Pick a theme, a subject, an audience... Michelangelo didn't determine those things depicted in the Sistine Ceiling. They were common themes imposed by the pope, by then having been addressed countless times from countless perspectives by countless artists. So, what distinguishes that ceiling? What distinguishes any art? Treatment. "All hinges on the quality of the glorification." A pretty good way of saying it. What is remembered from experiencing Art? Isn't it the arrangement, the integration of that arrangement, which resonates with some internal integration? The experience of that is a mysterious thing, a perfume, the butterfly which escapes from anyone I know of (including, for instance, Plato and Aristotle) who has tried to pin it, wriggling, to a specimen card with a label (in Latin?).
Of course it's about what the artist does with whatever the subject may be. Anybody, even someone with no talent to speak of, can pick any subject. A mundane or even frivolous subject handled by a great artist will always surpass the most elevated subject tackled by a lesser artist. That's why conceptual art gets it so wrong: I don't care what the subject, meaning or message may be if the handling leaves me cold. Like, Duh. It's incredible some people don't get that.
Some people, including not a few "major" collectors, aren't really into art as such but as a means to non-art ends, such as sociopolitical fashion, so of course they focus on the subject as opposed to the work as art.
Largely agreed. Think of it: The Greek gods and goddesses were a complex brew that probably went back beyond 1200 BC. Around 150 BC the Romans overran Greece. At this point Greece's history went back over a thousand years. Bizarrely, following their victory, the Romans appropriated the Greek Olympians, renaming all but Apollo. I suspect this was one of many humiliations the "pagans" lived through. They would have been aware that the gods hardly lifted a finger to these aspersions. And that gods like Apollo became politicized, ostensibly serving one Caesar or another. Cynicism would have been overt, and the old divine front ripe for puncture. Along came Christianity. If you were a believer in the old ways, you died and went to some shadowy gloom in the underworld. If you followed Jesus, you went to a glorious heaven. Quite seductive as a religious pitch. The righteous didn't start knocking down temples and bashing statues (by the tens of thousands) until around 400 AD, and by then the gods had had enough. I like to think they slunk away to more interesting things. :-)
All well and good, but in reality we know very little about what really took place. There were no doubt liturgies, but we know nothing about them. There were so many festivals devoted to various divinities that an Athenian could attend several a week. Greeks were deeply superstitious, but superstitious is a rather disparaging conclusion. Whatever they deeply believed, it worked for more than a millennium. As Christianity began to systematically smother the old "pagan" beliefs (400 AD+), the new believers were quite good at eradicating anything that contradicted the Jesus cult. As a result, we're left to surmise about what drove the Greek confidence in the Olympic gods. There was obviously something magnetic, but so much of what we know now has been colored by Christianity dissing whatever they could. Only chards remain. I'm off on a tangent (apologies), but I view Christianity as a monstrous religious order through which we are forced to view the Greek beliefs. So when I read references to Greek "religion" I go on high alert.
Fifth- and sixth-century Christianity definitely has a lot to answer for. But I tend to think that we'd be left to surmise what drove confidence in the old gods anyway. Even as a Jew I comprehend why people are attracted to Christianity. (I was a student in Rome so I'm a bit of a Catholophile.) Same with Hinduism and Buddhism. European paganism and Confucianism are opaque to me.
For what it's worth, I didn't mean "cult" disparagingly overhead, though the "sex and drugs" characterization was disparaging. They talk about Greek cults of various divinities to distinguish them from one another under the umbrella of Greek religion.
Philo of Alexandria was already voicing criticisms of polytheism in the time of Jesus himself, indicating that the old ways were on their way out far earlier than Justinian.
I never knew that Tolstoy went on about aesthetics, so an enjoyable read. That said, you lost me when discussing Greeks: " those cults of sex and drugs." Huh? First, "cults." Then, "sex and drugs." Sounds like a party of teenagers down the street. Greek worship (religion did not exist as a Greek word) was quite complex.
Yeah, that was too dismissive, although Dionysianism was probably only a couple of steps up from those teenagers. Still, animal sacrifices, libations, ritual scapegoating, no credo, no texts. If I needed comfort I'd reach for Greek philosophy before Greek religion.
"All hinges on the quality of the glorification", well said and I agree. I'm behind in my reading, still on What Is Art, and also decided to read Crime and Punishment-oy, its a big lift!
