VIII – Modernity and Art

PART TWO: Ugliness dressed as Beauty

Now let’s get the issue of “beauty” and “ugliness” cleared up. Yes, I know it is said time and again that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”. This is used to justify Relativism at its core. So, it is used by Moderns to avoid any criticism of modernity.

Beauty in art and music is the recognition of the mind of the balance of forms of a made thing. The proportion of the parts to the whole, the suitability of the form to the function of a thing. A carved spoon can be judged beautiful if it performs well the function of being a spoon. It holds just the right amount of matter, it balances in the hand, it is the right weight for a person to hold. It may even have decoration which enhances the shape of the spoon. It may even have other decoration which delights the mind in its delicacy of line with the shape and direction of the use of the spoon for eating. For instance, a spoon is ugly if it cannot hold its matter, is unbalanced, is too long for a normal human being to direct the food to the mouth; or has decoration which distracts the mind from the food – draws attention away from the food, like having scenes of excreta on the handle.

I do not think most people would have any difficulty with applying non-relativistic standards to the making of a spoon. A work of art is a thing made “well done”. We can apply this all works of mankind: the teacher teaching, the surgeon operating – is the job well done? When it is done well, we can exclaim: “You beauty.”

The problem really lies in using the term “beauty” when applied to complex forms and ideas, such as in Fine Art forms of the Visual arts, but as well, in the forms of Music and Literature. The idea of “Fine” art is an invention of Post-Renaissance intellectuals. But let us continue with the idea of a thing being made well, being in proportion to its end. Before the Renaissance, most paintings were made for mainly specific religious reasons. They had a function: to glorify God or to tell a religious story, or be an icon – a holy image in itself. One would judge a painting on how well it conveyed those ends. Colour, form, space: all brought together in proportion to the end. It were craftsmen who made them: your everyday plasterer, or wall decorator. Were they made well? Of course they were. They are beautiful as only a good craftsman at his work could make.

The intellectual ideas leading to the High Renaissance in the visual arts was Humanism. Fine Art was that object of art which raised the mind of the viewer to Universal Ideals. Forms became complex in order to convey a range of theological, philosophical, or historical beliefs. The aim was to raise the mind of the viewer to the highest form, the highest idea of Man.

So the use of the term “beauty” now entailed forms which in turn in-formed a refined viewer, a viewer who could identify with the belief of the Ideal Man as seen through the beliefs of Christendom and Platonic philosophy. The artist searched for nobility of the human form based on the arithmetical and geometric principles of the Ancient Greeks as well as the virtues of Christian chivalry, gentleness, and godliness transmitted through Europe by the belief in the Incarnation of God in Man.

Fine Art then could be judged to be beautiful not only to the standards being “well made” by the tradesman artist, but also being “well made” to the standards of Christian Idealism. There is no room here for “beauty being in the eye of the beholder”. The beholder needed to live within the culture of the refined Christian Humanist. One had to be informed, to be open to being raised by the work of art. This same aesthetic applied to the development of music and literature.

Now, if one does not believe in universals, in objective reality, in the nobility of Man, then there is no standard for anything in art other than being “well made”. Hold on here. How can we judge a Modern work as being well made, of being beautiful? All we can say is that it obeys the superficial rules of construction, form and shape, of logicality. Once we investigate the aim of the artist (if we can), we must judge that aim according to the rules of morality, the rules of universality. No Universality, no Fineness, no Goodness, then no Beauty.

Beauty is in the eye of an “informed” beholder. A beholder within a culture informed of goodness and grace, of nobility, of the ideal behind nature. Without that world, there can be no Fine Art.

And as Modernity and its philosophical assumptions are now ingrained in our Modern Culture, there is no thing informing the mind in nobility, in what it is to be “refined”, in the universal ideals of form and goodness, which would have encompassed and soothed the emotions of the artist and the beholder, which uplifts and refines the mind and emotions of Man .

So-called works of art become brutal, disjointed, deliberately challenging the very beliefs which underlie art and humanity itself. Works convey either the superficial combination of shape and colour, or smash one in the face with rebellion against nature. This assessment also applies to music.

Beauty and the Academy

The Impressionist rebellion against the Academy did have a point. By the end of the 19th Century, Modernism had killed the ideals of Christian Humanism as embodied in the Renaissance and Baroque periods. And neither had the Rationalistic Enlightenment Classicism, the symbol of the secular Modern revolution, anything left to give the New Man, except a solid architectural foundation for the public buildings of the late 19th century – all symbols of the New Man and Money.

