social gathering or even the rock show. Each "participant" in the Mass then too sits at a position of equal authority, equal even to God.<br />
<br />
<div>
Now, one could argue the in the usus antiquior form of the Roman Rite, the priest faces away from the congregation. However this only emphasizes the point further, as God is the authority, the priest faces not the people, but toward to the cross and the tabernacle. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Then when our NCR author says looking across to the members of the community: "I look for David and his twins. For Marge and her daughter. For Will. For Barbie. For Jerry, due back from India. I look for Rita. If Bob is with her, I know he is having a good day", we know she's not thinking about God, and certainly she's not praying, but instead she's thinking about her friends. This is not because she's a bad Catholic, but it is because the proper object of her attention in Mass, God and the Eucharist, has been removed from the one place where it's location would naturally command that attention and allow her to pray and see God face to face.<br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "times new roman" , "times" , "arial";"><br /></span>Erik Bootsmahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03749834088028424348noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6131797619836690793.post-16072685056645093172014-07-07T04:35:00.003-07:002014-07-07T04:36:05.747-07:00Four Questions: Q1: What is architecture?I subscribe to an email list that talks about traditional and classical architecture, often the talk of the philosophy of architecture, and the philosophy of aesthetics is a topic. A contributor who I respect posted recently a series of questions to the list, trying to ascertain if people had any sort of common principles from which we were approaching the subject of classical architecture.<br />
<div>
<br />
<div>
<div>
1. What is architecture</div>
<div>
2. What is classical and why?</div>
<div>
3. How is classical different from traditional?</div>
<div>
4. What are the orders?</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In the next series of posts, I will try to give a brief, but more in depth answer to these questions than I was able to give in the midst of our online discussion. I will try to answer each in one post, but some may require further elucidation.</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What is architecture?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIBQsY75UY8HGc3iMoxOgj1jE_YpVO_-VD2ebje_7GKvMUeiaTnk9huw0XpQCgRJZPBjzTU4pShzS7dL-c82yHTYS4aXDLYEcbWGsY2uY5xnUPv3sZWVxvhko8wNG6EoefR4cqezp2_Ed8/s1600/Athens+2007-46.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIBQsY75UY8HGc3iMoxOgj1jE_YpVO_-VD2ebje_7GKvMUeiaTnk9huw0XpQCgRJZPBjzTU4pShzS7dL-c82yHTYS4aXDLYEcbWGsY2uY5xnUPv3sZWVxvhko8wNG6EoefR4cqezp2_Ed8/s1600/Athens+2007-46.JPG" height="240" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The Parthenon</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
Architecture is commonly thought of as simply the profession which is concerned with the designing of buildings. The architect draws up a design on paper, or more commonly these days, a computer, and hands off his vision to a builder. Most simply he's the person who understands everything necessary to build a building which the client needs. The architect takes in consideration the place of the building, the building laws, the necessary activities taking place in the building and the technology necessary to keep the building dry and comfortable for its occupants. An architect also might take into consideration a number of other factors, such as the environmental impact of his building, and so work to reduce its power consumption or even prefer some materials over others that the production of which causes deleterious effects in his city or country.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Now for most people these simple utilitarian ends are more than sufficient for them to feel that an architect has done his job. Were an architect to be simply a technician, then this definition would be sufficient, indeed the word itself implies this. Coming from the Greek, arche, meaning master or highest, combined with tekton, builder; the architect is simply the orchestrator of technical skills to build something. But today architects who are in the highest demand around the world are not desired for simply their technical knowhow, but because they build structures which in themselves we consider a work of <u><i>art</i></u>.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What makes architecture into an art, a "fine" art that is, is when it goes beyond simply the utilitarian needs of a building and becomes something in which we find pleasure or <i>delight</i>. That delight is there not simply because the building is put together well, but because the building has something more to add which all people are able to see, a layer of meaning, or if you will, <i>poetry</i>.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The addition of <i>poetry </i>to the practice of building is what makes architecture into an art, and indeed what makes a building truly <i>architecture</i>. All other considerations can make a perfectly acceptable building, but one that is not architecture. Of course just like there are many poets and many styles of poetry, there are many different means of which an architect uses to add poetic meaning to a building and transform it into architecture. Order and disorder, materials and arrangement, ornament and decoration, all are tools in the architects palette as an artist. I believe in answering the next three questions we will see what poetic devices are best for an architect to transform simple building into <i>architecture.</i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Erik Bootsmahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03749834088028424348noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6131797619836690793.post-53980772699749435452013-02-08T09:15:00.002-08:002013-02-08T09:15:31.295-08:00The Anti-Culture of ModernismIn my previous few posts last year, I wrote about the relationship of folk art and classical high art to culture. I wrote that folk art, as an expression of culture, aims towards a particular expression of a particular culture's self awareness, or "what it means to be" such and such a culture. High art, or academic art or classical art, is an attempt not to express "what it means to be" English or Italian or American, but what it means to be human as a universal idea. This classical high art is concerned with the most fundamental principles: order, reason, and beauty. This spectrum then, between the particular of folk art, and the universal of high art served to describe well what art was for nearly all of human history.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5cxOU5OFkdrZ8lWaIM2NsRPV59cnld1h3h_NoQLOggLzrNjvVkHgacShMIcnGVqdMETLF00ybeDRsSDcynF4zTrh9pFaVvnTE0S0ETS5t1p5EueNS8ynKgHhs60BSNAGsDqDnEw14wlhe/s1600/793px-Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-1987-0204-305%252C_Dessau%252C_Bauhaus.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a></div>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqHSSpWRuK3oxAcHqZVMaZxATgA_px8JQKnGYTBuSImwAbiqIsQM9S5o0gHfxvvkoI4YrLmmLgtm3fNQi1ryy80kn_kq_TfWm8JwZfBl7GoLob6NRCnwtRDHpD0plL4odG8vRF5jrCBP-6/s1600/768px-Fitzgerald_Home_Milwaukee.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="250" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqHSSpWRuK3oxAcHqZVMaZxATgA_px8JQKnGYTBuSImwAbiqIsQM9S5o0gHfxvvkoI4YrLmmLgtm3fNQi1ryy80kn_kq_TfWm8JwZfBl7GoLob6NRCnwtRDHpD0plL4odG8vRF5jrCBP-6/s320/768px-Fitzgerald_Home_Milwaukee.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The potpourri of ornament and styles in Victorian architecture<br />riled the modernists for the excesses of "useless" ornament.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: right;">
</div>
Now this all changed, as I related before, with the rise of "kitsch". The rise of industry, advertising and mass marketing of art which arose in the 19th and 20th Centuries created a new category of art, the mass marketed art of kitsch. Kitsch is characterized by the divorce of art from any of its cultural roots, meaning that no painting, no building or no song which is produced by kitsch has a real relation to culture, but only a "simulacrum" of culture to appeal to its market. <br />
<br />
This is the state of art that the artists of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries found themselves. They saw that the rise of industrialism and the market was making kitsch the dominant form of art, which was threatening to kill culture and art. So to rescue art, a new art was needed; and this new art would be the avante-garde of modernism. Modernism would be the true art which could express man's deep longing to know "what it means to be." So with one swift stroke, Modernism, would both simultaneously sweep away all the meaningless detritus of kitsch as well as create a new meaningful, authentic and universal art.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfH5-T1FE6iMFzF2JZLLPdX9z0j9YH_3X6VGMbcM63dFq-iWmCkaAKS90h1VLxd5yRXobZOGUa_iyi0kfe9DN9v-f75nNVZhLXv1oUIobo0T3-MmPF2Arl1BjY4dEOdUw9aoVcIFxaYyTi/s1600/Mondrian_Composition_II_in_Red,_Blue,_and_Yellow.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfH5-T1FE6iMFzF2JZLLPdX9z0j9YH_3X6VGMbcM63dFq-iWmCkaAKS90h1VLxd5yRXobZOGUa_iyi0kfe9DN9v-f75nNVZhLXv1oUIobo0T3-MmPF2Arl1BjY4dEOdUw9aoVcIFxaYyTi/s320/Mondrian_Composition_II_in_Red,_Blue,_and_Yellow.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Piet Mondriaan's "Composition II in Red, Blue, and Yellow" </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
