The Idolatry of Modern Art
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 09. 2024
- Music written and generously provided by Paul Jernberg. Find out more about his work as a composer here: pauljernberg.com
If you’re Catholic then it isn’t news to you that many in roles of authority within the Church have fully embraced modern and post modern art movements as perfectly appropriate for the use of sacred art.
Even though the intellectual and philosophical movements that animated this cultural shift feature a lot of agnostic and atheistic tendencies and even though, if you connect it to modernism itself, you may, or may not know, that Pope Pius X condemned it as a heresy.
But so what? Maybe, as many will insist, we need to embrace new and innovative ways of expressing the faith. We need to ensure that the gospel doesn’t grow stale and irrelevant. And I agree with that if it means we should continue to build upon what came before and steadily improve as we strive to communicate beauty and the story of salvation history.
But modernist movements did not do that. They discarded what came before them and held them in contempt. This was, in many cases, literally done as Church sanctuaries that were masterpieces of religious art and craftsmanship were the victims of enthusiastic church professionals who were all to happy to embrace these new trends.
The reason I think modern art is intrinsically incompatible with Christian worship isn’t because I don’t like it, although I don’t, and it isn’t because it lacks universal appeal, which it does, and it isn’t because it violently clashes with it’s surroundings, which it does.
It’s because it doesn’t meet what I believe to be an essential criterion for sacred art according to Christian doctrine and to explain what I mean, I think we need to revisit what has been a seemingly timeless controversy in the Church which is whether or not using images in worship is idolatrous.
Protestants took up this controversy in the 16th century when they began smashing stained glass windows and beheading statues but these iconoclastic tendencies have been with us since at least the 8th century when the Eastern Church had to confront the exact same speculation.
And of course, the reason this controversy and confusion exists is because of the 1st commandment in the decalogue which says that we shalt not have any strange gods before the true God of Israel and that it forbids making images to worship.
But iconoclasts took this to mean that all imagery was forbidden lest we fall into idolatry. After all, it says right there in scripture, “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.”
But does that mean all imagery is idolatrous? Well, it can’t mean that because just a few chapters later in the book of Exodus, God sanctions the use of carved images for religious piety by telling the Israelites how they are to fashion the tabernacle with two carved angels on each side of the cover.
And this is tricky for Christians because our faith is a sacramental faith in which the invisible is made visible. In which matter, space and time, and sound are employed to communicate the reality of the spiritual life and there is no better example of this than the incarnation of Jesus in which the invisible God becomes human so that we can meet him face to face, hear his voice, and know him like we know most other things that we can see and touch.
And so, it is our instinct to follow that pattern and to make visible that which is invisible through art that can clarify what might otherwise be difficult to understand and visualize.
When we talk about God’s interactions with us through the stories we find in scripture, we refer to it as revelation. God’s work since our estrangement with him has been to reveal himself to us as a prerequisite to relationship with him. He wants to make himself MORE explicitly known to us.
And that is the principle that sacred art should follow. It should be used to make spiritual realities or the stories in the Bible less ambiguous than they might otherwise be if they were just left to our imagination.
And this is exactly what Christians aspired to do by telling the stories of the Bible through representative imagery. It was used to enhance our prayers, help us feel closer to God as we worshipped him, and to teach and catechize the faithful, especially in places and times where literacy was low.
But that’s not what modern art does. It embraces the abstract and the novel and abstraction is the opposite of revelation.
They portray the stories of scripture as something more incorporeal when that is the exact opposite of how God chose to reveal himself, in unmistakable and material presence available to our senses.
Abstraction doesn't reveal the reality of salvation history - it obscures it. And when revelation is obscured, it leads to confusion, and when you’re praying in a state of confusion, you can easily be led from that disorientation into idolatry.
Lots of people have been making the same comment about my encouragement for a more historically accurate portrayal of biblical stories so I thought I'd reply here. They point out that there are examples, like Our Lady of Guadalupe which portray our Blessed Mother as a different ethnicity and that's acceptable. Some have also raised the complaint that classical sacred art often portrays biblical characters as "Caucasian" so why is that OK?
My comment had more to do with depictions of stories from the Bible which do have a historical context that we shouldn't stray too much on, but I do think some flexibility can be forgiven there, within reason. If we're talking about apparitions or visions of Heaven, then I think that's different, because that doesn't have a historical context in the same way. If the BVM appears to St. Juan Diego in a way that compliments the ethnicity of the people there, then that was her choice and we should honor it. What we shouldn't do is make depictions of Our Lady of Guadalupe as an Asian, European, or an African woman because that's not how she appeared.
Regarding the complaint about artwork that portrays biblical characters as "Caucasian", I think this complaint is often over stated but maybe I'm not sensitive enough to it. There are examples, and I think my criticism would apply, but I don't think they are as widespread as the complaint seems to suggest. Caucasian means, from Caucasia which is in the near east or middle-east (ie. very close to where Jesus lived). Ancient Jews were a Mediterranean people like Northern Africans or Southern Europeans. They weren't, as some think, something closer to Arabs. They wouldn't have been any darker skinned than a Greek or an Italian. They were Semitic which has often been classified as a subset of Caucasian. That said, they wouldn't have had blonde hair and blue eyes, so I would complain about those kinds of depictions as well. But, I also appreciate that much of the best sacred art comes from a time in which the artists lived in a locale that they would have had limited opportunities to travel outside of. A 14th century Englishman would have no way of knowing what an indigenous Middle-Easterner would look like outside of descriptions. So, they had to rely on models which were people who lived in their area. They couldn't Google pictures of Middle Eastern Jews to find out what would be more accurate. And all things considered, I'd say a lot of the artwork from that period did a good job of balancing those difficulties.
My commentary had more to do with artwork that is created today because we don't have those same excuses, but yet, we seem to be neglecting the potential of what could be created with all of our technological advantages and education.
Ok, I thought I would comment on your video since there are no other comments on you comment.
I have been a fan of your channel for a year or two, and I am blown away by your way of explaining the teachings of the Catholic Church, its engaging and insightful. I do have one request, can you please make a video that tackles the subject of the word "Believe" and its definition, the official one and your own. As a Catholic this is the most prominent stumbling block for me, what does it mean to believe in God?
What's Catholic's obsession with Mary?
@@jamesmassingale8512 They're obsessed less with Mary, and more with her virginity.