And so Art became the expression of rebellion against the very excesses of Modernism, a means to draw attention to alienation of Man to the very society Modern Man created. The Academy of Fine Art standards became a dead project. The term “beauty” is no longer used to refer to works of so-called “fine art”. “Provocative”, “explorative”, “interesting”, “futuristic”, and “progressive”, became the terms for judging works of art.

Ugliness Enthroned

The world of Modernity is ugly. Graffiti artists point this out every day. Ugly cities, ugly noisy abominable traffic, concrete monstrosities vying with blocks of glass competing with soaring dominating walls inhumanly Babel-high – the pride of Man and Money. And the people sub-divided into little isolated pockets where the word “community” is used to make them feel as if there really is a community and there is none! And the culture engages Man by ugly inhuman fashions denying any sense of Man as a dignified person of real worth: the stubble beard, the piratical piercings, the savage tattooing, the androgynous clothing: all quite diabolical. Nothing of substance, or permanence, and certainly no fine art.

And so there is no “informed” eye of the beholder, and therefore there is no beauty. Thank the heavens, that Nature still exists. At least a tree or a blade of grass or a humble sparrow, exists in our cities to remind us of what real beauty is and what we must do to imitate such noble works which Nature has put before us.

IX – Modernity and Literature

PART THREE: Literature – Enlightenment Propaganda

Before the lofty idealism of the Humanism of the Renaissance, European literature was eminently practical.

A. Poetry and Drama

Lyric poetry honoured God or one’s chivalrous lover, epic poetry recounted the exploits of heroes such as Charlemagne or Roland. Prose reached its heights in clear, logical treatises of philosophy and theology. Or was used as ribald commentary on society. The origin of drama was in the liturgy of the Mass and the cycle of the Catholic year: the very popular miracle and moral plays of Medieval Europe.

There was no school of intellectuals judging literature as works of art. Medieval society and its art was unselfconscious. Moderns would say, naive.

The Medievals lived close to Nature. Everything was seen and felt to be connected. This meant that in the arts, the writer’s imagination knew no bounds. Anything and everything could be put together to show connections. Up to and including the Metaphysicals, Poetry was able to connect thought and feeling through the metaphors of a nature lived among men. Nature and word were joined. Shakespeare’s muse is full of the connexion of life, nature, meaning, men, and a commonality of unity of man with nature.

With the beginnings of Modernism in the late 17th, Classicism heralded the break between man and nature, even though Pope and Dryden invoke Nature as their goddess, it is a goddess undressed by their own rationalism. The Classicist is emotionally removed and examines his art, his forms, as a Newton or a Descartes. All cleverly effete.

Drama divided into the Comedy of Manners and the more serious French imitations of Ancient Greek and Roman tragedies.

The Romantic poets of the 19th Century contrived a unity of man with nature, but the horse has bolted. Nature is now remote and lost. It is a nostalgic discovery of the daffodils. A nostaglia matching the Romanticism of a Wolf or Schubert Lieder.

By the 20th Century, poetry and drama become the tools of social commentary. Ideology dominates. Or it weeps at the destruction wrought by Modernity. The Poet is alienated, as is the Dramatist and Painter, the Artiste. And as Modernity creates a universal ugliness of implemented ideologies into life, the artist paints ugliness to challenge and to reflect the ugliness of Modern Society.

B. The Literary Novel – a Modernist Invention

The Literary Novel is a Modernist invention. The Modern novel is about man, his thoughts, his feelings, his interactions with others in his world. A novel is judged on how it is “true to life” – a life centred on man. The novel is judged to be good if it simulates the reality of character, plot, life, psychology, the interactions of human relationships.

It is no coincidence that the first novelists were from the late 17th Century – the beginnings of Deism and Modernism. The world no longer wanted to hear about God – so “divisive”. Reality excluded God and Man’s relationship with God. The Novel became the new vehicle for exploring the Modernist’s world, ostensibly more real. But how real is the exploration of reality if a person’s life is centred on God. The life of many people is religious: people pray, address their God all through the day, are aware of themselves as part of a religious story which takes place daily. Yet, this huge aspect of life is ignored in the novel. Let us also consider the very real conflict some people every day one has with “conscience” at its very depths – the fight with God. You will not find that in “realistic” novels.