To the modernists, all culture had been irredeemably lost with the rising tide of kitsch. Folk art was lost to the masses and had been entirely replaced by mass-marketed art of every form. Think how true this is today, as most people know not a single folk tune passed down from their ancestors, while the infectious insipid "Call me maybe" is ever-present. Not only has folk culture been replaced, but the academic high art as well, having all been run over by a kitsch of Beaux-arts historicism. So then, if culture and its art has been entirely lost, then a new art which embraced traditions and traditional forms would make no sense at all.<br />
<br />
Entirely new forms of art would then be found in the avante-garde, the new forms of art in abstraction and cubism, which, stripped of their cultural cancer, would allow for only the raw expression of those fundamental truths themselves. Instead of <i>using </i>color and line and form, art <i>became </i>color and line and form. From Mondriaan's blocks of color to Picasso's human forms transformed into cubes, the art would not express old dead notions of particular cultures, but one new universal idea of art.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5cxOU5OFkdrZ8lWaIM2NsRPV59cnld1h3h_NoQLOggLzrNjvVkHgacShMIcnGVqdMETLF00ybeDRsSDcynF4zTrh9pFaVvnTE0S0ETS5t1p5EueNS8ynKgHhs60BSNAGsDqDnEw14wlhe/s1600/793px-Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-1987-0204-305,_Dessau,_Bauhaus.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="242" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5cxOU5OFkdrZ8lWaIM2NsRPV59cnld1h3h_NoQLOggLzrNjvVkHgacShMIcnGVqdMETLF00ybeDRsSDcynF4zTrh9pFaVvnTE0S0ETS5t1p5EueNS8ynKgHhs60BSNAGsDqDnEw14wlhe/s320/793px-Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-1987-0204-305,_Dessau,_Bauhaus.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Walter Gropius' Bauhaus school in Dessau Germany.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
In architecture, the accretions which the Beaux-arts academics and their peers had cobbled onto architectural form were stripped free in the architecture of the Bauhaus. This new architecture, the "International Style," is probably the most succinct expression of this new idea of the universal art. Since all culture is swept aside, a pure clean architecture, which expressed the barest idea of architecture itself, was to be created. Not mired in cultural flotsam, the International Style would be at home in any place, whether in Berlin or Los Angeles or Brazil. Since culture had already been destroyed, it was only logical to create art that would be pure expressions of art.<br />
<br />
Modernism became then, at least in its earliest expressions, fundamentally and essentially <u><i>anti-cultural</i></u>. Artists working in this milieu didn't see themselves as destroyers of art and culture, but rather as saviors of art. Certainly this was Clement Greenberg's idea, that the art of the avante-garde, in casting off as already dead the cancer of kitsch, would revive art and make it whole again, and modern man, so longing for this purity and wholeness, would respond and find it wonderful.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWwECMWa7YTeziQlI5OlKYCh8beGCzuQsy6MNJksiIFynYL1BUHx0SnEUATQ8OTeFD1CBZ9NhQqo8uC2vZkvjm_fapPB6Bwo7OqFAZnXxoDRCYwr53I7uhpqAgNN6ybapLaPYY1VXWPbwN/s1600/Jeff-Koons-magenta-balloon-dog-.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="252" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWwECMWa7YTeziQlI5OlKYCh8beGCzuQsy6MNJksiIFynYL1BUHx0SnEUATQ8OTeFD1CBZ9NhQqo8uC2vZkvjm_fapPB6Bwo7OqFAZnXxoDRCYwr53I7uhpqAgNN6ybapLaPYY1VXWPbwN/s320/Jeff-Koons-magenta-balloon-dog-.jpeg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Jeff Koons' "Balloon Dog" exemplifies a later modern <br />fascination in the art world with kitsch.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
At least that was the idea, but the reality was that Modernism created a world that mankind did not respond to, that left a cold and empty world devoid of any meaning. In the next few posts, I'd like to look at a few responses that art has made to the "failure of modernism." In no particular order, I'll be looking at the embrace of kitsch in art, the criticism that "anti-art" made, and the rise and fall of Post Modernism, and where that leaves us today.Erik Bootsmahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03749834088028424348noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6131797619836690793.post-24294235421403722772012-10-26T07:09:00.000-07:002012-11-20T14:33:45.065-08:00Kitsch, the Anti-Cultural CommodityThe essence of art, its final end, is to explain to man his own nature, what it means to be human. Any art which does not have this for its end cannot truly be called "fine art." Art, however, that is created for the sole purpose of being sold in the market cannot, in an unqualified sense, be called true art, since it does not share the same final end. Now this sort of art, which has for its end the pure utilitarian end of the maker, is called kitsch. Kitsch, as reader Bob pointed out, <a href="http://www.cla.purdue.edu/english/theory/postmodernism/terms/termsmainframe.html#kitsch" target="_blank">can be defined</a> as "the reduction of art to marketable forms." <br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvluWeGGOKQhzRiZD5PkmnwV5ae8BWpKn-bO7xnpeVJuqME919IxIBSiixFTTnaqig5H8ZAM4xB5iNM61s3JdON-5yz5utx_H3-NrZZk_ZH43lGCBXVddneVllPY2ohtmddWYt8nzy3b38/s1600/kinkade_def.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="244" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvluWeGGOKQhzRiZD5PkmnwV5ae8BWpKn-bO7xnpeVJuqME919IxIBSiixFTTnaqig5H8ZAM4xB5iNM61s3JdON-5yz5utx_H3-NrZZk_ZH43lGCBXVddneVllPY2ohtmddWYt8nzy3b38/s320/kinkade_def.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Graceland by Thomas Kinkade</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Every part of kitsch is ordered toward the end of being sold, so every part of a work of kitsch is calculated to be more palatable to the marketplace. Kitsch uses conventional forms, motifs and even symbols only in so far as they make the particular work of art more marketable. Clement Greenberg in his essay <a href="http://www.sharecom.ca/greenberg/kitsch.html" target="_blank"><i>Avant-Garde and Kitsch</i> </a>(from which I draw heavily from) remarks that kitsch uses as "raw material the debased and academized simulacra of genuine culture." The preservation of a cultural memory, or consciousness of "what we are," as I described before, is not the end of this art but rather something <i>akin to</i> the utilitarian end of making money.<br />
<br />
Kitsch, Greenberg continues, "borrows from [culture] tricks, stratagems, themes...[and] converts them into a system and discards the rest." <b>Kitsch sees the products of a culture only as a component to be drawn from, not as a "good thing" in and of themselves.</b> The "art" of kitsch then is only an art of the most basic sense of making something, just like the art of pouring a concrete sidewalk, or making a chair. This most basic sense is primarily concerned with its utilitarian end (i.e. making a place to sit or walk), and if it elevates itself to something to the level of poetry, it does so only accidentally. Greenberg confirms this saying "nor is every item of kitsch entirely worthless. Now and then it produces something of merit" but these are only "accidental or isolated instances."<br />
<br />
Kitsch though may be thought of as some sort of folk art, but as Greenberg argues, kitsch is merely a replacement for the folk art lost by rural people living now in cities as a result of the industrial revolution. "Discovering a new capacity for <i>boredom</i> ... the new urban masses set up a pressure on society to provide them with some kind of culture fit for their own consumption. To fill the demand of the new market, a new commodity was devised: ersatz culture, kitsch, destined for those who, <i>insensitive to the values of genuine culture, are hungry nevertheless for the diversion that only culture of some sort can provide."</i> [emphasis added] <br />
<br />
Kitsch, the art of a mass-culture is not
something that falls on the spectrum of art as poetry, that spectrum between folk art, and high art.<b> By and large, even though there may be "isolated instances", kitsch cannot provide that consolation that only true culture can, through beauty and symbolism and rich traditions, that gives meaning to the important moments of our lives.</b> One need only think of those jarring moments when a cell phone jingle goes off in church, worst of all during a funeral. These are moments where the market cannot give us what we really need in our souls. Kitsch does not have for its end the poetic imitation which leads to a fuller
understanding of man and his place in the universe, which is the proper
