Every time I worry that some American artist has reached a level of pointless, leftist agitprop, which is as inane as it is disgusting, I remember...

...there is always Australia!

Art, Beauty and God.

Lawrence Feingold on the role of art and beauty in his conversion:

Prof. Smith loved to have us examine works of art from different periods to compare their distinct view of the human person. For example, he compared a Rembrandt portrait with a work of Abstract Expressionism: Woman # 6 by De Kooning, asking us which we would prefer to have in our room to contemplate on our deathbed. His thesis was that much of modern art was marked by a pervasive dehumanization that no longer manifested the truth of the dignity of the human person made in the image of God. Most of us did not simply agree with him at the time, but his teaching worked as a leaven in me for years.

It became more and more apparent to me that the dehumanization of modern art and architecture was absolutely tied to the progressive loss of Christian faith in society, and its resulting secularization. The great works of the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, and the Baroque, were obviously based on Catholic faith, from which they drew their inspiration, in whose service they humbly placed themselves, and apart from which they cannot be understood. The interiority of a Rembrandt portrait, for example, was unthinkable without the Christian view of the immortal soul, made in the image of God, lost in Adam’s Fall, and redeemed by the blood of Christ.

I remember being in the Sistine Chapel shortly before our conversion, admiring the Last Judgment of Michelangelo and thinking how incongruous it was that I as an atheist, together with many other tourists, was admiring the Last Judgment without posing the question of the truth it portrayed. As if the truth of the Last Judgment was irrelevant to the work of art!

"Pornography and beautiful art cannot co-exist, because their messages are inherently different and radically opposed."

Because, basically, art appreciation kills lust.

This is a seriously good essay on how focusing on objective beauty in art, which glorifies the human form, is the antithesis of pornography.  It also suggests what we've lost by forgetting that there is such a thing as objective beauty.

Right away we see the artist portraying a beauty, perfection of form. And the exact same is true of the body of Venus. I hold that it is a knife to the heart of lust, to realize the same beauty that strikes our hearts by way of flowers, galaxies, stained-glass windows, seashells and sunsets, is personified and condensed into the female form. The artist is not portraying nudity as being pornographic, he is portraying it as utterly beautiful. As a waterfall is beautiful, and as conch shell is too, so is woman, but infinitely more so. Again we find the Golden Ratio:

Isn’t that incredible? The length of her torso, from hip to head, divided by the length from her breast and her head, gives us 1.6301. Again, were I only more accurate, I wonder how close Botticelli came to achieving the replication of what God wrought in the oak-leaf and the pineapple. Does is become more difficult to corrupt the female breast into a mindless stimulus for lust when you realize it is in perfect proportion woman in her wholeness, in a striking example of integritas, that pre-requisite of beauty that declares all parts must add to the whole? That is for you to decide.

Speaking of integritas, we mentioned before that it’s not just about the woman herself being displayed with glorifying proportionality, it’s about her proportion to what’s going on around her. (Which is why it is entirely difficult for me to conceive of any situation in which the artistic display of the marital union would be acceptable.) One way the artist puts Venus in proportion to the entire painting, as a beauty to be honored, is by strictly following the rule of thirds and the use of the triangle.

The triangle is apparent; the arms and bodies of those surrounding Venus form it. Again, how does this glorify the beauty of Venus’ naked form while avoiding lust? The triangle in art is a symbol for completeness, developed as such by Christianity in light of the Triune God. Wholeness of form. Perfection. Here I found two main triangles one surrounding Venus – declaring her as the perfection of beauty – and another created by the pose of Venus herself, by the lovely angle of her arms. The latter triangle nestles within the first – not only does she incorporate beauty, she gives it.

You’ll also notice that the very center of the painting is obviously directly below the womb of the nude Venus, the place of birth. Do I need point out that this is in harmony with the whole painting, The Birth of Venus?

So what’s my point? This: Perhaps with an appreciation for the glory the artist gives to the nude form, the porn-addicted man may be aided in avoiding the temptation towards lust when viewing nude art. What does pornography do but degrade women? It says she is nothing more than a stimulus to a watching organism. Through the conveyance of beauty – whether in triangles, the golden ratio, color harmony, the rule of thirds, etc. – the artist is specifically glorifying women. Pornography and beautiful art cannot co-exist, because their messages are inherently different and radically opposed. (Obviously, this applies to the male form as well.)

Censorship and Repression of Art!

Artist not allowed to exhibit art because it offends liberals.

A crucifix in urine?  No problem.

Elephant dung on the Virgin Mary?  Go ahead.

An exhibit of "sustainable liberalism in a box"?  Get it out of here.

Does it seem that the last 50 years of listening to our social elites prate about freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and the value of art in satirizing complacency has just been one long hypocritical shell game?

Ghost Bike

Watch more free documentaries