The Sustainability of Beauty
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 พ.ย. 2024
- Music written and generously provided by Paul Jernberg. Find out more about his work as a composer here: pauljernberg.com
Spanish translations by Vélez Translations, www.veleztransl...
I recently had an interesting conversation with an architect who defined himself as a classicist with respect to aesthetics, art, and design. And he explained what he understood that to be in an interesting way.
He said that a classicist is someone who believes that there is an ideal form to be realized in design. Whether that be in car, a building, a smartphone, or whatever. And this is consistent with Classical and medieval thought up until the modern age and until the influence of philosophies like modernism took over in the art and design establishment which was a rejection of those earlier philosophies.
Now, I expect that when most people hear a definition like that, they scoff at it. Because we’ve been so conditioned by modernist catch phrases like “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”.
By that they mean that beauty is not objective, but is defined by those who judge a thing to be either beautiful or not beautiful based on their subjective tastes -- it’s nothing more than convention and preference.
And the evidence for this argument is an appeal to the fact that everyone has different tastes. If you show a panel of people a piece of artwork, you’ll get different reactions from everyone, so how can we say that beauty is objective.
Well, like I’ve argued in the past, you could use that same argument against truth itself. You could show an order of operations math question to that same panel and get as diverse an array of responses as you would to the artwork. That doesn’t prove that there is no right answer to the math question any more than it proves that there is no objective beauty. It just proves that we’re not very good at getting the right answer.
And this evidence for relativism in beauty really only gained momentum after artists and designers stopped trying to produce work with an ideal form. Once they began embracing modernism, which is the philosophy that informs this idea and rejects classical thought, they stopped trying to portray the ideal form.
So no wonder our appreciation for their work grew mixed. They weren’t trying to make beautiful work anymore.
And here’s the evidence of that fact. If you took that same panel of people and showed them a building from the 19th century when classical thought in art and design still had some influence among artists, and asked them if they thought it was well designed, you’d get an almost universal affirmation to that question.
If you did the same thing with a building designed in 1975, you’d get a much more mixed to negative response.
And if that’s not convincing, do the same thing with a car. Take a typical commuter car designed in 1950 and ask the question and you’ll get a favorable response. Then show them a typical car designed in 1990 and it will probably get laughed at.
When I went to Italy I was blown away by the artistry. I would be lying if I didnt say that it is one of the reasons I'm drawn to the Catholic Church. Seeing the Sistine Chapel at the Vatican, the Basilica, the heartbreakingly beautiful Pieta.... it was so inspiring.
The greats of masterpieces were constantly improving on their skills, even after their masterpieces were completed.
yes, i totally agree, religious beauty is the most striking of all art ..... it seems to give a glimpse of the divine that makes our hearts leap like a gazelle
It makes perfect sense. We were created by the Father to be drawn to goodness, truth, and beauty. God bless you!
My friend , it’s all in the PATIENCE . When art was ART , artist took their time to study and create, modern artist can drop paint and call it a masterpiece. Most artist don’t take the time to understand what is actually visually pleasing .
Same thing with music
As an artist wanting to study the classical method of painting... This has blown my mind and affirmed my dream
The Russians still teach Academic Drawing and Painting as was learnt and taught by the masters. I suggest you look into it, and if you can, get your hands on some old books from Russia on the subject. Some were printed with both Russian and English.
Catherine Roché thank you!!!
Do you have a website or social média? I'm also a catholic artist!
@@catherineroche2322 do you know any titles?
@@regal677 My mother was trained in Russia in academic drawing and painting, and kept self-educating when she got to America. Here are titles she recommends:
1941 Composition of Outdoor Painting by Edgar Payne
1939 The Human Machine by George B. Bridgman
1953 Anatomy for the Artist by Jeno Barcsay (Professor at Budapest Academy of Fine Arts)
She owns a textbook which covers the full curriculum she once studied, and I don't recall if it's all in Russian or both Russian and English, but it was published in 2017, titled Academic Training in Fine Art (Академическое Обучение Изобразительному Искусству), written by Vladimir S. Sharov (Владимир Стефанович Шаров)
I wish the Church would find and fund more Christian artists and their works.