end of culture, both high and low. <br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhlDNurM5_Ivyee6Xbrez0_fGNmD4itHxlknDu0mdQkg7wvxsFANKVBQ-HcH_GxnxAYHD4uM8drT13ddmNKmGAcT6XltNSmbsm5HqWZHKKyIH9Z8zwyWgPc4fcNTsK0NnEo6MALAfEJM_G/s1600/chapel.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="188" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhlDNurM5_Ivyee6Xbrez0_fGNmD4itHxlknDu0mdQkg7wvxsFANKVBQ-HcH_GxnxAYHD4uM8drT13ddmNKmGAcT6XltNSmbsm5HqWZHKKyIH9Z8zwyWgPc4fcNTsK0NnEo6MALAfEJM_G/s320/chapel.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Catholic Mall Chapel, a fine thing, <br />
but somehow seems out of place.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
I'm reminded of a story I read about a Catholic chapel in a shopping mall. The priests would say Mass, and hear Confession, but something about the mall made them hesitate to ever hold a wedding there, not to mention a funeral. It is as if the overwhelming materialism of the mall, entirely ordered towards consumption seems so alien to those parts of life where symbolism and culture are so essential to our very human existence.<br />
<br />
Curiously though, this same feeling of alienation is felt less about a funeral on a city street, at least streets in our older cities. Perhaps this is because even though commerce and all rank of ordinary things happen there, there remains something about the city as a community, that says these things are proper to this public place. The city is the product of culture par-excellance, the place where architecture, art, sculpture and public ceremony all come together where a culture can best express what we are. This notion of cultural identity, this notion of belonging, is cultivated by the arts, and is reinforced by customs and conventions, but it is today under constant assault -- first of all by the assault of kitsch, but also the assault of the avant-garde modernism. This is something I looked at briefly <a href="http://radianceofform.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-de-symbolized-city.html" target="_blank">before, when talking about the city stripped of symbolism</a>. In the next series of posts, I want to look at the relation of modern art to culture, and its relation to kitsch, in so far as it too is an art which is at its essence anti-cultural.<br />
<br />
<br />Erik Bootsmahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03749834088028424348noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6131797619836690793.post-15455561395258842462012-10-10T05:07:00.002-07:002012-10-11T16:39:28.652-07:00Further Thoughts on High Culture and Folk Culture and ArtIn my last post I talked a great deal about the art of "high culture" and "folk culture" in regards to their relation to the classical and vernacular in architecture. The distinction that I was drawing was not to show that high and low culture are in opposition to each other, but rather are a matter of variation of degree. Both high and low culture, classical and vernacular art, all deal with the same subject, namely cultural memory or the maintenance of shared ideas of self-identification. From very simple traditions of a household, the baking of traditional meals for birthdays and holidays, to the triumphant hymn of a national anthem, the art and architecture of a capitol, every one of these things seeks to express though through varied degrees, <i>"this is who we are."</i><br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhW98g9mWm6RKhqY2YsqT3UAyMbyfAlk0z-VVYWRpkVa5gxR-NR0TOSxbT5dy3oJYfUFiE9IzQE8K8-fuwQfnHYfC4-cAU33b1-fDP5bk91FF8I87LIbI20NYxtAYWDdxIiD5BSLd31n3JE/s1600/Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhW98g9mWm6RKhqY2YsqT3UAyMbyfAlk0z-VVYWRpkVa5gxR-NR0TOSxbT5dy3oJYfUFiE9IzQE8K8-fuwQfnHYfC4-cAU33b1-fDP5bk91FF8I87LIbI20NYxtAYWDdxIiD5BSLd31n3JE/s320/Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart.jpg" width="204" /></a>The nature of a folk culture is of course defined by its having risen from the people itself, the folk, where local traditions, and family traditions lead to an art which is particular to a certain people, place or a even family. High culture, which arises from the folk culture, is culture which has been subjected to intellectual and philosophical examination. Rather than traditions of culture and art being simply passed on to the next generation, high culture places itself under to study and criticism in order to make it better, finer and more sophisticated. Moreover, this sophistication allows it to be appreciated outside of a particular cultural context, it begins to be appreciated by everyone.<br />
<br />
Thus art that is produced by high culture is transformed from a simple local art, into a universal art that begins to transcend the particularities of place and people, and is thus the only sort of art that can become a "national" art. The universality of the art is what allows people from all over the world to enjoy the works of Mozart and Bach, even without having been a part of that particular central European Germanic culture from which the art arose. Certainly though, had one come from that particular culture from which this high culture arose from, the art would be even more meaningful.<br />
<br />
High culture produces an art that tends toward universality, but yet maintains that same goal of culture, to say "this is who we are," and consequently its art strives too for that universality. Folk culture and its art says "this is what it means to be a Dutchman" or "this is what it means to be a member of such and such family." High culture strives to say "this is what it means to be <i>man" </i>(in other words in an unqualified sense)<i>. </i>This difference between universality and particularity is what I spoke of in <a href="http://radianceofform.blogspot.com/2012/01/repost-political-vs-philosophical-art.html" target="_blank">earlier posts </a>in dealing with art and politics. Art geared towards politics is necessarily geared towards the particular, but it loses its meaning in the universal flow of history. Great art, though even if it is political, is geared towards the great universals and it thus has constant appeal.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdE2VWVwxZMeVdOnLisJi2S1iZUT4aLHvLNhGxmgKNF9x2AIPb0VmuaF7JTafXJ2NMfJGKTUuOWxYBOYB9av4ME4ESTAzxzXD9qznAvWRLW5u-D76TzKcqCHGn2uOC1hUSegrnE9uIr0Uv/s1600/DanteDetail.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="208" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdE2VWVwxZMeVdOnLisJi2S1iZUT4aLHvLNhGxmgKNF9x2AIPb0VmuaF7JTafXJ2NMfJGKTUuOWxYBOYB9av4ME4ESTAzxzXD9qznAvWRLW5u-D76TzKcqCHGn2uOC1hUSegrnE9uIr0Uv/s320/DanteDetail.jpg" width="320" /></a>This is not to say however that Folk art loses its appeal through time, far from it. The art of a folk culture is expressive of a particular culture's understanding of the same universal longing to understand "what we are." This, coupled with transcendent notions of beauty which all true art strives for, for instance the same tonal system of music is found both in the folk song <i>Greensleeves, </i> as it is in Mozart's Requiem, gives all true art a. The level complexity and the precision of the music is the only difference between them, telling us they are in essence the same thing. So too in poetry, as the works of Homer, Dante and Shakespeare represent the best of a high culture, the simplicity of the poetry of those same folk tunes can tell us just as much about what it means to be a human being.<br />
<br />
But yet this universal nature of art and high culture only goes so far, we need only look to where cultures across the globe have interacted to see the limits of cultural universalism. So too in architecture, where attempts to introduce classical Roman
styles of architecture in foreign lands with highly developed native cultures, seem severely out of place. One need only listen in the West to traditional Japanese or Chinese music to see where the limits lie. Certainly one can come to know and understand and even love Chinese pentatonic music (it uses only five notes instead of the Western eight) but if we were to try to introduce it into a cultural setting in America, we would only see it as a charming "theme." <br />
<br />
The "theme" would of course be a farce, as there would be nothing that connects Chinese traditional music as "belonging"for instance to a traditional Christmas party. The idea of cultural "themes" can best be seen in context of amusement parks, or "theme parks" which accumulate architecture of different places all into one park. A park such as this seems cheesy and "kitschy" because the cultural artifacts that it reproduces are all out of place. Its like a man walking into a bar in New York in a cowboy hat, chaps and spurs, where he would be entirely silly, while doing the same in Texas might be an everyday appearance. The idea of things being "out of place" is the essence of <i>kitsch</i>, which I intend to explore in the next post. In particular, I am interested in how kitsch relates to the ideas of the avante-garde in modernist art.<br />
<br />Erik Bootsmahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03749834088028424348noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6131797619836690793.post-7788140278352580412012-10-02T06:03:00.001-07:002012-10-31T17:22:36.014-07:00Are McMansions Classical or Vernacular?In architecture there is a distinction often made between the classical, made by the most highly educated architects, and the vernacular, the common stuff built by ordinary people. This distinction is understood most correctly as a spectrum between the two extremes rather than a simple dichotomy.
