ideological M.O. of "modern art"

[Instaurare omnia]

https://hilarywhite.substack.com/p/who-killed-art-and-why  (Click the "Let me read it first", no need to subscribe.)

I post this link especially for converts and reverts here who still seek (or blessedly have resolved but still appreciate) clarification as to why their earlier exposure to what modernists consider "art" was so insidiously effective. Once we clear away all the disingenuous arguments as to aesthetics and sensory experience, this "art" -- whether visual, aural, or textual -- is fundamentally evil.*

Therefore I'd argue that the labeling and banishment of degenerate art (by that interwar group we won't name here, but you can read further about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_art) did not serve to cleanse this trend because that particular movement did not have Christ at its core. Sure, one can wager that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", but without unwavering spiritual warfare, the enemy can't be effectively resisted --- to this day.

* A quote from the article:

The movement grew and by 1920 in Germany had already expressed itself in explicitly anti-Catholic terms. The Dadaist group in Cologne held an exhibition that year in a pub that included a woman dressed in a first Communion dress reading obscene poetry. It was closed down by police on obscenity grounds, but the scandal generated by the stunt had made its mark among the intellectuals. (The charges were dropped.)

[Lynne]

https://hilarywhite.substack.com/p/who-killed-art-and-why  (Click the "Let me read it first", no need to subscribe.)

I post this link especially for converts and reverts here who still seek (or blessedly have resolved but still appreciate) clarification as to why their earlier exposure to what modernists consider "art" was so insidiously effective. Once we clear away all the disingenuous arguments as to aesthetics and sensory experience, this "art" -- whether visual, aural, or textual -- is fundamentally evil.*

Therefore I'd argue that the labeling and banishment of degenerate art (by that interwar group we won't name here, but you can read further about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_art) did not serve to cleanse this trend because that particular movement did not have Christ at its core. Sure, one can wager that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", but without unwavering spiritual warfare, the enemy can't be effectively resisted --- to this day.

* A quote from the article:

The movement grew and by 1920 in Germany had already expressed itself in explicitly anti-Catholic terms. The Dadaist group in Cologne held an exhibition that year in a pub that included a woman dressed in a first Communion dress reading obscene poetry. It was closed down by police on obscenity grounds, but the scandal generated by the stunt had made its mark among the intellectuals. (The charges were dropped.)

I was going to post that here! It's amazing what was unleashed in the wake of WWI.

[Instaurare omnia]

I was going to post that here!

Great minds think alike 

[Justin Martyr]

"Art (including literature) is the barometer of a culture. It reflects the sum of a society's deepest philosophical values: not its professed notions and slogans, but its actual view of man and of existence." - Ayn Rand

[Maximilian]

Once we clear away all the disingenuous arguments as to aesthetics and sensory experience, this "art" -- whether visual, aural, or textual -- is fundamentally evil.

It's always helpful to have strong, unambiguous conclusions like this.

Therefore I'd argue that the labeling and banishment of degenerate art (by that interwar group we won't name here, but you can read further about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_art) did not serve to cleanse this trend because that particular movement did not have Christ at its core. Sure, one can wager that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", but without unwavering spiritual warfare, the enemy can't be effectively resisted --- to this day.

Thanks for the fascinating link. I don't understand, however, why you choose to attack the group who were right, who were fighting against this evil. You find something to nit-pick among the good, while ignoring the bad who were promoting evil.

Who, for example, were the bad who were promoting this evil? We have unquestionable proof that the CIA was one major group financing the spread of decadent modern art.

Since you are well informed and have seemingly excellent aesthetic taste, I wonder if you could answer a question that has long puzzled me. At least in the popular conception, Salvador Dali is virtually identical with the decadent modern art movement. And yet he painted some very great Catholic works of art in traditional, classical styles. I am torn about what to feel towards his paintings.

[Tennessean]

I can't add anything much, but here's a series I saved: The Shock of the New

[Instaurare omnia]

Once we clear away all the disingenuous arguments as to aesthetics and sensory experience, this "art" -- whether visual, aural, or textual -- is fundamentally evil.

It's always helpful to have strong, unambiguous conclusions like this.

Therefore I'd argue that the labeling and banishment of degenerate art (by that interwar group we won't name here, but you can read further about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_art) did not serve to cleanse this trend because that particular movement did not have Christ at its core. Sure, one can wager that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", but without unwavering spiritual warfare, the enemy can't be effectively resisted --- to this day.

Thanks for the fascinating link. I don't understand, however, why you choose to attack the group who were right, who were fighting against this evil. You find something to nit-pick among the good, while ignoring the bad who were promoting evil.

Who, for example, were the bad who were promoting this evil? We have unquestionable proof that the CIA was one major group financing the spread of decadent modern art.

Since you are well informed and have seemingly excellent aesthetic taste, I wonder if you could answer a question that has long puzzled me. At least in the popular conception, Salvador Dali is virtually identical with the decadent modern art movement. And yet he painted some very great Catholic works of art in traditional, classical styles. I am torn about what to feel towards his paintings.

By posting the above to begin with, I did the opposite of "ignoring the bad who were promoting evil." Elsewhere on SD I've pointed to Edward Bernays (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=28925.msg590358#msg590358, page down) the nephew of Sigmund Freud and a collaborator with various questionable political clients, as the source of much evil in American propaganda. (See attached.) I also applaud DeSantis for smacking down Disney, and I support every other politician and parent who battles the trash that is omnipresent these days.

I stand by my statement that Nazism "did not have Christ at its core." Is that nitpicking? Yeah, as of 1930 or so, they did look promising for cleaning up the Weimar rolling dumpster fire, but now with approximately 80 years hindsight, I don't think so. Remember also that Abp. Lefebvre's father, a monarchist, died in the Sonnenburg concentration camp.

As for Dali, his Catholic works of art can be assessed as the product of fetishism rather than faith. His interest in Catholicism seems to have been a result of his fascination with recherche authoritarianism (i.e. the appeal of an integralism of sorts in Franco's Spain -- one more thing I don't oppose at all https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=28751.0) and a dabbling in mysticism that could easily have been interchanged with occult-spiritualist leanings. Did Dali even attempt to follow the Commandments and the other precepts of Catholicism?

Nonetheless, I appreciate the compliment: "you are well informed and have seemingly excellent aesthetic taste." 

[Instaurare omnia]

I can't add anything much, but here's a series I saved: The Shock of the New

Looks like interesting stuff to watch as the days get shorter. Note though that Robert Hughes is yet another of the sort of godless decadents who happen to prefer their art in an older vintage. He may very well have much that is valid to say about modernity, yet more due to nostalgia rather than to a genuine recognition of the inherent destructiveness of modern art. We shall see.

[Elizabeth]

I can't add anything much, but here's a series I saved: The Shock of the New

The Shock of the New was the beloved of art school when I went; it may have been on TV at the time..
The Nihilism and disdain for all that is beautiful and lasting, destroyed at least two supposedly great art schools I know of.  They were so insidious and evil and seductive.  Now we may understand how and why with wikileaks.

EXCEPT I know Insta is right, the Church is right, but I still love some Expressionism or whatever they are calling contemporary paintings which are all brushy and painterly these days.  Ab-Ex is all about Me.   Genuine Art is all about Him.

[Instaurare omnia]

Ab-Ex is all about Me.   Genuine Art is all about Him.

Ain't that the truth. The defining trait of an irredeemable Ab-Ex fan is the complete inability to perceive any First Cause nor any moral limitation on what may be accepted as beautiful. The good Lord knows that I gave up trying to argue with these characters years ago...