We need a modern day Renaissance.
The Catholic Churches art patronage used to be amazing.
There is some pretty good stuff going up in Russia. I have heard that there are some fine new Catholic churches being built in Albania.
Not the church. It should be lay Christians that fund Christian art. Really protestants are doing that well. Still Protestantism changes almost as fast as modernism so they are not going to produce art that endures. We need Catholics to spend more on Catholic art and architecture.
@@RandyTheGrit I kind of disagree. The Church has a bigger megaphone and of course funds than most lay Christians. If we had multi millionaire or billionaire Catholics who would fund art and the Church advertise it, I think that'd be great.
@@physiocrat7143 That's because Putin actually cares about their church and Christian society. Since his resign, on average, there's about 3 churches that are built a day. He funds them properly and want them to do and be good. We don't have someone here in the West like him doing what he does.
Its coming
Recurring themes of Brian Holdsworth include
Art
Modernism
Harry Potter
Latin Mass
Objective beauty
Grace to you Mr. Brian
Yes, he does well, bless him.
Hogwarts is a great example of timeless gothic/medieval beauty and the books/movies are great stories
The Holdsworth drinking game
and intellectual arrogance
You really drove the point home in the end. It seems like the Victorian Era was really the end of beauty with respect to architecture. I lament to imagine what our cities could look like if modernism had not taken over.
I agree. And the worst thing is the awareness that we could afford such architecture. Check out Thames Town in China.
@@ealdfaeder1717 I have heard a claim that neo-gothic is actually cheaper than the typical mega parish with all the amenities
Interestingly, 19th century writers often complain about the ugliness of their cities. The churches and public buildings we see today were often mere islands of beauty in a sea of dreary tenement housing and smoke-belching factories (Blake's "satanic mills").
@@davemorgan6013 Between 1870 and 1914, large areas of the English cities were developed spaciously with two storey houses with decent sized gardens.
@@physiocrat7143 Beginning in the late 19th century, there was also the "Gartenstadt" ("garden city") movement in Germany, which sought to counteract the negative impact of industrialization. Several model communities were created, but what we eventually got instead were the car-focused suburbs of the past 60-70 years (barring a few "eco communities" here and there).
I Love the way you think.
I completely agree with you. Modernism and Post-modernism rejects Classic Beauty which imo, the the Standard of Beauty.
I'm an Artist and that is what I believe as well. In everything I do this what I aim to give --- All that is True, Good and Beautiful for the Glory of God.
The modernist churches are built poorly. I remember when i was in Ireland, a priest showed me an old parish and a modern parish. The modern parish was already having structural problems while the old building was very sturdy. The old parish had very few issues. The modern parish had to fix the roof
Do you have any websites or social media?
Thank you for voicing what we know deep down. My father studied Architecture in the late 1920's and early 30's and was trained by probably one of the last Beaux Arts teachers who still dressed the part in smock and beret.
I finished my architectural studies in 2013 - at the age if 33. I wanted to be an architect be ause I wanted to create something that has an effect on people.
My teachers kept refusing my design -because it was too much classic.
We were requested to envision sth "modern". I had a cyzellated conversation with my design tutor and I realized that someone has a strong interest in dumbing us down.
There is a building boom.going on in Seattle right now. I'm not kidding when I say that each and every one of the new buildings is a featureless, lifeless, ugly glass and concrete box.
Becouse Isreal now runs the west.
I'm glad I found your channel, Brian. I share many of your opinions and your eloquence in voicing them inspires me to become a better communicator myself. Your work here is much appreciated, thank you.
Very well articulated!!
This is such a beautiful concept. I love how the logic of beauty being sustainable is so clearly (and beautifully) outlined!
Man your videos are great. A lot of what you say has me questioning sola Scriptura and I’ve already contacted a Catholic Church hoping to visit and inquire soon.
In this short commentary you have hit on everything that is wrong with our world! Thank you!