However one has a problem when trying to place particular buildings in this spectrum, especially where the building in question is a typical American suburban home, or "McMansion."<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7286mr3aumVW5uk3k8oLJWmRZ-og0V1hgmgzPph8MMxqWvesGCyQC5zQB5TCXnAXdG6lfkrxACiTM6YXQhTBay39xAW5qUuf8amhdmWV48V3lxthoGesG7siFUGqaK4EyvD_InDMa0fmj/s1600/mcmansion1.bmp" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7286mr3aumVW5uk3k8oLJWmRZ-og0V1hgmgzPph8MMxqWvesGCyQC5zQB5TCXnAXdG6lfkrxACiTM6YXQhTBay39xAW5qUuf8amhdmWV48V3lxthoGesG7siFUGqaK4EyvD_InDMa0fmj/s320/mcmansion1.bmp" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The typically overblown details in a suburban "McMansion"</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The suburban house hardly fits in the realm of the classical, as it is often badly proportioned and badly detailed. It has little thought put into its design, rarely are architects involved in designing such houses. Nor does it seem to fall in the vernacular, as the suburban house doesn't follow any local building traditions. Rather it picks and chooses from a number of different marketed styles. The typical suburban house then seems to fall somewhere outside of the spectrum of the classical to the vernacular in architecture. This is because the classical and vernacular are products of the same thing, high and low culture, and the suburban house, is a product of another thing entirely, that of <u><i>mass culture</i></u>. <br />
<br />
Folk culture, and its corresponding art, the vernacular, is the simplest
expression of a culture, and its principles. Folk culture is the expression of belonging, of home, of a sense of identity that is carried through a common understanding of the basic principles of life, those of love, family, justice and order and beauty. Filtered filtered through generations
of tradition, folk culture takes on a particular identity that is tied with a people and the places they live. <br />
<br />
High culture and its corresponding art, the classical, is an expression of that same folk culture, but one that is informed by an education and deliberation. High culture is one trained in
philosophy and history, and therefore is able to push the bounds of the
principles of the culture. High culture and folk culture both are reciprocally is informed and educated by the other. One can see this in the common use of themes from folk music in the works of classical composers. The composer takes the folk melody and expands it, makes it more complex and intricate and intellectual, but all the while still works within the culture of the folk. Thus the classical and the vernacular fall in the same spectrum, precisely
because they are expressions of the same culture, though it is the understanding by
different degrees of that shared culture.<br />
<br />
Mass culture on the other hand is concerned primarily with the market. Mass culture often takes things from both the folk and the high culture but it jumbles them together in a mass of confusion. In folk and high culture, the cultural artifacts that belong to the culture, that are valued by the culture, are those that are shaped by tradition in folk culture, and by reason and tradition in high culture. In mass culture the cultural artifacts that are most valued are those that sell the most. What sells most is usually what is marketed and advertised most, and is mass produced not by a culture interested in preserving its roots, but a company interested in its profits.<br />
<br />
Mass culture produces products that essentially have no cultural reference, as they neither come from nor are marketed towards a culture as a culture, but as a market. And since markets exist all around the globe, each is treated essentially the same. This is the great problem of globalization, the marketing of products that drown out a local culture by the influx of cheap products, a local cuisine drowned out by the burgers and fries of McDonald's. It is not folk or high culture that is globalized but mass culture.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlKMWI9LBKgz7C0f3gE46I1zROn84d69vYXMbLwAdQbBkTlKcKwltgxtwZBs88kZGSnIdvGAMdimrejkCstaPfD74dZEb-bnaR7ILD0eOnd6KuPeic9OsSz85RJMfebGlzaUajh5Y0d-bb/s1600/p223520-Florence-McDonalds.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlKMWI9LBKgz7C0f3gE46I1zROn84d69vYXMbLwAdQbBkTlKcKwltgxtwZBs88kZGSnIdvGAMdimrejkCstaPfD74dZEb-bnaR7ILD0eOnd6KuPeic9OsSz85RJMfebGlzaUajh5Y0d-bb/s320/p223520-Florence-McDonalds.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">McDonalds in Florence. <br />
Mass culture in the center of high culture</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The McMansion is like the burger stand, it does not arise from a culture, either high or low, but arises instead from a marketing strategy. It appeals in some ways to cultural relevancy, but not in any way that refers to a true cultural identity. The typical suburban house is not cultural, and therefore not classical or vernacular, but is anti-cultural. Art of this sort could pop up anywhere just like a McDonald's, as we see now in China, where American style suburbs are sprouting everywhere, but nowhere does it have any relation to its cultural or architectural surroundings.<br />
<br />
This is the fundamental problem of kitsch. Kitsch an art which is out of place in its surroundings, this is art produced by the mass culture. This is art purely for the market, and mass culture is anti-culture, kitsch is anti-art. And as kitsch is anti-art and anti culture, so too is the avante-garde. I want to take a bit of time to talk about the avante-garde in relation to kitsch, so I will come back to this in the next post.<br />
<br />Erik Bootsmahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03749834088028424348noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6131797619836690793.post-18014464764588793842012-09-17T05:02:00.003-07:002012-10-31T17:14:52.718-07:00The De-symbolized City"Art that points to itself but not beyond itself is bad art... the
imitative arts are always jeweled with symbols that flash to something
beyond themselves." Friederich Wilhelmsen<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg00FT94rTjgYWuwIqatlSGqqoJKLfvXrbJgs93PJXNluWQw4QO31srLYHPKYbhoT9HLAKdfRVC2zva_2TtVDdj6Llx3_ZG4wPpy9vJhKgAjNrceWUb4tQmIb00mV0Zov_di8WE39YYnIXn/s1600/DSC_9491.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg00FT94rTjgYWuwIqatlSGqqoJKLfvXrbJgs93PJXNluWQw4QO31srLYHPKYbhoT9HLAKdfRVC2zva_2TtVDdj6Llx3_ZG4wPpy9vJhKgAjNrceWUb4tQmIb00mV0Zov_di8WE39YYnIXn/s320/DSC_9491.JPG" width="212" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Wisconsin State capitol, the focus of demonstrations<br />
of every political persuation, it
becomes <br />
the symbol of the political virtues all hold.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Symbolism is probably the most essential attribute of art, as it is the one attribute that allows a work of art to be more than just simply what it is. Most modern art, having taken it for granted that to represent another thing is a bad thing, has systematically removed the idea of symbol from art.<br />
There may be some argument for some modern art carrying symbols, such as Duchamps urinal, the symbolism that they contain is not readily apparent or intrinsic to the art itself. The modern work of symbolic art is usually accompanied by a long explanation of the things it is symbolizing, as nothing in the art references commonly known cultural touchstones from which to spring from. <br />
<br />
There is probably no more apt example of the problems of the de-symbolization of art than in the realm of civic architecture. As Wilhelmsen points out, symbols art point to something beyond itself, such as the civic virtues of justice and order. By the nature of the symbolic content to be found in civic architecture, symbols tied to a cultural context and consciousness, the citizen sees that his participation in the <i>polis </i>is a participation in the virtues of such a place, the virtues of justice, order, duty, patriotism, etc. Civic architecture becomes a symbolic focus towards these highest ideals, that to which all people in a society order their political life. <br />
<br />
The modernist civic building through the embrace of the stripped down glass and steel aesthetic is an architecture devoid of symbol and meaning. Indeed there is little to distinguish a civic building, where justice
is rendered, order created and the <i>polis </i>formed, from the myriad other nondescript de-symbolized buildings of the modern city. The modernist civic building has been stripped of symbolic content, and thus has stripped civic consciousness down to its barest functionality and utilitarian ends. Without symbolism the bureaucratic state is all that is left, and what it can give the individual, or rather what it can compel the individual to do, is all that is left. Such an institution is not something to which a sense of duty can be felt, but rather is only a sense of fear or dependence which is felt toward the modern state.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPpLSw8ODLFS_zYkOyy_8OiE4zPRPyDXVLU4W81PHi1TN0Y4I6T1TdMFZt2QQcCqo1BhvtbS7CgASmqffrjR9BJs80uxJURbcsze83ywrfuYlAadBKkGHWL2wwWKRSSYYwPEFkNwaxPFil/s1600/Oregon+2010+044.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPpLSw8ODLFS_zYkOyy_8OiE4zPRPyDXVLU4W81PHi1TN0Y4I6T1TdMFZt2QQcCqo1BhvtbS7CgASmqffrjR9BJs80uxJURbcsze83ywrfuYlAadBKkGHWL2wwWKRSSYYwPEFkNwaxPFil/s320/Oregon+2010+044.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Thom Mayne's Federal Courthouse in Eugene Oregon.<br />
Nothing intrinsic to the building tells you what it is,<br />
words are necessary to identify it as a courthouse.</td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br /></td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br /></td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The only symbols left are merely that of the written word, and this only in the form of the merely pragmatic identifier, the words "Courthouse" emblazoned on a blank wall to identify this as a place where one goes to get sued or to be prosecuted. The idea of justice as a virtue is not to be found in the symbolism of the building, and so too, the justice to be found inside is merely the utilitarian instrumentality of power. <br />
<br />
This barrenness of symbols is only to evident in our memorials as well, where proper symbolic content through the arts of painting and sculpture have long been banished. Instead they have been superseded by the museum and interpretive center. The materialist and desymbolized man of today cannot identify with anything but mere "facts." The idea of a myth or symbol is entirely alien and banished in this world of pure reason, but this is a discussion for another post... <br />
