To what are you currently listening?

[Melkor]

Lol guess I'm dumb

[Mono no aware]

dellery, I think you're a forum user who makes some challenging observations and offers some good insights.  Your taste in music, I'm afraid, is just awful.

But perhaps there is a better way to argue over taste.  Consider the problem of traditional Catholicism, which you have rightly criticized for its inertia and insularity.  Putting aside the matter of armed conflict and revolution, where do you see Catholicism vis-à-vis the arts?  It is a common refrain for apologists to say that from Catholicism comes great art.  And there is some truth to that.  But where are the artistic fruits of traditional Catholicism over the past fifty years?  The only one I can think of is The Passion of the Christ.  Otherwise there is the occasional Daniel Matsui, but that sort of thing is somewhat niche.  I'm sure there are some talented quilters and woodcarvers as well.  But why doesn't traditional Catholicism produce a Velázquez or a Victoria?

I don't know how traditional Catholicism is going to affect or influence the culture so long as it remains overmuch in love with the past.  As one of my favorite bloggers recently put it, "the Society of St. Pius X, in spite of having gifted and holy priests, hasn't really produced an original thought about Catholic theology or life in fifty years.  Their vision of the Church, of God, and of history is encased in amber, just the way they like it."  I think that applies to art as well.  Now probably your view is more political and insurgent, and you feel that art will have a negligible role to play in the cultural sea change.  But if the West does revert to traditional Catholicism, is Catholic music going to sound like Swedish House Mafia?  If so, please send me to a detention camp.

[dellery]

dellery, I think you're a forum user who makes some challenging observations and offers some good insights.  Your taste is in music, I'm afraid, is just awful.

But perhaps there is a better way to argue over taste.  Consider the problem of traditional Catholicism, which you have rightly criticized for its inertia and insularity.  Putting aside the matter of armed conflict and revolution, where do you see Catholicism vis-à-vis the arts?  It is a common refrain for apologists to say that from Catholicism comes great art.  And there is some truth to that.  But where are the artistic fruits of traditional Catholicism over the past fifty years?  The only one I can think of is The Passion of the Christ.  Otherwise there is the occasional Daniel Matsui, but that sort of thing is somewhat niche.  I'm sure there are some talented quilters and woodcarvers as well.  But why doesn't traditional Catholicism produce a Velázquez or a Victoria?

I don't know how traditional Catholicism is going to affect or influence the culture so long as it remains overmuch in love with the past.  As one of my favorite bloggers recently put it, "the Society of St. Pius X, in spite of having gifted and holy priests, hasn't really produced an original thought about Catholic theology or life in fifty years.  Their vision of the Church, of God, and of history is encased in amber, just the way they like it."  I think that applies to art as well.  Now probably your view is more political and insurgent, and you feel that art will have a negligible role to play in the cultural sea change.  But if the West does revert to traditional Catholicism, is Catholic music going to sound like Swedish House Mafia?  If so, please send me to a detention camp.

I know, and am wide open to ridicule for it. Although, it's not necessarily the satisfaction of my auditory desires that prompts me to listen to the music I listen to. It is very pleasant to hear latent, and repressed, connections to the Divine, bubble up to the surface, defiantly rising through the deluge.

Personally, I really like the Beets' music, but can't find much from them.




The arts have been replaced with advertisements. Maybe we can get back to an age of real artistic production, but right now there's no appreciation for it.
We should be making our own artistic "advertisements" at least, and should sound like what people want to hear.

[Mono no aware]

and should sound like what people want to hear.

No, I think any art, or even "artistic advertisement," worth its salt shouldn't cater to people, but should surprise them.  You want to transcend the mundane and the previous.  Which is not to neglect the past, however.  "Talent borrows, genius steals."  Art dwells on the knife's edge between novelty and regurgitation.

[dellery]

and should sound like what people want to hear.

No, I think any art, or even "artistic advertisement," worth its salt shouldn't cater to people, but should surprise them.  You want to transcend the mundane and the previous.  Which is not to neglect the past, however.  "Talent borrows, genius steals."  Art dwells on the knife's edge between novelty and regurgitation.

I agree. Masses and committees always dilute and ruin the work of genius'. There's a famous quote of Beethoven's when somebody asks why such-and-such symphony was more popular than the his Eighth, and his reply was "because the Eighth is so much better".

The People themselves demand to manipulated and ruled over, so my opinion is that it would be nice to see Catholics making manipulative art that compels the People socially, and horizontally, to enforce an appreciation for the higher side of humanity. It's been, not so coincidentally, three hundred years since Bach. Has another as talented ever lived since? If so, who would know? Would a man with such talent even aspire to make music these days, and if so, what incentive would there be forgoing all recognition and fortune to produce music only a few people would listen to and appreciate? Great art needs a people who will recognize it as such and then culturally hegemonize it, the person who creates it is only half of the equation.

[Prayerful]

There some interpretations of Lully's Marche Royal, but, for me, there is only one:

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Mzf1WLyHEE[/yt]

[Lydia Purpuraria]

No, I think any art, or even "artistic advertisement," worth its salt shouldn't cater to people, but should surprise them.  You want to transcend the mundane and the previous.  Which is not to neglect the past, however.  "Talent borrows, genius steals."  Art dwells on the knife's edge between novelty and regurgitation.

I agree. Masses and committees always dilute and ruin the work of genius'. There's a famous quote of Beethoven's when somebody asks why such-and-such symphony was more popular than the his Eighth, and his reply was "because the Eighth is so much better".