Your comment opens up a pandora box and underscores the wisdom of biblical injunction of why not to engage in such art. You have given an explanation dealing with races, subsets of a race, ethnicity, complexion, geographical regions just about everything except God. In fact if u read ur very articulate comment, God is not mentioned one time. So in essence, that what art that is not specifically dictated by God is namely a distraction and as the depictions u mentioned above tend to man making God and sacred things in their own image, which is idolatry
@tkwtg Dude just go look at pictures of Greeks, Berbers, Syrians and Lebanese. They resemble each other and would be called "white" in the 21st century. A historically accurate depiction of Mary would probably look like them but not like Germanic or Slavic white people.
We modern people don't have to make the same mistake as medieval Europeans by depicting historical, religious figures like Mary as contemporary coethnics. You can look up Agamemnon or Achilles on manuscript miniatures to see that they did it in all of their art. Amazonians aren't backwards and can find out what Mary would have looked like so there's no reason to make exceptions for them. Further more 'localisation' removes the historicity of what's being depicted as though it's just another story and it allows the art to be politicised like the Pachamama was. That isn't appropriate for religious art.
Catholicism alone has contributed more for the arts, music, architecture and science than any other religion. You can't change my mind.
I've been through 2 art history courses and it's not even a contest. Medieval, Gothic, Italian High Renaissance, Baroque, they all have tons of church patroned works and it's all fantastic stuff.
Its foolish to say nobody cant chane your mind, but ofcourse, statement is correct
The problem is in the past 50 years.
The hospital in my town was literally founded by Catholic nuns
@@graceafeuchtart same here. Penrose Hospital in Colorado Springs CO and in many places practically too numerous to count.
When a culture no longer aspires to the beautiful, excellent and transcendent but instead makes oneself as his own god, then morality declines along with art, music, language along with the culture itself.
Ramir Reyes, well said.
But modernist art is one of the most beautiful and furtive art periods in the history of art
Case in point: everything about American culture in the last 20 years
@@internetenjoyer1044 Not even close.
Laura Bellamy 1000 Holy Places what about surrealism?
I visited a art museum in Chicago recently. The Modern Art section literally had a blank canvas on display😐🖼
yes!!! I was there and I took a picture of it. Like it’s just a joke now.
A blank canvas...exactly what I saw at someone's house on their dining room wall and I enquired if someone was going to be painting on it; the reply was that it was supposed to be like that. A totally blank canvas and that is...Art! I can have many such art pieces in my home too. 😂😂😂
@@r.m5883 I swear, modern art is THE greatest con anyone every pulled to cheat the wealthy out of their money.
Laura Bellamy 1000 Holy Places Kind of, you definitely have to be silly to spend money on that but I think it also speaks to a culturally messed up society that’s all about cultural relativism; nothing means anything anymore and that shows up in the art. Sad!
I saw once a blank canvas (OK, it looked more of a tan-light khaki tone than gleaming white, but you get the idea) that was cut in the middle. Just that. If I remember correctly, it was in the Museum of Modern Art in London. They also had all kinds of weird stuff there.
We won’t attract people to the faith by following trends, but by following beauty and truth. Fundamentally, that is what people are searching for when they seek God.
I'm increasingly impressed by just how many things Brian doesn't like and his certainty that nobody else should like them either.
yes, arrogance is his strong point
Gotta love ending the work week with a winner of an essay like this.
The Gospel can't grow "stale". As long as Jesus is alive, His power will continue to save souls regardless of human work. People who deny that deny Christ. Period.
I do feel lucky to live in the "old world" where most churches were constructed before the modern era. I do agree that most modern art, whether it be in architecture, painting, or even music is not suited for religion. This probably has to do with the fact that most of the modern art movements concentrate on the individual and not the transcendent.
As for interpreting the Virgin Mary or Jesus to our likes and tastes, I'd say that has been going on since the beginning. How many paintings of biblical scenes were transposed in the Europe of the time of the painter. The clothes and even the beauty standards of the time were attributed to historical biblical figures, as the objective was to make the scene more comprehensible, more approchable to common people and a means to identify to the characters. The equivalent today would be to represent the apostles with jeans and tshirts.
Which actually prompts the question: what does it say about our society that we might find it shocking and/or not at all appropriate to have a religious scene depicted with figures wearing contemporary clothes, when in the Middle Ages or the Renaissance they found this normal? Should we find it irreverent, after all the message is timeless and universal? Yet, I'm not certain I would be comfortable with this.
Perhaps certain folk art, like ex votos or retablos found in Mexico translate better the contemporary with the transcendent?
I go to a Polish Czech parish in Texas that built the church in the 1800's by deeply devoted immigrants. It's a small but BEAUTIFUL chapel and the people of that parish are still deeply devoted and reverent. We have a Polish priest and every Christmas sing carols in Polish as well as German and English. It's lovely!
Jeans and t-shirts - definitely not. I don't think it's about the fashion of the day, but rather the modesty of it. Notice how Our Lady appeared in Guadalupe and in Akita. Very different but always with modesty. Even in the Renaissance the fashion was still to present yourselves at your best before the Lord with women covering their heads. Would it be shocking for them to be depicted in jeans and t-shirts - of course it would, but what about modest dress? Our Lady depicted in a long modest dress with her head covered in a mantilla or scarf would not be shocking. As a convert to the Catholic faith growing in my relationship to Our Lord and Lady, I wanted more and more to emulate Our Lady. I wanted to cover my head because she always covered hers. I always wear long flowing dresses that cover everything because she does. Anyway, I think it's about losing our worldly selves and embracing the Sacred. I think that's the difference. You said it already; the best art is transcendent. Peace Be With You!! : )
The ethnicity isn't a detracting element in art that is intended to be sacred. Fashion can detract if it's the focus, rather than the message of the icon. There are rules in iconography, and iconographers speak of writing icons, not creating them as works of art. An icon is a window to heaven. The theologians of the Eastern Churches teach that when we look at icons, the person that is represented in the icon is returning our gaze from heaven. Therefore sacred art must draw our hearts to heaven, not to this world. Sacred art must draw our thoughts to transcendance as we seek our theosis, our becoming like God. Our Lady of Kibeho appeared to the schoolgirls in Rwanda as an African woman wearing the traditional fashion of First Century Palestine. As far as I know, Our Blessed Mother has never appeared wearing blue jeans.
Overstylized modern art doesn't draw the mind to heaven, either. Stick figures and twisted forms don't inspire us to theosis. If anything, modern art styles focus attention on the cleverness of the artist, and on the hip cool groovy things of this world.
The interesting thing is that on many of these old works of art, clothing takes a back seat and often only the timeless face with the expressions of humility, joy, patience, etc. comes to the fore. Modern pictures often focus on the actual event and not on what the believer feels.
Old church buildings vs new buildings-> the acoustics in old churches is often much better without added technology than in new buildings that rely almost exclusively on technology.