<br />
.Erik Bootsmahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03749834088028424348noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6131797619836690793.post-59170872740279012192012-05-12T06:46:00.002-07:002012-10-31T17:05:09.266-07:00Philosophy, Principles versus Rules<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAeZnOiBFjg8NiIWWnm3x_NB9wzECgblx2yCed7Mlw0XuVgcIEDjzN-6vmTgbeYjWyZ0RpWW9d5FlE3N3g1Tb_hAau5K1z7esSi1OYU80gnyMQKPY-j0dsAIC0UYTWXu9gglkhzM9Snamn/s1600/peruzz-woman+and+two+men.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAeZnOiBFjg8NiIWWnm3x_NB9wzECgblx2yCed7Mlw0XuVgcIEDjzN-6vmTgbeYjWyZ0RpWW9d5FlE3N3g1Tb_hAau5K1z7esSi1OYU80gnyMQKPY-j0dsAIC0UYTWXu9gglkhzM9Snamn/s320/peruzz-woman+and+two+men.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Principles of geometry used in composition, sketch by Baldassare Peruzzi</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The age old debate amongst classical artists is whether or not philosophy is important to the artist as a means to creating his art. The argument roughly is that "I am an artist, not a philosopher, so I just have to create beauty, not understand why." To a certain extent this is true, however one must rely on something to produce an art.<br />
<br />
In order to produce a desired effect, a desired end, one has only two choices to achieve that end, one either comes to understand the principles which operate to produce that end, or one relies on the application of a set of rules to produce that end.<br />
<br />
The former is akin to the practice of ethics, where one seeks to understand the principles of justice, temperance and the other virtues, to put them into practice in an infinite number of circumstances. The intention is to grasp a universal principle, which when properly understood can be applied in each particular circumstance in a way proper to that circumstance.<br />
<br />
The alternative is the application of rules. Rules as such are not universal, they don't refer to every circumstance but to particular circumstances, and in art are the creation of particular forms. Rules are created according to principles, and for the greater part of circumstances they serve to produce the same effects as the application of principles. One applies the rules, and for the greatest part of the time, they produce the exact end which you intend from the beginning.<br />
<br />
However rules do from time to time, by an absolute rigid application, produce the opposite intended end. The rule is not flexible as it applies absolute to particular circumstance, whereas principles applied seeking the ultimate end, allow for more flexibility, that is "breaking the rules"<br />
<br />
When one unmoors oneself from the application of principles, the only alternative is to use rules to create the end. If one seeks however to unmoor themselves from the application of rules, they must return to the principles to produce the end. If however one is unmoored both from rule and from principle then the end of the artist is only randomly produced, the artist is left to pick and choose willy-nilly from any number of alternatives, and only by chance would ever produce his end.Erik Bootsmahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03749834088028424348noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6131797619836690793.post-86885462438559039622012-04-11T04:47:00.001-07:002012-10-31T17:03:25.995-07:00History According to Nietzsche and Art<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgie4YDwawFZoGLH6Re95uwBTJzyz3qYnCP7UoCJJ0kXmE4dr1Nqve5kcQAu79PObvoBLTtGohRxm5EWXZI16EY_7OwIV-sST8QwWTZmPzJF5Nm_7W8eThef0ww1PLiNYaQ9NXIpdViJ9FT/s1600/220px-Nietzsche187a.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgie4YDwawFZoGLH6Re95uwBTJzyz3qYnCP7UoCJJ0kXmE4dr1Nqve5kcQAu79PObvoBLTtGohRxm5EWXZI16EY_7OwIV-sST8QwWTZmPzJF5Nm_7W8eThef0ww1PLiNYaQ9NXIpdViJ9FT/s1600/220px-Nietzsche187a.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Friedrich Nietzsche</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
History is a subject that I've touched on a little bit before, when talking about Aristotle's idea of history in relation to art, but today I want to explore the idea a bit further drawing from a text I've been reading lately called <i>"On the Advantage and Disadvantage of History for Life"</i> by Friedrich Nietzsche (alternatively titled "<i>The Use and Abuse of History")</i>. <br />
<br />
History is to most people simply the collection of facts and dates of events past; the battles, the revolutions, and the people who shaped the world in which we live in today. But not everyone can know the whole of all of the historic facts, but people can know for instance that Washington was the "Father of the nation", and that Lincoln freed the slaves. These simple statements in themselves are histories, small, not very complex, but history nonetheless. But history is not just the simple collection of facts, but rather it is the summary of those facts into a cohesive narrative.<br />
<br />
History is not just collected memory, but collective memory that is taught, and is for Nietzsche something that ordered towards a specific end. In <i>the Advantage and Disadvantage</i> Nietzsche makes the claim that history is there for a purpose, that it is put to use to promote "life" and he says they are used in so far as man: 1) "is active and striving" 2) "preserves and admires" and 3) "suffers and is in need of liberation" The three types of history then correspond to these needs or ends, as 1) <i>monumental</i>, 2) <i>antiquarian</i>, and 3) <i>critical</i> histories.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYsCpfrM6NKklKowC_mW8ZolMqpqDYmfJ8EaNaS-iBbJcydivvwx3EydCg4jmAPFcvkMDVZ7SXs_8Vo9kJ9D_ae5nVKByfMdDuWfR6F5SLR5mok92-Mw-T4Hn4UI3zlokkC0D5Zee-GTve/s1600/201.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYsCpfrM6NKklKowC_mW8ZolMqpqDYmfJ8EaNaS-iBbJcydivvwx3EydCg4jmAPFcvkMDVZ7SXs_8Vo9kJ9D_ae5nVKByfMdDuWfR6F5SLR5mok92-Mw-T4Hn4UI3zlokkC0D5Zee-GTve/s320/201.JPG" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Christopher Columbus Monument, Washington DC</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
In the following series of posts I will be looking at each of these parts of history in how they relate to art, particularly art that is created by and for the <i>polis</i>. The fact that art is in itself makes use of history
is not immediately evident, but upon reflecting that a great many works of art, indeed almost all art, has had people of history as its subject. Most all of the stories we tell, through poetry literature and film as well as monuments, memorials and public buildings we erect all tell a history. And as such each of these works of art can make use the different kinds of history <i>monumental, antiquarian, </i>and <i>critical</i>. How they apply those histories, and whether or not they have used the form of history proper to the subject will become clear after we have looked at each of the forms of history in detail. Then we will be able to see clearly how a great many works of art truly <i>abuse </i>history to serve their ends.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Erik Bootsmahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03749834088028424348noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6131797619836690793.post-7793065920957553972012-04-08T08:05:00.001-07:002012-04-08T08:05:24.440-07:00Back to Writing, and a Short ManifestoIt has been a long time since I have written, due to a number of things, a vacation, a busy work schedule, working toward a more appropriate Eisenhower Memorial, and teaching students at Hillsdale College. But I am back now, with a great deal to write on for the upcoming weeks, I hope all of you will be reading and giving good comments.<br />
<br />
The primary purpose for this blog is not to provide commentary and criticism of the architectural issues of the day in regards to specific issues or projects. Rather its purpose is to explore the philosophical principles underlying those artistic debates, both to provide a laboratory for my own thoughts and writing, but also to provide a foundation for others to debate these issues, today and in the future as well. <br />
<br />
Sadly, even at the best of schools, much of today's artistic and architectural education is entirely lacking in philosophical training. This lack of a philosophy education leaves students and practitioners of art an architecture adrift without an anchor, giving their beliefs no more justification than their own taste or opinion. Thus most architectural debate today is much like political debates on cable news, whoever speaks loudest and most hysterically grabs the biggest headline, but few are convinced and little is really changed.<br />
<br />
I've embarked then on trying to discuss the arts, what they are, what they are for, in a purely philosophical manner so that we can see a real renaissance of beauty in the arts, both private and public. What will be necessary to this task of rejuvenating a sense of beauty is to look at the principles underlying the mainstream thought both in the art world and the culture as a whole, and to refute what is false, nurture what is true and in need of growth, and to plant seeds of truth wherever we can.<br />
<br />
So to that purpose I will be looking at a short work by Friedrich Nietzsche translated as <i>On the Advantage and Disadvantage of History for Life</i> but alternately titled in English: <i>The Use and Abuse of History. </i>The critical points I will be discussing will be his the three-fold division of history into <i>monumental</i>, <i>antiquarian, </i>and <i>critical</i> history. Each of these senses of history is entirely active in our public debate today about the state and future of art and architecture, though few realize how they are at work. It is my hope that by looking at what Nietzsche means about each historic sense we might come to understand a bit better how to make the right choices in art.Erik Bootsmahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03749834088028424348noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6131797619836690793.post-30727330512375445482012-02-24T05:31:00.002-08:002012-02-24T05:31:24.597-08:00Photography Symbolism and the UniversalArt communicates to us by symbols. Symbols by their nature deal with universals. In order for something to be a symbol it must be dealing with an abstract notion. Abstraction deals with notions that are not tied to a particular thing.<br />
<br />
Photographs, unlike other forms of art, are not well suited to express the universal, as they record precisely an image taken at a particular moment of a particular subject. Problems arise however when dealing with subjects of history.