The People themselves demand to manipulated and ruled over, so my opinion is that it would be nice to see Catholics making manipulative art that compels the People socially, and horizontally, to enforce an appreciation for the higher side of humanity. It's been, not so coincidentally, three hundred years since Bach. Has another as talented ever lived since? If so, who would know?

Would a man with such talent even aspire to make music these days, and if so, what incentive would there be forgoing all recognition and fortune to produce music only a few people would listen to and appreciate? Great art needs a people who will recognize it as such and then culturally hegemonize it, the person who creates it is only half of the equation.

I think the incentive would be (and should be) the creation of the art itself.  And the creation of art (music) that is authentic to their own vision and inspiration (not that of the record labels or social media masses and lackluster trends of the day). 

The person who truly creates great art is pretty much the whole equation, to my mind.  As you said above: "masses and committees always dilute and ruin the work of genius". 

[dellery]

I think the incentive would be (and should be) the creation of the art itself.  And the creation of art that is authentic to their own vision and inspiration (not that of the record labels or social media masses and lackluster trends of the day). 

The person who truly creates great art is pretty much the whole equation, to my mind.  As you said above: "masses and committees always dilute and ruin the work of genius".

That's idealism though. A person could create a magnificent piece of art only to have ignored by everybody, and then who would know about it? What value to society is in an unknown masterpiece? I do appreciate art for the sake of art, and made sure to cultivate that appreciation in my daughter too, it's just that it seems so meaningless in a world falling apart and at war with itself. Appreciating things like art, food, and whatnot, make me feel guilty --like somebody who is eating the seeds he's supposed to be planting.
Listening to trash on the radio allows you to hear the war within humanity, and the irrepressible connections to God fools aren't even aware they're projecting. Art is impossible for a base, instinctual, and sexually dysfunctional people.

[Lydia Purpuraria]

That's idealism though. A person could create a magnificent piece of art only to have ignored by everybody, and then who would know about it? What value to society is in an unknown masterpiece?  I do appreciate art for the sake of art, and made sure to cultivate that appreciation in my daughter too, it's just that it seems so meaningless in a world falling apart and at war with itself.

So should an artist just not even try or not create at all, then -- because they might not receive instant worldly recognition or financial gain (or because the world is essentially a waste land)?  Is that any better?  How could culture ever be positively affected by or find value in a masterpiece that had the inspiration and ability to be created by an artist (and thus the potential to be discovered at some time), but was instead just snuffed out and not created at all?  (I think it's probably better an unknown masterpiece than no masterpiece at all.)

That's basically my reason for saying that the first or most important motivation should be the creating of the art itself on a personal level for the artist.  Otherwise it seems to me sort of akin to putting the cart before the horse.  Many great artists won't be recognized right away, or possibly at all, in any large measure during their lifetimes -- and if that's how it goes, is it really a true loss for them (or culture?), particularly if that person gets a personal satisfaction out of creating their art regardless?   

Is that idealism?  Maybe it is, I'm not really sure.   

(I should add to my previous thoughts too, though, that I'm not saying that an artist shouldn't (or doesn't) have the desire for their work to be recognized and/or to attain financial success from it; but that if their main (or only) incentive for creating their art is for the public recognition and/or the financial gain they receive from it, then they'll probably be more likely to give up too quickly or despair themselves into an impotency, et cetera, when those things don't readily materialize.) 

Appreciating things like art, food, and whatnot, make me feel guilty --like somebody who is eating the seeds he's supposed to be planting.

What makes you say that, dellery?  What do you mean?

[dellery]

I haven't had enough to drink yet to be able to reply to this thread.

The path of excess leading to the tower of wisdom is certainly debatable.

[Lydia Purpuraria]

I haven't had enough to drink yet to be able to reply to this thread.   

[dellery]

The music in the above video is very intriguing.

[dellery]

Oh, yes. This is magnificent.



Where's PdR at?

[red solo cup]

I think the incentive would be (and should be) the creation of the art itself.  And the creation of art that is authentic to their own vision and inspiration (not that of the record labels or social media masses and lackluster trends of the day). 













The person who truly creates great art is pretty much the whole equation, to my mind.  As you said above: "masses and committees always dilute and ruin the work of genius".

That's idealism though. A person could create a magnificent piece of art only to have ignored by everybody, and then who would know about it? What value to society is in an unknown masterpiece? I do appreciate art for the sake of art, and made sure to cultivate that appreciation in my daughter too, it's just that it seems so meaningless in a world falling apart and at war with itself. Appreciating things like art, food, and whatnot, make me feel guilty --like somebody who is eating the seeds he's supposed to be planting.
Listening to trash on the radio allows you to hear the war within humanity, and the irrepressible connections to God fools aren't even aware they're projecting. Art is impossible for a base, instinctual, and sexually dysfunctional people.

Masterpieces can be ignored because styles and "trends" can prevail at any given time. When the first Impressionist paintings came out they were reviled and mocked. Now look at them. What we conceive as "art" has changed as well. It used to be about creating beauty but now is about being "original", to shock or titillate. Roger Scruton's "Why Beauty Matters" covers this nicely and is well worth the hour spent watching it.

[clau clau]

Sheep Farm Podcast Jerry Marzinsky The Psychotic Mind - Breaking The Spell Of the Ivory Tower

https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/sheepfarmstudios/episodes/2021-04-16T13_56_14-07_00