* why the wonderful murals often disappear in old churches is largely due to the fact that neither the parish nor the diocese can bear the immense costs for a professional restoration. When my old church was renovated in the 1970s, that was exactly why the pictures disappeared behind white walls. You could just afford professional coverage. The images were only specially protected.
@@kimfleury Ha! Our Lady appearing with jeans on... After all, it's blue...
Or with a short skirt and sleeveless top. To match the "apostles in T-shirt" theme.
Also, I love the little mini-rant about the CZcams algo in the latest version of the closing bit
oy vey, tis another levi
What a great channel! I'm an Orthodox myself, but it's always good to hear voice of real reason. There is a real treasure in icon if you want to explore it. There is no line between icon and reality. No wall between you and the space of icon.
Thank you for your work!
+1
Great explanation Brian. Also I loved the last line about how when we’re in a state of confusion we can easily be led into idolatry.
I’ve been trying so long to find a way to express to my liberally minded co-religionists why this more modern & abstract approach to sacred art /objectively/ doesn’t communicate the transcendent and the nature of the faith like classical and medieval art does.
You finally provided an answer, and I’m grateful.
Whether the statues were pachamama or the blessed virgin Mary, we should not be bowing down to the ground in front of statues of her. That is forbidden and is deifying Mary. She is to receive high honour, but not worship. Bowing before statues of her is crossing the line. I say this as a catholic.
Don't forget to pray so that those tasked with repairs of Notre Dame are wise enough to restore it to its original state. Some people want to rebuilt the cathedral in a modern way. No modern architectonical experiments on this beautiful work of our ancestors!
Funny you should mention Notre Dame. It struck me that the old structure might be safer with a lightweight roof instead of the original lead. Glasgow Cathedral has a copper roof.
@@henrybn14ar there's always ways to technologically update the inside of the roof for it to be safer and lighter while still preserving the historical look on the surface
@@littledrummergirl_19 Yeah that's the trick. Obviously it won't be built with the medieval techniques, but it should look the same. Some of the ideas of modernist architects are very strange and ugly.
I just wanted to add one of the strange examples of modern churches from my country. Try searching "Church Brno Lesna".
I work in the education department of a museum, and my coworkers constantly regurgitate the axiom that the purpose of art is to challenge you. I get a kick out of replying that it's not, and when they ask what art's purpose is, say "To glorify God, of course." The speechlessness that follows is extremely satisfying. It's the best I can do when I otherwise get in trouble for not thinking that Very Important Artists saying Very Important Things are really very good at what they do.
Sacred art certainly challenges viewers more than a urinal or splatters of paint.
There is no greater scholar of the motives underlying modern art and architecture than E. Michael Jones
Thank you, Brian. You are an excellent witness for Our Lord Jesus Christ within our culture. And i feel that modern art is a poor expression of beauty, in comparison with the old masters.
Also, Patrick Coffin’s podcast interview with Dr E Michael Jones on architecture is a worthwhile listen.
Throughout history the Church has always incorporated art from each period, be it Gregorian chant, renaissance painting or baroque music. Modern art is no different, but it requires choosing appropriately and choosing the best. There is something called the survivor bias, where we trick ourselves into thinking that all art created in the past was of such a high standard. In reality there has always been a lot of bad art that has been forgotten and we only remember the good. Modern religious art is no different, the mediocre art will fall away and the best will be added to the Church's repertoire.
At 7:50, I wonder your thoughts on Mary presenting herself as a native in Our Lady of Guadalupe. Or the traditional European art that presents Jesus as a European.
I appreciate the art depicting Jesus as various ethnicities because it shows how he came for all of us, but I do dislike the modern church empty of art and the modern art style. Therefore I'm not fully convinced you've got the nail on the head but I appreciate the direction of, and hearing, your thoughts.
On this point, I may feel him to be a little off base, but 1) Guadalupe’s depiction still communicates a spiritual truth: that she is mother of the indigenous Americans and not merely the Jews or the Europeans, and 2) depicting her as a Meztica still is referencing something concrete and doesn’t leave much to an imaginative interpretation.
Our Blessed Mother uses different appearances like a woman picks an appropriate dress out of her closet. In Rawanda, an African, in Akita, a Japanese, in Mexico, a Nahuatl.
The art and architecture of the modern world is replacing all variety of cultural heritage. New buildings look the same across the continents for the most part...
From my understanding, Our blessed mother Virgin Mary appeared to these people in each specific way to show she is also their mother too. It’s beautiful really when you think about it. She humbly matches in appearance to those she appeared to so they can relate to her and be comforted by her.
Me: There...
*333 likes and 3 dislikes*
Me: Perfectly balanced, as all things should be.
That statue was undeniably Pachamama. Those who say otherwise are either sinful idolators or too lazy too look into the obvious. What happened there was far more than devotion, and there was never out Lady of the Amazon. Vatican literally MADE THAT UP!! why can't we even trust our own patriarchs and Cardinals?? What has Caused the church to decline so much that the lay faithful are in opposition to them, yet are correct??
They are more concerned with being popular and pleasing the world than being devout and pleasing God. In Christ, Andrew
It's the zeitgeist.
Look it up.
I mean, even the pope referred to them as Pachamama. What that “priest” said at that press conference about the two pregnant statues being Mary and Elizabeth was a LIE. He was obfuscating and distracting. Not to mention they would’ve been blasphemous depictions of Our Lady and St. Elizabeth anyways: nude and blood-red bellies.
It was idolatry. Full stop.
@@jefffinkbonner9551 - idolatry, Indeed. Very obvious. And people simply forget about it
We need new ways to make sure the Gospel is not stale or old-fashioned? Visiting the elderly, the ill, those without family; sitting next to those who are suffering and being with them, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, getting those without housing a place to live; looking at the morning dawn or unfolding flower bud or germinating seed and feeling peace and joy in the wonder of it... not putting ourselves first, not counting every last penny of cost, being kind to others, giving thanks for the miracles of God... THESE are integral parts to the Gospel, and even the parts of it that have existed from before the stone age aren't "stale" and never can be. Art can be abstract, but faith and the Gospel are specific and real... Good talk, thank you!
I always get something insightful out of your videos.
Brian, I love your videos. I just want to point out that the chapel you show at 1:25 is actually not the result of liturgical renovation but rather water damage. This is St. Turbius Chapel in the Pontifical College Joesphinum, and I have a friend who's going there as a seminarian. The beautiful chapel artwork was damaged by water in between it and the wall, and had to be removed. Fortunately, they restored the artwork only a few years ago, and now it looks just as it did in the before photo :)
I think it's important to distinguish between modernism and abstraction. Chagall and Matisse were both modernists and their contributions to church art are sublime. Check out the Rosary Chapel. Messiaen was a modernist composer but his music is profoundly contemplative and explicitly Catholic.