Photographs recording moments in time are rarely symbolic, unless there
is some deeper meaning to the moment itself. But recording a
particular moment is not creating a symbol of a universal idea. However photographs can be artistic, but it requires more than snapping photos of events to make art out of photography.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdPowCAv9SGgQt6DiiT0nq4brvqjhZGPgX-N1SeNNpsSH48wy8y-gnsEmCL_xYpfvzS0rgF_t-4Xj-fng2KnDkfckCVi1TFFoW-F2_qkk7HGBMpepD-0I0rnHmK6ZeAYSJSqNs8WS7xTDS/s1600/WW2_Iwo_Jima_flag_raising.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="257" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdPowCAv9SGgQt6DiiT0nq4brvqjhZGPgX-N1SeNNpsSH48wy8y-gnsEmCL_xYpfvzS0rgF_t-4Xj-fng2KnDkfckCVi1TFFoW-F2_qkk7HGBMpepD-0I0rnHmK6ZeAYSJSqNs8WS7xTDS/s320/WW2_Iwo_Jima_flag_raising.jpg" width="320" /></a>One way a photographer does who works symbolically is to take a photo of an event which is itself symbolic. Photos of ceremonies or symbolic actions, such as the raising of the flag at Iwo Jima. The photo doesn't just record a moment, becomes a depiction of perseverance and victory itself, symbolized through the struggle to raise the flag. Again this goes back to the notion of history versus philosophy. One way to look at the photo is to see the recording of the historic moment, but another is to see it symbolically, which is to see it more universally than just the particular group of men doing a particular action.<br />
<br />
Another way photos can be symbolic is to strip them of particularity by choosing a subject which is unknown to the viewer, leaving only the expression of the portrait or an action that seems to express simply an idea, or an emotion. Photos of objects in decay for instance can symbolize loss of hope, while a flower sprouting through the crack could express the opposite.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEipp6miu6cw1JdkHU4xmSbwSQfro32zLRbmo0WsAQzd3Bp5sZaUGRlaTnCqbrbqta3voz2GkVlZE82X4F_Ss1UEcxmNbFo7E0IxOdUVqnZOczhOM7ubCe_FEFTltSIzvvBGuzE40ioni0A1/s1600/bernini-david1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEipp6miu6cw1JdkHU4xmSbwSQfro32zLRbmo0WsAQzd3Bp5sZaUGRlaTnCqbrbqta3voz2GkVlZE82X4F_Ss1UEcxmNbFo7E0IxOdUVqnZOczhOM7ubCe_FEFTltSIzvvBGuzE40ioni0A1/s320/bernini-david1.jpg" width="242" /></a> The focus is not on a scientific understanding of a moment but a symbolic understanding. Bernini's David records his body twisting into action, the sling taut and ready to swing into action, his body like a spring. He is poised but tense with anticipation, and one small detail, how he bites his lip, shows a doubt along with the confidence, an emotion that all of us can relate to. The focus of the work is not on the moment as history, but as it relates to universal emotions and universal ideals.<br />
<br />
Photographs can be art, but it is very difficult for them to express universals, especially when they are used to simply record the history of a particular individual. So if for instance a monument to a person were to use nothing but
photographs to memorialize a person, that memorial could be nothing more
than a family album, recording the deeds, but not making any statement
or conveying any universal notion beyond the particular events.
Stripped of meaning, it becomes a history lesson and not a work of
art. Erik Bootsmahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03749834088028424348noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6131797619836690793.post-13124121062608353492012-02-16T04:35:00.000-08:002012-02-16T04:35:48.355-08:00What is TraditionTradition is a word that gets tossed about these days without a lot of thought to what the word really means. Depending on your point of view, one either loves or hates the word, but in the world of productive arts and indeed in the world of science, tradition is absolutely invaluable.<br />
<br />
Tradition comes from the Latin word "trahere" which means 'to hand over'. Tradition in a strict sense is the passing of something to another, and by extension becomes the word we use to describe the passing of objects, practices and knowledge to the present from past generations. <br />
<br />
In the productive arts tradition's role is to pass on the practices of that art. In furniture making, for instance, the ways in which joints are constructed, the ways to shape and mold wood, and how to work with the grain of the wood to produce a satisfying result, are all practices that are passed from one generation of craftsman to the next. A great deal of this art may however have been transferred to books, but still the transference of knowledge from the past to the present is active. <br />
<br />
In science, often thought the realm of radical ideas, tradition is in play even more so. Take for example physics, the physicist relies on what he's learned from books, these books written by generations of scientists before him, each generation building a theory of the cosmos upon the ones coming before him. Each generation may make modifications to the theories, but each still bases its knowledge upon things proven in the past. To throw out the traditions of the science would be to assume nothing has been proven and would demand that all assumed premises be proven again. Now no scientist is about to throw out generations of science to start a new science whole cloth, rather they stand on the shoulders of their predecessors. Science, rather than being contrary to tradition, is fundamentally reliant on tradition.<br />
<br />
In science things are proven by argument and observation, in art through practice. Traditions pass not just what "has always been done" but rather "what has always worked." But in compounded arts, such as architecture, the aesthetic and the practical are closely related, ie roofs take the shape they do because they shed water, eaves overhang to keep rain away from foundations, and windows are the size they are to let in enough light, etc. However many aesthetic considerations are extrinsic to good building practice, and can take any number of forms, thus the wide variation in traditional styles.<br />
<br />
But radicals in the art of architecture, who despise the term tradition, falsely conflate traditional building practice in architecture with the aesthetic traditions, and throw out the architectural baby with the bathwater. They falsely think that eaves, overhangs and sloped roofs are the self-same as aesthetic traditions and throw them all out to create a new architecture <i>ex nihlo. </i>The problem is, this often leads to failure, look at the example of the East Building of the National Gallery, where the traditional methods of stone cladding were abandoned for a new method, which is now a spectacular failure. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijQR-9uh8EQLBaIKcBPBpvG9OzCjou63yb8gJhalwSiWUwRF7bH2b-paCHXZV8lUhyphenhyphenbHGbtIwsikgF0SuIh_7OgW8aKLW4Hpt-rYwh93ip5qNsMS50qIAKPYsioN2RjiXva8LKP7ZrVhxv/s1600/r-NATIONAL-GALLERY-OF-ART-large570.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="166" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijQR-9uh8EQLBaIKcBPBpvG9OzCjou63yb8gJhalwSiWUwRF7bH2b-paCHXZV8lUhyphenhyphenbHGbtIwsikgF0SuIh_7OgW8aKLW4Hpt-rYwh93ip5qNsMS50qIAKPYsioN2RjiXva8LKP7ZrVhxv/s400/r-NATIONAL-GALLERY-OF-ART-large570.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-style: italic;">The entire facade of the East Building has had to be repaired.</span> </div>
<br />
Like a doctor who abandons established practice, letting an infected appendix burst to see if it would cure the patient, the modern architect would let buildings fail so that he could create something whole cloth new, but not realizing that traditions are the key component to his success. Erik Bootsmahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03749834088028424348noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6131797619836690793.post-33323507338133535362012-02-15T04:47:00.000-08:002012-02-15T04:47:10.863-08:00History versus PoetryMonuments have been erected to historic figures throughout for as long as artists have been able to paint a picture or sculpt a figure. But today we have a problem with creating monuments to our national heroes, first because of a lack of artistic talent both in architecture and in sculpture, but also because of a lack of understanding of that a monument is a work not of history, but of poetry. <br />
<br />
In Aristotle's Poetics (which I keep a heavily noted and worn copy on my desk) he distinguishes between poetry and history by telling us that history speaks of "what actually occurred" but poetry speaks of "things which are likely to occur." He then makes the claim that because of this, poetry is more universal than history. History gets caught in the details, the particulars of actual events, but poetry, speaks only of what most likely happen. <br />
<br />
Another interpretation would be that history deals only with the actual acts of a man, but poetry is more likely to show the true character. If one is more concerned with the actual historic truth of Napoleon, we would never show him in painting or sculpture towering his adversaries, as he actually was diminutive in stature. Michelangelo, when sculpting an image of a scion of the Medici was told "that looks nothing like him," responded that "in a generation no one will know." Historically he sculpted a false image, but to poetry he sculpted the man so that his inner virtues, his magnificence, power, etc, were expressed through his physical form. <br />
<br />
Today in sculpture and in monumental architecture we have a problem expressing historic figures poetically. Part of the blame could be laid at the foot of photography, as we no longer have the artist as intermediary, but then again, sculpture and painting still were expressive well into the 20th Century. <br />
<br />
The problem lays with our understanding of history, that we obsess over the details of a particular person's life rather than expressing the universal virtues which he possessed. No monument today it seems is complete without an expansive "interpretive center" or museum to tell us the every tawdry detail of the subject's life. We even go so far as to emphasize the vices and physical ailments of our subject. A modern monument becomes so obsessed with telling the "facts" that it fails to tell "truths." History is the telling of what was, but poetry is a telling of what <i>is </i>and what <i>ought to be</i>, and thus is how a historic figure can be alive and meaningful despite being long dead.Erik Bootsmahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03749834088028424348noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6131797619836690793.post-61942680904329359992012-02-15T04:05:00.000-08:002012-02-15T04:05:25.833-08:00Return to WritingOver the past two months or so, my writing here has been non-existent due to a number of things, but one of them has been writing in other spheres. However a lot of that writing has been poor and has produced little, due in part to not writing nearly enough. Writing, like any other art, is best learned by doing it, and trying to be a writer of architectural philosophy while not writing seems a bit counterproductive. <br />