Especially music!!
You got that right! The artists are out there though. They’re just buried, sad to say.
The greats (Michelangelo etc) of masterpieces were constantly improving on their skills, even after their masterpieces were completed.
Yes! That's it! Real beauty inspires our affection!
Amen brother, I’ve been lamenting modern architecture for a long time, like 40 years.
Wow, great topic and wonderful job articulating it. I hope women will also apply these thoughts to how fashion and beauty are marketed to us.
I have been thinking about this without knowing how to name it ... it´s sooo true lately we as society haven´t been investing wisely in the enduring beauty just in fashion and that apply in so many fields .... this content is amaizing thank you, greetings from Colombia
One of my boyfriends called me a Classic Beauty once ... I was so young I didn’t see it ... lol ... but as an amateur artist myself at times... I have always admired Classical artists and buildings with incredible detail and God given talent. I don’t like anything Modern ...Thank you I’m glad I found your channel.
slow clap... standing ovation... well done Brian... bravo... one of your finest videos
I've been tuned to this man for years, and this is my favorite. Maybe partly bc the pace has been speed up...great episode.
Roger Scruton had a very similar view. He also emphasized the importance of beauty in relieving suffering.
If you enjoyed this, you'll enjoy Roger Scruton's thoughts on the subject too.
Wow! I've been reading Plato and I got stuck on his absolutes concept - your video explained absolutes and ideal forms very well. Thank you!
Beauty and functionality can work together, but we have become insensitive and cold. Not good. I’m fascinated with classic, that’s why I love Europe, especially the awesome Chuches for its beauty inside and out and it’s enchanting spirituality. Feel like in Heaven 😇
Ah, this is like a breath of fresh air. I love your channel and your content, beginning with the beautiful hymn at the start.
Personally I still think 90s cars are beautiful, I was born in 1990 and they give me a warm fuzzy feeling. They're cute and kinda retro too. To me this absolute soullessness started with the new millennium, 2000. Everything went to absolute shit rapidly, in arts, culture, music, lifestyle, everything. I'm just glad that there's more people like me now who are vocal about absolutely being fed up with this disgrace of a life that we've built around ourselves. This means communities, architecture, food, manners, religion, ideology, family, education and many more.
I loved this video, it spoke so well of what I feel myself. I'm clicking on the little bell now.
Last time I was this early the lord said let there be light
Very strongly agree! All around well said. Thank you
Brian, this is a most enjoyable post. I'm a practicing architect and appreciate your well thought commentary on this subject. I hope we get to hear you address this topic in future videos.
Wow. Just Wow. Great explanation and video. I could not agree more.
I always feel like such a caveman when I hear your videos. On the other hand, you always open my eyes and help me see things in a COMPLETELY different light. I’m a classicist through and through I guess 😍
Beauty is both subjective and objective. How do you recognize beauty unless it's in you and in extension inside everybody? What you see when you behold beauty seems to be the innate beauty of your imminent soul that is the perfection of the Lord, as he made you. However it is not *your* beauty, it is everyone's beauty. It would seem that you just see a different facet of the same diamond from your unique standpoint. The effulgent ineffable quality of beauty is immeasurable because it is in an higher order of harmony that your perception, whose higher order is only really glimpsed when you recognize it within yourself, as you exist both in this lower reality and in the higher order simultaneously. Great video and an astute observation.
Beauty might very well be the fragrance of the Lord.
Beauty itself is not subjective. It exists outside and apart from us just as truth does. But we encounter it, experience it, and interpret it based on our own faculties. That's the subjective part, but the subjective only says something about us, not that which *_is_* in spite of our opinions of it.
I am a classicist as well. I agree with everything you say here. You say it well.
Well said. I have been around long enough to have witnessed the destruction of beautiful buildings in my home town to be replaced with brutalist concrete and steel structures that have sucked the life out of the city.
Wow, that was great sir.
