Meaningless Art

I have a new hero. He is a janitor at Dortmund’s Museum Ostwall, and he’s in big trouble for accidentally cleaning up a puddle that turned out to be an essential part of a 1.1 million dollar work of art. This piece…

…is now ruined.

And I’m roflin. I am instantly reminded of C.S. Lewis’ incredible essay, on Good Works and Good Work, in which he stated – with wonderful appropriateness to the current situation:

But [...] I doubt whether we have a duty to “appreciate” the ambitious. This attitude to art is fatal to good work. Many modern novels, poems, and pictures, which we are brow-beaten into “appreciating” are not good work because they are not work at all. They are mere puddles of spilled sensibility or reflection. When an artist is in the strict sense working, he of course takes into account the existing taste, interests, and capacity of his audience. These, no less than the language, the marble, or the paint, are part of his raw material; to be used, tamed, sublimated, not ignored or nor defied. Haughty indifference to them is not genius nor integrity; it is laziness and incompetence. You have not learned your job. Hence, real honest-to-God work, so far as the arts are concerned, now appears chiefly in low-brow art; in the film, the detective story, the children’s story. These are often sound structures; seasoned wood, accurately dovetailed, the stresses all calculated; skill and labor successfully used to do what is intended. Do not misunderstand. The high-brow productions may, of course, reveal a finer sensibility and profounder thought. But a puddle is not a work, whatever rich wines or oils or medicines have gone into it.

Speaking frankly, C.S. Lewis is the man. He is the man because he understands that art is not the mere conveyance of self for the mere enjoyment of self. It is a gift to mankind. It is a symbol. It is a part of a triadic relationship between artist, art and viewer, not a dyadic relationship between art and artist, that the viewer – with luck – is let in on. This is a truth we must, must, must bear in mind when considering the art of the Church, whether it be our architecture, Stations of the Cross, crucifixes, tabernacles, or monstrances. Is it good work? Is man lifted up by it? Or are our creations mere artistic riddles one may or may not solve?

Take this, for instance:

Now the Traddy might get up in arms that the thing is blasphemous, but he’d miss the point. The point is that the very existence of any argument over the piece’s meaning, beauty, and appropriateness means that it has failed as a piece of work, no matter what it has achieved as a piece of art. No matter how potentially awesome it is, for the simple fact that it does not take into account the “existing tastes, interests and capacity” of the faithful, the work has failed.

It all comes down to a certain humility in creation. I, writing this post, could begin to spin and weave in my favorite Renaissance poetry so as to create within my words some artistic flair. (Actually, I couldn’t, but you get my meaning.) I might wring out of this writing some semblance of art. But that is not the point. The point is to convey.

And it is in that simplicity and humility of art that beauty is found. For one of the three principle parts of beauty is claritas, clarity or conveyance. If your work is unbelievably gorgeous but does not convey, it has failed in art’s great end; to be beautiful. And don’t be afraid to see this same principle applied in areas that aren’t considered artistic creation. In our relationships, our prayer lives, our families and our jobs, always we should consider the question; “Are we doing good work? Or are we mere spilled puddles, ambitiously seeking some end other than goodness, truth and beauty?” It’s worth mulling over.

So let us continue converting the entire world by way of beauty.

Nude Beauty for Porn Addicts

With all due respect – which I understand to be a statement that allows you to say anything you want – there were a lot of wrongheaded responses to my last two posts on pornography. Most were centered along the fallacy that there exists no difference between nude art and pornography, or if there does, it is so slight a difference that it is irrelevant. There was also the general insinuation that the real, deep reason I’m even posting about this at all is because it gives me an excuse to masturbate, to which I chuckled. So that’s why so many people hang out in the Sistine Chapel.

However, the one objection I take seriously is that ‘yes, all of this is true, but to the man addicted to pornography, this truth can be nigh unrecognizable.’ That such direct pathways from nudity to lust are carved out in the brain matter of modern man that goodness, truth and beauty are almost immediately corrupted. That maybe, once upon a time, in a land free from pornographic advertising, a culture with an appreciation for nude art would have been a chaste culture, but no longer. The answer to pornography then, is not to foster an appreciation for the beauty of the human person, and the naked form, but to avoid nudity altogether. For even if it is good, it is dangerously easy to corrupt.

This argument has the virtue of being simultaneously true and false. It is true in that the appropriate response to lusting after something is not to somehow ‘artify’ it. You’d do better to jump into a bramble-bush after St. Francis, or hire an old Jewish woman to slap you in the back of the head whenever your eyes begin to glaze over.

She'd be glad to.

It is false in that it submits the battlefield to the pornographers. It is an acceptance of defeat: “We can’t do it. We can’t see the beauty in the Virgin, in the nude form, so we’re leaving. Take nude art, make it as corrupted as you want – we won’t look at any of it.” This is obviously the wrong attitude, because we Catholics are supposed to transform the culture by way of beauty, not remove ourselves from anything that has the potential to be corrupted. (Quick Note: Everything has the potential to be corrupted.)