<br />
So rather than keeping my thoughts to myself, or to dusty notebooks, I've decided I'll be using this blog as a springboard for snippets of my ideas, some of which may end up entirely in my published works (I hope) some just ways to flesh out ideas. Hopefully also it means more here for you all to read.<br />
<br />Erik Bootsmahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03749834088028424348noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6131797619836690793.post-45370485053505100602012-01-11T04:11:00.001-08:002012-01-11T04:14:43.325-08:00Repost: How Art is Philosophical<br />
In the last two posts I wrote about the philosophical nature
of true art, and how a purely political art is rightfully labeled as
propaganda. I left off last time with the question about the use of
art for propagandist purposes, or rather the misuse of art. In order however to understand how art is misused, it may be good to understand exactly what I mean when I say that art, as opposed to propaganda, is philosophical.<br />
<br />
In the example pointed out before, the Shootings of May Third, is the depiction of a particular historic event. What raises this painting however to the level of art, is that also represents a <i>universal truth </i>about humanity. It is not simply that the painting depicts the scene of the firing squad, that makes this art, but that it depicts the real emotion, the defiant courage of the man in the face of death, that all men feel kinship to. This scene, which to a historian would be a mere fact, becomes through the focus on the executed man's courage, a vessel for communicating a universal truth to anyone who views it, regardless of having knowledge of the particular circumstances of this historic event. <br />
<br />
The historians might tell us that such a painting is not entirely accurate depiction of the events of May Third, or even that this happened some other time, but to an artist this is unimportant. Rather than being interested in the <i>accuracy </i>of an event depicted, an artist is more interested in the <i>truth, </i>the universal truth of this man's courage. Indeed this is why fiction is so lauded, because it tells us more <i>truth</i> in the telling of a story than science might ever tell us. The novelist Patrick O'Brian points this out through the imminently philosophical scientist, Dr. Stephen Maturin. <br />
<blockquote>
<i>But I imagine, sir,' - to Stephen - ' that you read books
on medicine, natural philosophy, perhaps history - that you do not read
novels or plays.' 'Sir,' said Stephen, 'I read novels
with the utmost pertinacity. I look upon them - I look upon good novels
- as a very valuable part of literature, conveying more exact and
finely-distinguished knowledge of the human heart and mind than almost
any other, with greater breadth and depth and fewer constraints." - Patrick O'Brian, The Nutmeg of Consolation.</i></blockquote>
The art of literature then tells us more about the universal nature of man than any discourse on psychology or anatomy ever could, because it focuses on what is universally <i>true </i>about man, not just what is correct. Simply painting a man on his horse would tell us no more than a photograph might, but should that man be pointing and sternly riding a rearing horse, what is communicated is clearly the virtues of his great leadership and stern courage, which makes message of the painting not the man, but the virtues which can be universally known to all men. This is what makes art philosophical, that art speaks about parts of the soul of human beings which are common to all of us.<br />
<br />
What makes something art is that it depicts not just the events and
situation of a particular event or person, but that
depicts the parts of about human nature which are <i>universal </i>to all mankind, and through that points to something other than the mere facts of our existence. <br />
<br />
<i>Posted on Beatus Est on 10/18/2011 </i><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Erik Bootsmahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03749834088028424348noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6131797619836690793.post-56724368434431442962012-01-11T04:10:00.001-08:002012-01-11T04:15:01.058-08:00Repost: Political vs Philosophical ArtIn the last post I wrote about how art is used to promote political ends, such as the coerced composition of the 5th Symphony of Shostakovich. The final distinction I left off with, that while art some is sometimes made to be political, all art is philosophical, deserves to be looked at further.<br />
<br />
Politics is by its nature a changeable thing, something that despite the advent of "political science" still manages to be a fickle thing, not responding to theories of unbreakable rules. This is because politics is related to particular, rather than universal things, particular politicians, particular issues, budgets, and voters, all of which are subject to the particular circumstances of a time. In other words, a political campaign which one time worked in one state might not work in another, or even the same state at a different time. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjCotJIFJQa_IAK634e1dyiFGnpPasTqISKsGavJgjDx_Bva34gRzJyvvD2qbDW-Fr8-L5B1KB7I6K-mHyj1mghZpXtEM0zviv7jWA62P9LkbLaQADtPgurDP1dRouWmWcQuDOQdQ9OXqw/s1600/Destroy_the_old_world_Cultural_Revolution_poster.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjCotJIFJQa_IAK634e1dyiFGnpPasTqISKsGavJgjDx_Bva34gRzJyvvD2qbDW-Fr8-L5B1KB7I6K-mHyj1mghZpXtEM0zviv7jWA62P9LkbLaQADtPgurDP1dRouWmWcQuDOQdQ9OXqw/s320/Destroy_the_old_world_Cultural_Revolution_poster.png" width="232" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />
A purely political art then is a work of art that is used to promote a particular political end. A purely political art is most properly called propaganda, it is used to propagate, promote and convince people of the goodness or importance of an issue. After this particular issue or cause is no longer in play, the purely political art loses its moorings and becomes meaningless, art then becomes merely an item of curiosity. The art of the Chinese Cultural Revolution comes to mind, the posters don't really move you to anything other than finding the design striking and interesting. <br />
<br />
Politics and politicians however are not guided simply by particular circumstances, but rather (at least the best of them) are guided by principles that are applied to particular circumstances. The principles are what a philosopher would call universals. The universal truths, such as justice, equality, courage, et cetera. When we see these universal principles as the guiding force of work of a politician, rather than simply the expedient, we acknowledge this as a great thing and label such people "statesmen" rather a politician.<br />
<br />
Art then works the same way. The universals are at work in the best works of art, the courage of a man, the need for justice, the longing for beauty, these make the best art universally loved, thus we call it "Art." On the other hand, art which is purely used for political ends, which has little or no value in the universal sense, but is valued as we said only for the particular circumstance of the time and place, is called "propaganda." But yet, even in art which is intentionally political, which might be called propaganda in some sense, still can express the human virtues in a universal way. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBkz1OI9ZqlhGstxJQnt8L81JdMI31PrEeCRBQqYE36nsAFGF5m3tt8OG9-4ODGzPWwFzPFIx0rSbXbE6za0vlZ-hobbt29W_uO4EaMF4xvOTvn7z0yJ8_CNfW1inD2vL7Jv2otHxRpIQ/s1600/goya.shootings-3-5-1808.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="242" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBkz1OI9ZqlhGstxJQnt8L81JdMI31PrEeCRBQqYE36nsAFGF5m3tt8OG9-4ODGzPWwFzPFIx0rSbXbE6za0vlZ-hobbt29W_uO4EaMF4xvOTvn7z0yJ8_CNfW1inD2vL7Jv2otHxRpIQ/s320/goya.shootings-3-5-1808.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Looking at Goya's <i>The Shootings of May Third</i>, we do not have to understand the particular political event which inspired the painting to be inspired by this. The defiance of the man with his arms stretched out stands out. He may be a radical, or a monarchist or whatever party, but his courage is what strikes everyone viewing this painting, this universal virtue turns Goya's painting from propaganda into the realm of true art.<br />
<br />
Thus it is the universals, the philosophical, which makes art what it is, but the purely political degrades art into the realm of propaganda. The artist stands to the propagandist like the statesman <br />
stands to the political hack. <br />
<br />
But what happens when the propagandist uses, or more correctly <i>misuses</i> art for terrible ends?<br />
<br />
<i>Posted on Beatus Est on 9/28/2011 </i><br />
<br />Erik Bootsmahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03749834088028424348noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6131797619836690793.post-61356132253134886682012-01-11T04:09:00.001-08:002012-01-11T04:15:16.987-08:00Repost: Shostakovitch, Art and PropagandaToday I came across a very interesting show about a piece of 20th century music, which raises interesting questions about the nature of art, politics, philosophy and propaganda. The program, PBS' "Keeping Score" with Michael Tilson Thomas, explores the history of the creation of Shostakovich's 5th Symphony and how the life of an artist in the early years of 20th Century Russia was affected by the totalitarian government of the Soviet Union.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<object class="BLOGGER-youtube-video" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0" data-thumbnail-src="http://0.gvt0.com/vi/qHCIJ_oLoHw/0.jpg" height="266" width="320"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qHCIJ_oLoHw&fs=1&source=uds" />
<param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" />