The industrial age was the beginning of the end for timeless architecture. Form follows function took hold and then it gradually became a profiteer's monopoly. When i was a kid I used to think about how all the great artists (or at least most of them) died before their art started really making money. Now that's been inverted by greedy individuals who promoted relativism and modernism in art. In order for them to get rich now, they first had to change the game.
These are always well done and strive for truth in charity. May God continue to shower grace on you.
Brian if you could please share the Alleluia chant name that would be perfect.
See the link in the description and go to his SoundCloud account.
This deserves so much more attention!
Very well said. Thanks a lot.
Most excellent analysis. Thanks.
How do you feel about progressive rock? Specifically, the band 'Yes'? Some day I hope to speak with you
Excellent content as always.
I recently went to vegas and that place legitamitly has some of the best looking bulidings built in the last 50 years (although admitidly some are much better on the inside then outside).
dude your videos are fascinating
Hit the nail on the head as usual.
Brian! How did you make it through this (excellent) video without mentioning the classic beauty of the Mustang!
Please create a detailed movie which will discuss the infamous "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" statement and show some contrarguments to it. This is crucial. Maybe you should discuss evolutionary explanation of the origin of the concept of beauty in the human mind and show why it is flawed.
thank you for this piece of art "this video" ❤
“On beauty and being just” by Elaine Scarry
This is absolutely true! 👏👏👏
Hey Brian, I agree with your views about beauty, I would like to recommend you this song: Vide Cor Meum - Patrick Cassidy, since I noticed you enjoy arias. Thanks for your videos, we need more people to reconcile with beauty and truth.
Thanks so much for the video he is just great
Please I need have background intro and outro. The Hallelujah part just gets me going. I could find that particular rendition on the Composer's pages.
See the description
@@BrianHoldsworth Thank you. However, I did have a typo in my original comment.I meant to write 'couldn't'. I had already visited the composer's page last week actually, but couldn't find the title with this particular rendition.
Also, I did love the video, me being a classicalist as well. Modernism architecture is actually depressing lol. If I was a radical conspiracy theorist, I would have claimed it was part of an effort to subvert and undermine human psyche, appreciation, and desire for beauty which is contributing to the mental epidermic of the western and eastern word alike.
@@emmanueloluga9770 conspiracy theories aren't out of the question 😉
Go to his SoundCloud and click on introit: Love of God. m.soundcloud.com/user-879235558
While I agree with this, it does remind me of my mother recounting how embarrassed she was in the '50s of her Papa's old car that "didn't even have fins!" Today, it'd be a classic hot rod. In 1956, it was an eyesore. Not that Papa's early 90s Caprice (which my brother now drives to work everyday because he shares Papa's fashion/function sensibility) is going to be winning any car shows in 20 years.
Good points! People in the past tended to think of the effort that they put into things, and design so that they got the longest, most pleasant, and greatest use of the materials. Modern buildings are investments, earn depreciation for tax purposes, and are designed to win design awards from committees of the designer's peers.
Love this!
This is very good.
you nailed it
Excellent video...and I couldn’t agree with you more! Near my home there is a Catholic Church that the city it wanting to demolish. Sacred Heart in Roseville, Michigan was originally built in 1861. The current structure was completed I think around 1950...and it is beautiful but sadly our Archdiocese closed its doors in 2017. This is just one of many beautiful structures that modernists have decided to destroy to make room for more storage units! Seriously...storage units!
Get the Fraternity of St. Peter to contact the diocese.
One of your best
Loved it
Was the architect Denis McNamara by any chance?
Great vid
I remember one of the middle schools I went to. It was completed in 2008 and my first year there was the year it was completed. It was modern and trendy, and guess what. People in my year complained that it felt like a prison. It was colorless and lifeless and square, and followed function rather than form. It's not the sort of place that inspires you to want to learn. It inspires you to want to get out of there as quickly as possible. Who the hell wants to spend eight hours a day crammed in a lifeless prison-like box with thirty other kids being forced to memorize and regurgitate useless facts? That's all school is these days, and the design philosophy behind the school buildings follows that God awful ideal 100%.
Wow, yes.