This reminds me why I have strong objections to The Last Temptation of Christ, whether it's the original book by Nikos Kazantzakis or the film adaptation directed by Martin Scorsese (and its screenplay written by Paul Schrader). If it were just a thought experiment or a personal expression, fine. But it was meant to be a kind of modernist Gospel. Kazantzakis had even said once he wanted "Christ without the Church". And thus, he portrayed Him as what I've come to call a "selfish neurotic" (and by extension, God is an obscure and uncommunicative a-hole; humanity are even worse a-holes than God). And while I definitely understand the general "spiritual struggle" if you like, it does not mean that Christ had that. In fact, if anything, Christ is the one who *resolves* it in His Incarnation, Life, Death to Resurrection. And if He couldn't do it, then the rest of us are totally screwed.
I bring this up because the one silver lining to this was the score Peter Gabriel made for the film. (And yes, it's a delicious irony that both of his names denote the key apostle of the faith and the angel who brought the first bit of "evangelos" to the Theotokos or BVM.). A lot of it has to do with drawing on tried and true music traditions from all over the world (mainly from North Africa and western Asia). But in the music, you can hear that spiritual struggle of the soul that is common to all of us and thus is relatable in that way. Granted it remains in abstraction at best and is associated with blasphemous heresy at worst (by associating with the film). However, I would say for modern art, it is the closest it gets to something like the sacred art because it does acknowledge the truth that we as human beings are always on the line between the sacred and the profane. This is way better than most of the modern art in general and, yes, this is the exception that proves a rule that modern art is antithetical (not in that stupid Hegelian way of doing it) to the Christian credo where it proclaims and affirms that God created the heavens and the earth and called it good and created Man and called Man very good.
I also bring this up because TLT is seen as an "important spiritual work" and only because it deals with spiritual themes. But that doesn't make it automatically right. If anything, it's heretical and blasphemous compared to Christian dogma and it should be called out as such. I think this book gets excused by Christian pastors and priests because it deals with relatable struggles. But while I do empathize with the struggle, I think it's the wrong story to tell. The life of any saint? Perfect (and there's a slew of them that really do have compelling and relatable stories). But a retelling of the Gospel where God and humanity are a-holes and the "best hope for all of this" is found in a selfish neurotic? Ahhh, no. That may be relatable, but that really doesn't make me want to be better. I would never want to work on my prayer rule or fasting or make any effort to be a better human being if the end result is "Pffft. Doesn't matter anyway".
Yeah, there's a lot more I can say about this and other related topics but this is good for now. Thank you again for this =]
Many Protestants, including many of us Calvinists, don't have a problem with images per se, just not in our places of worship to prevent their becoming objects of worship. We find the arguments of "absolutist iconoclasts" to be effectively denials of the incarnation. We never reads stories, including the gospel narratives without forming images in our minds of the people in the narratives.
Anyway, I for one argue the position that all art is iconic, which makes my fellow Calvinists bristle, especially the ones who really enjoy painters like Rembrandt.
I love your work.
There are specific problems in strands of modern art, but as a category and undefined it's too broad to criticize as such. Especially because the problems with many schools under the "modern art" umbrella are the opposite of others: Abstract expressionism is too esoteric and cerebral, whereas pop art is too shallow and commercial. In many respects I admire the aesthetic traditionalist, because to me it is self-evident that the great works of the Renaissance and antiquity are more appealing than the status quo. Not that there haven't been great works of modernism: Even brutalist cathedrals, I believe, are part of a very specific historical circumstance which suits them perfectly. The brutalist Tokyo Cathedral is the perfect, stark, terrifying response to a nuclear age, but I wouldn't wish for it to become a new norm.
You also have to be conscious of the tackiness of being purely derivative of the past artistic traditions. Consider the art of the Soviet Union: While the West continued to innovate, for better or for worse, much of the art coming out of the U.S.S.R. was stuck in the stodgy traditionalism and sentimentalty of Soviet realism. Not that the West had it right either-untethered from the call of true beauty, they pursued only success within the art market. Great art can only be redeemed by a third way-neither capitalist nor Communist, neither restricted to the tyranny of the old ways nor the pretensions of the new.
There are some precedents for this in modernism which are worth considering. The modernist poets, T.S. Eliot and Ezra Pound, created astonishing works which were both innovative and held to strongly traditional notions of beauty and goodness. Recently I have been obsessed with Phillip Glass' soundtrack for Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters. It's not sophisticated like the great works of Bach, but it is genuinely beautiful and works within a distinctly modernist paradigm.
There is nothing tacky about the new art which is being placed in the reinstated churches in the former Soviet Union. It is solidly traditional and devotional.
In art over the last 200 years there's been a trend from portraying things as they are to absolute abstraction and uncoordinated splatters of paint. What we should do is put together classes that teach how to paint and draw with some realism and look back to the Renaissance as a guide.
Excellent review brother! I don't know why or what put this on your heart to do now, but it's something that I wish God's churches would take to heart and seriously consider for themselves.
I recently relocated but before I did, I traveled my state for almost two years checking out different areas and the churches within them. I saw a lot of very strange and disturbing things when it came to artwork in our churches.
I even saw a bronze relief of Jesus behind the alter that made it look like He had a pointed tail. It was only after much closer inspection that I realized it was supposed to be the bottom of His robe.
Conflicting imagery like that is not something that any of us should be subjected to, especially highly impressionable children.
Thank you for the video. In Christ, Andrew
More importantly, let's discuss postmodernism. It embraces incomplete asymmetry. It's a proponent of ontological ideology; the materialistic idea that things are to be accepted just as they appear.
I I was raised in the Baptist church. And though our opinions may differ on iconography, I've never before heard such an intelligently reasoned case.
Modern art is such a vast concept. To which school are you referring to? I have seen several modern churches. Some are beautiful and call to prayer and reflexion. Some are horrible. Others are just insignificant. The same can be said of any church built in any period of time. At the back of Notre-Dame Basilica in Montréal, there is the Chapel of the Sacred-Heart. It burned in 1978. It was rebuilt in a modern fashion. It kept some elements of the original, but the main altar, the roof, the organ, all had to be replaced. And it's one of my favorite chapel in Québec. The bronze altarpiece was made by the great quebecois abstract artist Charles Daudelin.
Btw that’s the Ark if the Covenant, not the Tabernacle
It's unfortunate that modern art somewhat contributes to iconoclast sensibilities instead of iconophiliac ones. Great video.