<embed width="320" height="266" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qHCIJ_oLoHw&fs=1&source=uds" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed></object></div>
<br />
I found the show interesting in that it explores not just the music qua music, but that music is a particularly powerful means of not just expression but of propaganda. Every person interviewed in this program acknowledges that music, indeed all has a power greater than just to be enjoyed, but that it has a deep power that can be used to political ends. Stalin recognized this, and before the 5th Symphony, made Shostakovitch persona non grata with a particularly scathing review of his opera, labeling the music as antithetical to the state.<br />
<br />
To the totalitarian Soviet Regime (indeed all totalitarian regimes), all art is in a sense "political" and therefore simply a tool to be used for or against the regime, so artists are chosen for their support of the state. This is however only somewhat true, as some art is intrinsically political (anthems, statues of patriots etc,) but some art is only political due to its adoption by a party or state. The adoption of Wagner as quasi-politico-religious themes by 1930s Germany is a good example of this, as Wagner was dead before the Nazis came to power. This exposes the difference between the works of art <i>made</i> to be political from those <i><u></u>used</i> for political ends. What makes this possible is not that all art is political, but that all art is <i>philosophical</i><i>. </i><br />
<br />
This is a theme which I am currently exploring further so look forward to another post explaining further that connection between philosophical art and political art.<br />
<br />
<i>Posted on Beatus Est on 9/22/2011 </i><br />
<i> </i><br />
<br />Erik Bootsmahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03749834088028424348noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6131797619836690793.post-81369370816255701992011-12-15T04:51:00.000-08:002011-12-17T06:35:38.022-08:00Use and Enjoyment in Art and PropagandaA critical distinction has become clear to me in the past few posts that I've written, dealing with the relationship of art and propaganda, that propaganda is an aspect of art which is accidental to the work of art. I am using the term accidental in the philosophical sense, that is the propaganda is not a part of the essential nature of the art, but is something added on, rather than using the modern sense of something that happens unintentionally.<br />
<br />
Over the past few posts (and few months) I've been trying to think about what exactly makes a work of art propaganda, and at first I was interested to inquire of whether art and propaganda are something of opposites: that a true work of art could not be propaganda, nor could a work of propaganda be a true work of art. But on reflecting on my original example and exploring others, I found real works of art which either had been meant from their inception to be propaganda, or more critically, later on been <i>used</i> as propaganda. When it became clear that the truth of the art was one thing in itself, and the <i>use</i> of the art for propaganda was another, it seems then that propaganda is accidental to art.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtbY2wYqd37LFwPMRrNBigtnOxjMwLrseUjvCYqxE2qnXhM_q3l6MbOab2032oXghpxiT0-vBcCgMz5pJebgYxjIOFf4yUFt-ivW4iO6V0Rov6sqPG_4NYMS3KzfyCFjm6IggslS-1H9u1/s1600/mona.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtbY2wYqd37LFwPMRrNBigtnOxjMwLrseUjvCYqxE2qnXhM_q3l6MbOab2032oXghpxiT0-vBcCgMz5pJebgYxjIOFf4yUFt-ivW4iO6V0Rov6sqPG_4NYMS3KzfyCFjm6IggslS-1H9u1/s1600/mona.jpg" /></a>St. Augustine, being a Platonic philosopher, explained a distinction in how human beings view outside things, that we either <i>enjoy </i>something, or we derive some <i>use </i>from a thing. Here that distinction finds a correlation, art is to <i>enjoyment</i> as propaganda is to <i>use. </i>Art is then to be <i>enjoyed</i> purely for its own sake, we contemplate its beauty and simply marvel. We value the Mona Lisa but it doesn't in any sense <i>do</i> anything, we simply enjoy it.<br />
<br />
Propaganda however is properly related to <i>use</i>, and we evaluate its merits as propaganda not in how we <i>enjoy </i>it but in how effective it is in moving people to action. Propaganda as an accident of art then seems to be a completely separate thing from the art in which it resides. Now this is not to say however that the effectiveness of the propaganda is not affected by the beauty of the art in which it resides, on the contrary, the more beautiful and stirring the art is, the more effective the propaganda will be in stirring people to action. The converse however is not true, that the strength of the propaganda increases the enjoyment or value of a work of art. In fact depending on the message of the propaganda, the art is diminished and criticized not because of anything intrinsic to the work, but because of what has become attached to it.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi68guWWlRQyOFExzQvoSBJ9P0PCdhDdoIHUJ2ZgGS_ZMtieh-21fV7h2e4QW3yJ2KXXQ2vg7wnV6Rt9iB_CXhlAoDRmi5IHzrxMt4chVPjkw3kp4ir-_RtN_VF4HPDSBRZEB-aRhHylDt5/s1600/sjff_01_img0504.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="242" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi68guWWlRQyOFExzQvoSBJ9P0PCdhDdoIHUJ2ZgGS_ZMtieh-21fV7h2e4QW3yJ2KXXQ2vg7wnV6Rt9iB_CXhlAoDRmi5IHzrxMt4chVPjkw3kp4ir-_RtN_VF4HPDSBRZEB-aRhHylDt5/s320/sjff_01_img0504.jpg" width="320" /></a>The work of Leni Riefenstahl is probably the clearest example of this. <i>Triumph des Willens</i> is clearly a work of propaganda of the highest sort, and clearly the effectiveness of it as a work of propaganda is directly related to its beauty and its technical brilliance. But while filmmakers widely acknowledge its place among the great works of their craft, it is still the subject of strident criticism because of the absolute depravity of the regime which it promoted. This criticism, however correct and justified for the film qua propaganda(the film insofar as it is propaganda), is incorrectly attributed to the film qua art (the film insofar as it is art). <br />
<br />
The separation of the enjoyment of the form of art from the use of art as propaganda will be critical in my next few posts, as I intend to continue exploring how propaganda relates to and is married to art, and how the forms of art can effect the propaganda and philosophy.<br />
<br />
(EDITS: deleted text struck out, added text in blue) <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Erik Bootsmahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03749834088028424348noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6131797619836690793.post-58267050902830781462011-11-28T19:10:00.001-08:002011-11-28T19:33:27.734-08:00The Radiance of Form<i>...The architect, by the disposition he knows,<br /> Buildeth the
structure of stone like a filter in the waters of the Radiance of God,<br />
And giveth the whole building its sheen as to a pearl.</i><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqZOJhGVFy06jldWfhd6PNhhdbzal2PABTblLOFqeHkRGCDupfiy9BiBmtsn10VeGMLYGGb2DDMb5KjplCs-5i6rPscWqZAlaBEeRC_c-1etPM9uFJPPSYOoywz5q78jcPZjDG0t19dQVk/s1600/st+Teresa.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="260" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqZOJhGVFy06jldWfhd6PNhhdbzal2PABTblLOFqeHkRGCDupfiy9BiBmtsn10VeGMLYGGb2DDMb5KjplCs-5i6rPscWqZAlaBEeRC_c-1etPM9uFJPPSYOoywz5q78jcPZjDG0t19dQVk/s320/st+Teresa.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<i> </i><br />
I welcome you to my new blog. I have written (erratically) for the past few years at a blog <a href="http://www.beatusest.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">Beatus Est,</a> where I've written on architecture, art, and related topics. A large percentage of the work that I did there was in terms of criticism, both for good architecture and against. But over the past few months I've been trying to make my writing more focused on the philosophical aspects of art and architecture. <br />
<br />
Being trained at <a href="http://www.thomasaquinas.edu/" target="_blank">Thomas Aquinas College</a> in philosophy in the "Great Books" tradition of liberal arts, I think writing on where philosophy intersects the world of art, is where I think I can contribute best. By no means do I think I am the best at philosophy of art, but rather other subjects which I am interested in, such as architectural craft, history, urbanism and technology, are written about much better by others. So I intend this blog to be primarily a place of discussion of the deeper matters of art and architecture, how they are influenced by philosophy and indeed how they influence philosophy back. <br />
<br />
To that end I spent a long time trying to find a more appropriate name for this blog. Not only was I just a touch embarrassed by my poor Latin in the former title, but I wanted to find something that spoke poetically about art itself and architecture. Listening to a <a href="http://www.isi.org/lectures/lectures.aspx?SBy=search&SSub=title&SFor=The%20Moral%20Imagination%20in%20the%20Public%20Square" target="_blank">lecture</a> a while ago on literature I was struck by a quotation from the philosopher Jaques Maritain, who called beauty "the radiance of form." <br />
<br />
I sprung upon this phrase immediately as encapsulating both the aspect of beauty existing in the forms of architecture, but also a deeper philosophical meaning of the phrase. He explains in <a href="http://maritain.nd.edu/jmc/etext/artapp1.htm" target="_blank">"An Essay on Art"</a> that the meaning of this term, the "radiance or the splendor, the mystery of a <i>form</i>" is in the "metaphysical sense of this word," that is he means form as the "whatness" of a particular thing. That in beauty the true nature of something shines forth more clearly than a long series of syllogisms and argument could possibly explain. This idea of true nature becoming revealed to us through beauty is one that I have been particularly interested in, and one that I intend this blog to explore further. <br />
<br />
I will be attempting to come up with a more regular schedule of posts, though from time to time, like this last month, I've been distracted by other writings that I hope I'll be able to share with you as well.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Erik Bootsmahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03749834088028424348noreply@blogger.com3