Some thoughts on the subject of Art

One of the books that I am reading at the moment is called "The Story of Art" written by E.H.J. Gombrich.  It is an introductory history of art starting from around 15,000 B.C. until present day and so far it has been very interesting.

There is one point that Gombrich makes in his introduction that I found slightly odd though.  The point that he is trying to make I agree with, but the illustration was poorly chosen.

His argument is as follows.  Art is often rejected because it is unconventional.  The illustration that he uses for this is a situation that arose in 1602 A.D. over the work of a young Italian painter by the name of Caravaggio.  He had been commissioned to write a painting of St. Matthew for the wall behing the altar of a church in Rome.

The first painting that he did can be seen below.  It depicts St. Matthew anxiously grasping the book with his left hand while his right is being guided by a boyish angel.  This painting created quite a stir in Rome at the time and Caravaggio had to paint another version along more "conventional" lines.

(The original was burned in WWII.  We only have black and white photos of it now.)

The replacement painting that Caravaggio made can be seen below.  It follows the conventional tradition of religious painting that was prevalent at that time in Rome. 

 Gombrich holds that for this second painting "the outcome is still quite a good picture... but we feel that it is less honest and sincere than the first had been." (pg. 31, "The Story of Art" by E.H.J. Gombrich)  According the him, something was lost in forcing Caravaggio to conform to conventional ideals rather than to fully express his creative abilities as an artist.

The reason that I do not agree with Gombrich's use of this illustration is that there is something else at play in it that he either does not know about, or has chosen to ignore.  Religious art is something quite different from art proper, and serves a different purpose.

Religious art exists to teach theology, to raise humans hearts and minds from earthly things to contemplate heavenly things.  Therefore, art which does not exemplify heavenly things is not worthy of putting into a church.  It does not perform the purpose for which it is intended.

The rejection of Caravaggio's first painting had nothing to do with its unconventionality, but rather with its lack of appropriateness for use in church. 

There are several possible reasons for the author's apparent blunder.  He does not know of the nature of religious art and the purposes for which it is used, particularly several hundred years ago.  However, this I think is unlikely given the amount of knowledge which this author has of art in general.

Another possible reason is that he does not believe that religious art needs to, or should have any other purpose than art in general.  Therefore anything that rejects it because it is unconventional is committing an error, even if those reasons are legitimate religious concerns.

These are simply speculations though.  Until I read more of his work I will not be able to understand why he used Caravaggio's St. Matthew to illustrate his point.

Carvaggio's first painting is quite nice and beautifully executed, as is his second.  The first is simply inappropriate for use in a church, while the second has those qualities necessary that the first lacked.

I do agree with Gombrich's basic premise though. Art, in general and not including religious art, is often rejected because it is unconventional. Art should not be rejected simply because it is unconventional. It should be rejected if it is obscene, ugly, chaotic, and of no purpose other than to elicit a gag reaction.

P.S.

From an Orthodox perspective, even his replacement painting lacks the essential qualities of a religious painting or icon.  Orthodox iconography is a completely different form of art than any other.  The focus of the icons, the way in which figures are portrayed, and the colours are all different.  This is for a very specific reason, partially because many people were illiterate, and the icons were a way of educating them, and many because an icon is a manifestation of something eternal, of something beyond human experience.  Therefore it is necessary to use art forms that are different to allow the mind to transcend the human experience and contemplate eternity.

A good explanation of the various functions that Orthodox iconography can be found at the link below:

The Functions of Icons

Ginger Wine for Christmas

Today my grandfather and I bottled our first batch of wine together.  It is a fairly small batch of 8 gallons or so.  Originally we had planned on making blackberry wine, but it did not turn out well.  We must have not properly cleaned some of the equipment, and as a result, it failed to ferment and grew some fairly funky looking mold.

Undaunted by early failures we soldiered ahead with ginger wine, and it has turned out quite nicely.  The recipe we followed used a large ginger root, chopped raisins, and corn sugar.  Apparently, the raisins are used to give the wine some body otherwise it tastes quite weak.

My grandfather has memories of his grandmother, my great-great-grandmother, making different types of wine (ginger being a Christmas favourite).  So we decided to make it for this Christmas as the maturation period is only two to three months.

I have been considering growing my own ginger plant this coming year as the fresher the root is, the better the wine is (and probably more potent as far as its medicinal properties are concerned).