One main element of traditional art was that it was a Marraige of multi facetted spiritual values & Art. Whereas modernist art is limited to its visual appeal & physical worldly existence.
This is probably the best explanation of why "modern" art has no healthy place in the religious experience. Well thought out and very well executed. Congratulations, Brian Holdsworth.
Beauty is a MUST in Art.
GOD BLESS YOU FOR HAVING THE COURAGE TO SAY THIS!!! I began to major in art more than once when I was in college, but dropped it because I couldn't stand modern art. I was told by my professors that I was just ignorant. I remember for one assignment, I decided to prove a point and just trashed it and made up a bunch of bs about it. Got an 'A' on it and was given highest praise for my bold point of view. I was laughing all the way to admin building to change my major. I did not want to be a part of TRASH!! Sure enough, the latest in art is SHOCK ART where people do unspeakable things - disgusting things to canvases, etc. and call it art. Not to mention the people of the art world have no morals - it's a FOUL world that I'm so glad God led me out of.
I'm currently majoring in art in college and I totally agree with you (except that I just want to push through and learn what I can to make the art I want to make and not dumb stuff that some professors call art, but to each their own I know everyone's got different callings) but I agree with you on all but one point - Not all people of the art world are devoid of morals. I know plenty of students and professors who agree that lots of modern art stinks, although some are very quiet about it because they're afraid of being ridiculed. But I just don't think it's fair to sum up the entirety of a group of people based simply on personal experience, yes I'm using personal experience too but I'm not putting a blanket statement of the entire group of people - but maybe as a ray of hope for you, as an art student, there are plenty of people my age in college, in the art major and in other majors, that still love actually good art and mercilessly mock horrible modern art - we're out here I promise :3
With a comment section like this and a video like this, it is obvious why so many artist feel that the Catholic church feels like a parent saying "I know what's best for you, do what I tell you" and not actually "tell me your experience, lend me your stories." It is tiring to make images of only white saints and privileged religious experiences.
yes, Brian likes telling people what to do and he is ALWAYS right. According to Brian at least
Abstract art is also intended to cause people to think... to meditate. this really comes far more across as "I don't understand modern art, so it's bad art". as someone who does not like the vast majority of modern art, I get it's easy to fall into that, but many people really do appreciate and meditate on modern art. there are ways to make the Catholic art abstract like modern art and not lose its meaning. I think a lot of modern Catholic church art is still very beautiful despite being abstract, and perhaps even due to it being abstract, and I'm certain many others feel the same.
The Philistine has spoken. I am open for a discussion and/or debate about your contempt, distain, and paranoia surrounding modern art. We can also include a discussion about contemporary classical music.
Hi Brian don't you think categorizing modern art as one phenomenon is a vast overgeneralization? Gaudi for instance was an artist who tried to engage and develop the existing tradition for ecclesial art. I think it's also a fallacy to equate realism in art with orthodox theology. The tradition of iconography was intentionally somewhat abstract in order to symbolize spiritual realities.
Your views are not those of a Catholic. It's worth bringing to mind that we Catholics have a teaching Tradition, in the form of the Magisterium, and a Catechism. We have criteria as how scared images are portrayed and how they illuminate our Faith. Of equal importance is the fact that being able to read, and access scripture, is a fairly recent phenomenon. Prior to the arrival of the printing press, it cost on average three years salary to procure a bible and a further three years for it to be written. Christian art, sculpture, stained glass, music, therefore is treated with great reverence and for us illuminates the divine essence. Ne timeas.
It took way too much scrolling to find a good comment on this. This video and this concept is flawed. As you say, modern art is not a monolith. It would be interesting to see a committee at the Vatican tasked with judging what level of abstraction had crossed the line. Sounds like a Monty Python Sketch. :)
I think that Brian was reffering to Modernism, not the Modern style. It is kind of confusing but Modern style is reffering to Art Nouveau (often known as Secession) which is still quite decorated and full of details as you can tell from Gaudi's architecture or Klimt's paintings. On the other hand, Modernism was a counterbalance that was against the decorative nature of secession and is represented by architects as Le Corbusier or different art movements as the Russian Supermatism.
I dont agree with his view on modernism and abstract art either. Modernism is heretic, there is no way around that. But not everything produced during the modern times is inherently heretic. What he calls abstract art is actually more expressionist, abstract art is that which is devoid of form. The statue with the mom and the baby I found incredibly beautiful, expressing emotions a fully carved statue never could.
I was a silversmith for over 30 years … and looking back I can honestly say the more and more I got into the art world the further I got from Christ .. I got MS and I had to give it up… what seemed like my world falling apart , actually brought me closer to the Lord. I’m no longer me the silversmith, I’m just a simple child of God. God really does work in the most mysterious ways. The art world steeped in paganism.
One of the best and most valuable CZcams Channels in this time in history. Enough said.
As a lifelong Protestant, I always saw religious artwork as a vane waste of money. I have been blessed to live in Europe for the last several years and have been exposed to the very best religious artwork and architecture. I now understand how art can be that bridge to the divine. However it saddens me to go into a beautiful medieval church only to find the inside redesigned in a modern style and with modern artwork.
Thank you for covering this topic- it's an important one. I'd like to respond with some counterpoints if anyone is interested in further discussion. I apologize in advance for my long-windedness and hope that my words convey respect and charity, not malice.
Firstly, I will concede that the spirit behind much of modern art was largely agnostic with some atheism mixed in as well. But this is largely the case with the entire history of art- even with the artists that painted beautiful sacred imagery. Most of our most cherished artworks likely came from soft deists at best (albeit ones more steeped in Christian tradition, certainly.)
Secondly, regarding the role of an artist- I agree wholeheartedly that an artist should render what is invisible visible through an act of revealing. I don't think any artist would have a problem with this definition- including the major artists behind what we consider to be the Modern Art movement. On the agnostic side of things, Malevich and many of his contemporaries thought that through reduction of form, they could peer behind the veil and capture some sort of divine truth no one had quite been able to render fully before using crude pictorial analogs from the real world alone (crude in relation to the holy, infiniteness of the divine.) On the atheistic side, most chose to see the movement more as an exercise in trial and experiment- with the goal being to draw renewed interest/attention to the actual "making" process of art rather than just the end result. This was a response to, for example, hundreds of years of boilerplate (albeit very technically well-executed) landscapes and portraits. In both cases, there was a sense of "dead end" that was being responded to in hopes of enlivening and refreshing creative possibilities. Every movement in art history does this- Caravaggio's work was seen as scandalous in his time, for example- something we often forget to consider...
