well, if i haven't waited so long that this debate has fallen into obscurity ... true art, as we know it, is an attempt to reach an ideal, to show the way things ought to be or the way we desire them to be. i think art is necessary now because we no longer have perfect communion with God. art is indeed sanctified by the Incarnation, but the Incarnation is only necessary because of the fall. i postulate that man's creative impulse, before the fall, was satisfied by first and foremost, God; secondly, by perfect spousal communion and the creation of life, which is (or was, before we had the priesthood) the ultimate art (i.e., creative act), and, lastly, cultivating the earth. it was not of a "guache on canvas" nature. as much as plato irks me in most ways, i do partially agree that art is an imitation of an imitation, although i think it is more of an idealistic nature than plato means.
as far as the interminable debate between truth and beauty: the ultimate end of art is beauty. true art is not didactic. nonetheless, beauty and truth are not mutually exclusive, and one cannot pursue beauty without including objective truth. a badly written novel is a "sin" to beauty, but a well-written novel that perverts the truth is not beautiful, even if it is well-done art. an artist does not have to preach in order to maintain moral integrity in beauty. to maintain strict aestheticism and say that art is separate or above morality leads ultimately to ugliness, as shown in dorian gray and in gunther von psycho (yes, this is for real). on the other hand, if a thing presents truth, but is bad art (cf. most religious art since vat. II, and all the ugly, ugly churches), the thing does violate its first end, beauty, and therefore fails as art.
i don't know if i sufficiently responded to greengirl's objections, but this is one of my favourite topics so i throw open the doors for debate and disagreement.
No comments:
Post a Comment