7 ms·
No! He is defending the impetus of artists to use beauty as a motivator for their works. He is not diminishing the subjective variations in different cultural b
by igammarays 6y ago
No! He is defending the impetus of artists to use beauty as a motivator for their works. He is not diminishing the subjective variations in different cultural beauties, or claiming only one kind of beauty exists. The problem is that modern Western art no longer considers beauty itself a motivator. And that’s a problem because beautific recognition is a deeply human need.
- bosswipe 6y agoThat's also a bad point, there's more beautiful art being created today than ever. But many other artists have different motivations. If Scruton is saying that only beautiful art should be produced than "dour gatekeeping" seems appropriate.
- igammarays 6y ago> there's more beautiful art being created today than ever. Except there’s not. Where is the Notre Dame of our time? The Mozart (who was well recognized in his time)? Who can be compared in our time to the sheer talent of Michelangelo? Who still produces ballets like Swan Lake? Yes, we have beautiful art in our time, but you have to be blind to not see the difference in the sheer majesty and scale of pre modern Western art. It’s exponentially better.
- BolexNOLA 6y agoI don’t know how you could possibly objectively claim that pre-modern western art is “exponentially better.” Are The Beatles not as significant as Mozart?
- heisbsissi 6y agoIf you read his comments, you can definitely see why he can make lousy comparisons like that. He's miserable, looks up to murdering thugs, thinks all women are money thirsty whores. Is it any surprise that he would think the past is best regardless of anything you might point out. Incel culture is strong here too, weird how that dang guy does nothing about that while being a near fascist about supposed policy violations.
- corty 6y agoUltimately, it is up to the eye or ear of the beholder: I neither like the Beatles nor Mozart. Give me some Polka and I'm happy. While there may be differences in skill of the composers and musicians, that is largely irrelevant. Art only is if it is appreciated. Complexity and skill without any appreciable quality is busywork. However, appreciation of the masses comes with hitting the average taste.
- BolexNOLA 6y agoI don’t think an ability to hit the lowest common denominator is necessarily an indicator of artistic value. What is considered “high art” or “refined and complex” is often partially a function of class distinctions and access. The Beatles could’ve been treated like a symphony in a different context, as silly as that may sound. Video games come to mind. There are some indie games that are, quite frankly, beautiful works of art. Outer Wilds comes to mind, as does Celeste.
- hodgesrm 6y agoFalco expressed one of the definitive opinions on this question in 1985: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVikZ8Oe_XA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVikZ8Oe_XA. ("Rock me Amadeus.")
- blt 6y agoUsually people who say things like this have made zero effort to discover contemporary art that they like. You list examples of old European art that can be found in a 7th grade textbook.
- corty 6y agoContemporary art is very hard to discover because society had so little time to filter and decide what it liked. That's why old art seems so much better-categorized in hindisght.
- blt 6y agoI agree. Just like other old things that are still around, old art seems good due to survivorship bias. There has been lots of terrible art made in all media since the beginning of civilization.
- 7952 6y agoWhat about film making, TV, photography or even computer games? They sometimes have scale and majesty. Just with a different funding model than a few rich benefactors.
- Joeri 6y agoThe burj khalifa is vastly more impressive than the notre dame from an architectural perspective. Any of the top 100 movies on imdb can stand its own as far as capturing the imagination and delivering enjoyment as any of the great symphonies of old. Modern art is different, but it is not inferior. I would argue today’s art vastly exceeds any period in history in scale and imagination. And beauty, well, that’s a personal matter. Would you argue traditional japanese sword forging produced superior weapons to today’s because nobody makes swords that way anymore?
- growlist 6y ago> The burj khalifa is vastly more impressive than the notre dame from an architectural perspective. Seriously? Or are you being deliberately provocative? As I understand it the Burj is considered pretty vulgar.
- dredmorbius 6y agoFor music I'd argue that the present mode of the classical tradition lies mostly in film and video scores. Your Mozart is quite possibly, and in all seriousnous, likely John Williams. Many of the notable classical composers of the first 2/3 or so of the 20th century did work in film. You mention Mozart but neglect J.S. Bach, who was all but forgotten before being later revived; much of his catalog was lost. Michelangelo produced validating propaganda for the upstart and brutal Medici family. Much classical art (painting, sculpture, music) was similarly created for religious or state sponsors. Ballet and opera were the most complex performative works of their time. You'd probably want to look to musicals for modern equivalents, combining drama, music, singing, and dance. Signature buildings are harder to name, but then, they also often take centuries to earn their reputations, and are often dismissed or unappreciated for long periods. The Notre Dame cathedral only started becoming a classic in the 19th century, nearly 800 years after it was begun. Among contenders I'd offer: Sagadra Familia in Barcelona, Spain (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagrada_Família https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagrada_Família), National Cathedral in Washington, DC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_National_Cathedral https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_National_Cathedral), the Baháʼí House of Worship in Wilmette, IL)(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baháʼí_House_of_Worship_(Wilmette,_Illinois) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baháʼí_House_of_Worship_(Wilme...), and Sydney Opera House (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Opera_House https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Opera_House), and the Empire State Building in New York (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_State_Building https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_State_Building), would be five suggestions. In most cases, it's familiarity and time which cement reputations and acceptence. There's a timelessness IMO in stone, brick, and wood which concrete, steel, and glass match with difficulty, making other possible contenders -- most skyscrapers, bridges, and dams, say, less qualified, despite numerous contenders (e.g., Brooklyn & Golden Gate bridges, Hoover Dam, Burj Khalifa, Guggenheim Museum).
- airstrike 6y agoReading between the lines, I think what he was arguing for was a distinction between art for the sake of beauty and art for other purposes. Lumping them all together under the same definition is problematic
- zachrose 6y agoYes, I’m regards to what gets produced there’s an awful lot of beautiful art these days. There is also a line of criticism that the institutions of fine art (education, galleries, museums, grants, etc) have, in the last few decades, distorted their previous value system of beauty (complex as it is) to focus on more conceptual and academic issues. If you’re interested in hearing this analysis in detail, check out The Invisible Dragon by Rich Hickey. https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-9637264-0-7 https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-9637264-0-7
- andrewingram 6y agoDave Hickey. I double-took for a moment there :)
- zachrose 6y agoOh shucks! Thank you, it gets me every time
- jorvi 6y agoThe banana taped to a wall comes to mind.
- growlist 6y ago...and also likely more deliberately demoralising and horrific art being created today than ever.