I was going to wait until I finished the book to write my commentary on Martrain's "Art and Scholasticism," but the essay "The Froitiers of Poetry" was so good that I'm not even going to wait to finish the essay. I might forget, you know.
In this essay, Martrain explores the idea of Abstract Art. The object of art is making, and the object of abstraction is motion from the material into the spiritual. The proud abstract artist tries to "play God" and make from the ideas in his head alone, without any reference to matter. The humble one, however, tries to make his art spiritual just as the saint tries to make themselves spiritual.
But, says Martrain, it is impossible to completely remove the matter from art, for all art is made by man for man, and man is partly material. Such removal will lead to decay.
This statement needs some clarifications, some of which may be from him, and some of which, for better or for worse, are from me.
First, there is another reason that matter cannot be removed from art. The first is that most arts exist in a material medium, and hence all good arts must follow the medium's rules whether or not they follow human rules. (Music exists as both a spiritual medium, as the liberal art of pure mathematical proportion, and as the servile art of these proportions made manifest in sound. These sounds provide the concreteness that we require to understand teh abstract concept.) Theoretically, the artist cound use only these rules and disregard the rules of psychology (what I see as being the human element in artistic creation and perception). This could lead to decay, however, because then when humans interpret the meaning of the work, they may not percieve that their system of perception adn the psychological elements in analysis were not included in the artist's system. This perception, although it does not ruin the art itself, as it is (appears to be) neither in the intent of the artist nor teh work itself, could very well ruin the lives of the observers, thus degrading the purpose of art as a conducer of goodness.
But all these rules should not be followed servilely, he says. Hence the conflict between rules and freedom. In my opinion, as long as it is clear that it is intentional, psychological and traditional rules can be broken. Not, however, the rules of the medium, which is what "The Book" posts will explore.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Would that be Jacques Maritain?
Yes, it is. His name is one of the hardest words I have ever had to spell. By the way, I am not reading him in his native tongue, French, just in case you were wondering.
I have not read him period.
I consider him and his wife good Christians, but not very good thomist philosophers. I think Maritain and Florovsky are overrated as compared to their sources Aquinas and St Gregory Palamas. I read some Aquinas in Latin, but the Summa is available in English, online too (Newadvent). Beauty is briefly defined (definitions drawn from visual beauty, though applied transcendentally) in the attributes of God.
I doubt that you should say that he is not a good Thomistic philosopher if you have never read him. His writing style is very different from Aquinas's, of course. Not only does it not use the Scolastic method, but it is full of informational (not just referential) footnotes and literary references. (Art and Scholasticism frequently quotes Oscar Wilde.) But the ideas of Maritrain and Aquinas seem to be so far very similar. For example, the definition of beauty that Aquinas gives in the Summa (I'll mangle it if I try to tell it to you without the source in front of me, but it's in the article on what type of cause goodness is I think) can be "translated" into the definition Martrain gives (beauty is the splendor of form shining on matter).
I am enjoying reading both of them very much because I find that I think a lot of the same things they do ("Medium Vocation," for example, is also in Martrain, only expressed in a completely different, almost unrecognizable, somewhat long-winded manner), and only sometimes is it because I've read somewhat similar things before.
I seem to remember another definition in Aquinas: pulchrum est quod visum placet - what pleases as soon as seen. Auditum/as soon as heard is to be alternatively understood.
I have heard that definition too. But until I read the entire Summa article in which it is contained, I didn't understand it at all. I will have to do a real post on that sometime.
which article was it? I was just looking for it ...
It is the article that discusses what sort of cause goodness is. It is in the Prima Pars, the fourth article in the section on the nature of goodness.
thank you!
if you'd look up where he discusses "banausic" (as in a potter making more pots than he can sell, just too have a stock to brag about) i'd appreciate
here's the article you talk about online
Is that last comment a subtle comment on my tendency to post long blog articles :)? Or does it refer to the redundance in my previous comment :)? If there is something about my blogging style you don't like, I may consider changing it. If I can't accept constructive criticism, I might as well stop blogging, you know.
no criticism on you implied! the only such was very blatantly put in the other post, implying that it was too short by not including the demonstration you claimed to be possible
I was looking for it the other day, and since you are good at finding articles in the summa, I confide this search to you.
He was evidently talking about number of identical products, which implies something about capitalism, I think.
The vice of banausic is opposed to what virtue and what opposite vice?
I would say that Banausic is opposed to the twin virtues that are called accepting praise graciously and seeking the proper recognition for what you have done. Its opposite vice is false humility. What is the thing to be demonstrated that I did not include the demonstration of?
I would say that Banausic is opposed to the twin virtues that are called accepting praise graciously and seeking the proper recognition for what you have done. Its opposite vice is false humility. What is the thing to be demonstrated that I did not include the demonstration of?
Post a Comment