If we revolt in the direction of puritanism – avoiding nudity in any context at all – we’re denying the beauty of God’s works; his works have been conquered by our sin. For the porn-addict, this ‘total avoidance’ may be a good practice at first. But as a lifetime method of developing chastity? One might as well try and develop patience by studiously avoiding other people.

So the answer must lie somewhere else. I hold that for the porn-addicted/lust-struggling art-viewer it is this: To recognize the beauty in nude art with an awareness of your own propensity to lust. To, by prayer and fasting, implore God for an uncorrupted view of the human person. Of course, this begs the question: How can one gain this view? In other words: How can a porn-addict view nude art without fear?

It seems to me that if it is the display of true beauty that separates nude art from pornography, than the ability to appreciate how this beauty is being displayed by the artist, and to recognize it as glorifying the human person is essential to ‘tearing out your eye’ that causes you to sin; to destroying the pathways that take beauty and rot it to lust.

So let’s take Botticelli’s Birth of Venus, a work we are all familiar with. Instead of approaching it with fear and trembling, let’s say a Hail Mary, and give it an honest appraisal. Where is the beauty that separates it from pornography? How does it glorify the human person?

To take on this task, I’ve been learning about all sorts of brilliant artistic techniques, and how they glorify humanity. Each one blew my mind as I found them present in the above painting. (I wanted to authentically ‘find’ these techniques, in order to judge whether understanding and appreciating actually does help a man to view nudity in the light of God’s marvelous creation.) I’m sure I got odd looks when, having been measuring the proportions of Venus for 20 minutes in the computer lab, I found the ratio and cried out “Holy crap, that’s awesome!” far too loudly.

For obvious reasons, and after you’ve said your prayer, start by looking at her face. It is undeniably beautiful, but why? What has the artist done? He’s conformed it to the Fibonacci Sequence, and the Golden Ratio, first of all. The ratio 1.61803399 that we humans love so dearly.

We love it here:

And here:

And here:

And, wonder of wonders, we love it here:

 

This is my ridiculously rough graph of Venus’ beautiful face – I pray she doesn’t smite me. The length divided by the width gets us close to that fantastic ratio that humans find so beautiful: 1.61…I imagine it would only get closer if I took the time to be more accurate. But do you see? Do you see how finding the objective beauty in the female face makes us appreciate it more deeply? It is not something we simply find good-looking. It is good-looking.

Right away we see the artist portraying a beauty, perfection of form. And the exact same is true of the body of Venus. I hold that it is a knife to the heart of lust, to realize the same beauty that strikes our hearts by way of flowers, galaxies, stained-glass windows, seashells and sunsets, is personified and condensed into the female form. The artist is not portraying nudity as being pornographic, he is portraying it as utterly beautiful. As a waterfall is beautiful, and as conch shell is too, so is woman, but infinitely more so. Again we find the Golden Ratio:

Isn’t that incredible? The length of her torso, from hip to head, divided by the length from her breast and her head, gives us 1.6301. Again, were I only more accurate, I wonder how close Botticelli came to achieving the replication of what God wrought in the oak-leaf and the pineapple. Does is become more difficult to corrupt the female breast into a mindless stimulus for lust when you realize it is in perfect proportion woman in her wholeness, in a striking example of integritas, that pre-requisite of beauty that declares all parts must add to the whole? That is for you to decide.

Speaking of integritas, we mentioned before that it’s not just about the woman herself being displayed with glorifying proportionality, it’s about her proportion to what’s going on around her. (Which is why it is entirely difficult for me to conceive of any situation in which the artistic display of the marital union would be acceptable.) One way the artist puts Venus in proportion to the entire painting, as a beauty to be honored, is by strictly following the rule of thirds and the use of the triangle.

The triangle is apparent; the arms and bodies of those surrounding Venus form it. Again, how does this glorify the beauty of Venus’ naked form while avoiding lust? The triangle in art is a symbol for completeness, developed as such by Christianity in light of the Triune God. Wholeness of form. Perfection. Here I found two main triangles one surrounding Venus – declaring her as the perfection of beauty – and another created by the pose of Venus herself, by the lovely angle of her arms. The latter triangle nestles within the first – not only does she incorporate beauty, she gives it.

You’ll also notice that the very center of the painting is obviously directly below the womb of the nude Venus, the place of birth. Do I need point out that this is in harmony with the whole painting, The Birth of Venus?

So what’s my point? This: Perhaps with an appreciation for the glory the artist gives to the nude form, the porn-addicted man may be aided in avoiding the temptation towards lust when viewing nude art. What does pornography do but degrade women? It says she is nothing more than a stimulus to a watching organism. Through the conveyance of beauty – whether in triangles, the golden ratio, color harmony, the rule of thirds, etc. – the artist is specifically glorifying women. Pornography and beautiful art cannot co-exist, because their messages are inherently different and radically opposed. (Obviously, this applies to the male form as well.)