Nice
I like how 1999 Nissan R34 Skylines look
So very true, most of these concrete and steel edifices are beyond outdated and ugly.
There is a lot of objective beauty with wrist watches, or luxury "things" in general for some reason. But a lot of the people who can afford these items live in modern white concrete box houses
Great video brother! God bless! In Christ, Andrew
Make Universities Beautiful Again!
Ooo, That 75 year old school is so beautiful. I'll be so happy to send my child there to learn in a non air conditioned sweatbox and breath lead paint dust and asbestos.
Just because a building is 75 years old doesn't mean it doesn't have air conditioning, is a sweatbox, has lead paint dust, or has asbestos.
Anyone else feel a need to pause and stare at 8:07 ?
Sad how such beauty reflects only the outside seeable ! It covers uh... inner ideas.
He brings up a.point that has bothered me for years, especially modern Catholic churches that look like fast food restaurants
modern art seems to have been invented in the west where the "middleclass" became the top one percent in the world. wealth produced modern art. they had to sell more artists, more "kinds" of art to cover the demand. and then, the "new" art became fashionable because now, everyone you know owns "art" so now people go for the new instead of the timeless.
Beautiful design is expensive. In order to make owning cars and going to school etc. affordable for the most amount of people, beauty gets sacrificed for affordability.
I think this is a good thing. Cars and education are no longer just for the elite of society. I'd rather have us all go to school in concrete blocks, than have only a few expensive private schools designed by classisists.
And cars are valued for their functionality, and not as status symbols. (Except for the rich that can afford to buy pretty cars.)
The school pictured in the video was/is a public school. This is a common misconception. Simple can be beautiful too. Our ancestorshad far less resources than we do but that never stopped them from making beautiful cities.
Excellent video, but allow me to register a caveat or two.
The classicist aesthetics of the "Ideal Form" you espouse is a little too Platonist or Renaissance-inspired and insufficiently Aristotelian-Thomist or Christian in my opinion. Why? Because in Christian philosophy the only unsurpassable Form is the Divine Essence itself. All other forms (natural or man-made) are finite and therefore can be improved upon and inhabit an unlimited range of creative possibility. It is thus perfectly reasonable for artists to resist any ideological imposition of a purported "ideal form" for a particular work that might artificially limit their creativity. If such a neo-classicism became hegemonic it could cause unnecessary stagnation.
As for the objectivity of beauty, yes, that should be affirmed. However, there is a place for art that does not aim primarily to maximise beauty but to prioritise other purposes, e.g., to reveal in a striking and allusive way an uncomfortable truth, to foster laughter, etc. While truth, joy and beauty are inter-convertible transcendentals in their united supereminent sense in the Divine Essence, they are distinct in Creation and the human intellect. Art might be largely a celebration of beauty, but it is more than that, and sometimes beauty should take a backseat. Some concrete examples of this might be ecclesial art depicting final judgement, gargoyles and the brilliant designs Weta Workshops made for the orcish inhabitants of Middle-Earth the the Lord of the Rings Trilogy.
I wonder why the author hasn't taken the time to reply to your post. Of all of the posts I've read here, yours is definitely the only one that manages to expand the discussion and remove it from a black and white perspective. Wasn't Kant the one to finally divorce the aesthetic dimension from morality and truth (please correct me if I don't remember it well)? Art should not be identified with beauty as art is an act and as such is definitely bound by its social dimension. Anyone who says art should be allowed to experiment with any type of deviant practices just for the sake of art has lost their mind. But beauty is not the same as art, but I cannot define it. In a way it escapes definition. At least I cannot offer a definition.
Greetings from Croatia :)
@@mihaelavucic9620 Michaela, I don't know why he has not replied, however, three things should be kept in mind. One, he is probably a busy man who does not have time to reply to all comments. Two, he may not have even seen the comment. Three, he is not actually obliged to reply anyway.