The most realistic personal writings in the past were by the saints: such as St Augustine’s “Confessions”, Dante’s trilogy, St Catherine’s “Dialogue of Divine Providence”, and St Teresa of Avila’s “Autobiography”. These works reveal very deep reflections of the relationship of the soul and God in dealing with the challenges of life, stream-of-consciousness narration, totally honest, humane, and almost “modern” in their understanding of what it is to be a human being – a normal, everyday person in their struggles in life.

It is not until the end of the 19th Century, that the novel, especially the historical novel, becomes of age: popular, universal, and the main means of Modernist Liberal propaganda. And this trend extends right into the 21st Century. Novel after novel explores social, political and religious injustices. First, the villains are the aristocracy, the Tories, Catholics and the higher Anglican clergy – the enemies of the Liberal Revolution. The villains then become the rich, the capitalist, the bourgoisie. And then, in the late 20th and early 21st century, the villain is anyone who dresses well, has taste, who has manners, or who is a “fundamentalist”, a bigot – but must be a religious bigot.

It is interesting to watch films adapted from older stories. The heroes, who once were virtuous chivalrous nobles, are reinvented as rebel teenagers, or “cool” and slovenly – the new virtue: being true to the freedom of one’s emotions, a real “dude”. Any control over one’s behaviour is seen as aristocratic pretence!

C. History Literature
The writing of History by academics is an Enlightenment Project – interpreting events in the past in the Spirit of Progress and Humanism, with the over-arching theme of showing just how evil the Catholic Church and its impact on delaying Progress and Civilisation.

Edward Gibbon’s mighty work – The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire – gives free rein for the author to interpret every event involving the Church in the poorest of light. The Enlightenment interpretation of History becomes the main theme of 19th Century English historians and continues right through the 20th Century.

D. Contemporary Novels
There is little of value in reading present day novels. Many portray the dull, grey lives of people caught in the hopelessness of Modernity: broken marriages, lonely women and abandoned children. Many rely on including immodest sexuality and general acceptance of immorality to identify with the reader. Many portray the challenge of people from multicultural backgrounds adjusting to modern life – with the approval of the author on the side of the modern rather than the traditional.
Novels for men rely heavily on violence, sex, war, and heroes whose heroism omits any other virtues than courage and manly skills. There are no manly heroes in modern novels full of gentleness, kindness, grace, modesty, charity, etc. It would seem inconceivable now that a hero could be manly and courageous and virtuous!! So much for Gawain, Percival, Lancelot and Galahad!

E. The Catholic Novel
Intellectual Catholics in the 20th Century tried to employ the literary novel as a means of portraying Catholic life: Mauriac, Bernanos, Greene and Waugh being the most famous. But they had bought into the Modern agenda. The Catholic novelist had become too aware of modernistic criticism of their novels based on “bringing God” into everyday life. So Catholic novelists based their plots on the main character experiencing some moral dilemma which would be solved in the end by some act of moral heroism generated by Catholic belief. The characters are portrayed as anti-heroes, extreme personalities, ignoble, or self-righteous: all it seems with one eye on the modern critic, who would insist on so-called “realism”.

But one would be then led to believe that Catholicism is nothing but morality – hardly a religion which moves and directs one’s emotions, thoughts, perceptions, interactions with others … totally opposite of the writings of Catholics in the Catholic world who are totally unselfconscious of Catholicism affecting their life.

F. Conclusion
The contemporary media of novels, film and TV dramas are devoid of life. Predominant is the sensational: extreme blatant in-your-face violence and sex, end-of-world scenarios, fantastic super-heroes, or dark portrayals of the everyday life of broken families, abuse, rape, angry men and women. Or progressive propaganda stories which take pleasure in cynically reducing any seemingly “good” or traditional life-style as basically hypocritical and corrupt.

Moral and cultural and subjective Relativism and Reductionism reigns supreme. There is no real substance of beauty, truth or goodness about contemporary culture. No real end nor resolution to life’s problems. Nihilism underpins it all. Concepts of “being nice” and “being tolerant” are pulled out of a hat to save the plot and redeem the hero. No storyline is allowed to really examine where in the “hat” these values come from or why they are there in first place.