Here's link to the recipe that we used:
Ginger Wine Recipe

Woodworking tools and techniques for log shaping

This first documentary is on the proper maintenance and use of different axes.  It also includes some of the history behind the development of the ax as well as the different variations in the USA from 1750 to present day.

This second documentary is on the restoration of old log homes.  It includes information on the use of different tools associated with that, especially the method of hewing.

There is some repetition between this one and the first one.

Classical Education

Yesterday I started reading a book called "The Well-Educated Mind: A Guide to the Classical Education You Never Had."  Through the advice offered in this book I hope to be able to better understand the classics and the great conversation of culture that we have been born into.

According to the author there are three aspects to a classical education.  They are first grammatical, second logical, and third rhetorical.  The general idea being that a classical education follows these three steps: first teaching a child to read and understand written language, second to evaluate the logical assumptions behind the written word, and finally to articulate either through writing or speech an opinion on the subject.

This larger educational framework is also applicable, the book states, to the studying of a single work by an author.  First a general reading of the work is required, second an evaluation of the ideas being presented, and thirdly the formation of an opinion generally expressed through writing.

The utilization of the larger framework upon single works is greatly facilitated by the keeping of a journal.  This journal encompasses three general types of writing: a summary of the work at hand, any quotes or snippets of interest, and a commentary upon it.

The object of a classical education is not to simply read an authors work once, put it back on the shelf, and forget about it.  Rather it is the engaging of ideas and the wrestling with concepts often beyond our human abilities of reason and understanding.

I am going to give this framework a try.  Some of the essays that I will write on the different books that I read will undoubtedly find their way onto this blog in some way or another.  I am starting with Don Quixote today.

Yours in Christ,

Reader Nicholas

Swedish Woodworking

Here is something that I found awhile ago and rediscovered again.

These types of crafts have all but disappeared as we replaced individual man's efforts with machine's efficiency.  Somewhere along that path we also lost the humanness of the things that we possess and use.

Maybe, when I am not up to my ears in final exams, I will try Swedish spoon-making.

The Importance of Beauty

Here is a documentary done by the BBC featuring Roger Scruton on "Why Beauty Matters."

Beauty is something that we have largely redefined in the 20th century.  Part of this is due to a general embracing of relativism in the form of the rather illogical statement that "all things are subjective."  The practice of art in the modern sense is seen to be completely subjective.  

Novelty has replaced talent and professional skill as the most desirable characteristic of an aspiring artist.

Roger Scruton presents a case for the objectivity of beauty and its importance in the human experience.  It is through beautiful art that the individual is able to transcend the messiness and chaos of life and contemplate the eternal.

"The Grey" and C.S. Lewis' Book "The Problem of Pain"

A couple of nights ago I watched a movie called "The Grey."  It is about a hunter who is employed by an oil company in Alaska to protect its workers from wildlife.  While on a plane ride to a remote area, the aircraft experiences catastrophic failure and crashes into the middle of nowhere.  There are only seven survivors, one of whom is this hunter.  As they struggle to get back to civilization they are constantly pursued and hunted by wolves.  Many of the original seven fall behind and die horrible and excruciatingly painful deaths at the jaws of the wolves.

A major theme of the movie is a question of faith.  How can a just or loving God exist if all we see around us in nature is raw and terrifying evil?

Near the end there are just the hunter and one other fellow left alive.  The other fellow falls into a stream and gets his foot caught so that his head is just below the surface of the water.  As the hunter is trying to pull his friend out he cries "God!  Please don't do this!"  In his eyes, God is fully capable of helping him, but does nothing for reasons unknown.  That essentially is crux of his argument.  God does exist, is capable of doing good (saving his friend's life), but does not.  Therefore, God is neither good nor just.

I would not recommend this movie to anyone, as it was full of foul language and was also quite graphic.  However, I did enjoy it because it engaged me and challenged me to answer this intellectual problem that modern society has with the problem of pain.

C.S. Lewis begins his book "The Problem of Pain" with an introduction that I find interesting.  He states that the very strength of this intellectual question about the existence of a good God poses a problem.  If the universe is really as bad as it seems, then how could humans have ever possibly thought that it was attributable to a wise and good Creator.  It is not possible for human beings to have deduced a good and loving Creator from the chaos of the world.  The idea had to come from somewhere else.

C.S. Lewis then goes on to describe the origin of Christianity as it is in the origin that we may be able to find the answer to this intellectual problem.

That is as far as I have got, and I will update in the near future as I read more.

In Christ,

Reader Nicholas