In any case, I thank you for your words in support. I'm afraid I am no expert on Kant, and what I did know I've largely forgotten. :-) I don't believe art's telos can be divorced from beauty, but neither do I believe it is wholly focussed upon it. And I find the concept of "ideal forms" for each artefact dubious for the reasons I outlined.
As for the definition of art, I too would struggle to craft one. Perhaps something like this: Art is the making of objects (including texts and electronic or other ephemeral imagery) that use allusiveness, emotional stimulation, beauty and other means to signify and communicate an external reaity/truth and/or internal perception/experience. Hmmm, that seems overly broad and pretentious, unfortunately. Oh well, it was worth a try.
Beauty is primarily objective. We all primarily like the same things but subjectively we might prefer one thing more than another. As such true beauty is objective and as such it endures. Most of the art today is purely subjective, few try to even achieve something that is objectively beautiful. I know have no interest in any modern art as I usually end up disappointed. Even my boys agree and they are still children. They hate modern music finding real beauty in classical music but preferring 60s to 80s. I know I influenced them slightly but given that their friends all enjoy 50s to 80s far more means that, like house and acid of the 90s, 95% of modern music will be consigned to the dustbin. This will hold true for a lot of other art too.
It makes me feel so sick and angry that today's architectural designers are being so damned wasteful that they are encouraging us to treat ARCHITECTURE, something that should classically last 100's of years, like mere fashion trends, like the very clothes we wear on our backs; enjoyed for a minute and thrown away the next! It's so grossly unsustainable it's beyond scarey!!!
Modernism (and capitalism, the 2 go hand in hand to me) encourages, and I swear was born of, absolute selfishness, greed, a fascination with manipulating and swindling and blindness to anything but profit, profit, effin profit!!!!
Thankfully, not everyone who influences Apple's industrial design didn't/doesn't have the same opinions as Steve Jobs, at least to a point. "Chamfered edges" and all that.
I worked for Electrolux. Their products were known for their longevity. There products today are so cheap and break within a few years. Corporations want to be cheap and rip people off with warranties
That was really good! It’s kinda weird, but, I redheads and long hair!😂
I can see how you are a fan of the Latin Mass
I struggle to see how a building can reach a perfection, especially since all the buildings you did show are a product of European culture/ideas of beauty. What about the extremely different (but beautiful) Indian, Arab or Chinese buildings? Which is the ideal form or closer to perfection? they are so different to what you show as nearer to perfection i cant help but think that there is personal preference in what is beautiful.
This goes for all art like Music too. For example, the Arab idea of beautiful music is extremely different to what the Vietnamese ideal is, is one closer to perfection than the other?
I might be completely off base here so if someone can point me in a direction to learn more id appreciate it
If you do not believe in God, you cannot search for ideals because they do not exist and everything is relative. If you believe in God, you are aware that the ideal exists and that you can search for it, try to define it, but it is difficult for us to grasp it after original sin.
In my opinion, there can be many ways to perfection, but perfection is only one and it will remain beyond our reach. When we get to heaven, we will understand that even the most beautiful cathedrals are incomparable.
Although western architecture was shown for the video I dont think the intent was to imply that only western architecture is classic and beautiful. They were merely great examples since middle ages Europe did produce some of the most iconic architecture in all of history, second only to ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome. There are ofcourse lasting and beautiful creations in many cultures and places just as there is modern garbage in most cultures and places as well. Different types of lasting beauty is reasonable and doesn't negate his argument. A beautiful ancient structure in Asia also would support his argument. The argument is that there is a standard of quality, Of beauty. I might end up preferring Gothic over Baroque or Parthenon over Hagia Sofia but we can universally affirm they are all works of objective beauty.
@@jend9559 "But we can universally affirm they are all work of objective beauty", even using your example of Gothic architecture, people called it Gothic because they thought it was barbaric (German Goths), we can't affirm they're objective works of beauty. I do agree there is beauty, perfected in God, but what i do not understand is how we can make a blanket statement like modern or postmodern art isn't beautiful (or outright bad).