Now, how one should go about rendering the invisible visible is the real question at hand. The crux of your argument, in my understanding, lies in an appeal to Christ's incarnation and a brief nod to some of the imagery on the ark of the covenant. Clearly, there is great value in representing the natural world in art as a way of revealing, but while we do see very representational imagery in things like the instructions for the ark of the covenant, we also see, for example, in the instructions for the priestly vestments, directives to render imaginary fruit and colored gems in alternating patterns. Clearly, God has an understanding and appreciation for abstraction if he felt it was enough to use symbolism and imaginary imagery so liberally. Of course, pomegranates and gems are naturally occurring things, but blue pomegranates aren't, and gems arranged in alternating patterns are not a naturally occurring phenomenon either. Even the way God speaks repeatedly about the color choice of the yarns speaks volumes to his intent. Are they Rothko colorfields? no, but they do seem to have been imbued or acknowledged as having some sort of intrinsic, symbolic meaning and value in and of themselves even before they're woven together with the embroidered elements. I bring attention to these things because it's a wonderful example of how limited and narrow our conception of "abstraction" is at times- largely because we associate "abstraction" with very specific examples in our mind of abstract geometric art from the modernist movement. Simply put, abstraction in art is simply the act of taking creative license with reality- it acknowledges and references that reality, while also subverting or changing its context in order to communicate something. Even the act of framing/cropping part of a landscape photograph "abstracts" the reality of the scene as it would have been viewed in its original context.
Yes, Jesus came down in the flesh- but we do ourselves a great injustice if we pretend that removed all the mystery from the equation. Even his disciples, who spent the most time with him, were often confused by what to think about him and the implications of his incarnation. The early church had many a debate on the matter as well. The fact is, God has revealed much of himself in physical, tangible ways- but he has also done so in more mysterious, intangible ways such as the written word and visions. In some areas, he's even chosen to reveal very little to anything (and even if he did reveal them, our human limitations would likely make us unable to fully grasp them in any meaningful way.) Faith is mysterious- the incarnation and resurrection even more so. We create a false sense of certitude (at best) and a lack of need for true faith (at worst) if we gloss over a reality that is both colored with clear truths and also still left open to the imagination in many respects. The Israelites sure knew a thing or two about that...
So then what does that mean for the artist? I think it means that there is room for both approaches depending on the goal of the artwork. How could one possibly representationally paint a concept/truth like The Trinity? Even a cursory understanding of semiotics will show that assigning theological words to divine mysteries isn't the same thing as fully capturing/understanding it. In reality, no words or even images can ever fully capture *anything.* That's why there is always a need and impetus for the artist to keep creating new representations of old ideas and truths. Sometimes, a wonderful visual analogy using only what can be found in nature might be just the right thing to communicate something. Other times, it might woefully fall short of the real grandeur being tackled unless some additional artistic license is used. Abstraction is not foreign to God- it is a necessary truth of him that we wrestle with every time we read a theological treatise or fumble to understand what words to pray. Christ was both fully man (like us and our physical reality) and fully God (not like us and outside of our reality.)
To say nothing of the fact that art can also be made to respond to other art- a conversation of sorts, in which the subject is less about conveying a particular message and more about being a "proof of concept" that something perhaps can and/or should be tried differently or seen through a different lens; much like a philosopher or writer might hope to do in their particular sphere of academia. This is more meta in scope, but still of great importance- as the larger art world always needs critique/feedback from within its own community to stay honest and salient.
I think we have a great tendency to create strawmen for what "abstraction" in art really is, while also weaponizing our own narrow or not-fully fleshed-out theological ideas against it. Why do we do this? Probably for many different reasons. It could be that we simply fear what we have a hard time understanding or assigning tidy rational explanations to (and truly "abstract" art often tries to confront us with this reality.) It could be a knee-jerk reaction to the perceived rise of humanism (though truthfully humanism has always been present in large quantities throughout the history of art.) It could even just be an understandable reaction to the ludicrous monetization of the high-end art world (because it certainly seems quite silly to attach such a large price tag to something that seems to have been so easily or lazily made, one might argue.) In any of these cases though, I think we should exhibit more caution than we do in how speak about the arts. God has given artists a great canvas with which to paint- and if the sublime "otherness" and sheer variety of creation doesn't demonstrate God's desire to create boldly and in countless different ways, then I don't know what does. We would be wise to have a more open mind around the wonders of possibility; the possibility to be confused, challenged, astonished, and ultimately- to be made new, day by day, until the day finally comes when we "see face to face."
Well said. Keep up the good work.
I agree with you. If there's something unique with our Church, it's our History. We are an old Church with its own culture and "art." This Art should be preserved.
Excellent!
I think this is as good a place as any to bring up the fact that the growing abstraction of fine art and the rise of entertainment celebrities (who I consider objects of idolatry) are both emblematic of the alliance of the very powerless and the very powerful against those with a moderate amount of power.
I saw the Nativity Scene unveiled in the Vatican today and I was reminded of this video ...
Brilliant. I so love to witness the correct application of reason and logic in order to draw a conclusion that rests in the truth. Keep up the excellent work.
My sentiments exactly! Art should be a representation of universal truth, essentially. Well said! Subscribed.
Brian, you speak so much truth into an empty world. You actually understand the reality of the modern world, which is a rarity in itself. God bless, Brian. Keep spreading the good news and the truth
What do you think of the Dominican chapel designed by Matisse ? It is modern and yet very warm and inviting , to the faithful inChrist.
All Christians Catholic or Protestant should know enough about their religion , it’s historical context, the meaning of the Incarnation by 18-25 or so. Based on this and one’s own life experience, a resilience and a wisdom is gained to overcome and understand any artistic or cultural oddity in the religious sphere. If not, then it’s just too bad... some folks will always hostile or dumb as brick about anything.
Thanks for the video Brian! One of the best definitions of beauty that I've heard goes something like this. "Every revelation of God is clear, whole, and ordered. In a word, it is Beautiful, True, and Good because God is himself Beauty, Truth, and Goodness... We call things beautiful when they reveal to us their inner essence, their reality as understood in the mind of God, who knows no untruth and inspires people to act toward the Good." " Therefore, things should look like what they are, which is the first step toward revealing what they actually are."
If anything.. modern art communicates the heart of modern mankind. It's a window into the psyche. There is some value in seeing it for what it is in all of its distortions, weirdness and sinful out growths. As a Christian, I understand the idolatry and often times blasphemy of modern art. Much of it is garbage or not worth dwelling too much time in understanding it. I can appreciate modern art in that it is the expression of an individual who has been made by the Creator in His image. So the creative act itself is an expression of God's character and I can value that, but it basically stops there when it comes to a lot of modern art. The irony of this is that when an individual deliberately makes art to blaspheme God, they can't escape the fact that the mere making of it still glorifies the Creator because the Creator created them to create in the first place. Most modern artists completely miss this fact. When I look at modern art I think about this and the incredible patience and love of God.
