Lectures on How Modern Music and Modern Art Corrupt the Faith: Anthony Esolen and James Patrick Reid

The Institute of Catholic Culture is scheduling in September two interesting looking talks, available to all for free, on the intersection of modernity and culture. 

The first is given by artist James Patrick Reid and is called Corrupted Concepts: Modern Art & the Philosophy of Nature it is offered online on September 1 at 8:00 PM EST.

The second is by Anthony Esolen and is entitled   Music & the Corruption of Catholicism on September 15 at 8:00 PM EST

You can enroll online through the links above. 

Pablo Picasso

St Cecilia by Artimisia Gentileschi

Matisse

King David by David Clayton

Five Reasons the Modern World is Ugly

I wrote a couple of weeks ago about the iconoclasm of the leftist protestors in our cities. There is one tragedy in this phenomenon that I didn't mention. That is, that on the whole, they are destroying beauty, and creating ugliness and disorder (the two are intimately connected).

As if to make the point, here is a video from Alain de Botton at the School of Life entitled 5 Reasons the Modern World is Ugly (h'/t Pontifex University student, Ron Gaudio). I have one or two quibbles with his arguments, but broadly, I agree with the arguments he makes, although I am perhaps less inclined to make classicism the main cause of beauty in the West, I would say that classicism's integration with Judeo-Christian values is the driving force, with Christianity being the primary driver. 

In this, he clearly lays the blame on 'modernists' such as the Austrian architectural theorist Adolf Loos, who, as de Botton puts it 'forget human nature'. 

Adolf Loos' essay, Ornament and Crime was influential in pushing modernism into architecture

This is charitable, I suggest that they do not forget human nature, rather they deny it. At its root is the same materialist worldview that drives the leftists. He also points out how the ideas of the elites were seized upon by property developers who took the opportunity not to have to worry about building beautifully while being immune from criticism. The tragedy is that in their search for a ‘pure’ utility, they couldn’t even guarantee that. A modernist, flat-roofed building is more likely to let in the rain than a modern design.

Ironically, as he points out, this has led to the situation that only the old buildings are beautiful, and the demand for them is so high that only the elites, such as university intellectuals and property developers who can afford to live in them.

What is gratifying about this video is that de Botton is using rational arguments to support a traditional culture of beauty, but is not to my knowledge Christian or a believer in God (this is, perhaps the reason for his tendency to overemphasize, as I see it, ancient Greece and Rome as the primary driver of traditional beauty rather than Christianity). It suggests a growing clamor for an end to our sterile, grey city centers. 

A cursory look at the School of Life, which produced this and a whole range of other videos has the following stated aims:

At The School of Life, we're devoted to helping people lead calmer and more resilient lives. We share ideas on how to understand ourselves better, improve our relationships, take stock of our careers, and deepen our social connections - as well as find serenity and grow more confident in facing challenges.

It seems that when human happiness - which is essentially what they are seeking - is the goal then, as de Botton puts it, beauty is 'as much as a necessity as a functional roof'.

The corollary is also true when the goal is discord, violence, and misery, - as it is for Marxists - then ugliness is as much a necessity as a dysfunctional roof.

Four Stained-Glass Windows: Can You Identify Which Evangelist is Which?

A reader sent to me these photographs of four stained-glass windows from his church. He says they are of the four Evangelists but can find no information as to which one is which. I had a look and couldn't be sure either, so I thought I'd put the question out to you. Can you identify, giving reasons, which of these windows corresponds to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?

North windows

South windows

Each window was made at the Munich Studios in Chicago and installed in 1915. There is a set of twelve windows and eight of them are clearly identifiable as Apostles. These have no name attached to them no other clear identifying symbols or attributes that I can recognize. 

The first point I would make is that this demonstrates why, going back to the 9th century, it was accepted practice that all images worthy of veneration should have both a clearly identifiable name (written in a language that would be understood those who see it) and have all the accepted attributes of the person. It was an Eastern theologian called Theodore the Studite who articulated these necessary conditions based upon criteria that we need to know a person. We see a very practical fallout of the neglect of this principle.

So here is the request: can anyone out there send me photographs of images that were made around the turn of the last century and are in this style, and which might indicate, therefore, the intentions of this artist? The ideal proof would be a similar set of stained-glass windows from the same studio in which each figure is clearly named. 

This seems reasonable at first sight, it is common in the Western tradition in the last 500 years at least. Here is are paintings of the four Evangelists from the 17th century painted by the Italian Guido Reni. This doesn't help us identify the others very much. Perhaps we might say that if we knew that the Chicago artist was following the Reni schema that the left, south window is St Luke.

Matthew, left, and Mark, by Guido Reni

Luke, left, and John, by Guido Reni

However, we should bear in mind that even the portrayal of John in these cases doesn't accord with the general portrayal of John in pictures, such as these which show the individual and which are more suited to the purpose of the veneration of the saint. According to the traditional iconographic prototype he would be portrayed at a time closer to the end of his long life, and so we see him as an old man who is bald with a long beard grey beard. The others would be portrayed as follows; Matthew is has a full head of grey hair and a long beard, Mark has short dark curly hair and Luke has a trimmed beard and short hair. A typical set of icons of the Evangelists is shown below. We know the artist's intentions here because he has clearly written the names on the painting:

For comparison, I show a Carolingian (Western) image of the four evangelists dating from the 8th century.

As we can see, this gives us two unshaven Apostles. Even then we can't be sure who is who, because again there are no identifying names. We might say that we can identify them by the symbols of cherubim faces that appear like those of a man, lion, ox, eagle in the vision of Ezekiel. So starting top left and working clockwise these figures are: St Matthew (man/angel), St John (eagle), St Luke (ox), and St Mark (lion). So this would make St Luke and St mark clean-shaven. However, this is assuming that he Carolingian artist used St Jerome's interpretation of the symbolism in scripture, which might not be the case. There are other interpretations and St Augustine is an example of one prominent figure who had a different arrangement of the symbols of the four evangelists. 

If no good information is forthcoming, then this would be my approach in moving forward from here. I would go with the idea that John is clean-shaven which is the most common attribution used today. I would then assign a name to the others somewhat arbitrarily. If we can't tell who they are, then it really doesn't matter at this point. In doing so, I might follow a progression that allows people to see them in the order that they appear as authors in the New Testament - Matthew Mark, Luke, and John. If I have understood the positioning correctly then that would make Matthew left and Mark right on the south window; and Luke left and John right on the north window. Then, and this is important, I would add underneath a nicely produced plaque or additional piece of artwork, in which both the name and accepted symbols for each evangelist, so making it clear to all who enter the church who is who. Then, by the theology of Theodore the Studite, then they are worthy of veneration.

Some might argue that we name them in the order that they completed their gospels. The problem with this is that it is a moving target. For example, my understanding is that the scholarship that suggested that Mark was the earliest gospel, which came from 19th-century textual criticism, is being revised. Lawrence Feingold's excellent book on fundamental theology, Faith Comes From What is Heard explains how scholarship is now supporting the traditional view that the four gospels were written in the order that they appear in the New Testament. If you stick with the schema of tradition, I suggest, then regardless of where the scholarship moves in the future, or where it stood in 1915 when the windows were installed, you will be on firm ground in using them to support your worship.

If I was asked as an artist to paint four originals, even in a naturalistic baroque style, I wouldn’t do them like this in the first place. In fact, I would make the characteristics consistent with those of the iconographic tradition

So, who are they? Over to you!