I guess what I'm saying is If anyone does think that Brutalist buildings such as shown in 3:24 are beautiful (someone surely did to design it anyway) then how can we objectively say they're wrong? Or that it isn't in fact beautiful? And the same goes for any kind of art, not saying beauty doesn't exist, just not sure how we can define whats good and bad in art
It is hard to define what's good and bad, but I do think it's worth the effort. For myself I find it's usually an intuitive reaction to begin with - something is striking, and then I want to understand why it's created that particular reaction. Looking for the reasons and meaning it's conveying. There may be a subjective element in what different people find striking, but I think there are different ideas/goals/aims that went into the artwork, that we can discuss and evaluate.
I heard that the ancient Greeks would build their columns based on the ratio of foot size to height. For a temple to Apollo they used a ratio of 6:1, for a more masculine column. A temple to Diana was 8:1 for a more slender feminine form. In Corinth they developed a ratio of 9:1, said to represent a younger lady. I find it interesting and meaningful that they would relate the columns holding up their structures to people, which could say a few things about their society.
In contrast, a friend showed me a recording of some kind of public performance where a bunch of people were in these costumes in the shape of a huge human body. It was this grotesque naked lady on her side, eyes lolling around. A baby came out of her and then all her organs came crawling out and danced around or fought with each other. I give them points for uniqueness and wackiness, but the overall message I got was a disgusting mockery of the human body. I just looked them up, they're called Snuff Puppets and the wiki confirms that I'm not far off the mark. They seem to have political messages, beauty is nowhere mentioned.
Very different ideas and attitudes regarding the human body. Maybe mockery has it's place, but I certainly wouldn't want to be around too many people who take that view seriously.
Do you think that web-designers follow the same pattern as architects?
Yes, but with less consequence. Form follows function is a common mantra among UI designers.
Is it the Sainte Chapelle behind you?
I know someone who studied art as a Protestant college. He says too much artwork and white paintings of Jesus is wrong. He yells at churches for being that way lol. He's a social justice Catholic now
Is there a degree of subjectivity for beauty that is permissible within a classical world view when it comes to things that are affirmed as objectively beautiful? for example, if you toured countless great works of classic architecture that inspire beauty in a way that is timeless and authentic, and then person A found building X the most beautiful and person B found building Y the most beautiful. Or the same situation when viewing The Grand Canyon or Niagra Falls. At some point are we really all meant to see things the same way, or at some point is there some legitimacy in the idea that God made each of our tastes as uniquely as he made us, and that while he made us to enjoy genuine beauty, he gives us preferences for different forms based upon a variety of factors.
I think another good example of what I am trying to get at is color. Can one really say which color is the most objectively beautiful? They are each so beautiful in there own regard, and while people have their preferences, can you truly objectively rank them?
Beauty is expensive. A true person of faith should value spiritually above physical aesthetic of a place of worship
God created us with senses. And He himself commanded the Israelites to build the Ark of the Covenant out of the purest gold, using the finest craftsmanship to form images of cherubim to embellish the Ark. A "spirituality" that looks down on beauty in sacred art for the sake of virtue signaling through austerity is a "spirituality" that is based on self, not on giving glory to God.
Unfortunately, ugliness is expensive too.
@@davemorgan6013 functionality is more important
@@tedmitten8832 "Functionality" is more "important" than beauty?? What exactly is "functionality" and why should it be somehow distinct from beauty? If a building or an object or a creature is perfectly functional, if it is excellently suited to its purpose, it will be inherently beautiful. The trouble is, so many things manufactured and designed nowadays are NOT functional and are quite unsuitable for their apparent purpose. Mass-produced houses are built for profitability for the construction industry and as financial investments for those who buy them - but are they suitable for actually living and loving and flourishing in? No - they're cramped, shoddily constructed, characterless, hemmed-in together, ugly boxes... Churches should have the function of raising our hearts and souls and minds beyond flawed, corruptible human banality to what is eternal and divine, to express the beauty of heaven, to draw us into prayer and contemplation and awe at the mystery of God. If a church is physically ugly, or even if it just looks like an average community hall or conference centre, it is no longer truly functional as a church. If it does fulfil that function of enhancing spirituality through our senses then it will automatically be beautiful. Beauty doesn't have to be expensive. Some of the most expensive buildings put up today, not to mention highways, are the most hideous to look at. But beauty can be found in salvaged and natural materials, in small scale projects, in areas incorporating plants and gardens - but what is needed is imagination, craft, care, skill and patience, joy, love of colour and pattern and form, love for what you're creating and for those you're creating it for, and a desire to work with nature and to learn from nature and not to despise or set oneself "above" or against nature. To create harmony rather than dissonance. Harmony is functional - dissonance is dysfunctional, and actually causes mental illness as well as spiritual impoverishment.