I'm not religious, but I deeply respect this video. I just hope, Brian, that you think all agnostics and atheists don't value beautiful art because that would be emphatically wrong. I'm an atheist and yet despise modern art and everything it stands for.
My bell keeps being un -clicked on many sites. I don't know why.
I agree with you 100%. You explained it very clearly. I always believed that if you have to explain to someone why a piece of art is good and/ or beautiful, as in the case of modern art, then it’s a problem. This is not the case for classic art. No one can walk into Saint Peter and need an explanation to why it’s beautiful.
May Our Lady keep us under her mantle forever.
Or, you know...instead, under the wing of the omnipotent God. Like the Psalmists said. Over and over.
Not to mention the fact that modern art is completely void of the transcendent.
I strongly disagree with your statement, although I do see where you're coming from. The problem is that the notion that ' something is abstract' has everything to do with the persons perception, and nothing with the imagery itself. It's just like how the liturgy was abstract to the illiterate and the church's responsibility was to explain. The tables have turned in our intellectual society, where the imagery is abstract and the word gives clarification. I see this as evolved, not heresy.
To put this in a different way: if imagery has to be hyper realistic before it can be used in the context of worship, then the focus of the worship is off. The imagery has to lead to God, not to replace God. And I think that the question 'what is this what I percieve?' is the perfect way to lead people to experiencing and worshipping God. This way of using the abstract has been the most effective way in our faith, most strongly noticable in Catholic churches that were literally designed to embody the heavens as if they could be contained on earth: from the height to the light, from the light, marble collums to the echos that went through the entire building: there is nothing hyper realistic about it and yet we celebrate it until this day. This way of looking at experiencing God and holiness through this method shows how not only the abstract shows pure holiness, but it's attempt to reveal that which is hidden could very well be the best way.
Just some food for thought here.
The liturgy is an attempt to express what cannot be put into words. Being literate or not makes little difference since it does not operate at the intellectual level. It cannot be explained. We can only really say what God is not - that is the principle of apophatic theology.
I'm so sick of churches that look like commercial real estate
I love the old art, the sculptures and gorgeous cathedrals. I miss that in today's society. Those churches set it apart from other buildings and you knew what they were. This past Christmas I had agreed to attend a church service with my nephew. I drove past the church 4 times thinking it was a factory. Finally, seeing lots of cars, I turned in and it was indeed a church. That looked like a factory. One thing I am concerned with is like media art....for example The Chosen. The man who portrays Jesus is Jonathan Roumie. And it troubles him so much that people come up to him and ask him to heal them. He is constantly telling people, I portray Jesus. I'm NOT Jesus. Would this be considered idolatry? To look at another human being and consider them Jesus to the point of asking him to heal them? Some of them say, when I close my eyes and pray, I picture him in my mind. To me this is very troubling.
Really cool video, I honestly like what it has to say very much! I have so often found modern art to be completely uninspired and uninspiring. I believe that art shine at its best when employed to uplift, inspire, and delight. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Aesthetics matter. Sacred art is essential.
"Art" is a big subject. "Modern art" is a smaller subject, but still large. What art is useful in church is another large subject. "Abstract art" is another big subject. Mr. Holdsworth's video has some good observations, but he barely acknowledges the enormity of the subjects he is addressing. He speaks against modern art, especially abstract act, as not being proper in church, but this is a huge assumption based on the thinnest understanding of these subject, at least as revealed by this video. The Cathedral in Los Angeles is a modern church whose walls are adorned with tapestries of the saints. These are modern works done in a modern style, showing the procession of saints throughout time. They are an imaginative addition to that church. They are an outstanding addition to that space. I would encourage Mr. Holdsworth to have a look at them to see modern art at home in a modern church.
Great video!
subscribed already. Thanks for the video!
Another brilliant take, Brian! Nicely put.
Here is a large reason why modern art is so idolatrous: so much modern art is about the message of the artist and what the artist is trying to say through the art, rather than the piece of art being something to be admired on its own. And thus, modern art is all about "This is mine; I made it; it's my own message" versus traditional religious art being "I have made this piece of art in order to glorify and honour God; it's all about Him".
I see you used the Pontifical College Josephinum as an example of the "wreckovations!" Thank God they brought back the mural though!!
God has always sought to make Himself accessible. In Eden, He walked in the garden and clearly expressed Himself in what had been made (Paul's argument in Romans 1). In Israel, He does something similar but more explicit (regarding His redemptive nature) in the adorning of the tabernacle and the temple, and, ultimately, He does so in the Incarnation and then amongst the church, so the richness of what is good can clearly be expressed in art, if it is helping to point to the panentheistic truth evidenced throughout His work amongst us.
Having abandoned organized religion about half a century ago, the closest I have come to seeing any value might be in the Gnostic tenets, seeking godliness as an aspirational goal within each of us individually. Overtly denominational "Art" to me is often worse than intentionally vulgar or ugly Modern works, because such efforts are intentionally manipulative, for some purpose purveyors mistake for "holy." Art can elevate and edify, without pontificating or preaching in a patronizing manner. It can communicate on emotional levels without words, in either lofty or mundane ways, and can also be as petty, immature, and insulting as the person who created it.
From a biblical stance, I think every piece of art whether modern, abstract, classic, traditional, etc. is an expression of the self. A form of worship. Thus being said, if the self is one with God AND the expression is led by the Holy Spirit - it WILL in SOME way shape or form reflect love, peace, joy, chastity, long-suffering, kindness and/or self-control. If not, it will still be an expression of the self (or soul)... and depending on that, our own souls in conjunction with the Holy Spirit’s leading will discern if it an expression of God or not. To whom the photo worships (God or not) is dependent on discernment.
I want to start this off saying I don't really care for modern art either, especially when it comes to churches and cathedrals. This is just my point on the validity of artform in the nonmaterial sphere.
While modern art may have begun in the rejection of the "old," I do feel that it does have merit in capturing abstract thoughts and emotions that cannot be perfectly expressed through material imagery, in the same way that words are valid for some instances of communication while imagery is better in other. For example, the depictions of hell in religious art are still valid religious arts, but they tend to revel in the foreign and uncomfortable. Perhaps modern art isn't meant for a church setting, but I do believe that it is a powerful tool for connecting to other humans regardless of faith. And when you can connect to a nonbeliever, you can also show them why you believe ie JRR Tolkien and CS Lewis
Nice to hear it talked about. I'm from California where government buildings, schools and jails all have the same architecture. The Cathedral Our Lady of the Angels in LA is pretty terrible too. The old cathedral is beautiful though. Sad.