I do not hold this to be some magic cure. For those suffering from pornography addictions, I beg that you would look into The King’s Men, or New Life Habits, that you would read this, and that you would frequent the sacrament of confession, and that you would do all these first. But I also beg that we, as a culture, as a religion and as individuals would not approach the nude form with a suppressive mindset; with fear. Rather that we might see the human person as God intended us to, through the incredible skill he gave to the artist, who glorifies the naked form in his art.

The Glory of Being Shut Up

“Christ prophesied the whole of Gothic architecture in that hour when nervous and respectable people (such people as now object to barrel organs) objected to the shouting of the gutter-snipes of Jerusalem. He said, “If these were silent, the very stones would cry out.” Under the impulse of His spirit arose like a clamorous chorus the facades of the mediaeval cathedrals, thronged with shouting faces and open mouths. The prophecy has fulfilled itself: the very stones cry out.”
G. K. C.

We lost something important when our Western culture ‘outgrew’ its infatuation with obscenely large cathedrals, ornate basilicas, dark stone chapels, stretching towers and lonely crypts. We lost something important – a unique human experience – when we began our relationship with the plaster-church over the ‘old-school’ church.

We lost our awareness of the power of Place, specifically, its power to shut us up. Have you ever seen a group of tourists walk into a basilica? Let’s call them Americans, post-Christian agnostics – their names are Deborah, Stella and Mike – who respect the great artistic achievements of the Old Church without respect for the Old Church. They walk in through the creaking, wooden side-door; they are talking about their diet plans, and the relative evils of cholesterol. Through the door now, (they smell the incense), into the foyer, (they feel the cool of the stone ease away the heat of the day from their skin), and past the first arch. Wait for it, wait for it…now. Their words die on their lips. Mouths open loosely, and necks crane instinctively upwards. Their group loosens, they begin to wander away from each other, Deborah towards the candles, Stella towards Our Lady of Sorrows, Mike towards the altar, each waltzing in small circles as they try to take everything in. How many times I’ve seen this, and how many more times I’ve performed this little unconscious ritual; this silent transformation; this unrequested dance.

The beauty of a basilica is that men do not visit it, it visits men. The beauty of it, yes, but also the rudeness of that dark, stone temple, for it is a hand clamped over the modern mouth, a sturdy grasp guiding one through side-chapels. It demands that you – Mike – center yourself. Here are the pews on either side, the symmetrical side-chapels, everything mirrored and proportional, even the interlacing tessellations of granite that spread out from a single star on the floor. Stand on the star. Then look straight ahead. There are two things that everything else seems to reflect from. Two things in this building that form and beauty and structure emanate from. One is you, in the center of the church, having wandered their almost by by necessity, by the strange force of the symmetry all around you. The other is the tabernacle. Of the two, choose now whom you will serve.

Every cathedral makes this bold, arrogant challenge to the visiting man. The sheer size, scope and intricacy of these temples speaks of the total, radical commitment men gave to God; to build Him a dwelling place, even if they were not to see it complete; to serve him. These living stones are their pronounced fiat; their yes; their choice. What is yours? For when you leave, the tabernacle will remain. The Body of Christ will stay – the red candle still burn – and the basilica will circle and reflect around it, like ripples in a pool, emanating from the drop of some inexplicable and sublime stone.

What does a plaster-church say? “I will not be here long.” What does a cathedral say? “You cannot deny me. For I’ve outlasted your forefathers, and I’ll outlast you.” The cathedral speaks of the endurance of Catholicism. This is not to deny the beauty of a simple church, of the awesome fact that the universal quality of Catholicism means that we can celebrate mass in our living rooms, our shelters, canoes and battle-fields. This is simply to lament that the age of the Cathedral is done, the age where one was silenced, for perhaps the briefest of moments in a life filled with noise, and brought to worship. Oh, perhaps the tourists would never acknowledge that they perform an act of worship, walking into a basilica. But what else are we to call it, when we all shut up, slow ourselves and walk small-stepped in awe, reduced to whispers and peace? The Catholic Church holds that worship is not something we do. No, worship is a gift we receive. I hold that the cathedrals, basilicas and lasting chapels of the Church are awesome conveyors of that gift, rudely thrusting worship into the hearts of all who enter them.

But perhaps there is one place left where one can experience this bit of humanity. I speak, of course, of the library, where my writings are written. It would not be unwise for the seeking, modern man, to stand in some old, dusky library, close his eyes amidst the books that surround him, and think of how such a little peace would be magnified, if he were surrounded by saints, angels, pilgrims, prayers, cool stone and holy incense. A man in a library - if he is a man at all – is humbled by the mass of human knowledge, wisdom and understanding that surrounds him. A man in a cathedral is humbled because he, as a member of the human race, has performed the incredible and audacious act of surrounding the unsurroundable God with stone.