3 Hail Marys for you
post-modernists hate and fear beauty
modern composers hate music
compare to, say, st. mark's basilica venice and monteverdi's vespers :)
1st comment hallelujah 🙌
Could you please specify how was Hitler in favor of “form following function”? He actually hated modernism in architecture and any kind of unrealism in art. Nazi buildings were very classicist in a precise sense, even exaggeratedly.
Read the first paragraph. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_architecture
They weren't classicist, they were pluralist which was a kind of reactionary modernism. It borrowed from anything they thought conveyed power and glory and ancient Rome fit into that but they had no appreciation of Platonic or Aristotelian metaphysics which are essential to classical thought.
I wouldn’t agree, that appreciation of classical philosophy is necessary to be classicist in a strict architectural definition (not the definition presented in your video). Classicist architecture of enlightenment was rather form of fascination to the ancient heritage, but not a manifestation of belief in platonic or Aristotelian philosophy. By the way, Plato was very critical of Parthenon. But yeah, it seams, that Hitler actually agreed on form and function statement, but with a very different effect, than modernists and functionalists wanted to achieve. This effect was precisely excessive, modern-classicist architecture, which had nothing to do with modernism.
Any way you slice it, Nazi architecture is a sub genre of modernism just as Nazism itself is.
Planned obsolescence is just plain wrong.
Beauty is nice. But I don't think we should become too attached to it. That is, art is enjoyed momentarily. We can't set it in stone as it were, because then we rigidify/reify it and lose sight of the present moment. Art is like a river. It is constantly moving and changing. The water may be the same but it is still different moment-by-moment. This is the problem with nostalgia and backwards-yearning sentiments: it loses sight of the NOW. The state of life as it currently exists. My two cents....
There is value in the postmodern in other words because it demolishes our too-serious (and too comfortable) attitudes with regard to art. It breaks us out of our fixation on the past, and wakes us up to the reality of the splintered present. It causes us to lose all our attachments and make the best use of a bad bargain....
I like your Jesus hair:)
Theres a lot wrong with this video like ya a lot of modern art is kinda bad, but Ive seen a lot of medieval art that was total trash. It wasnt until the renaissance when old greek and roman ways of doing art were rediscovered. Many Muslims, Jews, even protestants see a lot of catholic paintings and statues as pure idolatry and would not consider them art, but blasphemous. Also alot of nice paintings were done of totally pagan religious imagery which if youre catholic shouldnt that be insulting and not beautiful at all. The car argument was pretty bad I much prefer sleek cars from the 2000s onwards over old model Ts or whatever, but again thats my subjective bias. Different cultures have always had different standards of beauty and different art forms like the only thing you can really is that there is always been a concept of beauty or what looks good but it does indeed change. You will find much more beauty in a small humble church where people actually do good and care about what they believe over many large extravagant catholic churches where people dont even know the other parishioners names
Some people actually find classical and gothic architecture to be off putting.
Some people find truth to be off putting. That doesn't prove they're right.
Brian Holdsworth That’s not an argument.
@@BrianHoldsworth Yes, i think that we can go through life having presuppositions based off of stereotyping and associating everything with a certain theme, as in the case of gothic and gargoyles. Toccata and fugue in d minor has been the theme behind every portrayal of scary castles or haunted houses in movies and cartoons, but it doesn't mean its meant to be scary