Also glad you are bringing awareness to the role of modern art in the devil's plan.
The thing is that churches and all religious temples already have their own artistic style that ought to be respected. I am all for making it a little modern with brighter colours on the outside like white and blue, but overall, a church should still look like a church. I mean, you wouldn't take a police station or a fire house and make it look like something it isn't.
"Mary was an actual person, who lived in an actual place, in an actual space in time. We can't make her in our own image"
This is a profound statement. The problem is most sacred art was painted during the Renaissance and she is always painted as a Renaissance Italian woman. While we all know she was a sementic woman, a descendent of the ancient Hebrews, a Jew. She never looks like this and neither does the Lord Jesus.
What is your take on this
Because ethnicity is an accidental property and does not effect our nature. Our Lady can indeed take an the appearance of Italian woman, as well as a Japanese woman, a Swedish woman, a French woman, or yes, a Mestiza Mexican woman like She did on Tepeyac Hill.
See the ikons made in the East
Yours is a clever objection. I would answer this way: since sacred History is History, that is it took place in a precise spot of space and time, art should convey this aspect in its representation. However, art by itself is not History, so that it hasn't the same strict rules of veridicity. Actually art has its own rules of communication and effectiveness. To convey the historical setting of sacred History, it is a legitimate artistic strategy to present it as contemporary to the spectator: presenting Jesus and Mary as I Century Jews would have had an exotic, distancing and unreal effect on a Renaissance man. On the contrary, presenting them as contemporaries stresses the reality and relevance of the Events portrayed, while at the same time making them more comprehensible and subtly highlighting their eternal value.
"Mary was an actual person,....We can't make her in our own image" I was reminded of a nativity play that some of my siblings were in. I was not able to say any positive thing about the play; they portrayed Mary as impatient and snarky and Joseph as bumbling along. They used modern stereotypes of clever woman stupid man to tell the story of the Holy Family. I am inclined to think this is more of a problem then modern clothes as such. I think we do have a bigger problem today with the modern clothes approach, simply because a lot of modern clothing is intrinsically immodest.
@@agentbflinn1222 Wow, disgusting...
It is worth pointing out that, while Our Lady is often depicted as wearing queenly clothes, She is still, with a few exceptions often depicted wearing the same middle-eastern style clothing, namely a gown and mantle, or cape and head-covering; very rarely do we see Our Lady depicted wearing European style clothing in Traditional Catholic art.
it always happens that the clearest perspective comes from a follower of Jesus. That has been my experience.
I sub to you mostly because I enjoy popping metaphysical balloons and watching nothing but hot air escape. Sometimes you do provoke a thought, and this is the case here. You say that religious art should be tethered to the true form because Biblical characters were real. The big problem with this thesis is that no one knows what they actually looked like Religious art always goes through various stylistic changes over time. What's interesting, is that one can usually tell who is being depicted. I'm not a fan of most modern art. It can be successful if it provokes interest, but at the heart of all art is that is reveals our humanity and our individuality. I think the fact that 20 different people will draw something 20 different ways is a beautiful thing. 20 different digital cameras will all come out pretty much the same.
Well said
You are so articulate!
Read Michael Rose's _Ugly as Sin_ just regarding Catholic Church architecture and interiors.
Modern fashion is the synthesis of all heresies.
My hot take on this is that you give modern art (the genre) too much credit. At best it’s just bad art. I argue it’s not art at all.
Well Said.
Exactly. It's visual diarrhoea passed off as 'creative.'
(In posh voice) It’s so... hrrng... PROVOCATIVE-eh. Hm-yeassss.
I'm of the "it's not art" persuasion myself. I think you actually have to develop SKILL before you can claim to be an artist. I could create a "modern art" piece in five minutes and no one would be able to tell the difference between my nonsense and that of a so-called "modern art genius." It really is a joke.
For those of you bringing up images of Our Lady depicted as a European woman in luxurious clothes, here's my response to that:
Catholic philosophy teaches that ethnicity is an accidental property and does not effect our human nature, everyone is equally human in nature, regardless of their ethnicity. Thus Our Lady is always the same Immaculately Conceived New Eve, regardless of whether She is depicted, or actually appears in an apparition as an African woman, a Mexican Mestiza woman, or yes, a blonde-hair blue-eyed Northern European woman.
In regards to depictions of Our Lady in richly-dressed clothes, these are simply meant to show that Our Lady is Queen of All Creation; but more importantly, one should notice that Our Lady almost always appears depicted with the same style of clothes, namely a gown, and a mantle, or cape and head-covering. These clothes, especially the mantle or head-covering, aren't European-style clothing, they're Middle-Eastern-style clothing; yes European queens and noble women wore head-coverings, but they were quite different in style from the ones Our Lady is depicted as wearing. I cannot recall anywhere, any depiction of Our Lady depicted as a European Queen, the only time I can recall Our Lady appearing in any European garb is the apparition of Our Lady of La Salette where she appears as a French Shepherdess.
The CZcams channel “Church of the Eternal Logos” has a video on Logos, Fractals, and Sacred Geometry which ends up drawing some wonderful conclusions. I also recommend von Hildebrand’s two volume “Aesthetics.”
Love this perspective, thanks for this
As a evangelical christian I can say, there is a LOT of idolatry in protestant churches... A LOT :(
Hi Brian, this is the first video I see in your channel. I understand your point and I think it is right. Same happens with music. I have been thinking lately a lot about certain types of music or settings where the music is played. I think music is a gift of God and it is a powerful tool to deepen in our meditation of the Scripture, but certainly it can not be taken as an end in itself. Being a musician myself, I am surprised to see how the mainstream christian music concerts looks much more like a "wordly" - not to say "pagan"- concert. I truly enjoy music made by composers such as Bach, Mozart, Handel, Haydn, Beethoven, Wagner, Brahms, Mahler, Verdi, Puccini, etc and I think these are pinnacles of the human craft in music, but I do think that music for worship, praise or meditation must put the accent on the Scripture as a mean and not an end in itself.
Being myself a non native English speaker, I truly thank you for being so clear and not so-in-a hurry in your speech. It is perfectly understanble.
@2:30 keep in mind that not all protestants were iconoclasts (we Lutherans, for example, are not, although we wouldn't quite classify ourselves as "Protestant" per se).
But overall I agree with your point.
Amazing. Well done, Brian.
Check out Jonathan Pageau he talks about a lot this stuff In great detail
BRILLIANT!!!! BLOODY GOOD,KEEP IT UP.THANKS.BLESSINGS FROM BUENOS AIRES ARGENTINA