Pick a theme, a subject, an audience... Michelangelo didn't determine those things depicted in the Sistine Ceiling. They were common themes imposed by the pope, by then having been addressed countless times from countless perspectives by countless artists. So, what distinguishes that ceiling? What distinguishes any art? Treatment. "All hinges on the quality of the glorification." A pretty good way of saying it. What is remembered from experiencing Art? Isn't it the arrangement, the integration of that arrangement, which resonates with some internal integration? The experience of that is a mysterious thing, a perfume, the butterfly which escapes from anyone I know of (including, for instance, Plato and Aristotle) who has tried to pin it, wriggling, to a specimen card with a label (in Latin?).
Of course it's about what the artist does with whatever the subject may be. Anybody, even someone with no talent to speak of, can pick any subject. A mundane or even frivolous subject handled by a great artist will always surpass the most elevated subject tackled by a lesser artist. That's why conceptual art gets it so wrong: I don't care what the subject, meaning or message may be if the handling leaves me cold. Like, Duh. It's incredible some people don't get that.
Yeah, plenty of people don't get that. Most people don't get it. Discernment has to be attained. In any era, very few ever do.
Some people, including not a few "major" collectors, aren't really into art as such but as a means to non-art ends, such as sociopolitical fashion, so of course they focus on the subject as opposed to the work as art.
Largely agreed. Think of it: The Greek gods and goddesses were a complex brew that probably went back beyond 1200 BC. Around 150 BC the Romans overran Greece. At this point Greece's history went back over a thousand years. Bizarrely, following their victory, the Romans appropriated the Greek Olympians, renaming all but Apollo. I suspect this was one of many humiliations the "pagans" lived through. They would have been aware that the gods hardly lifted a finger to these aspersions. And that gods like Apollo became politicized, ostensibly serving one Caesar or another. Cynicism would have been overt, and the old divine front ripe for puncture. Along came Christianity. If you were a believer in the old ways, you died and went to some shadowy gloom in the underworld. If you followed Jesus, you went to a glorious heaven. Quite seductive as a religious pitch. The righteous didn't start knocking down temples and bashing statues (by the tens of thousands) until around 400 AD, and by then the gods had had enough. I like to think they slunk away to more interesting things. :-)
All well and good, but in reality we know very little about what really took place. There were no doubt liturgies, but we know nothing about them. There were so many festivals devoted to various divinities that an Athenian could attend several a week. Greeks were deeply superstitious, but superstitious is a rather disparaging conclusion. Whatever they deeply believed, it worked for more than a millennium. As Christianity began to systematically smother the old "pagan" beliefs (400 AD+), the new believers were quite good at eradicating anything that contradicted the Jesus cult. As a result, we're left to surmise about what drove the Greek confidence in the Olympic gods. There was obviously something magnetic, but so much of what we know now has been colored by Christianity dissing whatever they could. Only chards remain. I'm off on a tangent (apologies), but I view Christianity as a monstrous religious order through which we are forced to view the Greek beliefs. So when I read references to Greek "religion" I go on high alert.
Fifth- and sixth-century Christianity definitely has a lot to answer for. But I tend to think that we'd be left to surmise what drove confidence in the old gods anyway. Even as a Jew I comprehend why people are attracted to Christianity. (I was a student in Rome so I'm a bit of a Catholophile.) Same with Hinduism and Buddhism. European paganism and Confucianism are opaque to me.
For what it's worth, I didn't mean "cult" disparagingly overhead, though the "sex and drugs" characterization was disparaging. They talk about Greek cults of various divinities to distinguish them from one another under the umbrella of Greek religion.
Philo of Alexandria was already voicing criticisms of polytheism in the time of Jesus himself, indicating that the old ways were on their way out far earlier than Justinian.
I never knew that Tolstoy went on about aesthetics, so an enjoyable read. That said, you lost me when discussing Greeks: " those cults of sex and drugs." Huh? First, "cults." Then, "sex and drugs." Sounds like a party of teenagers down the street. Greek worship (religion did not exist as a Greek word) was quite complex.
Yeah, that was too dismissive, although Dionysianism was probably only a couple of steps up from those teenagers. Still, animal sacrifices, libations, ritual scapegoating, no credo, no texts. If I needed comfort I'd reach for Greek philosophy before Greek religion.
"All hinges on the quality of the glorification", well said and I agree. I'm behind in my reading, still on What Is Art, and also decided to read Crime and Punishment-oy, its a big lift!